Michael Young, the Red Baron
nybooks.com
nybooks.com
When debating these terms I define them and/or add qualifiers, e.g. "voluntarist capitalism" or "non-authoritarian capitalism" for the libertarian concept (which is not what we have!) and "state capitalism" or "corporatism" for what socialists usually mean.
Making matters worse it's become popular to deliberately muddy the waters by attempting to steal or corrupt definitions or use bland meaningless dog whistle terms. The latter I call 'duckspeak' after the term from 1984.
But,
"A system of class filtered by meritocracy would, in his view, still be a system of class: it would involve a hierarchy of social respect, granting dignity to those at the top, but denying respect and self-respect to those who did not inherit the talents and the capacity for effort that, combined with proper education, would give them access to the most highly remunerated occupations."
The intended result doesn't sound very appealing.
That sounds familiar.
"But one immediate difficulty was that, as Young’s narrator concedes, “nearly all parents are going to try to gain unfair advantages for their offspring.” And when you have inequalities of income, one thing people can do with extra money is to pursue that goal. If the financial status of your parents helped determine your economic rewards, you would no longer be living by the formula that “I.Q. + effort = merit.”"
And so does that.
Right now, with Brexit and leadership fights and other stuff, the main parties are all over the place though.
They've been all over the place for a while now, at least since Blair. The Conservatives haven't been traditionalist, and Labour haven't been socialist, for a while (excluding perhaps Corbyn but that's a new development). Both parties have existed in a kind of middle zone messing around with individual policies but with no cohesive message.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Young
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lose_Friends_%26_Aliena...