An idea came to me yesterday.
In early revolutionary France, a system of active and passive citizenship was briefly used, where citizens needed to pay a certain level of tax in order to vote. "Passive Citizens" were constitutionally protected with respect to life, liberty, and belongings merely by being citizens, but they were not granted the franchise. About half of adult males were considered "active citizens," who could vote. A second, higher bar was set for who could be an "Elector," one who could nominate deputies, judges, and other public figures for local election. Laws applied to all citizens equally, regardless of category.
It doesn't take an expert to see that this system will inevitably result in plutocracy. But let's have a little bit of fun with it, shall we?
The system implemented in OTL could not have survived the political climate du jour. The revolutionaries were too idealistic, too excitable, and too radical. Instead, this system needs to be part of a wider range of reforms brought about mostly from within the existing system.
The arguments for this plutocratic republic are fairly universal. Wealthy men are often more educated than poor men and therefore more fit to steer the course of the nation; people who pay more taxes are more responsible for the upkeep of the state and therefore should have greater responsibilities; probably hundreds more could be made up. It doesn't have to be France that comes up with this system.
Let's talk about corporations, specifically the concept of corporate personhood. Suppose some bright industrialist, realizing that his corporation spends more taxes than he does, argues to the government that the corporation itself has the right to be an elector as well. For a long time in the UK, universities were given seats in parliament; why not corporations that pay massive amounts to the state each year in taxes? Let's say the idea gains traction, and sooner or later parliament is controlled officially by corporations.
Now, let's get crazy. Suppose that under this system, corporations grow powerful enough that by the late 19th century, they have entire families working for them, living in corporate houses, eating at corporate cafeterias, getting corporate training as children in state-approved corporate schools to one day work a certain trade. People might be legally able to leave, but the system makes finding employment difficult in these cases, so few people choose to do so. People are dependent on the corporations, but as time goes on, the corporations become dependent on their people as well. A sense of group corporate identity among workers, rather than citizens, emerges, and corporate republicanism (perhaps analogous to OTL syndicalism) becomes a widespread phenomenon in many countries.
So the system you end up with in the 21st century is, every corporation, plus maybe a few rich individuals and nobles, have a seat in the legislature. They control the government simply because they pay so much in tax. It is an openly plutocratic system. However, these corporations are ruled by the people; basically as giant groups of workers' unions, albeit with the employer rather than the trade as the uniting factor. As a result, the government in a twisted and backwards way ends up being decent, even though technically the common man doesn't even have a vote in government.
I am honestly at a loss for what to call this sort of system. Democratic syndicate plutocracy? It's oddly similar to most dystopian cyberpunk settings, though from an AH rather than FH perspective.
I'd like to develop this idea further. How would everyday life develop under such a system? What might some benefits and drawbacks be of this system, besides obvious ones? What are some other weird potential consequences? If this system became widespread, how would it shape international politics? Economics? International trade? What are everyone's thoughts?
In early revolutionary France, a system of active and passive citizenship was briefly used, where citizens needed to pay a certain level of tax in order to vote. "Passive Citizens" were constitutionally protected with respect to life, liberty, and belongings merely by being citizens, but they were not granted the franchise. About half of adult males were considered "active citizens," who could vote. A second, higher bar was set for who could be an "Elector," one who could nominate deputies, judges, and other public figures for local election. Laws applied to all citizens equally, regardless of category.
It doesn't take an expert to see that this system will inevitably result in plutocracy. But let's have a little bit of fun with it, shall we?
The system implemented in OTL could not have survived the political climate du jour. The revolutionaries were too idealistic, too excitable, and too radical. Instead, this system needs to be part of a wider range of reforms brought about mostly from within the existing system.
The arguments for this plutocratic republic are fairly universal. Wealthy men are often more educated than poor men and therefore more fit to steer the course of the nation; people who pay more taxes are more responsible for the upkeep of the state and therefore should have greater responsibilities; probably hundreds more could be made up. It doesn't have to be France that comes up with this system.
Let's talk about corporations, specifically the concept of corporate personhood. Suppose some bright industrialist, realizing that his corporation spends more taxes than he does, argues to the government that the corporation itself has the right to be an elector as well. For a long time in the UK, universities were given seats in parliament; why not corporations that pay massive amounts to the state each year in taxes? Let's say the idea gains traction, and sooner or later parliament is controlled officially by corporations.
Now, let's get crazy. Suppose that under this system, corporations grow powerful enough that by the late 19th century, they have entire families working for them, living in corporate houses, eating at corporate cafeterias, getting corporate training as children in state-approved corporate schools to one day work a certain trade. People might be legally able to leave, but the system makes finding employment difficult in these cases, so few people choose to do so. People are dependent on the corporations, but as time goes on, the corporations become dependent on their people as well. A sense of group corporate identity among workers, rather than citizens, emerges, and corporate republicanism (perhaps analogous to OTL syndicalism) becomes a widespread phenomenon in many countries.
So the system you end up with in the 21st century is, every corporation, plus maybe a few rich individuals and nobles, have a seat in the legislature. They control the government simply because they pay so much in tax. It is an openly plutocratic system. However, these corporations are ruled by the people; basically as giant groups of workers' unions, albeit with the employer rather than the trade as the uniting factor. As a result, the government in a twisted and backwards way ends up being decent, even though technically the common man doesn't even have a vote in government.
I am honestly at a loss for what to call this sort of system. Democratic syndicate plutocracy? It's oddly similar to most dystopian cyberpunk settings, though from an AH rather than FH perspective.
I'd like to develop this idea further. How would everyday life develop under such a system? What might some benefits and drawbacks be of this system, besides obvious ones? What are some other weird potential consequences? If this system became widespread, how would it shape international politics? Economics? International trade? What are everyone's thoughts?
Last edited:
