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?
Genetics are a factor in so much as neurological vulnerabilities to developing/embracing anti-social behaviors, which still have to be taught. In the case of rich elite families, this would likely be handed down through generations along with some vindictive feelings about the change. And we know empirically that engaging in capital accumulation and indeed acting as a capitalist requires anti-social behaviors. I want to be clear, anyone could become much more wealthy if they have no regard for the rights of others and understood the true mechanisms of capitalism (plus some start up capital usually, but there's always exceptions - most of which are from before neoliberal economics took over). Social connections between the dethroned families still very much exist after many of these reforms, so when capitalist structures were reintroduced, there was still a cadre of people who had been raised to be ruthless to fill the power vacuum which requires a ruling class.
The genetics piece that the poster is trying to suggest is phrenological and racist at it's core. It's a shift from the divine right of kings being ordained by God, to nature being a stand in for God to justify the idea these people are better in an immutable way. It's not informed by economic, biological, or sociological factors in any academic sense, but has a veneer of having been well researched. Actually settled research shows us otherwise - innate intelligence has no variability between demographics. The behaviors necessary to gain these levels of prominence have to be learned, and the vast majority of people find it rightfully distasteful to engage in these behaviors. It boils down to this: these people are not our betters, they were taught to be predators and how take advantage of the inherent structures of capitalism - they are class conscious, the working class is not and has actual morals - wealth and power corrupts the mind and soul.