I've been seeing the terms "zaibatsu" and "keiretsu" tossed about
rather freely in the discussion on what "feudal technocracy" really
means in Traveller. Just in case the only understanding of these
terms is coming from bad cyberpunk, here's a fairly lengthy except
from _The Japanese Today_ which hopefully explains some of this.
Incidentally, I highly recommend that book if you are interested
in Japan and need a place to start, especially since I had to hack
up this essay a bit to hit the high points.
I also think that I should take a moment to point out that DGP's
WBH allows representative authority of a feudal technocracy to
range from a single ruler, through various types of councils, to
rule by the *demos*, so there should be a wide range of types of
feudal technocracies. Be flexible!
from: _Traveller: The New Era_, 1993, p.188.
"Feudal Technocracy. Government by specific individuals for those
who agree to be ruled. Relationships are based on the performance
of technical activities which are mutually beneficial."
from: Reischauer, Edwin O. _The Japanese Today_, 1988, p.305-7.
"In prewar times, the distinctive Japanese economic institution that
most caught the attention of the outside world was the so-called
*zaibatsu* system. The term *zaibatsu* is perjorative, meaning
"financial clique". It is specifically applied to certain giant
financial, commercial, and industrial combines but is loosely used for
prewar Japanese big business in general. [...]
"The zaibatsu came to control a very large part of the upper level of
the Japanese economy [...] ...before long the government became
suspicious of the growing influence of big business... [...]
"It is ironic that after the war the American occupation in turn
attacked the zaibatsu for being the root cause of Japanese imperialism
and on these grounds singled them out for destruction. Their ownership
was removed from the controlling families virtually without compensation,
and the great combines were broken up into their component parts.
Before they could be further atomized in a traditional American "trust-
busting" operation, the occupation's reform program was halted, leaving
the larger corporate subunits of the original zaibatsu intact. Since
the occupation, these have gradually reassumed their old names [...]
and have drawn together in loose, informal associations, now known in
Japan as *keiretsu*.
"Because of the existence of these keiretsu groupings, many observers
have asserted that the zaibatsu system has been restored, but this is
not correct. The keiretsu form something like clubs, whose members
may look first to each other for aid and cooperation before trying
other sources. [...] But these relations are by no means exclusive,
and there is no central ownership and none of the rigid controls once
excersised within a zaibatsu organization. [...]
" ...zaibatsu were typically under the control of a central holding
company, largely owned by the original family. The holding company
controlled several major affiliates and these in turn a series of
minor affiliates. This sort of pyramiding of control is common enough
in the West, but what made the Japanese case unique was the fact that
the controlling company often lacked majority ownership.... Control,
however, was exercised through other means. The affiliate would
probably be completely dependent on the banking, shipping, and trading
facilities of the combine; interlocking directors were common;
executives were switched around among the component firms as though
they were members of a unified bureaucracy; the advantages and prestige
of belonging to a large zaibatsu combine were great; and a strong sense
of personal loyalty to the combine permeated the leadership, much as in
a pre-modern feudal domain. Young executives joined a zaibatsu
enterprise for a lifetime career.
"A typical zaibatsu organization was not like the contemporary American
conglomerates, which bring together entirely unrelated corporations
under the same ownership. Instead, they were rational outgrowths of
evolving economic activity and therefore are better described as
combines. They tended to cluster around a central bank that financed
the various activities of the combine. These functions often stood in
a vertical relationship. For example, a series of seperate companies
might mine a certain ore, fashion it into manufactured products,
transport those abroad on the combine's shipping line, and sell them
abroad and purchase the needed raw materials for the whole process
through the combines "general trading company" [...], while all of
these different stages of the operation would be financed by the
combine's bank."
I hope this helps out a bit!
Steve Bonneville
[email removed]