If one is to feel good about meritocracy, it is that the ambitious, talented and hardworking have the greatest chance of changing the system for everyone's shared benefit.
The opposite of that is the stereotypical Soviet style, shoemaker working as a mason, carpenter working as the prime minister. There's a room in between for something sane, but anything sane will also be discriminatory with respect to skills.
It seems to me that this pileup against meritocracy is primarily about personal rewards, and not about utility to society.
If one is to feel good about meritocracy, it is that the ambitious, talented and hardworking have the greatest chance of changing the system for everyone's shared benefit.