All: PoliSci 5001: Feudal Technocracy

Gentlesophonts:

We seem to have sparked a great deal of interest with the feudal technocracy
discussion.  It's generated a lot of useful information, IMHO.

From Thurday night, Alistair Langsford [email removed] writes:

>     Perhaps if I say that the technical managers are also vassals of
>     the noble they serve this helps?

I guess I was looking for an explanation of the nature of the vassal
relationship.  In a medieval feudal aristocracy the lord received military
services and local resources from the vassal and in return provided
coordinated security.  In a situation in which the technical vassals
`manage' activities for the lord I don't see what they're getting in
return that is equivalent to the security provided by the medieval lord.
If all the `technocrats' get is pay you really only have a corporate
system.

>     I was not,
>     by the way, proposing that the system I posted was the ONE TRUE
>     DEFINITION OF FEUDAL TECHNOCRACY. Just that it describes -a-
>     system that fits the term.

Okay, I was trying to focus on the specifics that distinguish a feudal
technocracy from other forms like a corporate model or aristocractic
oligarchy.

>     After all, given Traveller's method for
>     classifying governments, the same government could be classified
>     different ways depending on which aspects of it are seen to be
>     most apparent by the typical traveller.

Yes, this is true but focusing here doesn't really allow for much discussion
does it?

>     Obviously I could have been
>     clearer by describing the importance of the mutual obligations
>     between vassals and his/her liege lord.

Yes, this is key regardless of what terms are used to describe the
participants.

>     <In a feudal technocracy the technocracy `buzz-word' shifts the
>     <focus from military affairs to industrial activities
>
>     I agree it can do. I don't agree it automatically does. The 'buzz
>     word' as it has been termed describes an approach to managing
>     industrial resources (see the definition I posted earlier).

I think technocracy speaks of more than mere `management' of technical
activities.  I beleive technocracy calls for *rule* of the society by
those with technical knowledge and skills.  I see `technical' as being
much broader than just engineering and science - it is the entire network
of infrastructure that permits technical activities to occur - industry.

>     I think you can still have a high tech militarily centred Feudal
>     system which is technocratic in nature.

Certainly, but as I've suggested elsewhere, I believe such a `specialized'
feudal technocracy will be the exception rather than the rule, just as
representative democracies with a very narrowly defined demos will be the
exception.

>     To me your kieretsu description seems like it -also- fits the
>     description of a Corporate Government.

Maybe except the key difference as I see it is that in a corporate system
there is no bond between employer and employee.  The employer may sever the
relationship (in effect remove your `citizenship') at will.  This is why
corporate systems only occur at low population levels.

>     Given Traveller's way of
>     classifying governments, there is no reason why it can't be both.

Again, yes, but this sort of dampens the discussion.  I find it useful and
interesting to focus on those aspects which *do* distinguish one form from
another.

>     And since we have gotten on to discussing government types, does
>     anyone else have an example of how they have interpreted a
>     Traveller government type they'd like to post?

As I'm always one to stir the pot, how about this idea?  If we look at all
government types in terms on two key points: the nature of ruling authority
(who rules) and the source of that authority (who consents to that rule)
we can see that *all* government types, except those where a *single*
individual is able to exert *direct*, personal control over the others
(i.e., very small groups), are inherently *democratic* in the source of
of authority.  Even the most oppressive totalitiarian theocracy requires
*some* degree of consent from the populace in order to function.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA