> "Glenn M. Goffin" [email removed] said (among other things)
>
> 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?
I think the answer is yes. It better be in the Imperium, since FT's are so
common. A FT does not need to be capitalist - indeed the very system would
often dictate against capitalism. If control of a particular resource
determines one's place in society, selling it off may not make sense.
(As Hans mentioned in a previous posting). There does not necessarily even
have to be money (at least in the form we currently recognise it).
<snip>
> How have referees handled the question of slavery in the CT era? Do your
> Imperia allow slaves? Interstellar slave trading? Feudal technocratic
> serfdom?
Slavery has been acknowledged as existing in a number of Traveller
publications. By Imperium law, slavery is outlawed. However, by the policy
of imperial non-interference in local affairs, it seems that many local
populations effectively live in serfdom, if not outright slavery. It
also makes for stirring adentures and story-lines, regardless of
whether it makes economic sense or not.
This actually is quite relevant. One characteristic of the feudal system
is some form of serfdom or slavery for the common people. In the 19th
century company-store-type wage-slavery produced a serf-like relationship
between employees and company owners - thus the industrial Robber-Barons
were born. Feudalism has been called a medieval protection racket. The
common people were almost powerless and lived at the whim of their lords.
Certainly, I associate feudalism with powerlessness for the common
people.
If this is a common attribute of FT's, then they will tend to be
isolationist and xenophobic, at least at higher social levels, to prevent
the commons from getting ideas above their station. This also makes
social status extremely important in such a society, and anything that
risks it something to be avoided. Capitalism and the rising mercantile
class is what destroyed feudalism - money replaced land as the measure
of a person's worth, and penniless nobles found themselves in debt
to rich but unlanded merchants.
I will try to give an example of a non-capitalist FT.
Consider a vacuum world with a number of population centres. At some stage
the environmental engineers controlling the life support systems perform a
takeover and gain political power by virtue of their technical knowledge
ie. their ability to selectively turn off the life support systems. This
covers the technocracy aspect of the definition.
The takeover being successful, the engineers use the already-established
life-support regions to define their individual holdings, or feifs.
Holding the de-facto power of life and death in these regions, they can
distribute the control of industries and buildings pretty much as they
desire, creating vassals. The people in these regions are dependent on
their Regional Engineer (Baron/Lord) for their continued existence.
Resources are traded between regions on the barter system, the resources
including workers (serfs/slaves) with special skills. Engineers provide
their serfs with all the necessities of life for service, not payment.
A Planetary Engineer (king) may or may not exist, but if he does he
adjudicates disputes between regional engineers, appoints replacements
when there is no clear successor and appoints new engineers to newly
formed regions, which may occur from building or reorganisation.
This is the feudal component of the FT.
The above system could use money, but I left it out to make my point.
(perhaps they have a religious objection - after all, money is the
root of all evil). The above system will only work so long as the
serfs accept their subordinate position. An Engineer's title depends
on his control of the life-support apparatus of his area, and trading
or selling it means losing control of that region. Anyone who gains
control of a region must be able to operate it's environmental systems,
as that is the basis of his rule there, whether that is personal
control or control of subordinates loyal to him - but the latter leaves
him open to betrayal and takeover by his subordinates.
This is just one example, and I hope it is a useful contribution to this
ever-expanding thread.
Tom
Tom O'Neill | [email removed] [email removed]
- ---------------!--------------------------------------------------------------
Fact is stranger than fiction