Gentlesophonts:
It's great to have so many other folks join in the feudal technocracy thread.
(BTW, I haven't yet received Thursday night's messages. My definition of
technocracy should have appeared there though. If it didn't show up some
of what I write here might not make sense.)
Glenn Goffin [email removed] writes:
> Under what theory can a corporation
> own its shares and grant possession of them to shareholders, when shares
> themselves are merely evidence of ownership?
I see this `evidence of ownership' as being analogous to the feudal title
granted by an aristocractic lord to his vassal tenants. Ownership of a
portion of industry in a technocracy (a block of shares) is the same
as *tenancy* under the feudal system.
> Shareholders provide capital
> only once, when they buy.
No. In a technocracy where there is no governmental entity external to the
industrial economy to print, manage and guarranty currency the shareholders
must have a well-defined and continuous relationship with the technocractic
lord in order to guarranty the value of and access to that capital.
> Fealty is loyalty. How is the provision of money equivalent to loyalty?
In a technocracy there is no external entity to provide `money'. What
serves as currency in a technocratic system must be arranged through
agreement by the participants. One might call the shareholders portion
of this agreement `loyalty'. The key is that the system requires inter-
dependent relationships between the actors - `lord' and `vassal'.
> The Chairman--and, more importantly for this discussion, the CEO--
> owe a duty of loyalty to the company and the shareholders, not the other
> way around.
Don't confuse CEO and Chairman (and I have been guilty of this myself in
the past). The CEO is just the `chamberlain' who sees to the day to day
operations. The Chairman is the technocratic lord. An aristocratic
lord had a duty to his vassals to provide coordinated security services.
A technocractic lord (Chairman) has a duty to her vassals (shareholders)
to provide coordinated profit services.
> Again, you've turned the relationships around. The shareholders aren't
> vassals;
> rather, the management of the corporation owes a duty of loyalty to them,
> to maximize the value of their investment.
Focus on the `duty' rather than the more nebulous `loyalty'. IMHO, it's
important to examine how things such as `loyalty' are manifest in order
to apply feudal principles to technocracy.
> The employees of the corporation
> are closer to vassals of the CEO, and maybe a feudal structure could be
> arranged around this idea.
No. I've said this before. There is no `inter-relatedness' between
employee and employer. The corporate model is a specialized form of
autocracy. It is in no way feudal.
> What is being held in
> tenancy,
> and what kind of service, are the defining issues here.
A block of the corporate enterprise is held in `tenancy' in exchange for
the `service' required to guarranty the access to and value of financial
capital.
> The text: Feudal technocracy.
See my previous post (TML 634/7959) for why this canonical definition is
so vague as to be virtually useless.
Tom O'Neill [email removed] writes:
> 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.
I'd have to disagree. A technocracy may not have to be capitalist but it
involves much more than the control of resources or a particular technology.
A technocracy is government by the class of individuals responsible for
the complete `practice of technology'. In a capitalist system this role
is played by the actors in the industrial economy (but these actors do
not have political power to match their economy power which is what makes
them different from technocrats).
> This actually is quite relevant. One characteristic of the feudal system
> is some form of serfdom or slavery for the common people.
No. Feudalism defined the relationships *between* the members of the
ruling class, not between the ruling class and the ruled classes. Serfdom
occurred in concert with feudalism but was not part of feudalism.
> Capitalism and the rising mercantile
> class is what destroyed feudalism
No. The rise of the mercantile class destroyed the feudal ruling class and
hence the framework of interactions between the members of that ruling
class, feudalism, disappeared. Concurrent with the ascendancy of the
mercantile class was a separation of political power from economic power.
In a technocracy these two spheres of power are reunited.
> I will try to give an example of a non-capitalist FT.
Any system in which a group of elites control some crucial technology to
exercise control of the remaining populace is neither feudal nor
technocractic. It's not feudal because there is no `inter-relatedness'
between the participants and it's not technocratic because those who
control a particular critical technology are not involved in the `practice
of technology'.
J Roberson [email removed] writes:
> First of all, a shareholder is not responsible for the development
> of the shares the CEO & assorted lackeys are.
Nor was an aristocratic vassal responsible for providing coordinated
security services. The `development' of a technocratic fief (shares)
is associated with the responsibilites necessary to guarrantee the
value of and access to the capital provided to the technocratic lord.
> Secondly, from a more
> romantic point of view, loyalty and fealty do not come from being paid off,
> but from the heart
And in a technocracy where the value of, access to and control of `money'
must be guarranteed through the `agreements' between `lord' and `vassal'
one might find some `romantic' aspects for loyalty as well.
> However, while the Baron has legal authority over his vassals and subjects,
> the CEO of Corporation X has no legal authority over the shareholders.
Well, first, again, the CEO is not the `technocratic lord', the Chairman
is. This `legal basis' for any relationship in a capitalist market
economy is provided by the government entity external to the market. In
a technocracy there must be some relationship between the `lord'
(Chairman) and the `vassals' (shareholders) that is developed among
themselves. This is the basis for all `legal' issues between them. For
example, in a market economy the external government entity guarrantees
the value of the capital provided by the shareholder to the chairman. In
a technocracy the `lord' must have some means to ensure the value of and
access to this capital. In a feudal technocracy, feudal agreements
between lord and vassal will do this.
> 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
This is no different from `Baron Gustaf' who provides 35% of the military
forces in an aristocratic duchy. This is what I've been saying all along.
The shareholders are the equivalent of medieval feudal barons.
> 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.
The CEO, yes. The Chairman, no, because without the role of the external
government entity to enforce the `legal' behavior of the Chairman this
person controls all of the financial capital provided by the shareholders.
The only way for the shareholders to guarrantee their own access to their
funds, in the absence of the external governmental entity, is through a
series of agreements with the technocratic lord (chairman).
Les Howie [email removed] writes:
> 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.
Look at your OED definition of technocracy again. It doesn't talk about
`technical service for a corporation'. It talks about `management of
industrial resources', i.e. industrial holdings or `fiefs'.
> 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.
These are `proper roles' for both. The difference is that a capitalist
has a government entity external to the market to establish the framework
for interaction there. A technocrat must establish this framework internal
to the market. The most powerful technocrat can establish this framework
through fiat if she's powerful enough. That might be called `autocratic
technocracy'. If there is no single technocrat powerful enough to establish
this framework herself then some system of agreements must be reached
among the various technocrats to establish the framework. In a feudal
technocracy, feudal principles are used to establish this framework.
> As a side note, while Aristocratic terminology rang true for Piper's Sword
> Worlds, it probably confuses the issue in this debate
Good point. I think we've begun to get past this though.
Great work all! Some very constructive, interesting and valuable
contributions here.
Happy Travelling,
David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA