I don't understand the argument. (I didn't vote on your comment)

If it accepted that is not a person or persons whose mistakes create problems requiring postmortems meaning it was the collective that made mistakes then it should also be accepted that it is never a person or persons whose accomplishments propelled the company forward rather it is the collective. So everyone in the collective should get paid the amount of money for equal contributions to ups and downs, should not they?

On a scale from "individual" to "collective", both blame and success can be attributed to either extreme (or middle) on a case by case basis. I don't believe it can be possible to claim a universal generalization for all cases.

Is there a single case where a company which practices blameless downside practices a collective upside?

It is rare (so sad) but yes, there is. I work in such a company and I am not the employer.

I would happily accept the blameless postmortems in such a company.

Yes. But it's a dynamic relationship and radical equity is still not justified even here. Equity and worth is not a function of solely participation. It's a mixture of participation, loyalty, honesty, competence, sacrifice, seniority and priorities in life. You can always name more variables and it will always put the radical argument in a greyer zone.

Edit: I use the word "radical" as in outstanding, outside of the box, noticeably different. It isn't meant as a derogatory term.

> But it's a dynamic relationship and radical equity is still not justified even here. Equity and worth is not a function of solely participation.

It is a function solely of contribution in whatever way one contributes be that by being the smartest person in a room who needs only one minute to do what it takes others three months, or by being people who labor for three months so the smartest person in a room can do something else.

Since the negative contribution is evenly split among everyone ( blameless ) so should be the positive contribution.

What you define is not contribution, it's participation. Killing meritocracy entirely also kills the incentive to improve oneself. Distributing equity non-equally is just one of those dials which if you adjust slightly, you reward people who are able to self improve more. Do it too much, you alienate your team (as you pointed out). Do it never, you reward the lazy by not rewarding the hardworking. I think you are on the right track with your intentions but having a balanced approach is the key and choosing one extreme over the other is not the path forward here.

This has been a fun debate but I believe what I think about the topic can be summarized as this:

Healthy competition without the toxicity is possible in the workplace. It is just hard and needs careful attention to detail. If you ask how much, that's probably the subject of ideology. When ideologies battle, it's either bloody and both sides lose or it's small wins and loses achieved by mutual compromise. No matter where the balance is met, it must progress with dialogue.