Mao didn't invent the system - most Chinese dynasties began with land reform and redistribution of land. Yet less than 100 years after Mao, real estate in China has already contributed greatly to wealth inequality in China. Thankfully the central government recognized the problem and took steps to deflate the real estate market.
Modern abundance and technology should enable the realization of a more meritocratic society than possible in the past. Let's hope the CPC will be able to find a solution to the age old problem of maintaining a meritocracy that does not ultimately devolve into a plutocracy or oligarchy.
How could it have failed when it, although not entirely on its own, was one of the largest contributing factors to China's continued territorial and cultural unity for over 2000 years? Obviously all government systems in antiquity and the medieval world could be considered failures if you hold them by the standards of the modern world. But if we're talking about the purpose they served in those days and how it ultimately evolved into the modern CPC, we can say the imperial system of Dynastic China fulfilled its purpose in spades.
Well mind you, the PRC as we know it today is only 76 years old. The Ming Dynasty lasted some 275 odd years before meeting its end, whose to say the same fate won't befall the PRC in that timeframe? I mean 200 years is a long time. If the whole point here is to argue that all the failures of China's previous dynasties have been rectified by the PRC then I'm of the opinion making such speculation is moot, since such a hypothesis will only be truly tested and proven by the time when, nevermind us, even most of our great great grandchildren will be long dead.
Human nature is what it is and no matter the culture or how great the Empire, decadence and decay always follow and I'm sure the PRC is no less vulnerable to such a stage in a civilization's political path. However, so long as the core principle of bestowing leadership and positions based on competence, established all the way back in antiquity, is preserved through the cycles of rise and collapse then China will endure.
At least I think that's the gist of what we're trying to argue here, but even if not that's my two cents.
You guys are focusing mainly on practicalities and missing the key fundamental difference between China and the west when it comes to meritocracy, which is the attitude of the people towards it.
China is not unique in world civilisation in that the core fundamentals defining features of civilisation survives the fall of past regimes and is enthusiastically embraced and continued by the new. What truly sets China apart is how intolerant its people are to bad rulers. In no other civilisation has the people overthrown their rulers as frequently and consistently as the Chinese when those rulers start loosing their way and become incompetent.
France and Russia are the only European examples where a revolution has actually uprooted the aristocracy ruling class, and they have only done it once, and relatively recently.
In all other civilisations the destruction of the aristocracy nobility also effectively destroyed the civilisation because it was the nobility who ran the machinery of governance, kept the history and records. And without them, there was no continuity of the civilisation, and things got worse extremely quickly after a fall and it took a long long time for civilisation to recover, so much so that what comes after is massively different from what was before.
This is why there is such a massively deep rooted cultural nostalgia about paradise lost and aversion to change in western peoples. They instinctively pine for lost past glory days of the post world war dynamism of the greatest generation; the world conquering dominance of the colonial era; the glory of Roman; the enlightenment of Greece; all the way back to the garden of Eden.
Their entire racial genetic memory and cultural teaching towards governance basically boils down to - don’t rock the boat with change or we risk another collapse and fall further from gods grace. This is why western democracy is held so sacrosanct, with zero tolerance shown to any idea or notion that it’s not the best form of governance that mankind can ever achieve and should not be changed in any way, shape or form. So in the west, while of course meritocracy exists, but it was largely limited to the plebeian masses as a means of rising (a little) above the station of their birth. But the nobility were able to largely keep themselves above such petty concerns and kept an iron grip on the paths into government and power. The self made ‘new money’ titans of industry built western economic and military power, but it was the ‘old
Money’ aristocracy that wielded that power.
In contrast, China’s civil service bureaucracy meant that the Chinese civilisation could easily survive the destruction of unworthy rulers, and things unusually got better quickly after bad rulers were overthrown as the machinery of government remained largely intact and functional afterwards.
This means that for the Chinese, it was not only possible to overthrow the corrupt aristocracy and not suffer a civilisation death, it was usually beneficial to do so. Which is why it happens so many times in Chinese history with the rise and fall of dynasties.
Not only did this allow the Chinese civilisation to refresh and rejuvenate itself much more frequently, it also meant that meritocracy as a concept was universally accepted by elite and commoners alike. When the elite thought themselves above meritocracy, the commoners overthrew them and made new elites who were competent.
It is this extension of meritocracy to the elites that is largely unique about Chinese civilisation. Because while elites from all cultures and civilisation tried to promote competence in successor generations, it was very much pure luck if they got someone capable and hard working enough to be any good, and there was no real mechanism for cleaning up the gene pool of the elites if they fell to decadence and corruption.