> Feudal nobles of Europe resented and despised the merchant class even if they could not utterly suppress it. Wealthy commoners would have an influence, but ho

> Feudal nobles of Europe resented and despised the merchant class even if they could not utterly suppress it. Wealthy commoners would have an influence, but holders of hereditary titles would still in many cases be considered above them legally. This supports what I’m saying though. The reason the nobility who achieved their wealth through force wanted to suppress the rising merchant class was exactly because their power became threatened by the new wealthy class. Ultimately the nobility failed. > There were strict theocracies where the priestly caste would hold sway. Notably, scholars were considered more prestigious in Jewish societies than businesspeople, which might have contributed to the intellectual strength of the nation that is obvious even now. How did the church grow mighty? It wasn’t faith, it was money. > In Soviet-like systems, real power was held by the nomenklatura consisting of high level apparatchiks, senior members of the Party. Both Castro and Mao were sons of wealthy farmers. The Bolsheviks were funded by none other than the German Kaiser. > Spartans Sparta was a clear cut oligarchy. I’m not really sure why you being them up, as the very reason their financial class discouraged trade was because they reasoned it would weaken their power if other members of society saw any sort of wealth.