Full Twitter thread unrolled -> https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1792267464258048408
This person basically uses a bunch of graphs to argue that status of elite groups persist under even the most extreme cases. For example, the elites targeted in the PRC and the Soviet Union bounced back in elite status after a generation or two, how many elite southern planter families regained their status after the Civil War, how formally interned Japanese Americans reached the same homeownership rate as the non-interned Japanese Americans after a decade, etc.
But then they suggest that
So status persists throughout history even in the most extreme scenarios. What explains this? Genes play a major role. Consider how status persists when the status is accurized purely through chance.
Is this really a reasonable conclusion to draw? I saw one tweet criticizing this, saying
this information is very interesting, but it's nonsense to think this implies genetics/talent/effort causes success. i see this as evidence that social/human capital is persistent and important for economic development, so inequality on this dimension breeds economic inequality https://x.com/leonveliezer/status/1792413175301935124
Which seems like a good objection to me.
What do you all think?
Not that I've done the in-depth research, but I'm not sure his data is true. For one thing, I know the Pre-Putin oligarchs of modern Russia generally came from the upper-middle strata of the Soviet Nomenklatura class, because they had the easiest access to steal Soviet assets during privatization. They later got boxed out of power by Putin's Siloviki clique, and they were all middle-ranked KGB guys. None of these people have any connection to the pre-revolution Russian aristocracy, even if they kind of larp as them in their aesthetics.
Do you remember where you read that?
Collapse by Vladislav Zubok (an indispensable book about the collapse of the Soviet Union), and I think I read about the Siloviki in this article by Anatol Lieven.
Thank you!