All: Sword Worlds and Technology

Gentlesophonts:

First, please excuse me if I'm being redundant.  I'm having some mail
problems and have yet to see TML msgs 7773-7789 from Thursday night.

Hans Rancke [email removed] writes:

> But according to the only _Traveller_ rules we have on the subject (_TCS_)
> technology _dosn't_ make that much difference.

Uncle!  I don't have *TCS* so I can't discuss it.  We've fallen over into
the discussion with Cynthia and Steve about *TCS* and *HG* vs. *5FW* and
*RS*.

> >has been that I can't see what *causes* these `techno-economic' cycles
> >(since we've agreed they have no `real world' parallel)
>
> We don't agree on that. We have plenty of real world parallels for economic
> cycles.

Yes, I know.  This is where we agree.  There are Real World examples of
*economic* cycles, but . . .

> economic instability _should_ result in TL instability.

Why?  This is what I'm having difficulty with.  You realize just *one*
single example of a world that went *down* in TL and then back up would
make your case?  So far, I haven't seen such an example.

> not so sure we don't have any examples of that. Didn't some farmers put
> their cars in the barn and go back to the horse waggon during the Great
> Depression?).

I think you're confusing the *use* of technology with the ability to
*produce* technology.  I think this figures in the historical example of
Regina that you keep using.  (I'll get to that in a bit.)  Nevertheless,
I'll give you this Depression-era `techno-economic' cycle if you'll grant
me that the *keiritsu* are a good example of feudal technocracy.

> Make that steamships instead and you have a better analogy, since the ships
> of space don't need any highways.

Okay, a poor analogy but you get my point.

> Even if you can't produce boiler plates
> you may still be able to rivet them together when they come apart.

But I wouldn't call that capability the same as the tech level of the folks
that built the boiler.  Again, I think you're confusing use with the
ability to produce.  Didn't we already settle on that a long time ago?
("That" being the idea that TL measures the ability to *produce* a certain
level of technology rather than the mere use or presence of it.)

> If different sources disagree we have to choose between them, and in most
> cases I'd be inclined to choose the role-playing source over the board
> game source.

This is a good rationale.  I can accept this, but . . .

> I'd be happier if we could reconcile them, but it's just not
> possible. _TCS_ gives much bigger fleets than is present in 5FW.

*TCS* *also* gives much bigger fleets than the MegaTraveller *Rebellion
Sourcebook*, another role-playing *and* later-occurring source.  Since *5FW*
and *RS* seem to be somewhat in agreement, one might make the case for
accepting them over *TCS* and *HG*.  I'm not necessarily proposing this,
I'm just trying to point out that the choice isn't as clear to me as
it seems to be to others.

> >I think this `liberation' issue is merely a matter of when Piper was
> >writing (early 60's) versus when GDW was creating Traveller (late 70's).
>
> I think so too, but what's that got to do with it? It _is_ a pretty
> significant difference between the two societies.

I don't think it's appropriate to judge works outside the era they were
created.  My point is that if Piper had been writing in the late '70s,
I doubt this particular difference would exist, just as it was `impossible'
for the folks at GDW to create an `unenlightened' Sword Worlds in 1978.

> thereby denying some women the chance to fulfill their potential (and
> some men too, btw.)

This is a very insightful point but, alas, we're not on alt.soc.conteporary.
roles.  :-)

> On top of that women have a safety valve in that they are accepted in
> 'male' roles provided they adopt 'male' behaviour. Males are never
> accepted in 'female' roles.

But isn't this information no more `reliable' than early `official' data
that painted the Zhos as `mind-sucking totalitarians'?  We have to accept
that these sorts of observations reflect the bias of whatever Imperial
`observer' provided the information.  GDW has established a tradition of
painting such sources as being `biased' to one degree or another.  That's
always been one of the appeals of Traveller to me.  Every point of view
is ambiguous - no simplistic `chaotic good' templates here!

> I think there's quite some difference.

Okay, let's a gree to disagree.  This whole Piper bit is an obscure tangent
anyway.  (But I'll bet some TML'ers are out combing the shelves of used
book stores for Piper works!)

> 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!  Beside your Depression-era example (which
represents the most serious economic cycle ever *and* confuses use with
ablity to produce) I can't think of any other.

> Except to explain why it took Gram 14 centuries to go from TL 12 to TL 11.
> This _could_ be explained by a slow, steady, uneventful
> economic rise over the centuries with, say, a TL per two centuries. Or
> it could be an economic roller-coaster that pulls one world two steps
> back every time it get one step ahead.

Basic scientific method:  my explanation of "slow, steady, uneventful"
growth explains the observable facts without any need of your mysterious
cycles.  On the other hand, just *one* example of a *down-turn* would make
your case.  So far, it hasn't been made.  (And things like the Long Night
or the Viral Collapse don't count!)

> Regina was settled in 75. It
> was TL 10 in 1105. It was TL 11 or 12 in 1120, wasn't it?
> Why did Regina gain one
> or no TLs in 10 centuries and one more in 15 years?

Okay, here's where I think you're confusing *use* with *ability to produce*.
The comment above suggests to me that you're assuming Regina was at TL 10
in 75.  How could it possibly be at the time it was settled?  There were
no factories, no maintenance facilities, no *anything*!  The only
technological capability in the system was on the settlement ship(s).
Maybe these were at TL 7 or something but it must have been *decades*
(if not longer) before any starships were being built on Regina.

Of course, this all goes to pieces if you don't accept the `ability to
produce' definition for TL.  The problem with `use' is that every world
on the map becomes *at least* TL 9 every time a starship lands!

> I'm beginning to see where you're going wrong.

Well, at least we've found something to agree upon again.  :-)

> Where did you get that definition? I mean, if you made it up yourself you're
> begging the question.

Bingo!  You've caught me.  This is how I understand a feudal technocracy
from reading Piper.  Since I believe the GDW Sword Worlds have a great deal
in common with Piper's I accept that GDW must have lifted the idea of a
feudal technocracy from Piper.

> I admit that I'm vague about just how a feudal
> technocracy works, but isn't that because it's a term GDW made up (Or lifted
> from some SF book?)? Or is there some dictionary definition of the term?

Not that I have come across.

> Have there ever been a formal feudal technocracy in Real Life?

Yes, I think the Japanese *keiritsu* (which is not a `corporate government'
but I'll get to that in a bit) is a feudal technocracy.

> In a feudal society you get to be king because you have the support of the
> great lords. In theory you gets that support because you own the land and
> lend it to the great lords in return for their sworn support (In practice
> the great lords often control the land whatever the King wants).
>
> 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 lend it out in exchange for support. In practice many great
> lords propably control their 'fiefs' whatever the King wants.

This is good, but you're about to confuse *owning* the means of production
with *managing* an operation, i.e. a corporate government.

> What you are describing is a corporate government, not a feudal one. In a
> feudal government power (in this case, ownership of shares) flows from the
> top to the bottom. What you describe is power flowing from the bottom (the
> individual shares) to the top.

A corporate government is a specialized form of autocracy.  In a corporate
government everyone involved is an *employee* of the person(s) in charge.
They have no choice but to follow the dictates of the manager or leave
the company.  Maybe I led you astray by describing the `king' in a feudal
technocracy as a `CEO'.  This was inaccurate and I apologize.  The `king'
is like the Chairman of the Board of Directors (often also the CEO).  As
such she is repsonsible for seeing that the will of the shareholders is
carried out.

In a corporate government the CEO does not have to listen to the Vice
Presidents or other officers of the company -  she gives the orders and
they carry them out.  In a feudal technocracy, the Chairman ignores
the voices of the other Directors (who represent blocs of shareholders)
at her peril.  When things get tough, the directors *remove* the Chairman
and find a replacement.  In the corprate model, when things get tough
for an Executive Vice President, she finds another job (or jumps out
a window).

In a feudal technocracy the `king' owns the largest bloc of shares of
*everything* but he doesn't necessarily own everything.  If no one owns a
controlling bloc you get balkanization, like Joyeuse.  The `king' may
own everything, may own a majority of shares, or may own a plurality of
shares (the biggest bloc but not a majority).  `Fief' holders under the
`king' will have stronger positions (and more independence) as the `king'
owns less of the total holdings.

A good modern example outside the *keiritsu* would be the influence of
pension fund managers on corporate America today.  Because pension funds
often hold huge blocs of stock in a corporation they are able to influence
the policies and practices of the corporation.  They are, in effect, the
`fiefholders' of the Chairman or `king' who may still control the largest
bloc of shares but is no where near having a majority holding.

The key element here is that in a feudal technocracy the economic influence
of shareholders translates directly into politcal power.

> Granted, but the only way you can get that influence is if the king of
> Gram allows you to buy that controlling interest.

No, only if he owns everything.  If he only owns a plurality or majority
his `barons' can sell their shares at will.

> The king theoretically _owns_ those shares and
> what you pay for must be the right to benefit from them. And one of the
> things you must pay with is the promise to support him.

Right, and if King Harald buys an interest in Gram's holdings he becomes
a player in the political system there.  He may choose to honor his
`bond' to King Angus (sorry, I'm sticking with Piper) or he may not.  My
point is that since, under my world view, Sacnoth is the strongest
economic power, Harald will one day triumph over Angus.  Unless of course
Angus has managed to control all the shares on Gram, in which case Gram
becomes an autocracy rather than a feudal technocracy.  (And then Harald
just uses his higher TL military to defeat Angus!)

> >Since, at TL 12, I'm clearly the strongest economic power
>
> Fallacy. See above.

I'll give you this is you give me an example of a downward turn in your
cycles, otherwise I'm sticking with the scientific method.  :-)

> Perhaps our first step should be to define just what a feudal
> technocracy is and how it works.

I think I've made a decent start.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA