"This is highly reminiscent of Garfinkel's "breaching experiments" aimed to question people's everyday routines. A belief in the "personal merit" in social and economic behavior is not just a result of indoctrination - it is the central myth of the middle and upper classes - it validates their privileged position in the society. Questioning the role of personal merits, even in an abstract discussion, is an attack on the middle class concept of the self, hence the hostile reaction."
Twenty five years ago, I got into a heated argument with a gaggle of engineers at Tandem. The debate centered around systemic forces vs individual merit. One engineer insisted that he had scrimped and saved and worked .....and earned his way to his comfortable life. My buddy Doug Jeung said: "I've been able to multiply three digit numbers in my head since I was a boy. Why should I get rewarded for that my entire life?" And insisted that on the whole people do the best they can. He concluded the discussion by saying "If everyone could have an equal share, I'd give up everything I have."...."everything" being a substantial amount. And he was no dewy-eyed idealist, but a man in his early sixties with five kids.
I work in hi tech with people in their 40's and 50's, and I think most of them do not believe that virtue triumphs or that the poor are poor because they're lazy and stupid. This might be because despite a life of hard work and long hours (software engineering), most of them are barely able to put their kids through college, and because for many of them, not much retirement is possible.
I know one guy in his mid-sixties, Physics Ph.D., top notch programmer, who, because of a divorce settlement, has no savings left, and will likely have to work until he drops. And all these people are allegedly from a privileged strata. And, generally, when I spew my red ideas, after the brief initial shock, there is general agreement. Of course, they don't spend their days watching Fox.
Joanna