David Jhonson writes:
>Now on to the question of feudal technocracy.
This is where I'm tempted to become a tad acrimonious. I'll try to hold
it down, but it's a little hard to provide definitions of what I'm
talking about and then having them dismissed as "not relevant". If you
have any authorities on feudal Europe that informs you that the feudal
lords didn't really care about formalities, could you quote them for
me, please? If you can't, don't you think you just might consider the
possibility that the old feudal system actually worked in some way
at least remotely related to the teory?
Even if you are right, for which you presented absolutely no evidence, it's
also possible that if someone looked at a new type of government and called
it 'feudal' something, they might be having dictionary definitions in mind
too.
>>>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.
>
>Why not? What if I had said `*holders* of industrial production'?
Because a feudal society is one where the feudal lord gives out land fiefs
in return for allegiance and support. By analogy a feudal technocracy is
one where the lord gives out industrial fiefs in support for allegiance
and support. Gee, I could have sworn I said this before.
>>Let's get a few definitions
>>straight:
>
>What I get from your emphasis on these defintions is a focus on *land*.
That's great. That means you got half my argument. These definitions
focus on land because that's what the people in feudal Europe focused
on. The second half of my argument substitutes industrial holdings for
land in order to derive a definition of a feudal _technocracy_ and assumes
an analogous treatment of those holdings.
>Is that where our disagreement lies? I grant the `ownership of land' by
>the lord but don't see it as being very important despite what the venerable
>Oxford tome has to say.
That seems to be the problem in a nutshell. You don't see it. Why? What do
you know that I don't? From where do you derive your deep insight into how
feudal Europe REALLY worked? Tell me what books I've missed.
>The key part of the lord's end of the feudal
>agreement was the provision of coordinated security services, not some
>tenuous grant of land possession.
Is this something you just know? Who told you? Not the dictionary. Did
you read it in a book? Quotes, please.
>>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?
>
>Of course there is dissent among the various shareholders, just as there
>was often dissent among the vassals of a particular lord. I don't see
>your point here. What is there about this that suggests it isn't feudal?
I just don't see how the shareholders in your description of a feudal
technocracy acts any different from the shareholders in any other
system with corporations. The standard capitalist society, for example.
Where does the feudal come into it?
>>>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?
>
>The various shareholders in a *particular* corporation all hold `fealty'
>to the Chairman of *that* company.
How? Why? They elected him (well 51+% of them did). They can fire him any
time they want to. Legally. They employ him. Where's the fealthy in that?
>This is akin to a medieval situation in which a single individual had risen
>to the top of the feudal structure, a king.
The king's vassals have all sworn to support him. Did the shareholders
swear to support their Chairman? No. They offered him a good salary and
a pension plan. Not fealthy.
>Maybe the difference here is that you're looking at, say, Gram,
>as medieval Germany, while I'm at looking the entire Sword Worlds as all of
>medieval Europe?
At the moment I'm not looking at the Sword worlds at all. I'm looking at
the whole concept of feudal technocracy. Of which I have several times
said: "By analogy, a feudal technocracy is one where industrial holdings
takes the place of land". I then presented a definition of a feudal
society. Let's have your definitions. Not examples, since I'm apparently
to dim to understand them. Straight definitions.
>>And a vassal does what his liege lord says or he is 'fired'.
>
>In theory, yes. In practice, not very often, unless the system had travelled
>well down the road toward autocracy.
Take an early feudal society. See a knight who holds a manor from a baron.
See him give two fingers to his baron. See his baron take his (the baron's)
manor back from the knight and decorate the gate with the knight's head.
>>>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.
>
>Etc.
>
>Okay, I stand corrected. I maintain though that this `ownership' was not
>the important, *practical* aspect of the lord's part of the feudal
>agreement. Rather, it was his provision of coordinated military services
>that was what *mattered* in the feudal arrangement.
Why do you maintain that? What facts do you base this on? How come you
know more than the dictionary (Not just a snide question. Dictionaries
have been known to be wrong. But I do feel that the burden of proof is
on you in this case. Why do you think feudal society differed so
radically in theory and practice? Let's have some reasons).
>>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.
>
>Okay, I stand corrected again, You're talking about the *philosophy* of
>feudalism (the legal basis) and I'm talking about the *practice* of it (its
>practical implementation).
Oh, are you? That means that you can quote me reams of examples of how
things really worked in practice, while I won't be able to find very
many examples of thing working according to the mere theory, right?
Would you care to begin?
>I think my focus is more useful in trying to
>understand the translation of the medeival feudal aristocracy to the
>feudal technocracy of Traveller.
I will tentatively agree that this seems reasonable. Ignoring for the
moment the possibility that 'feudal technocracy' is defined in terms
of the theory of feudal society instead of the practice. So let's hear
about this practice.
>>Look, the shareholders in a corporation is a conglomerate owner.
>
>No. The shareholders are a morass of different interests just like the
>various vassals of a medieval lord.
The shareholders of a corporation makes the same decisions a sole owner
of a company makes. The only difference between a corporation and a
non-corporation is that the first has shareholders where the second
has an owner. I repeat: the shareholders in a corporation is a
conglomerate owner.
>>In theory they make up one person, the owner of the corporation.
>
>Again, I don't think talking about theory is particularly useful.
I suggest you make up your mind on that on a case by case basis. Certainly
any great difference between theory and practice makes relying on the
theory problematical. But what is the great, yawning chasm between theory
and practice in this instance? Why are shareholders not like an owner?
(And why is a raven like a writing desk? ;-)
>>The Chairman works
>>for the owner. The vassals 'works' for the king. See the difference?
>In practice there is *no* difference. In *practice* the medieval king
>`works' for the vassals in provinding coordinated security services
This is where I say "No he dosen't!", right?
>just as the technocratic king works for the shareholders in providing
>coordinated profit services.
And just how does the technocratic king (your version) differ from the
Chairman of a corporation? If there isn't any difference then why have
two seperate names for the same system?
>The medieval vassals provided military
>service *and* taxes and the technocratic vassal provides financial
>capital. The two situations are *very* analogous, IMHO.
The medieval vassals provided various kind of service in return for
holding the land. The people you describe acquire their holdings
and band together for mutual benefit. The first is a feudal system.
The second is just a gang.
>>A fief has _one_ owner.
>
>Just as any single bloc of shares has *one* owner.
Sigh. OK, let's try to get past the redundancy into something constructive.
This bloc of shares you're talking about. Does it have any sort of
coherence? Is it all shares in one single corporation, or is it simply
a portfolio? Is it possible to put a lable on the bloc and call it
something other than 'Martin Vesterlund's current stock portfolio'? Can
it be called 'The barony of Thorvallsmines' and is there a specific baronial
title associated with it? Can the title be transferred to someone else by
sale or inheritance? Can the bloc be sold off in small bits, and if it does,
what happens to the title?
>>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).
>
>Exactly. Just as purchasers of shares gain title to their own new fief!
Who decides on the new title? And if a 'fief' is just a stock portfolio,
what's the difference between this system and any capitalist society?
>>And if a company is the
>>equivalent of a fief then there won't be any shareholders, just one baron.
>
>No. A private company, without public shareholders (there may *still* be
>several *private* shareholders), is akin to a `barony' on an island in
>the middle of an ocean somewhere.
Like the Isle of Man?
>It's not part of a feudal system either.
Why not?
So the baronies you're talking about has nothing to do with the examples
we see in _Space Viking_? (All the fiefs we hear named are owned by one
single person apiece - what you claim to be isolated baronies that are
not part of the feudal structure (this might surprise Duke Angus to learn)).
>>There can be no
>>shareholders in a feudal fief, technocratic or not.
>
>The group of shares held in common by any single shareholder (this may be
>a group of individuals but with respect to their stock they are acting in
>concert) *is* a fief!
You DO mean a stock portfolio! How do you figure out the baronial titles?
>>It sound like the *kieritsu* is merely capitalism without anti-trust laws.
>
>I think that is a *great* definition of feudal technocracy! See, because
>it considers the entire economy (i.e., `capitalism') it is much more
>complicated than any single corporate system. (BTW, the reason there
>*aren't* any anti-trust laws in a feudal technocracy is because political
>power is tied directly to economic power - there is no `government' to
>control the economic barons. In a sense, the civil war on Joyeuse can
>be seen as an `anti-trust' action!)
OK. I arrive on Gram with a draft for a billion credits in my back pocket.
For that I buy 10% of Megatronics, 30% of Dynaline, 51% of Gombril Spaceyards
and 1% of a half dozen more (Assume for purposes of argument that I can find
people willing to sell). Now. What's my title? Who is my liege lord? Who are
my vassals? What's my rights and what's my obligations?
>>Nope. The central tenet of feudalism is *service* as a medium of repayment.
>
>Again, you're arguing feudal *theory* and I'm arguing feudal *practice*.
Again you dismiss evidence without any further argument.
>Medieval vassals paid taxes to their lords.
Some medieval vassals paid part of their service in money. All of them
paid some or all of it in service.
>>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_ ;-)
>
>It seems to me you're still focused on a single company.
I am. The company is IMO the FT equivalent of the feudal land holding.
Like Karvalmills is one holding. Traskon is one. Etc.
>A feudal technocracy has to involve the *entire* economy.
It does. Each company is a fief, owned by a nobleman. All the fiefs
together constitutes the entire economy.
>To use the *Space Viking* model, there were probably `veterinary service'
>fiefs under Traskon and `geological service' fiefs under Karvalmills,
Propably? What makes you say that? Where does it even imply that anywhere
in the book?
>just as Traskon and
>Karvallmills were held in fealty to Duke Angus. Remember that Trask
>and Karvall were Angus's *vassals* but Trask later *sold* Traskon to
>Angus. Ownership was not the legal basis for homage in Piper's Sword
>Worlds.
It wasn't the sole basis, granted. But neither was it in early feudal
Europe. In an early feudal system each lord is independent. But they
are lords because they have vassals. They band together for mutual
protection, promising to support the king. Eventually they king assumes
ownership of their land.
>Profit generation was.
Elucidate, please.
>>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.
>
>Trask sold the entire barony because he needed it for the ship, *not* because
>he couldn't sell it in parts!
What do you base that on? I base my argument on the analogy between a
medieval barony and what I believe to be the feudal technocratic
equivalent of such a barony. The fact is that Trask did sell the
whole thing. And that it was called "The Barony of Traskon", not "Lucas
Trask's holdings".
>>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).
>
>Why?
Because it didn't happen in feudal Europe and I assume that a feudal
technocracy works analogously to a feudal society.
>This happens all the time, now.
We're not living in a feudal society, now.
>Through a series of mergers and acquisitions International Telephone and
>Telegraph (IT&T) no longer has any telecommunications businesses as it's
>`core'.
True. And if a society you imagine to be a feudal one allows such things
to happen then perhaps it isn't one, after all.
>>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.
>
>Okay, so he did just like I've suggested Sacnoth ought to do with Gram.
>He used his greater economic strength to acquire military force that
>permitted him to quicken the process of economic hegemony and eventual
>monopoly.
No. He gained enough strength to deal with an arch enemy. The operative
word is 'enough'. It's not enough for Sacnoth to gain an advantage over
Gram, it must be a decisive advantage. And Harald must be willing to
pay the price of using it.
>He convinced other Gram nobles to support him just like I
>suggested Sacnoth might find supporters among the other Sword Worlds for
>a move against Gram. Are you arguing my case now? :-)
No, I'm arguing that since Sacnoth hasn't moved against Gram just maybe
Harald hasn't been able to find supporters among the other Sword Worlds.
And/or perhaps he dosn't dislike Anders as much as Angus hated Omfray.
>It's pension funds for, say, teachers. The teachers' union has a pension
>fund for its members. These funds can run to billions of dollars. The
>manager of this pension fund, hired by the teachers' union, is responsible
>for gaining the best return for the fund. [...] The pension fund manager
>chooses to buy shares in, say, IBM. The teachers' union becomes a
>shareholder of IBM, a `technocratic vassal'.
Bingo! There's the fallacy. The teacher's union dosen't become a vassal,
it becomes a part owner.
>If the fund has purchased a large enough share of IBM it enjoys a great
>deal of influence on the IBM board.
Of course they do. you'd expect an owner, even just a part owner, to have
some say in how his property is run, wouldn't you?
>If IBM isn't profitable it's shares lose value and the pension fund loses
>money. This makes the teachers mad and the next thing you know, CEO Akers
>(the technocratic lord) is out and CEO Gerstner in now running IBM.
In a capitalist society CEO Akers isn't a lord, he is an employee of the
teacher's union pension fund and the other part owners. In a feudal
technocracy he would be a vassal (He wouldn't be a vassal of any pension
fund, though. In fact, he'd propably be a duke and may or may not be
independent. And IBM wouldn't be a corporation, but a company/fief).
>It's actually much more complicated because the teachers' union pension fund
>is invested in General Motors and Exxon and Mitsubishi Industries, etc. as
>well. And then you have the railroad union, and the government employees
>union, and Ross Perot, all the other investing shareholders in the market
>place, including the corporations themselves which all own shares in each
>other. It's as complicated as medieval Germany.
What's so complicated about medieval Germany?
>>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.
>
>Again, you're focused on theory and legal underpinnings.
I certainly am. So did a lot of feudal lords. Look at the whole business
of the civil war between Stephen of Blois and the Empress Maud. Some
lords, like Geoffery de Manderville, played fast and loose with their oaths
and their allegiance, but lot's of noblemen actually acted on the 'theory'.
>Do you suppose Duke Angus was acting within `legal' bounds when he invaded
>Glaspyth?
He propably was. Angus and Omfray were both sovereign lords.
>The teachers' union has no legal `right' to replace the CEO but it happens
>when they're displeased nonetheless.
They don't? I thought they owned a big slice of IBM? Why don't they have
any right to do so? And if they don't, how did they manage it, and why
isn't this Akers person suing the pants off them?
>>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.
>
>No. In a feudal *technocracy*, economic power is tied directly to political
>power.
You keep saying that, but how does it work? Start with the basic building
blocks, show me how they hang together and why it works fundamentally
differently from a garden variety capitalist society.
>>The reason US Industry fears the japanese is that the US _is_ vulnerable.
>>But why should Gram be vulnerable just because the US is?
>
>Because the Sword Worlds do not have the political stucutures outside of
>the economic stucture that contemporary free-market governments do.
Why not? You have a world. The world is a feudal technocracy. They produce
a king. The king sez: "No sale of industry to outsiders. Dixit". They just
happen to have a balanced economy. How are they vulnerable? And don't say
that I don't know that Gram is like that. I know I don't (I can't have both
economic fluctuations and a balanced economy). What I want to know is, why
couldn't it possibly be? Why MUST Gram be vulnerable?
>>Now we're suddenly into the military situation. I thought you were talking
>>about economic superiority?
>
>I was simply pointing out, as Duke Angus of Wardshaven recognized, that
>military action would speed up the process of economic domination. It
> makes domination happen quicker but it will happen regardless.
It worked for Angus in one particular combination of strength and allies.
Dosn't mean it would work for Sacnoth in another situation. (Actually, it d
idn't work for Angus, btw. He blew it in the end. But it could have if he
hadn't been crazy).
>>The essence of the definitions of feudalism I've seen is that you 'pay'
>>for tenancy with services instead of money.
>
>Try to get away from theoretical definitions an instead think about how
>it is implemented in *practice*.
Try to consider the possibility that the definitions are as they are
because that's the way things worked at times.
>>But I suggest
>>that the technocracy bit lies in the substitution of industry for land as
>>the feudal fief.
>
>No. It's based upon *possession*, of a land fief or a stock fief. It is
>manifest in the nature of the *obligations* (coordinated services on the
>part of the lord, local services and resources on the part of the vassal)
>arising from the feudal agreement.
So why use the word 'feudal' if the arrangement isn't feudal?
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