Plutocracy - Rule by the Wealthy - The State of Steemit

Plutocracy might seem like some long-forgotten modality of rule stemming from the era of Classical Greece. But it has been alive and well over the centuries, and has become the modus operandi of the Steemit platform/community/society.

Plutocracy literally means rule by wealth (ploutos + kratia), where the wealthy have the rule of power among a set of people. Although the word itself was first used in 1652, the state of living it described existed long before that.

Oligarchic rule and control of a society by a small minority of the wealthiest citizens is the centralized concentration of power that Steemit has developed. This is plutocracy. Despite what is alleged, Steemit is not capitalism, socialism, anarchy or democracy (although there are some capitalistic and democratic forms within it such as voting). Steemit has no political philosophy to establish rules by which the community is to behave. The wealthiest members decide how things operate, and who gets to be rewarded for their work and who gets their rewards revoked by their power playing abuses (without impunity).

No matter what changes are brought forth by updates in the blockchain, those with the wealth remain in power to do as they see fit without consequences to their actions. Political rules of law are absent to deal with the free-reign of the wealthy power elite. Where are the common rules for common-unity?

Many philosophers and political thinkers have warned against the condition of plutocracy, including Winston Churchill, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Noam Chomsky. They all -- in one way or another -- condemned the development of plutocracy and how plutocrats abuse their powers in a society for their own gain to create social injustices by corrupting society with their rule by wealth. They can do what they like and get away with it.
As such, the wealthiest power players use their wealth to do whatever they want. They foster and help those they like, and punish those they don't like. There are no rational codes of conduct or rules of law to deal with wrongful behavior on the part of the plutocrats, since they have the power and get to do what they want (without consequences).

Some city-states of Ancient Greece are characterized by plutocratic rule, and so too is the Roman Empire. The pre-world war Empire of Japan was plutocratic, as well as the current modern United States of America, according to Noam Chomsky and Jimmy Carter.

Early on in Steemit, anyone could earn their way to gain a following and support from the userbase. You could in some respect, work and earn your way to gaining support from the community, be it from the wealthy rulers or from the rest of the userbase. This was a more capitalistic way of operation, where you could climb up by getting recognized and supported by others. Just like creating a popular product in real-world capitalism, your success on Steemit was based on the support for the content products you created. There was still the plutocratic power of the wealthiest who decided who received most of the rewards from the platform's community pool, but at least you could work your way up and keep what you earned. That changed with the development of the love of flagging by the plutocratic power base.

With the introduction of flagging for rewards, this free-market way of building your name, your brand, your reputation, and gaining a following of support, has died for some users, such as myself. I brought awareness to the flagging issue, and then to the underlying concentration of power, but with little impact it seems. Facts about what was happening didn't seem to matter, and then mocking the flag and it's flawed implementation has seemed to garner more hatred towards me for daring to speak about an issue others can't or won't recognize.

The users that join Steemit are at the mercy of the rule by the wealthy Steemit users. No matter how much time has gone into developing a brand for yourself and gaining the support of others within the platform, the rewards for the content-products created by your brand can be removed by the wealthy rulers of the platform. Not by a lack or loss of support from the users in the platform, no, but simply by the willful desire of a wealthy power player to apply their power to remove the rewards garnered by the support of others.

If someone lost support from people stopping to "buy" their brand/product, that would be a natural force of free-market capitalism. But Steemit has the plutocratic rule by the wealthy in play, where you can still have your support base vote but not get the rewards they allocate from "purchasing" your product through the upvote reward-allocation process. All that is needed is a wealthy enough user to flag your content-product and you lose the reward-support that others still get because they are not being abused by the wealthy power-elite of Steemit plutocracy.

If you think this lack of rules, standards and measures for how users are to conduct themselves in this new model of society, then you are welcoming and supporting a failed societal model called plutocracy.

Do you want to support and promote plutocracy?

Are you ready to change and adopt rules for behavior that rely on justice rather than simply on rule by the wealthy?

Things can change, but only if the people who create the platform rules (Steemit, Inc. and coders) are pressured into doing so by the user base. For most of you, as long as you don't get flagged by the wealthy rulers to remove 50-90% of the reward support you received for your brand and content-products created, then I guess the issue of being ruled by the wealthy has no bearing on your ability to use Steemit, and you won't care about the plutocratic state of Steemit.

I stopped talking about the issues because few seem to care, and half of the people that comment seem to like the plutocratic state of Steemit. Why is this issue so hard to understand for some of you?

I have written about how many are stuck in a corporate governance model and "code=law" myopic understanding of how to reform a society or community towards greater justice and productive engagement, unwilling or unable to think in terms of what is right, good or true as a way of living and behaving.

We can shift from a corporate mindset of rule by the wealthiest, towards a community empowerment of the actual user base. From 'We the Corporations' ruling by wealth, towards 'We the People' really deciding how the platform can evolve towards greater heights that allows an individual to continue developing their brands and content-products while being allowed to keep the reward-support they get from their support base.

I have not been posting, because I do not want to support and foster the growth of a platform or community that doesn't care about -- or even favors and promotes -- the power abusing plutocracy at play on Steemit.

Why would I invest my time and energy to work to create content on a platform, to help it grow and succeed, when it's operating in a broken way yet doesn't even care to fix itself? The community needs to care for things to change.

A few people not posting due to the plutocratic power abuses doesn't affect the platform much. But does that mean the issue doesn't exist because only a few are being affected? Most users are not being affected negatively by the rule by wealthy to decide who can or can't keep the rewards their support-base allocates to them. There are few users who have large fanbases to be affected in such a way, and most of the larger user brands are on the "good" side of the power abusing plutocrats so they don't get flagged to be affected by this negative behavior.

A platform or community that doesn't care about injustices and abuses from the wealthy rulers isn't really a place I want to spend time working to make a success. It's not like a few people not posting matters to most anyways. Losing some content-creators doesn't really matter in the grand scheme for most users because they aren't negatively affected.

Think about it. How would you like it if everyone else on the platform could work and develop a base of support, to gain followers, etc., and be rewarded by those followers (whether its a few or many), but not you and few others? You and them are being targeted by the rule of the wealthy who have the power to remove the rewards your brand and content-product gained from your support base.

Is that really something you would want to keep putting your time and energy into in order to help make it a success?

Do you get why I have protested this situation by not posting? I talked about it, but fewer and fewer seemed to care as the issue persisted. So my last recourse was to remove myself from being a content-producer to grow the platform. What else can I do? To keep producing content on the platform where I get shafted, while others can keep what they earn? That didn't fly for me... If you want some content-creators to produce content and help Steemit grow with that content, then stop supporting unjust treatment of their brand or content they produce... no?

I suppose the only way for people to see the issue is if a wealthy account holder started flagging more people "just because". Then maybe the issue would be more apparent. But so long as only a few users are targeted by flagging abuses from plutocrats, the rest of the "community" won't really care it seems. The few who do don't have the power to change the way things are.

Fear plays a part. I have had people who side with me tell me they won't speak up against it because they don't want to lose support or be targeted by the wealthy plutocrats. I know some people side with the abusers as to avoid becoming victims of their abuse themselves. This is basic social survival psychology that plays out from all aspects of life, from schoolyard children to totalitarian and authoritarian regimes that gain obedience of people through fear of being victimized. Siding with the bully or abuser is "better" for many than siding with the one being attacked, lest they become attacked themselves.

People don't often speak up to the wealthy rulers who can hurt them with impunity. Without consequences to wrong behavior, that behavior persists. If more people support it, that behavior becomes a defining part of the society. Is this type of abuse what Steemit stands for by letting it persist and even supporting and validating such behavior?

Why do so many users on Steemit support Steemit being this way?

Learn from history. Plutocracy is not the way to go...