>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.
A couple of differences:
First of all, a shareholder is not responsible for the development
of the shares the CEO & assorted lackeys are. Secondly, from a more
romantic point of view, loyalty and fealty do not come from being paid off,
but from the heart - this is an ideal which is nice, but historically there
were probably more than a few lords & vassals who contemplated loyalty
based on personal gain.
I think you've been approaching Techno-Feudalism wrong from the
beginning. From what I've read in this exchange, the CEO of a corp and the
Baron of a fief are being equated. But who's got the power? The CEO runs
things, but he must answer to the Board of Directors, who are in turn
selected by the dominant shareholders (usually). Granted, the Baron has to
have some level of consent from his vassals (and initial consent is
strengthened by years of tradition and faith in the ruling family).
However, while the Baron has legal authority over his vassals and subjects,
the CEO of Corporation X has no legal authority over the shareholders.
IMHO it is the predominant shareholders who have the ultimate
authority in a FT. Rail Baron Getty invests and eventually controls 35% of
Getty Rails. *He* is the Baronial equivalent, and the other stockholders
have their own fiefs - parts of Getty Rails. But since Getty owns most of
the company, everyone agrees to follow his lead (most of the time) and
looks to him for leadership.
The CEO, the Board of Directors - these are but the minions of the
fiefholders who maintain the company, equivalent (perhaps) to the Sheriffs,
Castellans, and others who were granted authority but not fiefs.
Now, rather than going to war to acquire more fiefs, Getty simply
invests in another company. This can lead to hostile takeovers, poison
pills, and all the other trendy economic actions involved in mergers &
buyouts. If it works, Getty gets a significant portion of another company's
stock. It may not be controlling interest, but then again, King Henry never
controll all or even most of France, either.
The other shareholders can initiate their own dealings and
eventually acquire a power base outside the company - but Baron Getty might
be aware and could take steps to prevent them from getting far.
How's that for Feudal Technocracy?
Consistency is a Flaw
J Roberson [email removed] [email removed]