I've got a reference to a study somewhere (80's I think), which showed that
people were far more socially mobile under Ruski-style socialism than under
US capitalism. The study showed that it was viable for people to move from
peasant to high ranking party official in their own lifetime, for instance,
whereas the norm by far under capitalism is to move very little from the
social position in which you are born.
Another relatively random point; did anyone notice the recent article on
NYT, which talked about the fact that over the last decade (?), the major
trend in employees has been in moving back to large organisations, and out
of risky smaller ventures and self employment, contrary to popular opinion?
Standard disclaimer... I'm not advocating 20th century socialism by any
means; I think that a lot of my more honed and hard-won competitive skills
would go to waste in such an environment.
Emlyn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian D Williams" <talon57@well.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: True Abundance
>
> From: "Emlyn" <emlyn@one.net.au>
>
> >>Chris Russo wrote:
> >> Tied up with their religion is that nasty caste system. Nothing
> >>like a god-given right to treat your fellow countrymen like crap.
>
>
> >.... and we have capitalism, the secular alternative.
>
> Not even remotely similiar. You are born into a caste system and
> remain there for life.
>
> There are former Vietnamese and Hmong refugees who came over in the
> mid seventies who are now millionares.
>
> Capitalism 1
> Caste 0
>
>
>
> Brian
>
> Member:
> Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
> Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
> Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
> National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
> Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:45 MDT