Economy, technology, and feudal technocracies
In reply to #7811 All: Sword Worlds and Technology by David Johnson
David Johnson writes: >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. I've had the same problem. >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*. Not quite. In your discussion with Cynthia and Steve you have two different conditions (the different sizes of fleets) that is irreconcilable and consequently the problem of which source to accept. In the economy question we have one condition set forth by one source and not mentioned in any other source. Since there is no contradiction I submit that we should go by the one source we do have (Actually, we have two since _Striker_ gives similar (though not identical) results. _Striker_ and _TCS_ are, however, contemporary). The only known source we have on the effect of TLs on the economy states that the difference of one TL on otherwise identical worlds is that the higher TL planet's money is worth 5% more. >>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? If the first there's not much I can do since I proposed them to explain somthing else. Since they are, therefor, merely inferred I don't see how you can expect an example. If I had an example I wouldn't have to infer it. If it's the concept, however, I shall try to illustrate. Not that technological cycles must be, but merely that they could be: Example 1: "I/S Hansen Motor" on Gram who builds jump-1 and -2 engines decides to expand and builds an new assembly line in their factory for producing jump-3 engines. Gram now becomes TL 12 in space technology (by definition). "Sleipner Spring-motorer", the well-known jump engine manufacturer on Sacnoth notes the subsequent drop in sales of jump engines to Gram and lowers the price on jump-3 engines. Baron Hansen decides that he can't afford to fight this move and converts his jump-3 assembly line to make jump-2 engines. Gram is now, once again, TL 11. Example 2: As before, but this time Hansen manages to get some other nobles to back him and proceeds to sell jump-3 engines to all of Sleipner's former customers driving Sleipner off the market. Sacnoth is now TL 11 (in space tech). (Btw. there's another, perfectly simple, explanation of how Gram could be as strong as Sacnoth (Note that I don't agree that they need to be): Gram could be solidly TL 11 in most areas and TL 12 in space technology while Sacnoth was TL 12 in just enough parts to qualify for TL 12 status but of only TL 10-11 in other, vital areas (Check _World Builder's Handbook_ for details).) >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. 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). >>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. No I don't. If the depression drove some people to abandon their cars, a more severe depression could, conceivably, have driven almost everybody to do so. If that happened, most car factories would close down and very few new cars would be made (In fact, for a time you might have people using old cars that were no longer manufactured - a use TL _higher_ than the production TL). >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. Can't do that since I still don't know exactly how the *keiritsu* work. I'll accept that they form your definition of a feudal technology, but I suspect that your definition is not the only possible one. Certainly your definition is not that of a feudal system (though I acknowledge that compound words sometimes take on a meaning quite different from any of it's components. I would regard that as a bit of a cop-out, though. IMO a feudal technocracy ought to be feudal in some way). >>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. Neither did I. I said that the people who couldn't _build_ a boiler might, nevertheless, be perfectly capable of repairing it. This was in connection with being able to maintain higher-han-your-own-TL equipment, remember? >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.) I think so. At least, I heartily concur. TL _ought_ to indicate the ability to produce (unfortunately there are countless worlds with low population and high TL where that dosen't make sense. How can 10 men build a starship?). >>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. Try comparing the _TCS_ naval expenditure of Cr 500 per citizen with the real world (Double it to account for non-space forces too). A credit is supposed to correspond to a US$. Now compute the taxes the average swordworlder would pay to support 42 200,000 T battleships - no, make that 500,000-tonners if you like. Compare that figure to the real world. >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. 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? Or that TCS couldn't have gotten away with describing a minor, antagonistic power as far more repressive than they did? >>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.) >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. Conceeded, but let me address that confusion of use and ability to produce. I'm not confusing the two. But if something becomes too expensive to buy, don't you think that it would shortly thereafter go out of production? So if use decline sufficiently and does pick up again, the ability to produce automatically disappears too. >>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. 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. >>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. True. I conceed that point. >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. 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? >Of course, this all goes to pieces if you don't accept the `ability to >produce' definition for TL. No, I accept that. >>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. Funny, I too think that Piper's Gram describes a feudal society, possibly even what GDW thought of when they coined the term 'feudal technocracy', but I disagree that it describes one that works the way you claim. The only shares I remember mentioned is the ones in the Tanith Venture, an offworld commercial venture. Every other 'holding' in the book is a solid land fief. The holdings are enhanced by various commercial features like the mines on Traskon and the Karvall steel mills, but the old feudal fiefs were also enhanced in value from whatever water mills and mines to be found on them. Piper's Gram is merely a feudal monarchy set in a more technological advanced age than the medieval feudal monarchies of Terra. >>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. I don't think so. >>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. 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. >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. 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." >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). Who owns the corporation in a corporate government? Who owns it in a feudal technocracy? What's the difference? I think it would be useful to agree on the equivalences of various terms in the three systems we're talking about. Here's mine: Traditional feudal society Corporation Feudal technocracy King - King The king is the man who owns the fiefs and doles them out in return for support from his vassals. 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. Fief Corporation Corporation Land was what supported the fighting men that was the military power in the old feudal monarchies. In more advanced societies industrial holdings pro- duce wealth that pays for military power. Vassal (Duke/Count/etc.) CEO Vassal The vassal manages the fief for the king. If the fief is an industrial holding then his work resembles that of a company CEO. Steward/Reeve/Guard Captain Company Officer Company Officer The officers who helps to run the holding, hired and fired by the man in charge. Sub-fief Subsidiary Subsidiary A vassal may parcel out parts of his holding to lesser vassals. Feudal service Dividends Feudal service 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. - Board of Directors - - Shareholders - These have no real equivalents in a feudal society. >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. >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. >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. 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? The pension fund managers dosen't perform services for the Corporation Chairman, do they (They don't even pay him money). Thus there is no true equivalence between the pension fund managers and a fiefholder in a feudal society. I realize that I assume that the word 'feudal' in 'feudal technocracy' has a semantic content close to the normal definition of the word and is not a mere buzz-word. >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. >>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. If he owns them he can dictate who gets to buy them. >>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. But what if King Anders just refuse to let his baron sell his holding? >He may choose to honor his `bond' to King Angus He damn well better. >(sorry, I'm sticking with Piper) Why? We are talking about the GDW Sword Worlds, aren't we? Why invite confusion? >or he may not. Thereby forfeiting his right to 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. 2) He isn't that much stronger. 3) Assuming just for a moment that your view of feudal technocracies is true (which I doubt), the whole concept could as easily work the other way round. King Anders could own huge blocks of Sacnoth industry, making Harald a puppet of his. >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. 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. .(And then Harald >just uses his higher TL military to defeat Angus!) 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. >>>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. :-) No, I was talking about their respective GPPs. Of course, if King Anders owns a big slice of Sacnoth, he gets a good slice of their GPP too ;-) 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