All: PoliSci 5006: Feudal Technocracy

Gentlesophonts:

My good friend Hans Rancke [email removed] writes:

> This is where I'm tempted to become a tad acrimonious. I'll try to hold
> it down, but it's a little hard to provide definitions of what I'm
> talking about and then having them dismissed as "not relevant".

I apologize.  I didn't mean to dismiss your points about medieval feudalism.
Clearly, you have a much better understanding of medieval feudalism than I
do.  I suggest though that your very familiarity with medieval feudalism
is hindering your ability to see a feudal technocracy as something different.
I feel that it is in terms of *technocracy* and how a technocratic system
might be "feudal" that I have failed the most in communicating my ideas.
I will endeavor to be more successful.

> it's
> also possible that if someone looked at a new type of government and called
> it 'feudal' something, they might be having dictionary definitions in mind
> too.

Certainly, but they chose to call it "feudal technocracy", not "technocractic
feudalism".  This is an important distinction when one is focusing on
precise definitions.

> By analogy a feudal technocracy is
> one where the lord gives out industrial fiefs in support for allegiance
> and support. Gee, I could have sworn I said this before.

How is "giving out industrial fiefs in [exchange] for allegiance and
support" different from "selling shares of an enterprise in exchange for
financial capital"?  In my view, they are the same thing.

> The second half of my argument substitutes industrial holdings for
> land in order to derive a definition of a feudal _technocracy_ and assumes
> an analogous treatment of those holdings.

Here's one problem in communication.  We do not share the same definition of
an "industrial holding".  I believe to you this means a single corporate
entity, a company.  To me, it is a block of stock - a share - in an
industrial enterprise.  I believe my definition is more accurate but in
any event we ought to be able to discuss this in common language now.  We
both see an "industrial holding" as being the equivalent feudal "fief" but
we have identified them as different things.

> That seems to be the problem in a nutshell. You don't see it. Why? What do
> you know that I don't? From where do you derive your deep insight into how
> feudal Europe REALLY worked? Tell me what books I've missed.

Alas, I'm not discussing how medieval feudalism worked.  I'm trying to
show how some of the *practices* of medieval feudalism would be manifest
in a futuristic *technocracy*.  This is another source of our communication
problem.

> >The key part of the lord's end of the feudal
> >agreement was the provision of coordinated security services, not some
> >tenuous grant of land possession.
>
> Is this something you just know? Who told you? Not the dictionary. Did
> you read it in a book? Quotes, please.

This is the "key part" of the feudal arrangement that will be manifest in
a feudal technocracy.  In `theory' one might say that a corporation `owns'
its shares and merely `grants possession' of them to it shareholders in
return for `services rendered' in the form of financial capital.

> I just don't see how the shareholders in your description of a feudal
> technocracy acts any different from the shareholders in any other
> system with corporations. The standard capitalist society, for example.
> Where does the feudal come into it?

In a capitalist market economy an external governmental entity exists to
provide the legal framework for interactions between actors in the market.
(This lack of a stable source of legal authority is the major barrier to
market reforms in Russia today.)  In a feudal technocracy, feudal
principles provide the legal framework for interractions in the marketplace.

> >The various shareholders in a *particular* corporation all hold `fealty'
> >to the Chairman of *that* company.
>
> How? Why? They elected him (well 51+% of them did). They can fire him any
> time they want to. Legally. They employ him. Where's the fealthy in that?

The various shareholders can only act through cooperation.  An individual
shareholder cannot fire the Chairman (the `technocractic lord') on their own
(unless they hold a controlling share which is uncommon).  Thus they can
only remove the technocractic lord if a majority of the shareholders (vassals)
agree that she had failed in her duties as prescribed by the `feudal'
arrangement.  (These are primarily related to the generation of profits for
the firm.)

Keep in mind that this is not equivalent to contemporary market systems
which have an external governmental entity to define *all* aspects of the
system from embezzlement to anti-trust action.

> The king's vassals have all sworn to support him. Did the shareholders
> swear to support their Chairman? No. They offered him a good salary and
> a pension plan. Not fealthy.

No, they provide the technocratic lord with financial capital.  This is
the equivalent to `fealty' in a technocracy.  (The enterprise provides the
Chairman's salary and pension.  A few years back Lee Iacocca was paid *one*
dollar one year.  Clearly, there is a different principle at work here than
the mere employee-employer relationship of the corporate model.)

> At the moment I'm not looking at the Sword worlds at all. I'm looking at
> the whole concept of feudal technocracy. Of which I have several times
> said: "By analogy, a feudal technocracy is one where industrial holdings
> takes the place of land". I then presented a definition of a feudal
> society. Let's have your definitions. Not examples, since I'm apparently
> to dim to understand them. Straight definitions.

See.  I don't want to talk about medieval feudalism.  I want to talk about
how aspects of feudalism will be manifest in a futuristic technocracy.

> Take an early feudal society. See a knight who holds a manor from a baron.
> See him give two fingers to his baron. See his baron take his (the baron's)
> manor back from the knight and decorate the gate with the knight's head.

Not if the if the rest of the baron's knights had the same beef.

> >Okay, I stand corrected.  I maintain though that this `ownership' was not
> >the important, *practical* aspect of the lord's part of the feudal
> >agreement.  Rather, it was his provision of coordinated military services
> >that was what *mattered* in the feudal arrangement.
>
> Why do you maintain that? What facts do you base this on? How come you
> know more than the dictionary (Not just a snide question. Dictionaries
> have been known to be wrong. But I do feel that the burden of proof is
> on you in this case. Why do you think feudal society differed so
> radically in theory and practice? Let's have some reasons).

I guess I should have said "`ownership *is* not the important" and
"coordinated military service that *is* what *matters*" and added that
I was speaking in terms of how feudalism is manifest in a technocracy.

> >Okay, I stand corrected again,  You're talking about the *philosophy* of
> >feudalism (the legal basis) and I'm talking about the *practice* of it (its
> >practical implementation).
>
> Oh, are you? That means that you can quote me reams of examples of how
> things really worked in practice, while I won't be able to find very
> many examples of thing working according to the mere theory, right?
> Would you care to begin?

Again, I guess I should have been more clear that I was talking about how
the principles of feudalism would be manifest in a futuristic technocracy.
I didn't realize that we were arguing over what medieval feudalism was.  I
thought we were trying to discover what feudal technocracy would be.

> I repeat: the shareholders in a corporation is a
> conglomerate owner.

It's not the same.  It's *very* different.  A single owner needs no system
of rules to govern how she makes her decisions.  A group of shareholders
*does*.  In a feudal technocracy it is my view that feudal principles will
serve as this system.

> I suggest you make up your mind on that on a case by case basis. Certainly
> any great difference between theory and practice makes relying on the
> theory problematical. But what is the great, yawning chasm between theory
> and practice in this instance? Why are shareholders not like an owner?
> (And why is a raven like a writing desk? ;-)

Shareholders are not like a single owner because they require a set of
principles to govern their coordinated (there's that word again) actions.
It is specifically the portions of the medieval feudal definition that
relate to the ownership of *land* that are *least* useful when trying to
understand how feudal principles might be applied to a futuristic technocracy.

> And just how does the technocratic king (your version) differ from the
> Chairman of a corporation? If there isn't any difference then why have
> two seperate names for the same system?

Well, I don't really see the differences in names or titles as relevant.
I see the Chairman as serving in the role of technocratic *baron* (if
there was one single Chairman in the entire economy then she would be
`king').  There are some differences here because the contemporary market
system is not the same as a feudal technocracy due to the influence
and role of government entities external to the marketplace.  This is
where the *kieretsu* come in because the relationships among the players
there occur (mostly) outside the influence of the government.  (You must
realize that none of these examples fit the model entirely.)

> The medieval vassals provided various kind of service in return for
> holding the land. The people you describe acquire their holdings
> and band together for mutual benefit. The first is a feudal system.
> The second is just a gang.

I disagree.  Medieval feudal vassals "banded together for mutual benefit"
under an aristocratic lord who provided coordinated security services.
Forget the focus on `land' and one might descibe this as a mere `gang'
as well.  (I don't choose to, mind you.)

> This bloc of shares you're talking about. Does it have any sort of
> coherence? Is it all shares in one single corporation, or is it simply
> a portfolio?

I would express this the other way around.  It is a *portfolio* rather than
`simply' shares in a single corporation.  A group of shares in a single
corporate entity makes the shareholder the `vassal' of the `baron' of that
particular corporation.  As the holder of different blocks of shares
in a variety of corporations I will have a variety of `vassal' relationships
to several different `barons'.  This is how the technocracy becomes more
complicated but I believe this sort of situation even occurred under the
medieval feudal system on occasion (and I can't cite examples).  Rememeber
as well that each `baron', each corporation, also holds shares (or is bound
by other relationships such as supplier agreements) to other `barons',
who might be better classed as `counts' or even `dukes'.

> Is it possible to put a lable on the bloc and call it
> something other than 'Martin Vesterlund's current stock portfolio'? Can
> it be called 'The barony of Thorvallsmines' and is there a specific baronial
> title associated with it? Can the title be transferred to someone else by
> sale or inheritance? Can the bloc be sold off in small bits, and if it does,
> what happens to the title?

Certainly.  Why wouldn't this be the case?  The `title' (which is actually
the definition of the prescribed responsibilities associated with that
share of stock) transfers with ownership by sale or inheritance or whatever.
If a particular block of stock represents a majority or even full holding
then one might call is something like `the Barony of Traskon'.  :-)

> Who decides on the new title? And if a 'fief' is just a stock portfolio,
> what's the difference between this system and any capitalist society?

The title is defined by the feudal responsibilities associated with that
block of shares.  Contemporary market systems attach no such relationship
to shareholding because all such responsibilities are provided through the
external government entity.  Remember this is not just legal things like
right to ownership and such but basic principles of the entire economic
system like currency supplies, interest rates, rates of exchange, etc.
(Recall Steve Bonneville's post that pointed out most *zaibatsu*
were organized around a central bank.)

> Why not?

I wasn't talking about the Isle of Man.  I was talking about an isolated
island that existed independent of any other feudal system.  A privately-
held corporation is in essence `outside' the rest of the economic system
if you focus merely on *ownership* as too much of the medieval model
might lead you to do.

> So the baronies you're talking about has nothing to do with the examples
> we see in _Space Viking_?

I think the system I'm describing fits *Space Viking* pretty darn well.
Mind you I'm not sure Beam put the effort into his system that we've already
put in here!  :-)

> (All the fiefs we hear named are owned by one
> single person apiece  -

We don't know this.  *All* we know is that *Trask* owned *Traskon*.

> what you claim to be isolated baronies that are
> not part of the feudal structure (this might surprise Duke Angus to learn)).

A wholly-owned holding still may still be part of the feudal system if the
feudal arrangements cover things in addition to mere ownership.  The
feudal arrangement for Traskon Barony may have descibed things like the
price Wardshaven would pay for Traskon beef, the nature of such transfers,
where Traskon acquired feed for its bisonoids, how veterinary services
were received, hiring and pay issues for ranch hands, etc., etc., etc.
Remember, in a contemporary market economy the external government entity
does most of these things.  There is no external government entity in a
feudal technocracy.

> You DO mean a stock portfolio! How do you figure out the baronial titles?

I don't know.  How did they do it in medieval times?  I imagine something
in the feudal agreement defines these sorts of things.

> OK. I arrive on Gram with a draft for a billion credits in my back pocket.

Well, I think you could probably figure this out yourself now but here goes.
You are Hans, Baron of Spindleworks (under the Duke of Megatronics), Count
of Gronemetrics (under the Duke of Dynaline), Duke of Gombril, and a minor
squire to a half dozen other lords.  You hold fealty to all of these lords.
You probably have dozens of your own vassals now.  (Now please don't hold
me to specifics here, but you get the idea I hope.)  You see that if King
Anders of Gram were to do this on Sacnoth he would be in vassalage to any
lord of which he owned a minority holding.

> >>Nope. The central tenet of feudalism is *service* as a medium of repayment.
> >
> >Again, you're arguing feudal *theory* and I'm arguing feudal *practice*.
>
> Again you dismiss evidence without any further argument.

Again, I apologize.  I should have said "medieval feudal theory (or practice)"
and "futuristic feudal technocractic practice".

> I am. The company is IMO the FT equivalent of the feudal land holding.
> Like Karvalmills is one holding. Traskon is one. Etc.

Now you see how I'm using "industrial holding" differently.  There is nothing
about a technocracy that requires a holding to be held in full.  (And I'm
not sure you can support the claim that Karvallmills was held in full.  Also,
it's even possible that Trask only held a majority interest in Traskon.
Angus would still have gained control had Trask only sold a majority holding.
The very fact that Nik Trask was appointed Vicar-Baron suggests he might have
held a minority interest.)

> It does. Each company is a fief, owned by a nobleman. All the fiefs
> together constitutes the entire economy.

*Technocractically-speaking*, what's the rationale for insisting that all
companies must be held in full?

> >To use the *Space Viking* model, there were probably `veterinary service'
> >fiefs under Traskon and `geological service' fiefs under Karvalmills,
>
> Propably? What makes you say that? Where does it even imply that anywhere
> in the book?

Nothing.  How does it conflict with what's in the book?  It helps me explain
what's required for an economy, any economy, to function though.

> >Ownership was not the legal basis for homage in Piper's Sword
> >Worlds.
>
> >Profit generation was.
>
> Elucidate, please.

What `service' did Duke Angus provide to Trask and Karvall and his other
vassals that was equivalent to the medieval duke riding forth with his
knight to protect an embattled baron?  (I suppose you'll say the same
military service.  Ug!)  What the Duchy of Wardshaven did, IMHO, was
coordinate economic activites (there's the feudal part) so that the
economic baronies of his vassals were able to function.  The Bank of
Wardshaven provided a source of investment capital for Karvallmills to
purchase milling equipment, some other vassal provided civil engineering
services so that Traskon had reliable water supplies, Karvallmills provided
collapsium for the vehicle manufacturing barony to build earthmovers for
the civil engineering barony, etc., etc., etc.

> I base my argument on the analogy between a
> medieval barony and what I believe to be the feudal technocratic
> equivalent of such a barony.

I don't see much technocracy in your model.  If political power is based
merely on industrial (as opposed to land) holdings where does the
"government by those with specialized knowledge" part of technocracy
come in?  Your model of feudal technocracy looks merely like futuristic
feudalism to me.

> And that it was called "The Barony of Traskon", not "Lucas
> Trask's holdings".

Excuse me for being dense, but what's the difference what it's called?  As
I envision it (and as I've *tried* to describe it) the terms `barony'
and `holdings' mean the same thing.

Okay, before I get into to my entire "IBM as feudal technocratic barony"
model let me make the disclaimer that despite the fact the I was using the
real names of the CEO and former CEO all my references to shareholders
(teachers' union and such) are strictly for illustrative purposes and do
not have anything remotely to do with the actual situation at IBM.

> Bingo! There's the fallacy. The teacher's union dosen't become a vassal,
> it becomes a part owner.

You say, "Tomato."  Dan Qualye says, "Tomatoe."  :-)  It's the same thing.
In a feudal *technocractic* model a `part owner' *is* a vassal.

> In a capitalist society CEO Akers isn't a lord, he is an employee of the
> teacher's union pension fund and the other part owners.

Well, yes, but I wasn't talking about a market economy.  I was using this
example to illustrate how a feudal technocracy works.

> In a feudal
> technocracy he would be a vassal

What can I say?  We have exactly opposite understandings here.  Again, you're
focused on the ownership of land, or now shares of stock.  You get this from
your understanding of medieval feudalism.  Where does the technocracy fit in
your model?  Or does the mere fact that there's `something technical' about
IBM or any industrial firm satisfy you in this regard?

IMHO, `technocracy' describes the basis for the ruling class's exercise
of authority and `feudal' describes the nature of the relationships between
the members of this ruling class.

> What's so complicated about medieval Germany?

Wasn't one of the problems with the formation of a nation-state in Germany
the fact that under the feudal system there the holdings were always split
among all the heirs of a dead lord?  This led to more and more fragmentation
among the various principalities and greater and greater intermingling of
the feudal agreements between various barons. This was unlike the experience
in other medieval nations where holdings passed to the eldest heir.  (Or do
I need to get my money back for those Western Civ courses?  :-)

> I certainly am. So did a lot of feudal lords. Look at the whole business
> of the civil war between Stephen of Blois and the Empress Maud. Some
> lords, like Geoffery de Manderville, played fast and loose with their oaths
> and their allegiance, but lot's of noblemen actually acted on the 'theory'.

Again, I admit I'm way out of my league here.  Let's get away from medieval
fedualism and back to feudal technocracy.

> >Do you suppose Duke Angus was acting within `legal' bounds when he invaded
> >Glaspyth?
>
> He propably was. Angus and Omfray were both sovereign lords.

And what was the basis of this `legal' authority?  How was it defined?
Under what jurisdiction could such a dispute be brought for adjudication?

> They don't? I thought they owned a big slice of IBM? Why don't they have
> any right to do so? And if they don't, how did they manage it, and why
> isn't this Akers person suing the pants off them?

A minority shareholder has no legal influence in a corporation (other than
that pertaining specifically to the ownership of its shares).  A large
minority shareholder nevertheless has a great deal of *influence* among
other shareholders and can sway these other shareholders to action against
the Chairman of it can convince them that the Chairman, by not adequately
providing coordinated profit services, has violated his `feudal' duties.
It *is* legal for a majority of shareholders to `fire' the Chairman.  Your
question about `suing' illustrates the difference between our market
economy and a feudal technocracy once again - there is no external entity
under which to seek such redress in a feudal technocracy.

> You keep saying that, but how does it work? Start with the basic building
> blocks, show me how they hang together and why it works fundamentally
> differently from a garden variety capitalist society.

Are you beginning to see the difference?  In a market economy a government
entity external to the marketplace provides the framework of principles
which govern the nature of interactions in the marketplace.  In a feudal
technocracy these principles will be provided by the feudal agreements.

> Why not? You have a world. The world is a feudal technocracy. They produce
> a king. The king sez: "No sale of industry to outsiders. Dixit". They just
> happen to have a balanced economy. How are they vulnerable?

Could a medieval king do this if a majority of his barons did not support
this move?  It's my view that in a feudal technocracy a majority of barons
would not support a king who proposed this course of action because it is
counter to the enhancement of profit.  If someone shows up from offworld
with a wad of cash willing to pay twice what you think your ranching barony
is worth and your liege tells you you can't do it you're going to be mighty
displeased.  It's as if a medieval king had proposed unilateral disarmament!

Now let's talk about economic might.  The entire Mexican economy is about
5% of the US economy.  Where would Mexican industry be in the face of US
industry if there were not an external government entity (the Mexican
government) trying to protect it and another external government entity
(the US government) making some effort to see that US industry respect the
will of the Mexican government?  The entire European Union economy is about
120% of the US economy but it is highly fractured when compared to US
industry.  The only thing protecting European industry from being diced up
and swallowed by US industry is the intervention once again of external
government entities on both sides of the Atlantic (this is, in fact, a major
motivation behind the whole idea of the European Union) and these powers enjoy
roughly the same level of technological capability.  Does that give you some
insight on what Sacnoth *ought* to be able to do to Gram under a feudal
technocracy where there are *no* external government entities to protect
less powerful economic players?  Remember, we have already tied technological
capability to economic output so *clearly* Sacnoth's technological edge over
Gram should translate to an equivalent economic edge.

> Try to consider the possibility that the definitions are as they are
> because that's the way things worked at times.

Accepted.  How does a technocracy work?  How is a futuristic feudal
technocracy different from medieval feudalism?

> So why use the word 'feudal' if the arrangement isn't feudal?

Two things:  Feudalism was much more than the ties to ownership of land;
and a feudal technocracy is something quite different from medieval fedualism.

Peace,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA