The Golden Rule - Plutocracy

[Drawmack]

Not that golden rule but rather, "He who has the gold makes the rules."

I heard the term Plutocracy on SVU last night and decided to look it up this morning. Well, reading through the wikipedia entry on the topic, I came to a realization. Most of the societies I use in game, or have encountered in the real world, are a plotocracy of one form or another. Sure, there was a time when the toughest or wisest ruled regardless of wealth. However, today the aristocratic class are among the wealthy. So this spawned a question.

If you were to design a fantasy society, which could in no way be a plutocracy, how would you structure the government? Remember that the wealthy can be in control, but wealth cannot be a determining factor in power.

 

[interwyrm]

If you were to design a fantasy society, which could in no way be a plutocracy, how would you structure the government? Remember that the wealthy can be in control, but wealth cannot be a determining factor in power.

Magocracy - Powerful wizards rule.
Hereditary monarchy.
Feudalism (knights, barons, etc.)
Roman-style republic.
Tribal systems.
Right to rule decided by test of combat.

Try looking to the animal kingdom to see how different social animals interact.
Suggestions: lions, herd animals, gorillas.

 

[iwatt]

Right to rule decided by test of combat.

But in D&D this would still be heavily affected by wealth, the equipment rules been what they are...

 

[Desdichado]

Not that golden rule but rather, "He who has the gold makes the rules."

The Jafar rule, eh?

If you were to design a fantasy society, which could in no way be a plutocracy, how would you structure the government? Remember that the wealthy can be in control, but wealth cannot be a determining factor in power.

Societies can give the apperance of plutocracies without actually being so. A meritocracy, for instance, is likely to resemble a plutocracy in many ways because those with the most merit are probably the ones most likely to amass wealth AS WELL as those who govern. For example. Human nature being what it is, it also seems unlikely that those who govern for whatever OTHER reason they are selected won't also use their influence to amass wealth. Secondarily, all socieities resemble plutocracies, but it IS secondarily. They aren't actually plutocracies, since it's not wealth per se that qualifies those in the government to govern.

That said, you want a nation that absolutely does not resemble a plutocracy? How about an oracle, who lives in a cave in a mountain, ala the oracle of Delphi. Her prophets are wandering mendicants who go throughout the land in touch via a divine or psionic link with their patroness--and they use that link to pass judgement in communities they pass through, resolve disputes, etc. It's a little bizarre, and probably not practical in any real world sense, but by arbitrarily making them the highest authority in the land---moreso than nobles and the other wealthy patrons, then I suppose you've technically met your goal.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I find that idea interesting. I might have to adopt something like it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If you were to design a fantasy society, which could in no way be a plutocracy, how would you structure the government? Remember that the wealthy can be in control, but wealth cannot be a determining factor in power.

Create another basis for power, whether it's hereditary, religious or magical. Or, taking a note from Blue Rose, have a hyper-intelligent (and theoretically benevolent, but not necessarily) animal demigod show up and name the new ruler when the old one kicks it.

 

[Set]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government
has a useful list.

Bear in mind that the US has been trending towards plutocracy for some time now. It's not like a poor person is ever gonna be President, and the majority of contenders these days tend to be millionaires. It could even be argued that we are headed towards kleptocracy, with the friends, families and financial benefactors of political figures cashing in on their canditates electoral success, with either appointed positions, or government contracts worth billions of dollars.

Even in a world where priests can't call down holy fire or raise the dead, the priesthood has had *enormous* power in various cultures throughout history. No European ruler could be crowned (or marry, or designate a successor) without the approval of the Pope, for centuries. Pharoah was a literal slave in his household, surrounded by slaves owned by the temples (Pharoah was forbidden to own slaves, his household staff were in the employ of his political enemies!), and the one Pharoah who stood up to them was murdered and his 14 year old son propped up in his place and forced to reverse all of his attempts at reform. Many systems of governance side-stepped this by making their titular ruler also the official 'head of the state religion,' as was done in Rome, and in China.

In a fantasy world, where gods like Hextor and Heironyus would take very active interest in who rules the kingdoms where their followers congregate, the priesthood would be *vastly* more influential, being able to ensure, or withold, medical services, exorcisms, etc. and extort the ruler through controlling weather, crops, etc. Piss off the wrong temple, and suddenly there's famine, or drought, or plague, or insurrection...

 

[Quartz]

Something else to consider: power attracts wealth, and wealth attracts power. If you're powerful, you're going to attract wealthy people wanting you to work on their behalf. Equally, if you're wealthy, you're going to want to befriend powerful people who will help make you wealthtier.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Bear in mind that the US has been trending towards plutocracy for some time now. It's not like a poor person is ever gonna be President, and the majority of contenders these days tend to be millionaires.

Eh, this situation is often overstated, IMO. In the United States, there are well-funded political machines that raise money to get candidates elected. By working one's way up from local politics, it's very possible that relatively ordinary people can eventually rise to high office. Along the way, their standard of living will change -- a governor's mansion is considerably nicer than a two bedroom, one and a half bathroom apartment -- but one doesn't have to be rich to get elected in America, and it's unlikely to ever end up that way.

Now, if you want to come from nowhere and jump in at the deep end, yeah, having a private replacement for organized political parties is pretty much required and that does require wealth. But the Ross Perots of the world are still the exception.

America was previously much more of a plutocracy when the right to vote was tied to land ownership. (Which, incidentally, would be a nice detail for a campaign setting: Characters have fewer rights unless they own land and since they're not making any more land, that's a strong incentive to help the nation expand its borders as adventurers/privateers.)

 

[Ringan]

How about a platocracy instead of a plutocracy

I haven't read it, but I recall hearing something about this in Plato's Republic.

Plato asserted that rulers ought to be always from the same class, a philosopher-king class. These philosopher-kings would be well educated and would be unable to own anything. This would prevent them from being influenced by material wealth in their governing (in theory). This might work well in a fantasy setting...I guess the society ruled by it would have to be pretty lawful so that the philosopher-kings were honorable about their oaths of poverty.