> It is not a criticism of merit, it is a criticism of the structuring of society on the basis of merit - i.e. meritocracy.

Fair enough, but you said that meritocracies are criticized from a perspective of "(1) how merit can be measured in more abstract ways, (2) the degree to which meritocracy can exist with current social relations, (3) the degree to which meritocracy really does exist". None of those covers "criticism of the structuring of society on the basis of merit".

> This is not the case. The performance principle specifically concerns the pursuit of profit and growth, despite having enough (non-surplus) labour and machinery in modern society to sustain life without repression (restriction of the libido).

The performance principle precedes "surplus repression" so it can't depend on it. According to Marcuse, it is only due to the performance principle that we've reached a point where surplus repression exists.

> It does not make any comment on a possible allocation of resources according to the principle that he who labours more deserves more.

Yes it does. Marcuse distinguishes between two phases of the performance principle: "domination" (too much surplus repression) and "rational exercise of authority" (acceptable amount of surplus repression). According to Marcuse, the latter is associated with "societal division of labor derived from knowledge and confined to the administration of functions and arrangements necessary for the advancement of the whole." I.e. social status is decided by productivity. In the past, in the presence of great scarcity, this arrangement was acceptable or even necessary. But, today, due to the elimination of scarcity, it is no longer acceptable. Marcuse asks: in a world without scarcity, why would you reward people based on their productivity? To me, that seems like a fairly direct criticism of meritocracy (though perhaps not merit itself, as you pointed out).

> The whole point was that "to each according to his ability" is not how society functions - according to Marcuse, just as Marx, this fact is clearly not manifested in the existence of a class system in which some own MoP and others do not. The only way this could be conflated as a criticism of merit would be the view that the system he is criticizing rewards merit (and this component of it would not exist under a future system). The criticism of a wage system rewarding as if "merit" is being counted neatly fits into my (1) point.

I don't think this is true for Marcuse (I've only read Eros and Civilization and One-Dimensional Man). There's hardly anything in Eros and Civilization about class or the means of production and One-Dimensional Man is more about brainwashing. Marcuse replaces Marx's view of history with Freud's view of history (though with his own spin) and more mainstream Marxists have criticized him for that.

> I'm curious as to who (speaking in terms of "leftist" philosophers) actually denies this, "leftist" or not. Simply saying that capitalism has had and can have disastrous effects does not at all entail the denial of its necessity in history, or what it has produced.

I didn't say "leftist philosophers," I said "leftists". Leftists tend to speak about capitalism as if it was an ideology. Whatever is wrong with capitalism, it's not an ideology. No one planned it.

> If this is true (which, owing to the "communist labour-voucher debate" it may not be), it's curious that Scott didn't address any of this critique. I could have read more, and Scott could have read more.

I think Scott does an admirable job reading books and synthesizing them with his own perspective.