I've been enjoying the discussion so far. Please advise as to whether I'm
summarizing correctly (that will depend on which camp you're in, I suppose):
Historical feudalism could be described as a "feudal landlord-ocracy," in
which the landowner granted the right to use his land to certain vassals.
The vassals obtained the land and the people on the land (serfs, peasants,
or tenant farmers), and were obliged to fight at the landlord's bidding, and
usually to provide some men-at-arms from the people. The people gave all of
their surplus production (food in historical times -- I'm referring to
Europe, but there were analogous situations in Japan, China, and Russia as
well) to the landlord's vassal. The people got protection from outside
enemies -- the landlord and his vassals would protect their lands and the
people on them -- as well as from internal problems -- their lord, the
landlord's vassal, would establish as manorial court and provide police-type
services. The landlord's vassals got the surplus of the lands, which could
be traded, as well as often absolute power over the people. The landlord
got troops, as well as taxes, and the surplus of his own personal holdings.
Maybe I've left some details out, but that's how I recall European feudalism
working in broad outline (remember from history class, not from being
there).
In a feudal technocracy, some technology is substituted for the land; rule
is by the owners of the technology, who grant a right to use it to some
vassal class. The vassals then hold the technology and the people who apply
it. The people give the technocrat's vassals their surplus production
(which is probably not food), which the vassals can sell. Probably the
people give all of their production to the vassal class (vassal is really a
misnomer here; it just means someone who owes fealty to someone higher in
the feudal hierarchy), which sells it and pays a wage to the people who buy
items for their subsistence.
The vassals owe the technocrat something -- possibly military service, or
the provision of some military items. Perhaps the vassal's fief creates
enough surplus production to finance a tank or a COACC fighter. It's very
unlikely that the vassal and his men-at-arms just show up for war, but it's
not impossible, either.
The problem that I'm running into in analogizing feudal landlord-ocracy into
feudal technocracy is that I'm using terminology, and the attendant systems,
that comes from capitalism, which is a different development altogether.
Having advanced from feudalism to capitalism, can we have a feudal structure
again?
Ok this probably has ended up obfuscating more than clarifying. I'll try
again when I'm fresher.
Here are two unrelated questions (maybe not so unrelated):
How have referees handled the question of slavery in the CT era? Do your
Imperia allow slaves? Interstellar slave trading? Feudal technocratic
serfdom? Labor unions? Scratch that last one for now -- in fact, scratch
the last two. I want to know about your views on regular sophont-as-chattel
slavery in the CT Imperium (and other states, too, I suppose).
What were the cultural effects of the psionics suppressions? Are religious
visions considered a form of clairvoyance, and persecuted? Are
mind-altering drugs associated with the Zhodani and avoided? Or are they
embraced as a way of altering one's own mind without the interference of
another person? Do people make psionic jokes? Is meditation outlawed (or
embraced)? Is hypnotherapy practiced? What about psychiatry? What about
neurosurgery?