All: PoliSci 5007: Feudal Technocracy

Gentlesophonts:

I think replying directly to specific quotes is beginning to stretch out
the discussion and making it difficult to maintain a coherent thread so
let me try to respond without quoting directly and then pick and choose
quotes `out of order' as appropriate.  (If I miss an important point by
doing this please let me know.)

We seem to have spent a lot of effort discussing the `feudal' portion of
feudal technocracy but not much discussing the `technocracy'.  I've tried
to suggest that a technocracy is much like a capitalist market economy but
haven't been very successful in describing how a technocracy is *different*
from a capitalist market economy.  The main difference as I see it is that
in a capitalist market economy there are government entities external to
the marketplace that provide the political framework which allows the
market economy to function.

Hans Ranke [email removed] asks for a definition of technocracy which
seems like a good place to start.

Grabbing a handy dictionary (I know others have already done this):

Technocracy: government by technicians, specifically management of society
  by technical experts.

This refers to the *nature* of authority.  It defines the ruling class.
What is meant by `technicians' and `technical' experts though?

Technical: having special, usually practical knowledge, especially of a
  mechanical or scientific subject.

This is the first of several definitions.  Of particular interest is the
sixth definition:

Technical: (6) resulting chiefly from internal market factors rather than
external influences.

This suggests a technocracy is a government where authority is exercised by
a class with specialized knowledge.  This knowledge is somehow practical,
scientific and related to market forces.  This suggests technology which is
the confluence of the practical application of science and the requisite
economic factors that permit that application.  Hence, technocracy is rule
by an industrial class based upon the `practice of technology' - everything
that is required for technological endeavor.

A technocracy ties political power (government) to economic power (industry,
the `practice of technology').  This is something much more sophisiticated
than mere government by engineers and scientists.  It takes much more than
just engineers and scientists to successfully run industry and an industrial
economy.

In contemporary market economies much of the political framework that
permits the industrial economy to function is provide by democratically
established governments that exist external to the economic system.
Furthermore, the basis for political power is also outside of the economic
system.  (Keep in mind the above `sixth' definition of technocracy here.)
Thus, contemporary capitalist systems are not technocracies.

Nevetheless, any technocracy needs a political framework to permit the
functioning of the industrial economy.  To meet the requirements of a
technocracy this framework must arise from *within* the market place.
One way to do this is for the strongest economic actor to establish this
framework.  One might call this `autocratic technocracy' or "what's good
for General Motors is good for planet Earth".

Another means might be to establish this framework through a formalized
system of well-defined relationships between the various actors in the
industrial economy.

Let's grab that dictionary again:

Feudalism: the system of political organization [prevailing in medieval
  Europe] having as its basis the relation of lord to vassal with all land
  held in fee and as chief characteristics homage, the service of tenants
  under arms and in court, wardship, and forfeiture.

Now medieval feudalism, as we've already seen, was closely tied to the
the ownership of land.  This was the *nature* of the authority in a
medieval feudal structure - it defined the ruling class just as "specialized
knowledge" or industrial proficiency defines the ruling class in a
technocracy.

There was more to the feudal system though.  It was based upon "the relation
of lord and vassal" with respect to that which defined the the ruling class,
namely land.  The characteristics of fedualism (homage, service, wardship,
forfeiture, etc.) were all manifestations of this relationship between the
actors in the feudal system.  Feudalism provided the framework needed to
permit the fuedal economy to function.  It did this through a formalized
system of well-defined relationships between the various actors in the
feudal economy.

Sound familiar?  That's just the sort of thing that might provide the
political framework in a technocracy.

Whew!  I feel like I deserve some college credit for all that!  :-)

Okay, now let's look at some specifics of the discussion that might help
to further illustrate this point.

Hans writes:

> The whole world economy, for example, is
> based on negotiations between sovereign nations. Sovereign nations have no
> external governmental entity to provide any legal framework.

Nation-states *are* the `external government entities'.  They are not actors
*within* the industrial economy.

> Yet would you
> claim that the interactions between the U.S, EU, Japan, Russia, China, ect.
> is not capitalist in nature?

Of course not.  This is the essence of a capitalist market economy.  It's not
a technocracy though.

> >(This lack of a stable source of legal authority is the major barrier to
> >market reforms in Russia today.)
>
> The disappearance of the USSR removed the established framework between the
> member republics. The USSR were an exampe of a government providing a
> framework.

This misses the point.  First, there was not a capitalist system within
the Soviet Union.  In centrally-planned economies the government *is* an
*internal* entity in the economy but this most certainly is *not* an
`industrial economy', i.e. one geared solely to the `practice of technology'.
Centrally-planned economies have other goals such as full-employment.
Furthermore, *political* power is not tied to economic power but rather
is *superior* to economic power.  (Hence all the unprofitable but still-
powerful industrial actors in the former Soviet states.)

There is currently no entity (external *or* internal to the economy) within
the former Soviet states to provide a framework under which an industrial
economy can function.  Thus there is no legal framework to guarrantee
access to profits, rates of exchange, control of investment or any of the
other factors necessary to conduct profit-oriented industry.

[BTW, I'm not claiming `industrial economy' is `better' than any other
system, I'm just explaining what's necessary for it to function since I
see that as the goal of a technocracy.]

> Now the republics are negotiating as equals to replace the
> framework. Once they work out various treaties to govern their interaction
> we will have an example of a framework provided without a government. The
> internal relations of the EU is a hybrid. GATT is a negotiated framework.

Exactly (except for the part about "without a government").  It is clear
from all of these examples that some sort of framework is needed.  In all
of these cases that framework is established by governmens acting external
to the industrial economy.  In the former Soviet states, in the European
Union, under GATT, the only recourse of any economic actor to seek redress
for mistreatment is through its own local governmental entity or through
structures established and enforced by its local governmental entity.
There are no agreements between, say, a Kazakh oil field and an Australian
drilling corporation, that are not enforced by some governmental entity
that exists *external* to the marketplace.

These are all elements of the capitalist system.  None of them are elements
of a technocracy.

> Of course one can have market systems without government supervision. Well,
> you may need a government to make sure noone shoots at you while you're
> manufacturing or trading, but what more do you need?

You need someone to print currency, to establish procedures to guarrantee
control of investments and access to profits, to control monetary supplies
and rates or exchange, etc.  In capitalist market economies governmental
entities external to the market perform these functions.  Under technocracy
these functions are performed *internal* to the market.

Let's take for example this idea of a `technocractic lord' `selling' shares
in her enterprise to a `technocractic vassal' in exchange for financial
capital.  Under a capitalist system the goverment prints that money and
guarrantees its value.  In a technocracy the lord and vassal must come
to some agreement themselves as to just what that `financial capital'
is worth because the vassal (shareholder) doesn't have any `money' to
`give' to the lord (chairman).  In essence, money is nothing more than a
promise guarranteed by the government.  In a feudal technocracy, feudal
principals are used to guarrantee that `promise' internally to the market.

I think that's enough for now.  I hope I've made some progress in explaining
what, IMHO, a feudal technocracy is.  To recap:

1. The nature of authority: authority is exercised by those possessing
   specialized knowledge related to the practice of technology as manifest
   in an industrial economy.
2. Politcal power and thus the framework for the industrial economy must
   arise from *within* the industrial economy.
3. Feudal principles will be used to establish the framework through a
   system of well-defined relationships between the actors in the market.

Remember, it's feudal *technocracy*, not technocratic feudalism.

Finally, Glenn Goffin [email removed] writes:

> I've been enjoying the discussion so far.

I'm glad to hear someone besides Hans and I has been enjoying this!  :-)
(Phil Pugliese are you listening?)

Peace,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA