Gentlesophonts:
Alistair Langsford [email removed] writes:
> One possible interpretation of a Feudal technocracy comes from
> combining what we understand by the terms Feudal and Technocracy.
>
> The Feudal bit is in fact just like the Feudal system we know from
> history, with for example a King and his vassal Nobles (Dukes,
> Marquis, Counts, Barons, Knights) each of which has his/her own
> vassals
This is fine but you have to recognize the `inter-relatedness' of the
feudal system. The vassals provide local resources (knights, taxes, etc.)
to the lord in return for coordinated services (military protection). This
is what distiguishes a feudal system from a simple aristocracy where their
is no inter-relatedness.
> When it comes to
> managing the industry within a noble's domain, the staff are
> technical experts in that relevant technologies. This last is the
> 'technocracy' bit. The ruling classes believe in this method of
> managing industry, which makes them technocrats.
Yes, this is technocracy but it has no system of inter-relatedness. If the
technocrats are merely advisors appointed by the ruler then they serve at
her whim. This is not a feudal system.
> To me the above description seems to fit the term 'Feudal
> Technocracy'
I don't think so. Rather, it is merely a technocracy (such as exists in
many contemporary nations) within an aristocratic system.
> I don't know enough about *kieretsu* to say whether or not they
> also fit the description. To me they sound like a better model for
> Corporate governments.
I hope I've distinguished the difference between corporate government and
a feudal technocracy in my prior post in response to Hans. One key is the
matter of scale. A corporate government only works on a relatively small
scale (hence the lower government digit) while a feudal technocracy works
on a larger scale. This difference of scale results in siginficant
differences between the two types.
John Bogan [email removed] writes:
> Hans writes:
>
> >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?
>
> Well, we all know the REAL reason for that is that Regina was made out to be
> an important world in the Marches' affairs that having such a relatively low
> as 10 seemed a bit peculiar.
>
> I tend to regard the lower tech level as one of those "early Traveller
> inconsistencies"
There is a more elegant solution to this inconsistency and Hans has already
suggested the answer. If you think of tech level as being tied to economic
growth in an environment where each technological breakthrough need not
be `rediscovered' but merely `grown into' (in an economic sense) it's
actually quite simple.
If you think of the economic growth of Regina from it's settlement in 75
you would expect the situation to go something like this: early economic
activity would be highly exploitative with natural resources being extracted
for export and most manufactured goods imported; eventually, indigineous
industry would appear but even this would be limted at first. Regina
quickly became a hub for further exploration and development in the Marches
so it's economy would move from exploitation of natural resources to one
of trading services where manufactured goods from the Core were shipped
out to developing worlds and resources from these worlds were shipped back
to the Core (probably just Deneb sector). This `trading post' economy
would continue for quite some time (similar to, say, St. Louis in the
exploitation of the American West - it had been settled a *long* time and
had quite a large population before any automobiles were manufactured there).
Eventually, as `civilization' moved into the Marches, a `full' economy would
emerge on Regina with a significant industrial base. This would lead to
rather significant increases in economic output and thus tech level.
Cynthia Higginbotham [email removed] writes:
> Hans:
> >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.
>
> So do I. If anything, the "technocracy" part is the buzz-word.
> David, what you keep describing sounds like a plain old Corporate
> state (Gov 1) to me.
I hope I made this clearer in my last response to Hans. It seems to me
that what's happening (and not particularly with you, Cynthia, nor Hans) is
that many folks are confusing feudalism with aristocracy. Feudalism is based
upon mutual obligations between the lord and his vassals. An aristocracy
has no such requirement. In medieval feudal aristocracies these obligations
were centered around military affairs. In a feudal technocracy the
technocracy `buzz-word' shifts the focus from military affairs to industrial
activities (including service industries) but the system of mutual obligations
remains. It is these mutual obligations that distinguish a feudal technocracy
from a corporate government.
> As with TechLevel definitions, GDW created endless fodder for
> arguments by mixing structural definitions (Representative Democracy,
> Tech level of a given artifact), with procedural or functional
> definitions (impersonal bureaucracy, production level of a world).
Yes, of course, we all must labor under this confounded burden. :-)
Happy Travelling,
David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA