All: Techno-economics & SW Political Theory

Gentlesophonts:

Here's a second try at this post:

Hans Rancke [email removed] writes:

> >>economic instability _should_ result in TL instability.
> >
> >Why? This is what I'm having difficulty with.
>
> Is the difficulty with the fact that there are no examples, or is it the
> very concept you can't accept?

It's the very concept.  I accept that some technological variations might
be tied to economic fluctuations but I have great difficulty with the idea
that overall technological capability (what TL measures) is going to vary
much unless there are *huge* fluctuations in the economy, i.e. the Long
Night or Viral Collapse.

The examples you cited are fine but they only refer to individual firms.
For the techno-economic cycles to occur they have to affect entire
industries.  A particular Gram jump drive manufacturer might get a `jump'
on a particular Sacnoth jump drive manufacturer but for the techno-
economics theory to hold *several* Gram industries (ship building, medical
tech, communications, robotics, *et al*) would have to `get a jump' on
similar industries on Sacnoth.  This really seems to be a stretch of the
imagination to me.  I'll admit it's possible but it's not very darn likely.

> (Btw. there's another, perfectly simple, explanation of how Gram could be

> only TL 10-11 in other, vital areas (Check _World Builder's Handbook_ for
> details).)

Yes, I'm aware of *WBH* but while this might explain a particular circumstance
it doesn't explain the subsector-wide situation.  Gram might have higher
space tech than Sacnoth but by the same reasoning Narsil might have higher
space tech than both.  This just leads to ever-more-insidious possibilities.

> How many worlds do we have any historical data on? A mere handful. While an
> example might prove my point, the absence dosen't disprove it (since I'm
> merely trying to establish that it could happen).

Wait a minute!  This is the same `reasoning' UFO-nuts use to make claims
about ET visitors.  It is the burden of any claimant to provide evidence
of their claim.  Merely suggesting that your argument can't be disproved does
not make your point!

> Do you really think that no contemporary of Piper wrote about social
> systems with more equal treatment of men and women than his Sword Worlds?

Certainly there were more `progressive' contemporaries of Piper but he was
consistent with the general attitudes of his period.

> Or that TCS couldn't have gotten away with describing a minor, antagonistic
> power as far more repressive than they did?

Certainly they could have but I believe they were copying Piper wholeheartedly
and were merely `updating' to fit the general attitudes of their own time.
They certainly intended for folks to `play' Sword Worlders and so didn't
want them to be too repressive (like the Solomani which were never featured
as anything but `bad guys' until *Solomani and Aslan*).

> >>I despair of explaining those cycles any better than by the sentence
> >>'Economy can (and often does) fluctuate'.
> >
> >I *get* the *economic* fluctuation, what I don't get is how *technological*
> >ability gets tied to it!
>
> Because if technology wasn't tied to economic features then most every
> world in Charted Space would be TL 15! (Except those with religious or
> philosophically induced limits.)

We seem to go back and forth on this.  I accept that technological
achievement (TL) is tied to economic capability.  What I don't accept
is that fluctuations in the economy (relatively minor in the overall scheme
of things) are reflected in *fluctuations* in technological achievement
(a relatively major event).  Again, why the need to propose this in the
absence of *any* evidence of a downward technological `fluctuation'?

> Except that they represent a stagnation of the economy that is quite
> incredible to me. It's the 'slow' I object to. One TL in umpteen centuries
> is not slow, it's moribund.

Okay, but who's feelings are competing with the factual record now?

> Right. I will give you those decades. I'll even make them centuries. So the
> question becomes: Regina was TL 9 in 275. Why did Regina gain only one TL in
> EIGHT centuries and two more in two decades?

I don't know but nothing about this slow rate of advancement calls out for
your mysterious techno-economic cycles.  I might suggest that this problem
arises from our own limited contemporary experience in which GDW has tied
technological achievement of several tech levels (TL ~5-8) to a chronological
period that only spans a single lifetime.

> Piper's Gram is merely a feudal monarchy set in a more technological
> advanced age than the medieval feudal monarchies of Terra.

Not true.  Gorram Shipyards was an industrial fief, not a land fief.  There
was also banking fief.  A feudal technocracy works similar to the feudal
aristocracy we are more familiar with.  The difference is that the medieval
feudal arstocracy was tied to land fiefs as you describe while a feudal
technocracy is tied to industrial and service fiefs that exist in `modern'
society.

> In a feudal society a vassal's ability to disregard the dictates of his
> liege lord is no greater. His whole right to his fief is tied up with his
> obligation to obey his liege lord's legitimate orders.

We all know these obligations were often ignored and `legitmacy' often
fell to the most charismatic or otherwise powerful liege lord.  This is
the whole basis of the Arturian legend.  Uther Pendragon lost his kingship
as his vassals rebelled or refused to support him.  Arthur regained that
kingship by uniting those vassals in the Fellowship of the Round Table.

> It only just struck me, but why are you assuming that there are any share-
> holders? I repeat: "By analogy a feudal technocracy is one where the King
> theoretically owns all the industry (the source of power analogous to land
> in a feudal society) and lends it out in exchange for support."

No.  A feudal technocracy is a system of government where the owners of
industrial production give their support in exchange for economic opportunity
or `protection'.  A medieval baron pledged his knights and a portion of
his economic wealth to his liege.  In return, the liege-holder (ulitmately a
king) agreed to use the combined strength of all of his barons to protect
each fiefdom from assault or other danger (like internal strife).  Similarly,
in a feudal technocracy like the *kieritsu*, the owners of industrial
production pledge their economic support (i.e. cooperation) to a central
authority which cooridinates the efforts of various industrial and service
sectors towards the perceived common good, namely profits.  This is a
voluntary arrangement where the individual corporate entities may or may not
choose to continue to cooperate.  Just as feudal barons might choose to
no longer support their liege and often did just that when they perceived
an advantage for themselves.

> Who owns the corporation in a corporate government? Who owns it in a feudal
> technocracy? What's the difference?

In a corporate government there are a single group of shareholders as
represented by the corporate board of directors.  This board acts in essence
as a single entity.  In a feudal technocracy there are several *different*
and independent groups of shareholders (i.e. the `barons') who each act
as *separate* and distinct entities.

> I think it would be useful to agree on the equivalences of various terms
> in the three systems we're talking about.

I don't think it's appropriate at all to discuss a corporate model
here.  A corporate government is a specialized form of an autocracy.  In
a corporate model there is, in theory at least, no imput at all from those
participating in the system.  You just do what the boss says or you're fired.
I'll focus my comments on the comparison of feudal aristocracy and feudal
technocracy and try to point out where the corporate model isn't relevant
as appropriate.

> Traditional feudal society	Corporation		Feudal technocracy
>
> King				     -			King

*ditto*                             *CEO*               *ditto*

> The king is the man who owns the fiefs and doles them out in return for
> support from his vassals.

This isn't correct.  In a feudal aristocracy the king does not `own' the
land.  Rather the king supplies `coordinated services' (i.e. joint military
protection) in return for `cooperation' from his vassals (i.e. local military
forces and tax revenue).

> In that respect he is the equivalent of the
> owner or the shareholders of a corporation. But an owner's power does not
> depend on the support of their CEOs, so there is no real correspondence.

No, the king is the equivalent of the Chairman of the Board of Directors.
The Chairman provides `coordinated activites', i.e. `running the company'
in return for the financial support of the shareholders, i.e. `cooperation'.
A true feudal technocracy is much more complicated than this because it
concerns *all* of the shareholders of *all* of the industrial and service
entities acting in the entire marketplace.  In this sense, if there is a
`king' he has gained monopoly control of the entire economic sytem.  This
is why US industry fears the Japanese *kieritsu* so much.  They are concerned
that their coordinated activity gives Japanese industry a competitive
advantage.

>  Fief				Corporation		Corporation

*ditto*              no equivalent autonomous unit      Block of Shares

> Vassal (Duke/Count/etc.)	CEO			Vassal

*ditto*                       not applicable            *ditto*

> The vassal manages the fief for the king.

No, the vassal agrees to put the resources of the fief at the disposal of
the king in exchange for centrally-coordinated joint services.

> Steward/Reeve/Guard Captain	Company Officer		Company Officer

*ditto*                       again not applicable      *ditto*

> Sub-fief			Subsidiary		Subsidiary

*ditto*                       again not applicable      *ditto*

> Feudal service			Dividend	Feudal service

*ditto*                       again not applicable      *cash* (in exchange
                                                        for `shares' of the
                                                        profits)

> In a feudal society a vassal pays his liege lord with service, not with
> money. Shareholders, on the other hand, recieve their pay in money.

No, the dividends received by shareholders in a feudal technocracy are
equivalent to the military protection received by fiefholders in a feudal
aristocracy.

>      -				Board of Directors	     -
>      -				Shareholders		     -
>
> These have no real equivalents in a feudal society.

No, *shareholders* are the equivalent of *fiefholders*.  Each block of
shareholders, represented by their boards of directors, is equivalent to
the fiefholders of a feudal aristocracy.  Each block of shares is a fief.

> >In a feudal technocracy the `king' owns the largest bloc of shares of
> >*everything* but he doesn't necessarily own everything.
>
> You didn't get this from Piper. Duke Angus owns his holdings outright. Baron
> Trask owns all of Traskon. Baron Karvall owns all of Karvall. When Lucas
> Trask pledges Traskon in return for a ship, Angus gets the whole bit, not
> just a share of it.

There's no conflict here!  Trask could have sold only a portion of Traskon.
He owned that entire block of shares of the total economic sector of Gram.
Remember, it was partially because of the greater economic power he gained
from the acquisition of Traskon that *Duke* Angus eventually became *King*
Angus.  Traskon Barony increased Angus's share of the total economic output
(GPP?) of Gram and thereby led to him becoming king by virtue of his control
of the largest portion of the entire economy.

> >If no one owns a
> >controlling bloc you get balkanization, like Joyeuse.
>
> If the Dukes can't agree on who to support for king you get balkanization.

Right.  And in a feudal technocracy, `dukes' are merely those who control
large blocks of industrial production - shareholders.

> Still sounds like corporate politics. I don't see where the feudal bit gets
> into it at all. The Chairman of a Corporation dosen't excersise _any_
> control over the pension funds, does he?

Yes, he provides coordinated control of the combined assets of shareholders
(like the pension funds) in an effort to produce profits and hence dividends
or increased stock value for the shareholders.  This is just like the feudal
aristocratic model where the king provides coordinated control of the
combined resources of fiefholders in an effort to produce security.

> The pension fund managers dosen't
> perform services for the Corporation Chairman, do they (They don't even
> pay him money).

*Au contraire*!  The pension funds and other shareholders provide *cash*
to the chairman just as aristocratic vassals provided military forces and
tax revenue to the king.

> Thus there is no true equivalence between the pension fund
> managers and a fiefholder in a feudal society.

It is *exactly* the same.

> I realize that I assume that the word 'feudal' in 'feudal technocracy' has a
> semantic content close to the normal definition of the word

So do I.

> >The key element here is that in a feudal technocracy the economic influence
> >of shareholders translates directly into politcal power.
>
> In a feudal technocracy industrial holdings IMO takes the place of land for
> the purposes of generating the wealth that translates into power.

We're saying the same thing.  If the technocratic baron chooses to place
his support in the hands of a different lord he transfers not only economic
power but political power as well.

> If he owns them he can dictate who gets to buy them.

He doesn't own them just as an aristocratic king didn't own his vassals'
fiefs.  If Uther Pendragon had `owned' the fief of Cornwall he could have
just `removed' the Duke and taken his wife Igrayne.  Instead he was forced
to lay seige to Cornwall when the Duke no longer chose to support him.

> Why? We are talking about the GDW Sword Worlds, aren't we? Why invite
> confusion?

Okay, okay.  It's King Anders then.

> Thereby forfeiting his right to the fief.

No, thereby forfeiting his right to protection from the aristocratic king
or profits from the technocratic king.

> >My point is that since, under my world view, Sacnoth is the strongest
> >economic power, Harald will one day triumph over Angus.
>
> 1) Being stronger is not an automatic ticket to victory.

It is in a feudal technocracy.  Again, it's why US industry fears the
Japanese.

> 2) He isn't that much stronger.

He is if he really enjoys a full tech level advantage.  (Of course, you
must give up your `cycles' to accept this point.)

>    King Anders could own huge blocks of Sacnoth industry, making
>    Harald a puppet of his.

Yes, he might except that the TL 12 vassals on Sacnoth might choose to
no longer support Anders (since their TL 12 industry ought to be better
able to compete *against* Anders's TL 11 holdings on Gram) and so they
would strive for their own competitive advantage and thus greater politcal
power.  Eventually, some Sacnoth vassal of Anders's would rise to a
position of dominance on Sacnoth as King Thorvald or whomever.

> If Anders owns all of Gram he will have to put people in charge of parts of
> it, which could result in various systems, including a feudal technocracy.

No, if Anders of placing people in control then they enjoy their control
*at his whim*.  This is not a feudal arrangement at all.  It is autocracy
*and* similar *then* to the corporate model.

> Again you assume that Harald and his ancestors would want to conquer Gram
> militarily. Again I suggest that they may not be ready to pay the price.

No, I'm just assuming that a little military action might make the economic
conquest of Gram a little simpler.  Think of Japan with a full tech level
advantage, a nuclear arsenal and the ability to project global military force.
There'd be no `voluntary' import restrictions on Japanese autos in the US in
that scenario!

Peace,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

David Johnson writes:
>Wait a minute!  This is the same `reasoning' UFO-nuts use to make claims
>about ET visitors.  It is the burden of any claimant to provide evidence
>of their claim.  Merely suggesting that your argument can't be disproved
>does not make your point!

It depends on exactly what is being claimed. You asked for an explanation of
how come Gram dominated Saxnoth when Saxnoth was more powerful than Gram. I
suggested that maybe Gram had been a higher tech level recently (and/or
Sacnoth lower) due to an econo-technological cycle effect. You _claimed_
that this wasn't possible. Since then I've been arguing that they are. Not
necessarily likely (although I think they are, but then, as I've stated
before, economics are mostly SF to me), but at least possible. Obviously, if
I could come up with just one example, I would prove my point outright. But
just because I can't dosen't mean it isn't possible. Now, if I were to claim
that the lack of evidence to the contrary _proved_ anything, then I would be
making a UFO-nutter type claim. But I'm only saying that the lack dosen't
disprove anything.

>>Except that they represent a stagnation of the economy that is quite
>>incredible to me. It's the 'slow' I object to. One TL in umpteen centuries
>>is not slow, it's moribund.
>
>Okay, but who's feelings are competing with the factual record now?

What factual record? We have _one_, count them, one, complete listing of
world UWPs for the Spinward Marches, the one first published in _Spinward
Marches Campaign_ and since reprinted (with the UWPs _unchanged_) in
_Imperial Encyclopedia_ and _Megatraveller Journal_ #3 (Before you decide
to dispute that, check the data. Despite the changes in alliegiance noted
in IE and MJ3 there are no changes in world population level or multiplier
(this based on a spot check of 40+ of the planets, including all the Vargr-
occupied ones in Aramis Subsector)). How can you establish any sort of
projection on that? So it _could_ be that the TLs have grown slowly and
steadily. Or they could have been rollercoasting up and down over the
centuries. We just can't tell from the record.

>>Right. I will give you those decades. I'll even make them centuries. So the
>>question becomes: Regina was TL 9 in 275. Why did Regina gain only one TL in
>>EIGHT centuries and two more in two decades?
>
>I don't know but nothing about this slow rate of advancement calls out for
>your mysterious techno-economic cycles.

The _discovery_ tech level of the Imperium have been one TL per three or
four centuries, hasen't it (I forget exactly; the discovery times of
Jump-4, -5, and -6 was mentioned somewhere once. I think it worked out
at one per three centuries)? But we're talking about _developement_ TLs.
I say again: A moderately important colony like Regina that advances it's
economy by 5% (or even 20% if you go by _Striker_ rules) in eight centuries
by slow, steady increments that never declines, is difficult to believe. I
can believe in economic up- and downturns that averaged out into 5% over the
centuries much more readily.

Hmmm. Perhaps I can restate my argument in a clearer way than I have done
before:

Assumtion: The only reason why an Imperial planet in 1105 is not TL 15 is
that it can't afford to be (I'm ignoring those few planets where there
are legal, moral, or philosophical objections to advanced technology).
(This is the crucial assumption.)

A planet with TL A therefor has an economic condition we will call
Economic Level A. Should the planet advance from EL A, its technological
level will advance too (To, say, TL B). If the planet at any future date
becomes poorer, its economic level would decline to EL A again. Its
technology should decline as a consequence, since the planet obviously
cannot afford to maintain the technology (if it could, it would have had
TL B in under EL A in the first place). Since economies do seem to have a
tendency to fluctuate (vide the world as we know it), it seems plausible
that it will do so in the Spinward Marches too.

>>Piper's Gram is merely a feudal monarchy set in a more technological
>>advanced age than the medieval feudal monarchies of Terra.
>
>Not true.  Gorram Shipyards was an industrial fief, not a land fief.  There
>was also banking fief.

It would be nice to have a few quotes. I skimmed _Space Viking_ last night
without findng any reference to either Gorram or Lothar Ffayle being barons,
but I did notice that while Traskon is a farming and ranching barony (hence
a land barony) Sesar Karvall is, indeed, baron of Karvallsmills, not of
Karvall. And there is a reference to the 'financial and industrial barons
of Wardshaven'. So, yes, Gram does have industrial fiefs.

>A feudal technocracy works similar to the feudal
>aristocracy we are more familiar with.

That's the assumption I'm working from.

>The difference is that the medieval feudal arstocracy was tied to land
>fiefs as you describe while a feudal technocracy is tied to industrial
>and service fiefs that exist in `modern' society.

I agree completely.

>We all know these obligations were often ignored and `legitmacy' often
>fell to the most charismatic or otherwise powerful liege lord.  This is
>the whole basis of the Arturian legend.  Uther Pendragon lost his kingship
>as his vassals rebelled or refused to support him.  Arthur regained that
>kingship by uniting those vassals in the Fellowship of the Round Table.

I don't really think that a retelling of the doings of 5th century tribal
chiefs is all that useful as a basis of comparison. Though I suppose that
they do reflect how Mallory thought things worked.

>No.  A feudal technocracy is a system of government where the owners of
>industrial production give their support in exchange for economic opportunity
>or `protection'.

Then its not analogous to a feudal society. Let's get a few definitions
straight:

From "Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary" (1974):

_feudal_: of the method of holding land (by giving services to the owner)
during the Middle Ages in Europe.

_fief_: land held from a feudal lord.

_vassal_: (in feudal times) person who held land in return for which he
wowed to give military service to the owner of the land.

And from "Funk&Wagnall's Standard Dictionary":

_feudalism_ The medieval European system of land tenure on condition of
military aid and other services.

_feudal system_: A politico-economic system [...] founded on the tenure
of feuds, or fiefs, given as compensation for military services rendered
by chiefs and by them sublet by allotments to their subordinates and vassals.

_feud[2]_: Land held of a superior on condition of rendering service; a fief.

>in a feudal technocracy like the *kieritsu*, the owners of industrial
>production pledge their economic support (i.e. cooperation) to a central
>authority which cooridinates the efforts of various industrial and service
>sectors towards the perceived common good, namely profits.  This is a
>voluntary arrangement where the individual corporate entities may or may not
>choose to continue to cooperate.  Just as feudal barons might choose to
>no longer support their liege and often did just that when they perceived
>an advantage for themselves.

The feudal baron held his lands on condition that he supported his liege
lord. Many broke their oaths on occasion, but that was in defiance of the
law. (The only valid excuse was winning).

>>Who owns the corporation in a corporate government? Who owns it in a feudal
>>technocracy? What's the difference?
>
>In a corporate government there are a single group of shareholders as
>represented by the corporate board of directors.  This board acts in essence
>as a single entity.

And these shareholders never represent different interest groups that wheel
and deal and compromise to get their respective representatives on the
board? The board is always composed of people who are in complete accord?
And all the shareholders are always in accord too?

>In a feudal technocracy there are several *different*
>and independent groups of shareholders (i.e. the `barons') who each act
>as *separate* and distinct entities.

Act in what way that is different from owners of different share blocks in
a corporation?

>I don't think it's appropriate at all to discuss a corporate model
>here.  A corporate government is a specialized form of an autocracy.

I didn't include the corporate model as an example of the equivalent of
a kingdom, but as the equivalent of a fief.

>In a corporate model there is, in theory at least, no imput at all from those
>participating in the system.  You just do what the boss says or you're fired.

And a vassal does what his liege lord says or he is 'fired'.

>>Traditional feudal society	Corporation		Feudal technocracy
>>
>>King				     -			King
>
>*ditto*                             *CEO*               *ditto*

If a corporate government, yes. Not if the corporation is a FT fief.

>>The king is the man who owns the fiefs and doles them out in return for
>>support from his vassals.
>
>This isn't correct.  In a feudal aristocracy the king does not `own' the
>land.

Yes and no. He owns a lot of it from the days where his father was the
biggest lord around. He became king when he conquered the other lords
around him (in which case he came to own their land) or when the other
independent lords decided to back him, in which case he did not own their
land... yet. But when he became strong enough, he made those formerly
independent lords do homage for their own lands, thereby actually laying
claim to it. Or he made war against a recalcitrant lord, acquired the land
by conquest, and made the former owner or somebody else do homage for it.
Check a history of medieval Europe for more detail.

>Rather the king supplies `coordinated services' (i.e. joint military
>protection) in return for `cooperation' from his vassals (i.e. local military
>forces and tax revenue).

Coordinated services may be the reason why the other lords decided to back
him. But what they owe him fealthy for is the tenure of their fiefs.

>No, the king is the equivalent of the Chairman of the Board of Directors.
>The Chairman provides `coordinated activites', i.e. `running the company'
>in return for the financial support of the shareholders, i.e. `cooperation'.

Look, the shareholders in a corporation is a conglomerate owner. In theory
they make up one person, the owner of the corporation. The Chairman works
for the owner. The vassals 'works' for the king. See the difference?

>A true feudal technocracy is much more complicated than this because it
>concerns *all* of the shareholders of *all* of the industrial and service
>entities acting in the entire marketplace.

A fief has _one_ owner. A baron can't sell off shares of his barony to make
the buyers part-barons of the fief (He may be able to sell bits of the fief,
but these bits then become parts of other fiefs). And if a company is the
equivalent of a fief then there won't be any shareholders, just one baron.
You're getting mixed up because so many of the companies we know of today
are incorporated. In fact, I realize that I've been using 'corporation' and
company interchangably. That was wrong. Please read 'company' whenever I've
used 'corporation' in connection with a feudal technocracy. There can be no
shareholders in a feudal fief, technocratic or not.

>In this sense, if there is a `king' he has gained monopoly control of the
>entire economic sytem.  This is why US industry fears the Japanese
>*kieritsu* so much.  They are concerned that their coordinated activity
>gives Japanese industry a competitive advantage.

It sound like the *kieritsu* is merely capitalism without anti-trust laws.

>>  Fief			Corporation		Corporation

This should read:

    Fief			Corporation		Company

>>The vassal manages the fief for the king.
>
>No, the vassal agrees to put the resources of the fief at the disposal of
>the king in exchange for centrally-coordinated joint services.

See definition.

>>Feudal service			Dividend	Feudal service
>
>*ditto*                       again not applicable      *cash* (in exchange
>                                                         for `shares' of the
>                                                         profits)

Nope. The central tenet of feudalism is *service* as a medium of repayment.

>>In a feudal society a vassal pays his liege lord with service, not with
>>money. Shareholders, on the other hand, recieve their pay in money.
>
>No, the dividends received by shareholders in a feudal technocracy are
>equivalent to the military protection received by fiefholders in a feudal
>aristocracy.

The feudal technocrcy equivalent of the military protection received by
fiefholders in a feudal aristocracy is military protection.

>No, *shareholders* are the equivalent of *fiefholders*.  Each block of
>shareholders, represented by their boards of directors, is equivalent to
>the fiefholders of a feudal aristocracy.  Each block of shares is a fief.

I suppose that a part holding in a BIG company could be a fief in itself.
But that would be owned by _one_ person, and that person would have the
title. And there's certainly no mention of any 'Baron of a Third of the
Megatronics Company' in _Space Viking_ ;-)

>>Duke Angus owns his holdings outright. Baron Trask owns all of Traskon.
>>Baron Karvall owns all of Karvall. When Lucas Trask pledges Traskon in
>>return for a ship, Angus gets the whole bit, not just a share of it.
>
>There's no conflict here!  Trask could have sold only a portion of Traskon.

That's just precisely what I claim he couldn't. He gives the barony in
its entirety to Duke Angus, and Angus appoints another Trask as 'Vicar-
Baron'. And just like that Lucas is no longer a baron.

>He owned that entire block of shares of the total economic sector of Gram.

He owned a barony. I'll sonceede that the fact that it was a land barony
is irrelevant, and that it could just as well have been a computer firm.
But if it had been, it would have been as indivisible as any land barony
(ie. he might be able to sell off peripheral parts, but the core must
remain relatively intact).

>Remember, it was partially because of the greater economic power he gained
>from the acquisition of Traskon that *Duke* Angus eventually became *King*
>Angus.  Traskon Barony increased Angus's share of the total economic output
>(GPP?) of Gram and thereby led to him becoming king by virtue of his control
>of the largest portion of the entire economy.

Have we read the same book? Angus increased wealth allowed him to buy more
fighting men which allowed him to attack Omfray and other enemies and to
gain the support of some of the other big dukes. And, as someone says on
page 124, "He's King as long as the great lords like Count Lionel and Joris
of Bigglersport and Alan of Northport want him to be" (Obviously Angus
hasn't reached the point where he can annex the big counties and dukedoms
for himself, but then, he's only a first-generation king).

>> If the Dukes can't agree on who to support for king you get balkanization.
>
>Right.  And in a feudal technocracy, `dukes' are merely those who control
>large blocks of industrial production - shareholders.

No, in a young FT it's the ones who has glommed onto a big slice of the
industry and dole it out to vassals. In a well-established FT it's the
ones whose ancestors did that and then supported an even bigger duke for
king.

>>The pension fund managers dosen't
>>perform services for the Corporation Chairman, do they (They don't even
>>pay him money).
>
>*Au contraire*!  The pension funds and other shareholders provide *cash*
>to the chairman just as aristocratic vassals provided military forces and
>tax revenue to the king.

Wait a minute. The Chairman keeps back part of his employees' salaries and
place them in a pension fund, right? That gives hin  lot of pull in electing
the board of the fund, agreed. But the money that accrues from the fund
belongs to the employees, don't it? How does the Chairman see a penny of it?

>>In a feudal technocracy industrial holdings IMO takes the place of land for
>>the purposes of generating the wealth that translates into power.
>
>We're saying the same thing. If the technocratic baron chooses to place
>his support in the hands of a different lord he transfers not only economic
>power but political power as well.

We're most certainly not saying the same thing. If a noble holds his land
from an overlord he cannot transfer his support without breaking his oath.
If he's an independent lord that is not a king we're still in the early
state of the formation of the kingdom.

>>If he owns them he can dictate who gets to buy them.
>
>He doesn't own them just as an aristocratic king didn't own his vassals'
>fiefs.

But a feudal king did own the fiefs, at the very least formally.

>If Uther Pendragon had `owned' the fief of Cornwall he could have
>just `removed' the Duke and taken his wife Igrayne.

Oh no he couldn't. The feudal contract was binding on the overlord too.
He had promised to protect his vassal's rights. Uther couldn't remove
the Duke without cause. (Also, of course, the whole episode takes place
long before the feudal system evolved).

>>Thereby forfeiting his right to the fief.
>
>No, thereby forfeiting his right to protection from the aristocratic king
>or profits from the technocratic king.

A fief is held in tenancy from the owner. Fail in your obligations and you
forfeit the fief.

>>>My point is that since, under my world view, Sacnoth is the strongest
>>>economic power, Harald will one day triumph over Angus.
>>
>>1) Being stronger is not an automatic ticket to victory.
>
>It is in a feudal technocracy.  Again, it's why US industry fears the
>Japanese.

You're talking about economic might regardless of the social system. But
a sovereign power is only vulnerable to outside economic influence if
they are vulnerable. By this I mean that if Gram has all the raw material
they need then they can impose trade restrictions that leaves Sacnoth's
greater economic strength whistling at the door. The reason US Industry
fears the japanese is that the US _is_ vulnerable. But why should Gram
be vulnerable just because the US is?

>>2) He isn't that much stronger.
>
>He is if he really enjoys a full tech level advantage.

Not according to the Traveller rules.

>(Of course, you must give up your `cycles' to accept this point.)

No, the cycles has nothing to do with that argument. They just provide one
explanation (out of several) of how Gram can have homebuilt TL 12 ships if
we decide that a military parity is necessary to explain anything.

>>   King Anders could own huge blocks of Sacnoth industry, making
>>   Harald a puppet of his.
>
>Yes, he might except that the TL 12 vassals on Sacnoth might choose to
>no longer support Anders.

If Anders _owns_ fiefs on Sacnoth then it's actually equivalent to the
England/Calais situation. So I don't think that's likely, since that
would make Sacnoth balkanized. Still, the Scouts might have misunderstood
the situation when they compiled their survey. But those vassals could
only get out of supporting Anders by breaking their oaths and turning to
Harald for protection. Then he would be their overlord. Nohow would they
become kings themselves.

>>If Anders owns all of Gram he will have to put people in charge of parts of
>>it, which could result in various systems, including a feudal technocracy.
>
>No, if Anders of placing people in control then they enjoy their control
>*at his whim*.

Subject to King Anders' oaths to his vassals. The feudal oath is a two-way
one.

>This is not a feudal arrangement at all. It is autocracy
>*and* similar *then* to the corporate model.

No. _If_ Anders could appoint and remove governors of his holdings at will
then he would be an autocrat. If he gives the holding in fief he cannot
revoke it except for cause. That _is_ the feudal system

>>Again you assume that Harald and his ancestors would want to conquer Gram
>>militarily. Again I suggest that they may not be ready to pay the price.
>
>No, I'm just assuming that a little military action might make the economic
>conquest of Gram a little simpler.  Think of Japan with a full tech level
>advantage, a nuclear arsenal and the ability to project global military force.
>There'd be no `voluntary' import restrictions on Japanese autos in the US in
>that scenario!

Now we're suddenly into the military situation. I thought you were talking
about economic superiority? I've always postulated that Gram had access to
TL 12 ships of its own. And I postulate that neither Harald nor Anders
wants to duel with submachineguns at 5 paces.

William White writes a whole heap of good stuff:
>     It may be helpful, at this point, to elaborate upon what a
>feudal technocracy is.  In a discussion of the concept of
>feudalism, a historian named Morris Bishop said that it is "one
>of those words that have taken on so many extended and figurative
>meanings that the original [one] has been obscured."

Sure. I've never said 'feudal technocracy' couldn't actually be non-feudal.
I've merely postulated that it was and argued from that assumption.

>     If we accept the definition of a "technocracy" to be "a
>government by an elite controlling some aspect of the application
>of the society's technology", then the worlds to which we assign
>UWP Gov Code 5 must meet two criteria.
>     First, the legal rights, responsibilities, and roles of individuals
>must be defined in terms of their socioeconomic status (thus, "feudal").

The essence of the definitions of feudalism I've seen is that you 'pay'
for tenancy with services instead of money.

>     Second, an elite class which controls some critical technology must
>make up a privileged, ruling class (ergo, "technocracy").

The rest of your arguments are all very nicely thought out. But I suggest
that the technocracy bit lies in the substitution of industry for land as
the feudal fief. Thus the fiefholder might render technological service
instead of or in addition to military service.

Otherwise your posting is most impressive.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     [email removed]
- ------------
        "A  subsector  official  pompously states that the
        subsector  armed  forces  have  four Kinunir class
        ships in service,  each with enough troop strength
        to put down any military operations that threathen
        the peace of the Imperium."

                        ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir