Gentlesophonts:
On XTML (yes, I'm reading it) Bill White [email removed] writes:
> I tried to post this on the TML, but it didn't show up.
I'll stick to TML for my response. I'm sure glad I'm the first to be
able to get into this mess the two lists are going to cause. :-)
> feudalism "is a total organization of society,"
> specifying the status of individuals within its purview, and
> establishing implicit and explicit responsibilities among them.
Keep this is mind. This `inter-relatedness' between the participants in
feudalism is the key point that distinguishes it from other government
types.
> If we accept the definition of a "technocracy" to be "a
> government by an elite controlling some aspect of the application
> of the society's technology", then the worlds to which we assign
> UWP Gov Code 5 must meet two criteria.
I question this defintion below.
> First, the legal rights, responsibilities, and roles of
> individuals must be defined in terms of their socioeconomic
> status (thus, "feudal").
There is nothing specific about socioeconomic status with respect to
feudalism. It is rather the differences in the responsibilities of
the various parties that determines their relative *political* power.
A vassal may very well have greater *wealth* than her liege but the
nature of the feudal relationship ties her to her liege nonetheless.
> Second, an elite class which controls some critical
> technology must make up a privileged, ruling class (ergo,
> "technocracy").
Again, there is nothing about `elites' or `priviledge' inherent in feudalism
*or* technocracy. Elite trappings from medieval times are related to the
aristocractic relationships based upon heredity between the ruling class
(nobles) and the ruled (commoners). This was not a feudal relationship
but rather an oligarchic one.
> This critical technology may be military technology -- the
> lance, armor, and warhorse of the medieval knight, for example --
> but does not have to be. Nor is it necessarily a single
> technology: access to more advanced technical knowledge and
> resources may be sufficient.
In medieval feudalism the ruling class controlled *all* forms of technology
as well as the economic basis for that technology. Furthermore, the modern
meaning of the term technocracy does not pertain to a single type of
technology but instead refers to a source of authority based upon technical
ability in general (as opposed to some other source such as property
ownership, heredity, divine access, popular consent, etc.). In contemporary
society, technical ability is also closely tied to industrial capability and
the economic base. This suggests that a feudal technocracy based upon a
single form of technology will be the exception rather than the rule. Most
feudal technocracies will therefore be based upon an `inter-related'
relationship between those with industrial capabilities.
> However, the existence of a critical technology helps to
> differentiate a feudal technocracy from an oligarchy. It occurs
> to me as well that, whereas oligarchies may tend to be relatively
> homogeneous ("monolithic" in World Builder's Handbook terms),
> feudal technocracies admit more possibility for conflict, as the
> elites may sometimes work at cross-purposes -- though within the
> social bounds established by the feudal arrangement.
Actually, it is the fact that the feudal technocracy is based upon
a full range of technological endeavor that permits different segments
of the ruling class to work at cross purposes. Look at how the hegemony
of the AMA has been rattled now that insurance providers and employers have
entered the health care debate.
> How many different types of social systems can be posited
> which fit the first half of this definition? I could think of
> five; there are probably more.
These are all interesting suggestions but some might be better classified
as types other than feudal technocracies.
> 1. Traditional Feudalism: An elite, usually military, ruling
> over a producing "proletariat" of farmers and laborers.
This is the oligarchic or aristocractic aspect of medieval society. It
was called serfdom. The feudal relationship existed *between* the members
of the ruling class (lords and vassals), not between the ruling class and
the commoners.
> 2. Corporate Feudalism: A complex arrangement consisting of
> individual economic organizations within which "employees" and
> "managers" have certain specified tasks.
This is more akin to an aristocratic model. In most corporate systems
the employees will serve at the whim of management. Even heavily unionized
systems that limit management's ability to replace workers still do not
create any obligation upon management toward the workers other than that
of continued employment. If management chooses to run the
company into the ground, the workers are powerless and unable to stop
them or correct the move - at least not through any agreed upon and
previously defined relationship.
> corporations themselves are bound by a web of economic alliances
> and buyer-seller arrangements.
Here is the system of `inter-relatedness' that characterizes the Japanese
*kieritsu* and begins to describe the true nature of a feudal technocracy.
> 3. Contract Feudalism: Within this type of society, economic
> relations between individuals are defined in terms of "contracts"
> which may be implicit or tacit but which, by certain behaviors,
> all parties acknowledge to be legally binding.
This is essentially redundant but it describes the mechanics of the
feudal relationship quite well.
> 4. Arcological Feudalism: The society is arranged as one or
> more arcologies; that is, self-contained and economically self-
> sufficient communities.
Again, self-sufficiency makes a feudal relationship problematic. Without
the need for `inter-relatedness' there can be no feudal relationship.
> 5. Caste Feudalism: All economic roles are hereditary and
> confer a greater or lesser degree of social status upon the
> possessor.
This is another aristocractic form. Basing authority upon heredity
removes the need for an agreed upon relationship between parties based
upon their `inter-relatedness'. Under a caste system there is no
obligation placed upon the upper castes toward the lower castes.
> 1. MEDICAL - The society's elite are the doctors who can extend
> or deny life-saving treatment, including anagathics.
If medical practitioners can deny their services at will then this
is an aristocractic relationship, not a feudal one.
> 2. TRANSPORT - In a world where communities are isolated and not
> self-sufficient, those who control transport technology exert a
> great deal of influence upon other members of the society.
Again, there must be some sort of `inter-relatedness' for this relationship
to be feudal.
> 3. COMPUTER - In a complex economy, those who control the
> computers and telecommunications technology that enable it to run
> smoothly hold considerable power to direct resources as they see
> fit. In some places, highly advanced AI-like "expert systems"
> may be the elite.
Again, this may be a technocracy but it is not feudal. Am I beginning
to sound like a broken record? (Please stop, Dave. Dave? What are
you doing, Dave? Dave? Please stop . . . . Daisy, daisey, give me your
answer, do . . . .)
> The above elements can be combined to provide the referee
> with some inspiration when obliged to detail a UWP Gov Code 5
> world.
This has been some excellent work and is quite a contribution to anyone's
campaign. It may even fit many folk's view of government code 5 but I
think we could be more careful in our defintions of any type of government
if instead of focusing upon the particular manifestations of a certain
government type, in this case various forms of technology, we instead
focus upon the nature of authority (who has it) and the source of that
authority (how it is legitimized).
> All the above is IMHO, of course. I know there are some
> holes in my argument. Any comments, gripes, protestations,
> modifications, exhortations, helpful hints, complaints, or
> accusations will be greatly appreciated.
Same goes here.
Happy Travelling,
David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA