David Johnson writes:
>I didn't mean to dismiss your points about medieval feudalism. Clearly, you
>>have a much better understanding of medieval feudalism than I do.
Hey! You'll be making me blush next. I'm no expert. I have read quite a lot
of historical fiction, including some set in this time frame, but I know
full well that one should be wary of relying on such information. Some
fiction authors know what they're talking about, others definitely do not.
That's why I checked with a dictionary.
>I suggest though that your very familiarity with medieval feudalism
>is hindering your ability to see a feudal technocracy as something different.
Not quite. It's the basis of MY assumptions about feudal technocracy. I
realize that if a feudal technocracy is not feudal, then it may work very
differently. What is hindering my ability to see it working differently
is my faiure to see any fundamental difference between what you describe
and ordinary capitalism.
>How is "giving out industrial fiefs in [exchange] for allegiance and
>support" different from "selling shares of an enterprise in exchange for
>financial capital"? In my view, they are the same thing.
In the first case the vassal does not pay money to acquire the fief, he
undertakes to perform the technical duties involved in running it. In
other words, he agrees to perform a service in exchange for the holding.
In the second case he possesses goods equivalent in value to the holding
and pays for it. In the first case he is obviously beholden to the lord,
since he has been given something for nothing (or rather, nothing more than
his solemn word that he will perform certain services as compensation. That
is of course quite a lot in any society where a man's word is considered
important). In a sense he is paying rent on is holding, except that he pays
his rent party or totally in service - and that is a central facet of a
feudal arrangment: service as payment for tenancy. In the second case he is
under no obigation to the seller. Goods of (supposedly) equal value has been
exchanged.
>>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.
>
>Here's one problem in communication. We do not share the same definition of
>an "industrial holding". I believe to you this means a single corporate
>entity, a company.
Right.
>To me, it is a block of stock - a share - in an industrial enterprise.
So I gather. Now the question becomes, does it make sense?
>I believe my definition is more accurate
Of course you do. Otherwise you would be agreeing with me.
>Alas, I'm not discussing how medieval feudalism worked. I'm trying to
>show how some of the *practices* of medieval feudalism would be manifest
>in a futuristic *technocracy*. This is another source of our communication
>problem.
For a start I'd ike a definition of a technocracy. Not a FT, but any system
that can be described as a technocracy. What are the essential features of a
technocracy?
>In `theory' one might say that a corporation `owns' its shares and merely
>`grants possession' of them to it shareholders in return for `services
>rendered' in the form of financial capital.
That would be an extremely distorted view of a very simple arrangement: A
number of people pool their ressources to become joint owners of a business.
>In a capitalist market economy an external governmental entity exists to
>provide the legal framework for interactions between actors in the market.
That turns out not to be the case. The whole world economy, for example, is
based on negotiations between sovereign nations. Sovereign nations have no
external governmental entity to provide any legal framework. Yet would you
claim that the interactions between the U.S, EU, Japan, Russia, China, ect.
is not capitalist in nature?
>(This lack of a stable source of legal authority is the major barrier to
>market reforms in Russia today.)
The disappearance of the USSR removed the established framework between the
member republics. The USSR were an exampe of a government providing a
framework. Now the republics are negotiating as equals to replace the
framework. Once they work out various treaties to govern their interaction
we will have an example of a framework provided without a government. The
internal relations of the EU is a hybrid. GATT is a negotiated framework.
>In a feudal technocracy, feudal
>principles provide the legal framework for interractions in the marketplace.
But the principles you've mentioned is not feudal.
>>>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?
>
>The various shareholders can only act through cooperation.
As is the case in any corporation.
>An individual shareholder cannot fire the Chairman [...] on their own (unless
>they hold a controlling share which is uncommon).
As is the case in any corporation.
>Thus they can only remove the technocractic lord if a majority of the
>shareholders (vassals) agree that she had failed in her duties as
>prescribed by the `feudal' arrangement.
Which seems to be a normal, standard business relationship. We buy a part
of the company. A majority of us decides how it should be run and hire
someone to do it for us. If he dosen't perform as we like, we fire him
and hire someone else.
>(These are primarily related to the generation of profits for the firm.)
As is the case in any corporation.
>Keep in mind that this is not equivalent to contemporary market systems
>which have an external governmental entity to define *all* aspects of the
>system from embezzlement to anti-trust action.
Of course one can have market systems without government supervision. Well,
you may need a government to make sure noone shoots at you while you're
manufacturing or trading, but what more do you need?
>>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.
>
>No, they provide the technocratic lord with financial capital. This is
>the equivalent to `fealty' in a technocracy.
Why call it 'fealthy' then, since it isn't remotely like fealthy?
>(The enterprise provides the Chairman's salary and pension.
Of course it does. His salary (and pension) is an operating expense.
Naturally the enterprise has to generate enough money to cover that.
Wether the salary is fixed or depends on profits has no bearing on
that (It has a lot of bearing on the Chairman's incentive to strive
for the best possible results).
>A few years back Lee Iacocca was paid *one* dollar one year. Clearly, there
>is a different principle at work here than the mere employee-employer
>relationship of the corporate model.)
No. This merely means that his salary depends on the results he gets.
>>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.
>
>Not if the if the rest of the baron's knights had the same beef.
But the other knights dosen't have a beef. We were talking about how an
employee has to obey orders or get fired. So does a knight. Unless he can
talk the other knights into joining him. Just as an employee who gets his
fellow empoyees to support him might get away with a strike.
>>I repeat: the shareholders in a corporation is a conglomerate owner.
>It's not the same.
Not quite.
>It's *very* different.
Not very.
>A single owner needs no system of rules to govern how she makes her
>decisions. A group of shareholders *does*.
They need one rule: Decisions are taken by a share majority. The only
difference between shareholders and a single owner is that the single
owner can run his company himself OR hire someone to do it, while
shareholders HAS to hire someone (although that someone can be one
of the shareholders, maybe even a majority shareholder, in which case
the difference is even less).
>In a feudal technocracy it is my view that feudal principles will
>serve as this system.
Principles, you say? As in theory? OK. What feudal principles?
>Shareholders are not like a single owner because they require a set of
>principles to govern their coordinated (there's that word again) actions.
They _require_ ONE pinciple: Majority rules. They can have more.
>It is specifically the portions of the medieval feudal definition that
>relate to the ownership of *land* that are *least* useful when trying to
>understand how feudal principles might be applied to a futuristic
>technocracy.
That's unfortunate, because that is the basis of the whole feudal system.
And that, of course, is why a system where you can become a vassal by
running a business instead of a land holding cannot be called a straight
feudality, but must be qualified to include industrial holdings.
>>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?
>
>Well, I don't really see the differences in names or titles as relevant.
No, I meant a feudal technocracy and any other capitalist system. If
there isn't any real difference why have two seperate names for the
same systems?
>I see the Chairman as serving in the role of technocratic *baron*
Agreed.
>(if there was one single Chairman in the entire economy then she would be
>`king').
Only if she partitioned out the various industries to fiefholders in
return for their services. Otherwise it would be an autocracy.
>>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.
>
>I disagree. Medieval feudal vassals "banded together for mutual benefit"
>under an aristocratic lord who provided coordinated security services.
No, no, no. The cornerstone of the feudal arrangement were the manorial
holdings a big landholder gave to strong men in return for their promise
to support him. That made them vassals and him a feudal lord - a
sovereign feudal lord. It was these lords who banded together under princes
or kings for mutual benefit. Eventually the difference between the king's
own direct vassals, who had sworn fealthy to him in return for land, and
the other feudal lords who had sworn fealthy to him in return for protection,
became blurred and in the end those sovereign lords were not sovereign any
more.
>It is a *portfolio* rather than `simply' shares in a single corporation. A
>group of shares in a single corporate entity makes the shareholder the
>`vassal' of the `baron' of that particular corporation.
I can well understand that you put 'vassal' and 'baron' in quotes, because
this has nothing to do with vassalage og baronies. It's simpy a fancy way
of saying that if you buy some shares in a corporation you and your fellow
shareholders get to elect the man who runs the business and in return he
should make sure the shares pay dividends, because if not you will fire him.
>Certainly. Why wouldn't this be the case? The `title' (which is actually
>the definition of the prescribed responsibilities associated with that
>share of stock) transfers with ownership by sale or inheritance or whatever.
So a 'title' isn't a title either.
>The title is defined by the feudal responsibilities associated with that
>block of shares. Contemporary market systems attach no such relationship
>to shareholding because all such responsibilities are provided through the
>external government entity.
If you mean that a government will enforce obligations freely entered into
by subjects of that government, then you're right, but what's that got to
do with it? The 'responsibiities' inherent in paying money for shares in
a company is usually defined by the parties involved without recourse to
the government. "I pay you for part of that company. I get a say in who
we hire to run it. I get a share of the profits. Agreed?". The government
need only ensure that people keep their word (athough admittedely most
governments don't have the good sense to stop there).
>Remember this is not just legal things like
>right to ownership and such but basic principles of the entire economic
>system like currency supplies, interest rates, rates of exchange, etc.
You'll have to explain that. How does owning shares in a company allow me
to have a say about currencies, interest rates, and rates of exchange, etc?
>A privately-held corporation is in essence `outside' the rest of the
>economic system if you focus merely on *ownership* as too much of the
>medieval model might lead you to do.
But I don't focus *merely* on ownership. A medieval fief-holder certainly
interacted with other people than his liege lord. Like all the neighbours
for a start. Likewise a private company interacts with other companies as
much as any corporation. In fact, if you were the chairman of a company
dealing with the chairman of another company then it would matter not a whit
wether you had been hired by a single owner or a bunch of shareholders. Nor
would it matter if he had been hired by one or the other.
>I think the system I'm describing fits *Space Viking* pretty darn well.
I think it fits terribly. Obviously this is a different subject.
>>(All the fiefs we hear named are owned by one single person apiece -
>
>We don't know this. *All* we know is that *Trask* owned *Traskon*.
You don't think Sesar Karvall owned Karvallmills? Andray Dunnan did. So did
whoever it was who called him 'Baron of Karvallmills'.
>>what you claim to be isolated baronies that are
>>not part of the feudal structure (this might surprise Duke Angus to learn)).
>
>A wholly-owned holding still may still be part of the feudal system if the
>feudal arrangements cover things in addition to mere ownership.
A feudal arrangement is not about mere ownership. It's about tenancy in
exchange for service.
>The feudal arrangement for Traskon Barony may have descibed things like the
>price Wardshaven would pay for Traskon beef, the nature of such transfers,
>where Traskon acquired feed for its bisonoids, how veterinary services
>were received, hiring and pay issues for ranch hands, etc., etc., etc.
There's not a shred of evidence to support that. The only thing we are
told for sure is that the fighting men of Traskon and Karvallmills
henceforth will be seen as solidly behind Duke Angus. Very possibly
Trask and Karvall have been independent (though themselves feudal lords
to _their_ liegemen) until the wedding and the ceremony we see is the
public declaration of fealthy to Angus.
>>I am. The company is IMO the FT equivalent of the feudal land holding.
>>Like Karvalmills is one holding. Traskon is one. Etc.
>
>Now you see how I'm using "industrial holding" differently.
Yes. What I can't see is how your 'industrial holding' differs from an
ordinary stock portfolio. And if there isn't any diference then why
have a special name for the system?
>>It does. Each company is a fief, owned by a nobleman. All the fiefs
>>together constitutes the entire economy.
>
>*Technocractically-speaking*, what's the rationale for insisting that all
>companies must be held in full?
That the service a vassal gives in return for an industrial holding is to
manage the holding for the liege lord. Since the holding is a business of
some kind the vassal has to be competent to run the business.
>>>Ownership was not the legal basis for homage in Piper's Sword
>>>Worlds. Profit generation was.
>>
>>Elucidate, please.
>
>What `service' did Duke Angus provide to Trask and Karvall and his other
>vassals that was equivalent to the medieval duke riding forth with his
>knight to protect an embattled baron? (I suppose you'll say the same
>military service. Ug!)
Right. 'The fighting men of Traskon and Karvallmills', remember? And Lucas
explained that the reason he supported Angus was that Angus was the only
duke Lucas thought had a chance to unite Gram and become a king, and Lucas
thought a king was a good idea. And how did Angus unite Gram? He used his
fighting men to conquer the lords he couldn't persuade to support him.
>What the Duchy of Wardshaven did, IMHO, was coordinate economic activites
>(there's the feudal part) so that the economic baronies of his vassals were
>able to function.
What's the difference between this and what the head of a conglomorate
does that makes it feudal in any way, shape, or form?
>The Bank of Wardshaven provided a source of investment capital for
>Karvallmills to purchase milling equipment, some other vassal provided
>civil engineering services so that Traskon had reliable water supplies,
>Karvallmills provided collapsium for the vehicle manufacturing barony
>to build earthmovers for the civil engineering barony, etc., etc., etc.
That may be so, but there's not one jot of evidence in the book that this
was the basis of the feudal relationship between Trask and Karvall on one
side and Duke Angus on the other, and some evidence to the contrary. And
btw, to fit your above definition, shouldn't Trask and Karvall own a share
of Wardshaven in order to be Angus' vassals?
>I don't see much technocracy in your model. If political power is based
>merely on industrial (as opposed to land) holdings where does the
>"government by those with specialized knowledge" part of technocracy
>come in?
You need to be able to perform whatever technical task your holding demands
in order to perform the service you pay for your tenancy.
>Your model of feudal technocracy looks merely like futuristic feudalism to
>me.
Right. But since the whole definition of feudalism has to do with land, a
system where industrial holdings can substitute cannot be called true
feudalism.
>>Bingo! There's the fallacy. The teacher's union dosen't become a vassal,
>>it becomes a part owner.
>
>You say, "Tomato." Dan Qualye says, "Tomatoe." :-) It's the same thing.
>In a feudal *technocractic* model a `part owner' *is* a vassal.
In spite of the fact that the relationship between a part owner and the
chairman he helped elect is nothing remotely like the relationship
between a vassal and his liege lord. That's not "Tomato/tomatoe". That's
"Tomato/fried egg".
>>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.
>
>Well, yes, but I wasn't talking about a market economy. I was using this
>example to illustrate how a feudal technocracy works.
And I was using the example to demonstrate that your concept of a liege
lord was nothing more than an ordinary business chairman. Nothing like
a liege lord at all.
>>In a feudal technocracy he would be a vassal
>
>What can I say? We have exactly opposite understandings here. Again, you're
>focused on the ownership of land, or now shares of stock.
Not shares. Companies.
>Where does the technocracy fit in your model? Or does the mere fact that
there's `something technical' about IBM or any industrial firm satisfy you
in this regard?
If it hadn't been for that four-line definition provided by GDW then that
would have been enough. To satisfy that I add that these holdings require
the vassal to run them himself.
>IMHO, `technocracy' describes the basis for the ruling class's exercise
>of authority and `feudal' describes the nature of the relationships between
>the members of this ruling class.
All very well. I admit that I may be on thin ice with the 'technocracy'
part (Maybe a definition of 'technocracy' would help). But you are under
the ice about the feudal relationship. Nothing you've described resembles
a feudal arrangement.
>>>Do you suppose Duke Angus was acting within `legal' bounds when he invaded
>>>Glaspyth?
>>
>>He propably was. Angus and Omfray were both sovereign lords.
>
>And what was the basis of this `legal' authority? How was it defined?
>Under what jurisdiction could such a dispute be brought for adjudication?
That's the whole problem with sovereignity. There is no authority over the
sovereign. That's one reason petty lords support a king: to provide a
legal authority to settle their disputes.
>A minority shareholder has no legal influence in a corporation (other than
>that pertaining specifically to the ownership of its shares).
Like the right to replace the chairman if he can get enough other share-
holders to agree.
>A large minority shareholder nevertheless has a great deal of *influence*
>among other shareholders and can sway these other shareholders to action
>against the Chairman of it can convince them that the Chairman, by not
>adequately providing coordinated profit services, has violated his `feudal'
>duties.
Or, as it could also be expressed, that by not doing his job properly the
Chairman had become a liability and should be replaced by his employers.
>It *is* legal for a majority of shareholders to `fire' the Chairman.
That's what I thought.
>Your question about `suing' illustrates the difference between our market
>economy and a feudal technocracy once again - there is no external entity
>under which to seek such redress in a feudal technocracy.
Why can't there be?
>Are you beginning to see the difference? In a market economy a government
>entity external to the marketplace provides the framework of principles
>which govern the nature of interactions in the marketplace.
Except in those market economies where no government exists. A government
is not an absolute requirement for a market (although it can be a big
help in keeping people from shooting each other), nor does it _have_ to
interfere with the market whose tranquiity it ensures (Unfortunately,
human nature being what it is, few politicians can resist the temptation
to meddle).
>In a feudal
>technocracy these principles will be provided by the feudal agreements.
And in what way does these agreements differ from contracts?
>>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?
>
>Could a medieval king do this if a majority of his barons did not support
>this move?
That would depend on wether they disliked the idea more than the idea of
the disruption it would cause to depose the king. Or wether the king
could make it worth the while of enough of them to agree.
>It's my view that in a feudal technocracy a majority of barons would not
>support a king who proposed this course of action because it is counter to
>the enhancement of profit.
Unless, maybe, the king can persuade you that dealing with an outsider
is detrimental to your home planet and a treasonous, dastardly thing to do.
>If someone shows up from offworld
>with a wad of cash willing to pay twice what you think your ranching barony
>is worth and your liege tells you you can't do it you're going to be mighty
>displeased.
Possibly, but will your neighbours be? Unless the offworlder can buy their
holdings too, why would they care? Don't you think they would support the
king against you? For that matter, would you sell that which gives you
your position in society for mere money?
>Now let's talk about economic might. [...] Does that give you some insight
>on what Sacnoth *ought* to be able to do to Gram under a feudal technocracy
>where there are *no* external government entities to protect less powerful
>economic players?
It does, except that I don't accept the postulate that a feudal technocracy
can't have a government. Certainly not my concept of a FT and not even the
kind of FT you've described. Even granted the conglomorate type society
you call a feudal technocracy there's nothing to prevent the players on
Gram from realizing that allowing the stronger Sacnoth players to play
wil eventually mean loosing all the marbles to them. Now, if Gram needs
something that only Sacnoth can provide, Sacnoth can use that dependency
to force Gram to let them play. But if that vulnerability isn't there,
Sacnoth can go fly a kite made out of their stronger credit notes. Or
if Sacnoth is considerably stronger than Gram, militarily, they can force
their way in, provided they are willing to use force. But if they aren't
that much stronger, or if they aren't willing to use their strength, that
still leaves them out in the cold.
>Remember, we have already tied technological
>capability to economic output so *clearly* Sacnoth's technological edge over
>Gram should translate to an equivalent economic edge.
Sure. In _TCS_ terms their money is worth the same (higher technology, but
lower starport type, (indicating less trade relatively)). In _Striker_
terms their money is worth 14.3 % more. But 14% or even 50% superiority
is cold comfort if you're exchanging nuclear missiles.
>Two things: Feudalism was much more than the ties to ownership of land;
>and a feudal technocracy is something quite different from medieval fedualism.
Something different, obviouly. But as I mentioned earlier, I assumed from the
start that 'feudal' had some meaning analogous its old one.
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