803
Based Vampire the Masquerade
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
803 points (98.3% liked)
RPGMemes
15402 readers
1557 users here now
Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Aristocracy has shown a tendancy to lead to fascism, as can be seen in what is currently happening in the US
Yes and no. Aristocracy can exist independent from fascism, and should be considered entirely separately. However, if they can't maintain power with a purely conservative/reactionary coalition, aristocrats will almost always side with fascists over liberals, much less socialists. As such, in the modern day, aristocracies are aligned with fascists, despite fascism erasing aristocracy as it 'succeeds' and aristocrats being generally aware that fascists do not have their aristocratic interests in mind.
Oh absolutely, it's just that the modern day aristocrats of capitalism are so short sighted they can't see past their own nose.
They don't know that their own wealth is meaningless since rule of law is not theirs, and no one will care if they get epstiened like many Russian oligarchs.
"First they came" and all that
There is a difference between aristocracy and oligarchy. Aristocracy is under the thumb of the monarch, oligarchy isn't.
On the Wikipedia page, it states that oligarchy is "Aristocracy's corrupt counterpart".
At the end of the day there is no way an aristocracy doesn't become corrupt, so the result is just a label
Fascism is what you get when Aristocracy gets a business degree. The difference between a feudal lord and a CEO is non-farm income.
Far, far from it. Despite the casual use (including by me!) of aristocracy for any entrenched elite, there is a non-negligible difference between actual aristocrats and plutocrats. Long story short, aristocrats are dependent on social capital and extraordinary legal privileges; plutocrats are dependent on financial capital. The tension between these competing sources of elite power has fueled many pre-modern conflicts. The two can blend, and there's rarely a 'pure' example of either, but they're aren't quite equivalent either. A majority-owner of a modern farming conglomerate does not base his power on the same foundation as a feudal lord, and vice-versa.
In principle you are correct, in practice the functional difference is very much negligible. As anyone who has ever tried to hold a plutocrat accountable in court can tell you, their equality under the law is more theoretical than how the world really works. The cults of personality, the careful reputational management, the nepotism and cronyism, dynastic rule and insularity, it's all there, it's just got a different window dressing.
On paper their power is different. In practice, not so much.
That's not the point being made by the legal distinction. The point is not that a plutocracy is vulnerable to the rule of law while an aristocracy is not - the question of the strength of rule of law is separate from the question of aristocracy or plutocracy. The point is that the basis of aristocratic power comes (in part) from a position of extraordinary legal privilege, not simply being able to escape consequences for crimes.
What you're complaining about ere can be applied to any elite.
We're so very close but we're not quite getting that last point. What I'm saying is it's a distinction with very little meaningful difference. It's interesting from an academic point of view, but that's it. How they rationalize their privilege and sell their legitimacy to people makes no difference.
It's more than just academic. The question is not whether aristocracy or plutocracy acts in a fundamentally better or worse way than the other, which you seem to be focused on, but whether they act in a different way from the other, which they very much do. The basis of their power comes from different roots, and because of that, they have different interests, different goals, different avenues of action, different preferences in compromise with wider society. Failing to understand that will result in failing to understand the reasoning for political maneuvering by one or the other.
I firmly disagree. There is no meaningful difference in motivation or expected outcome. The behaviour is functionally identical. In neither case is there any commitment to compromise with society, both Aristocracy and Plutocracy leverage economic factors to control and contain the wider community, to arbitrary and capricious ends; frequently little more than the further consolidation of power. The terminology is different, it sounds different, but it does not behave different in any meaningful way. Any social contract is entirely grounded in what we choose to demand as a society, not intrinsic to the flavour of elite class.
It's the same motive, the same tools, and the same outcome, just re-branded and with a fresh coat of paint. Plutocracy in this era leverages scientific and evidence based psychological conditioning, social control, and new communication mediums to play on a variety of fundamental cognitive biases and limitations instead of leveraging religion alone as the primary means of containment of the governed, nothing more. As I said, it's Aristocracy with a business degree. If you want to get specific it's Aristocracy with a business degree and a marketing team instead of just the clergy.
I can't imagine the apathy these people have for human* rights, despite seeing the actions this apathy leads to every day
What does it mean that you've put an asterisk next to human? Is it just because of the context of vampires or is there like a broader meaning I'm not familiar with?
Oh no, I had a feeling that wasn't the best terminology. I've offended the bees, haven't I?
I'm not offended, if that's what you mean. I'm just curious what it means because I haven't seen it before and can only guess.
Oh I just made a spelling mistake and was trying it into a dumb joke