I'm probably going to end up putting both feet in my mouth, but here's my
Cr.02:
My OED offers for technocracy: n. Organization an management of a countries
industrial resourses by technical experts for the good of the whole community.
And for feudal system: medieval European form of government based on relation
of vassel and superior arising from holding land in feud.
and GDW offers the laconic definition for feudal technocracy: Government by
specific individuals for those who agree to be ruled. Relationships are based
on the performance of technical activities which are mutually beneficial.
Now David Johnson (if I have this straight) has argued for the equivalence of
"share fiefs" with "industrial fiefs". I cannot accept this because a share
holder performs no TECHNICAL service for the corporation. He provides
Capital and receives dividends and a measure of control. I think this is
a more proper role for a Capitalist, not a Technocrat.
If, on the other hand, the ruler grants an industrial fief to a vassel the
vassel will have a technical role - managing the industry. He must then
find "vassels" for the feifs within the plant, say the Information Systems
fief.
Thinking about this, I think perhaps the "Industrial Feudalism" of Mote Prime
(Niven & Pournelle) resembles a "Feudal Technocracy" as well.
As a side note, while Aristocratic terminology rang true for Piper's Sword
Worlds, it probably confuses the issue in this debate, since the historical
view of a Medieval Duke is of a person whose only skills were in military
matters; the feif itself was run by a paid employee.
Les Howie
Prograph International