These things are meritocratic in concept but never turn out that way in practice because the model simply doesn't correspond to actual human behavior. For example, one solves familial tendencies - what father wouldn't want to see his sons succeed? - by eliminating the family altogether after one or another elaborate educational mechanism. And it fails. For another, they tend to insist on optimizing production around what people do (or are perceived to do) best rather than what people actually are happy doing. Marx was a firm opponent of this and his systems in practice turned out to be major proponents of it, because "from each according to his ability" was coercive and not, as Marx hoped, a case of human self-actualization. And for a third example, under his systems the state didn't melt away as it was supposed to, it grew, because running a state turns out to be a prime gig.
These are all fatal signs that these models of a planned society are inadequate to the complexities of human behavior, and that only human vanity insists that still they be implemented. That vanity, as Greenfield points out, is resident in those convinced of their own personal superiority and hence ability to direct their societies at large. Let's look at facts: the ubermenschen turn out to be a dime a dozen and frankly, they aren't all that great.
Excellent post. You nailed it.
Bill, I love your last line:
“Let’s look at facts: the ubermenschen turn out to be a dime a dozen and frankly, they aren’t all that great.”
Often, their “will to power” is *because* they failed at works that require discipline, intelligence, and a firm grasp of reality.