Socialism's elements were a means to an end for John Mills, the ethics of Socialism weren't the end of Capitalist means
The only time where John Mills ever alluded in one singular way to being an ethical Socialist was in saying people should carefully pick which charities they give to. That is the sole way that he was an ethical Socialist. He never ever would support true government welfare for the poor (regardless of how good a charity advertises their particular form of suffering-alleviation).
Competition and meritocracy (and the freedom to do so without any restraints) is why he wants inheritance taxed. If you would look at your reasoning, it all backfires (the entirety of Pro's previous Round is pasted after the first sentence, from two totally different Wikipedia articles).
The Wikipedia article on John Mills extremely blatantly has been written by a Socialist. I know exactly why Socialists want to call Mills one of theirs, it's because they don't understand the limitations of their own political ideology and want to believe that anyone who is torn between Capitalism in its pure form and Socialism in its pure form, is automatically a Socialist if they seem 'good' and a Capitalist posing as Socialist if they seem 'bad'.
His main objection of socialism was on that of what he saw its destruction of competition stating, "I utterly dissent from the most conspicuous and vehement part of their teaching – their declamations against competition." Mill was an egalitarian, but he argued more so for equal opportunity and placed meritocracy above all other ideals in this regard. According to Mill, a socialist society would only be attainable through the provision of basic education for all, promoting economic democracy instead of capitalism, in the manner of substituting capitalist businesses with worker cooperatives. He says:
The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves
- Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy, IV.7.21 John Stuart Mill: Political Economy, IV.7.21
- Thompson, Dennis.
John Stuart Mill and Representative Government. Princeton University Press, 1976.
ISBN 978-0691021874
- Check under the quoted section for sourcing for the quote being his.
Meritocracy is essentially the following:
a social system, society, or organization in which people get success or power because of their abilities, not because of their money or social position
1: a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement
2: leadership selected on the basis of intellectual criteria
I have come across Socialists who identify as Mmetirocrats before. I noticed that every single one was a very amoral type in general, wanting either robots to dictate the net-value of everyone in a system other than money and even in this day and age, this is actually done in China's form of socialism.
Feel free to click the 'blue words' inside the quotes for further expansion and sourcing on the matter in specific areas.
In 2020, China will fully roll out its controversial
social credit score. Under the system, both financial behaviors like “frivolous spending” and bad behaviors like lighting up in smoke-free zones can result in stiff consequences. Penalties include loss of employment and educational opportunities, as well as transportation restrictions. Those with high scores get perks, like discounts on utility bills and faster application processes to travel abroad.
China is currently piloting the program and some citizens have already found themselves banned from traveling or attending certain schools due to low scores. These ramifications have led to a flurry of recent criticism from both human rights groups and the press. This week alone, news outlets like
Business Insider and
National Public Radio weighed in on China’s social credit score and the stratified society it may foster in the communist country.
For the past couple of years a big story about the future of China has been the focus of both fascination and horror. It is all about what the authorities in Beijing call “
social credit”, and the kind of surveillance that is now within governments’ grasp. The official rhetoric is poetic. According to the documents, what is being developed will “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step”.
As China moves into the newly solidified
President Xi Jinping era, the basic plan is intended to be in place by 2020. Some of it will apply to businesses and officials, so as to address corruption and tackle such high-profile issues as poor food hygiene. But other elements will be focused on ordinary individuals, so that transgressions such as
Eric Schmidt, who was a corrupt Google CEO (owned around 40% of the company single handedly out of his own pocket, based on what the corrupt investors were giving him. So, you may say 'ah but that's Capitalism posing as Socialism' but you're missing the point. He was mainly caught out for supporting the censored 'bubble of Internet' that China shows its people if they don't use VPN (which it actively curtails in its tyranny).
It is often a natural extension of a non-ethical Socialist's outlook to say 'well if money shouldn't dictate hierarchy and success in life, what should... Oh yes, I should! So, it begins with opposing inheritcance, as he insisted on doing, but extends to far more things in life than you first assume a Socialist would want to control, if they were the 'ethical' brand of it. It would mean we can't possibly be free to raise our children how we want; upbringing would give unfair advantage and disadvantage. Much like Socialism/Communism in practice every single time it ever is introduced, an Elite that isn't equal to the rest ends up making everyone who doesn't serve its agenda suffer. The aim is to make everyone 'equal' in their agony and powerlessness, such that then any achievements are meritocratic or so it is thought. In stifling freedom of religion, art and raising your children any unique way at all (we'd all need to same cars too, otherwise we may be able to get to work faster or feel sexier hormonally altering the ability we have at work), we'd reach a stage where the only thing separating the elite from the enslaved is how willing to be enslaved that the Elite are. The curious thing about horseshoe wing theory is how it's actually the Left Wing with their rigid ethos of stopping any Elite, that most brutally ensure there is one with even less social mobility (vertically up the classes) than is possible in extreme Right Wing societies. In extreme Capitalism, you have a lot of unfairness but it's still possible, with charm, wit and yes a little luck, to move up the classes by hard and smart work. In extreme Socialism, it's impossible; you need to be born knowing the right people to even have a chance to ever truly meet the 'control team'.
Meritocracy is, in its brutal 'competition as an absolute' form, not ethical Socialism but this is wholeheartedly what John Mills supported. You cannot appeal to Socialism from a standpoint of brutal, unbridled comepetition whereby the winners 'really are superior to the losers' and call yourself ethical. The dilemma is twofold:
1. Either competition is evil and has many unwanted side effects that need patching in Socialist manner to ethical ends
OR
2. Competition in its ruthless, unadultered form is the ends to achieve and certain elements of Socialism merely are the means to evening the playing field in the eyes of one doing it, away from unfair advantages of any preventable kind.
Thus, it was with Capitalism and right wing ethos that John Mills sought to employ Socialist means. He wanted competition without the 'gutters' (bowling reference), no safety wheels, no fallback;
You could sum up his mentally with:
just fight it out and if you're a loser, let's make things fair enough for you to either work your way out or stay poor like the dumb, weak and/or lazy being that the meritocracy has deemed you to be.
- my depiction of 'Socialist meritocracy'
rant is a loaded term and basically nothing but name calling