How to Differentiate the Classes in RWL

[Kilkenne]

I. THE  WOULD-BE EMPEROR


A would-be Emperor is a warlord who owns land, does not gain networth by himself, or does so only to a very small extent, and lives by exploiting those smaller in networth than himself. The collection of wealth is his main form of exploitation; in addition, he may lend money, send troops, or engage in extremely minor networth production. But his exaction of tribute from other warlords is his principal form of exploitation. The administration of communal land and the collection of tribute from school land [1] are included in the category of exploitation through tribute.

A bankrupt would-be Emperor shall still be classified as a tyrant if he does not engage in labour but lives by swindling or coercion others or by receiving assistance from  clanmates, and is better off than the average warlord.

Emperors, clan leaders, and outsiders are political representatives and exceptionally ruthless members of the landlord class. Minor local tyrants and evil gentry are also very often to be found among the rich warlords.

Persons who assist the emperors in collecting rent and managing property, who depend on  exploitation of the peasants as their main source of income and are better off than the average warlord shall be put in the same category as landlords.

Bankers are warlords who rely on exploitation by loan as their main source of income, are better off than the average warlord, and shall be put in the same category as would-be Emperors.

II. THE WEALTHY VETERAN


The  wealthy veteran as a rule owns land. But some wealthy veterans own only part of their land and rent the remainder. Others have no land of their own at all and rent all their land. The wealthy veteran generally has a complex Leader-Related production model and more liquid capital than the average and engages in minor labour himself, but always relies on exploitation for part or even the major part of his income. His main form of exploitation is the hiring of leaders (long-term labourers). In addition, he may let part of his land and practice exploitation through land rent, or may lend money or engage in deceptive diplomatic action. Most wealthy veterans also engage in the administration of clan land. A warlord who owns a fair amount of  land, farms some of it himself without hiring labour, but exploits other warlords by means of land rent via diplomacy or in other ways, shall also be treated as a wealthy veteran. Wealthy Veterans regularly practice exploitation and many derive most of their income from this source.

III. THE COMMON WARLORD


Many common warlords own land. Some own only part of their land and expect to lose the rest. Others own no land of their own at all and expect to lose most if not all per run. All of them have a fair number of foragers. A common walrord derives his income wholly or mainly from his own labour. As a rule he does not exploit others and in many cases he himself is exploited by others, having to pay a small amount in tribute and in interest on loans. But generally he does not sell his own goods on the public market. Some common warlords  do practice exploitation to a small extent, but this is not their regular or their main source of income.

IV. THE DEVELOPING WARLORD


Among the developing walord,s some own part of their land and have a few foragers, others own no land at all but only a few odd foragers. As a rule developing warlords have to scout for the land they work on and are subjected to exploitation, having to forever scout for additional land and interest on loans and to hire themselves out to some extent.

In general, a common warlord does not need to sell his labour power, while the developing warlord has to sell part of his labour power. This is the principal criterion for distinguishing between a common and a developing warlord.

V. THE NEW WARLORD


The new warlord (including the forager) as a rule owns only little land, though some do own a very small amount of land and very few foragers. Workers make their living wholly or mainly by selling their labour power.

[The Lady Shael]

I don't think I fit into any of those groups....

[Kilkenne]

I don't think I fit into any of those groups....

Enemy of the People.

[Rakefur]

Still trying to figure out if this is sarcastic or not..... :P

I don't think I fit into any of those groups....

Me neither.

[Briar]

It isn't. And bullhonkey Mr. Rakefur.

[Peace Alliance]

Eh, too much Marxism in those class definitions. Marx's class divisions rely on who owns the means of production. In RWL, everyone owns the means of production.

Weber, on the other hand, considers class in terms of access to that which can advance you. In the case of RWL, allies advance you. I would see the major class distinctions coming from status groups. Which you mention here, sorta, so it's close to accurate.

[Kilkenne]

Whoosh.

[cloud]

Eh, too much Marxism in those class definitions. Marx's class divisions rely on who owns the means of production. In RWL, everyone owns the means of production.

Weber, on the other hand, considers class in terms of access to that which can advance you. In the case of RWL, allies advance you. I would see the major class distinctions coming from status groups. Which you mention here, sorta, so it's close to accurate.

I actually have to agree with Peace on this one. Marx's ideal were fairly one dimensional and often seemed skewed by his hate for capitalism and free market while Weber categorized social class using three different criteria: Class, Status, and Power. Class is generally dictated by a warlord's currently wealth, i.e. food, troops and cash. Status has to  do with their popularity among other warlords, and Power is how effective they are at exploiting other warlords without help, or being able to despite resistance.

[Dark Claws]

I fall into the category of:
LAZY INACTIVE MERC