Feudal Technocracy (Sword Worlds technology): May - June 1994 ------------------------------ Bundle: 592 Archive-Message-Number: 7411 Date: Sun, 1 May 94 21:00:25 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: Shall Not Perish 6 - Sword Worlds Gentlesophonts: From Sunday night, Roger Sanger asks: > How far can a society improve technologically in 70 years? This is a very good point. I was looking at the Sword Worlds this weekend with the intention of bringing them `up to date' to TNE. In 1120 most of the Sword Worlds were at tech level 10 or 11 with the exception of Sacnoth which was at tech level 12. The only class A starport (if my memory serves me - my materials aren't at hand) was at Gram. It seems to me that by TNE most of the worlds in a `feudal technocracy' ought to have advanced at least *one* tech level if not more and that additional class A starports ought to exist - prime candidates being *at least* Anduril and Sacnoth. Comments or opinions? Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 593 Archive-Message-Number: 7429 From: rancke(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: Sword World technology Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 15:11:23 +0100 (METDST) David Johnson writes: >Subject: Shall Not Perish 6 - Sword Worlds > >>From Sunday night, Roger Sanger asks: > >> How far can a society improve technologically in 70 years? > >This is a very good point. I was looking at the Sword Worlds this weekend >with the intention of bringing them `up to date' to TNE. In 1120 most of >the Sword Worlds were at tech level 10 or 11 with the exception of Sacnoth >which was at tech level 12. The answer is: possibly a lot but propably not at all. Never forget (as is so easy to do given our background as 20th Century Earthlings) that the TLs in Traveller are _economic_ (or sometimes social) indicators. Any planet that is in contact with a high-tech planet has all the high-tech _knowledge_ they want (ignoring for this argument the question of techno- logical secrets and blockades - surely TL 15 knowledge is widespread enough Behind the Claw to be available _somewhere_). The problem is wether they have the economic underpining to implement the technology. The Sword Worlds were TL 11 1500 years ago. They've been knocked down a bit once or twice during their history by wars - once below TL 9 - but they've been TL 9+ for centuries. Why should a 70 year period of crisis management (I'm referring to the Quarantine) be conductive to economic growth? Or perhaps it is - one might argue that a pseudo-wartime economy would stimulate technological improvements. But then, the Sword Worlds have frequently been on war footing throughout their history, and they were still only TL 10-12 in 1120. And never forget that wartime economies are not sustainable in the long run. Perhaps the Sword Worlds goes through a regular cycle of booms and recessions with acompanying TL increases and decreases? >The only class A starport (if my memory serves >me - my materials aren't at hand) was at Gram. It seems to me that by >TNE most of the worlds in a `feudal technocracy' ought to have advanced >at least *one* tech level if not more and that additional class A starports >ought to exist - prime candidates being *at least* Anduril and Sacnoth. On the starport improvements I agree completely. The concept of B starports (as defined by the ability to construct starships) on TL 9+ worlds has never made much sense to me. Presumably they are the result of economic factors too. Hans Rancke University of Copenhagen rancke(at)[-- redacted --] - ------------ "This gives a possible range of 56 to 178 starships total in the three Terran starport facilities, a believable quantity for such a star system." "We have a maximum of 178 ships in port, and (as it is a busy star system) we will say that there are 70 docking berths at the Phoenix facility." ---Journal of the Traveller's Aid Society # 18 ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 595 Archive-Message-Number: 7452 Date: Wed, 4 May 94 16:10:00 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: Shall Not Perish 9 - Sword Worlds Gentlesophonts: From Wednesday night, Hans Rancke writes: > David Johnson writes: > >the Sword Worlds were at tech level 10 or 11 with the exception of Sacnoth > >which was at tech level 12. > > Sword Worlds were TL 11 1500 years ago. They've been knocked down a bit > once or twice during their history by wars - once below TL 9 - but > they've been TL 9+ for centuries. Why should a 70 year period of crisis > management (I'm referring to the Quarantine) be conductive to economic > growth? I had recognized your point that variance in tech levels suggests some sort of sociological reason - as opposed to technological - behind the tech levels but I hadn't considered the fact that Sword Worlds technology had been relatively stagnant and yet still varied from world to world. This does tend to suggest that an increase might not occur in the 80 years to TNE. > Or perhaps it is - one might argue that a pseudo-wartime economy > would stimulate technological improvements. But then, the Sword Worlds > have frequently been on war footing throughout their history, and they > were still only TL 10-12 in 1120. And never forget that wartime economies > are not sustainable in the long run. I agree with this point as well. If the Frontier Wars haven't induced technological advance one doubts Virus will - especially since the Sword Worlds aren't on the front line. > Perhaps the Sword Worlds goes through > a regular cycle of booms and recessions with acompanying TL increases and > decreases? Well, maybe, but that still doesn't explain the *variance* in tech levels from world to world within the Confederation - especially since it was suggested in the *JTAS* "Contact" article on the Sword Worlds that they were very homogenous - at least to outsiders. One would expect then some similarity in technological achievement. Without it, one wonders why Sacnoth, at tech level 12, hasn't come to dominate the Sword Worlds long ago. (I suspect that this is once again merely a matter of the world generation rules intruding into the background but any rationales - not just opinions - to the contrary are appreciated.) Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 595 Archive-Message-Number: 7453 Date: Wed, 4 May 94 18:25:43 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: Shall Not Perish 10 - Sword Worlds Gentlesophonts: Some thoughts on the Sword Worlds in TNE. I've started with Rebellion-era stats and made modifications with some of the following ideas in mind. Rebellion-era *ihatei* invasions of District 268 resulted in large numbers of refugees moving into the `Metal Worlds' along the rimward edge of the Sword Worlds. These barren worlds were prime candidates for refugees fleeing the encroaching Aslan. This sort of immigration was further enhanced by strict controls on the Imperial borders in Lunion subsector. Later, as the *ihatei* moved into 268, these same worlds would have drawn their attention. Ultimately, the Confederation was forced to cede Steel in order to halt further Aslan moves into the Sword Worlds proper. On top of this crisis came the onslaught of Virus. The Confederation was spared the brunt of the Virus assault due to the buffer of Deneb but the subsequent rapproachment between Deneb and the Zhodani left the Sword Worlds `out in the cold'. In response to these challenges business as usual had to change in the Sword Worlds. No longer could the various worlds afford to bicker among themselves and efforts were made to enhance the central government. Technological exchange programs were launched to spread technological capabilities across the Sword Worlds. Class A starports, with their associated shipyards, were constructed at several worlds. Internal immigration was encouraged in order to further equalize capabilities across the Confederation. Population increased from legal immigration from Diatrict 268 as well. Sword Worlds Subsector Data c1120 (from *MTJ* #3) Hrunting (+6) 0921 B463747-9 M Ri 313 Sw M2V - -With 30 million people a good candidate for TL increase to TL A. Proximity Darrians would seem to preclude much immigration. New UWP: 0921 B463758-A M Ri 413 Sw M2V Tizon (+6) 0922 B386887-A M Ri 323 Sw K2VI M3D - -With 300 million people a good candidate for TL increase to B or even C and for starport improvement to class A. New UWP: 0922 A386887-B M Ri 423 Sw K2VI M3D Narsil (+6) 0927 B574A55-A M Hi In 224 Sw M0II M6D - -With 20 billion people a prime candidate for TL increase to B or C and for starport improvement to class A. Also a good candidate to possibly lead a new government except for the proximity to Darrian. New UWP: 0927 A574A55-C M Hi In 224 Sw M0III M6D Flammarion (+5) 0930 A623514-B NSX Ni Po 710 Dd F8V - -Expect this Imperial world not to change much. New UWP: 0930 A623614-B NSX 110 Dd F8V Colada (+4) 1022 B364685-B M Ag Ni Ri A 211 Sw K2V M8D - -Unclear what the Amber Zone is for but it might preclude much immigration. At six million people a TL increase might not be likely. New UWP: 1022 B364685-B M Ag Ni Ri A 211 Sw K2V M8D Anduril (+7) 1026 B985855-B M Ri 222 Sw F2V - -With 200 million people a good candidate for TL increase to C and for starport improvement to class A. Another possible government seat. New UWP: 1026 A985855-C M Ri Cp? 222 Sw F2V Mjolnir (+1) 1121 B530544-A M De Ni Po 522 Sw A5V G0D - -Desert conditions and low population make immigration or TL increase unlikely. New UWP: 1121 B530544-A M De Ni Po 522 Sw A5V G0D Joyeuse (+3) 1123 B464778-A M Ag Ri A 201 Sw M3V M9D - -The Amber Zone was due to a bitter civil war. One might expect this to have been resolved in 80 years. With 200 million people a good candidate for TL increase to B or even C in light of the war footing. The internal focus though might suggest no starport improvement. New UWP: 1123 B464757-B M Ag Ri 201 Sw M3V M9D Orcrist (+2) 1126 B8A6733-A M Fl 401 Sw M7V M7D - -Exotic atmospheric conditions make immigration unlikely but with 40 million people a TL increase to B might be likely. New UWP: 1126 B8A6733-B M Fl 401 Sw M7V M7D Enos (-4) 1130 E25059B-4 M De Ni Po 710 Sw M9V - -Still the Sword Worlds backwater. New UWP: 1130 E25059B-4 M De ni Po 810 Sw M9V Gungnir (+3) 1221 B444779-8 M Ag 432 Sw G3VI M4VI - -With 40 million people a good candidate for immigration and a TL increase to 9, A or even B. As an agricultural world there might not be a starport improvement. New UWP: 1121 B444758-A M Ag 632 Sw G3VI M4VI Gram (+8) 1223 A895957-B M Hi In Cp 603 Sw F2D M2D - -The recent and often capital. With six billion people a TL increase to C would seem to be in order. Might be challenged for leadership of the Confederation by Narsil, Anduril or Sacnoth. New UWP: 1223 A895957-C M Hi In Cp? 703 Sw F2D M2D Excalibur (+4) 1225 B324755-A M 402 Sw M5V - -Poor atmosphere to encourage immigration. With only 40 million people a TL increase or starport improvement might be difficult. New UWP: 1225 B324755-A M 502 Sw M5V Tyrfing (+4) 1324 B637735-A M 701 Sw* M4V - -Similar atmosphere problems to Excalibur. With 70 million people a TL increase or starport improvement might be tough here too. New UWP: 1324 B637756-A M 801 Sw M4V Sacnoth (+7) 1325 B775956-C M Hi In 301 Sw* F9V M8D - -With three billion people an improvement in starport to class A would make sense. As the maximum TL in the Confederation there might not be any increase. A former capital and a good candidate to challenge Gram. New UWP: 1325 A775956-C M Hi In Cp? 401 Sw F9V M8D Caladbolg (+5) 1329 B365776-A SX Ag Ri 710 Dd F7V M0D M4D - -If this world weren't so isolated from the rest of Deneb it might be a booming site for immigration. Even though, it might have seen much immigration from District 268'ers fleeing the *ihatei* or possibly even the Aslan themselves. New UWP: 1329 B365899-A SX Ag 210 Dd F7V M0D M4D Beater (+5) 1424 B685686-A M Ag Ni Ri 610 Sw* M4V - -Collaboration with the Imperials during the Border Worlds era might hinder immigration once this world is back in the fold. With only six million people neither a TL increase or starport improvement seems likely. New UWP: 1424 B685686-A M Ag Ni Ri 810 Sw M4V Gunn (-5) 1429 E344110-8 Lo Ni A 602 Dd M6V - -With only 60 inhabitants and a small, red star this is probably just a refuelling post on a satellite of the gas giant. It still might have seen an influx of District 268 refugees. New UWP: 1429 E344577-8 Ni A 202 Dd M6V Caliburn (-3) 1430 E000514-A As Ni 924 Dd M7VI - -With 900,000 people and no habitable world there are clearly resources to be had in the Caliburn Belt. New UWP: 1430 E000615-A As Ni 124 Dd M7VI Dyrnwyn (+4) 1522 B958412-A M Ni 201 Sw* M4V M8D - -With a good biosphere and only 20,000 people this is a prime candidate for immigration. The low population though would make a TL increase or starport improvement unlikely. New UWP: 1522 B958535-A M Ag Ni 101 Sw M4V M8D Durendal (+5) 1523 B687334-B M Lo Ni 714 Sw* M1V - -Another great candidate for immigration. Similarly, a TL increase or starport improvement are unlikely. New UWP: 1523 B687556-B M Ag Ni 214 Sw M1V Hofud (+4) 1524 B666553-A M Ag Ni 501 Sw* M4V M9D - -Another immigration candidate. New UWP: 1524 B666554-A M Ag Ni 901 Sw M4V M9D Sting (+5) 1525 B645896-A M 302 Sw* M0V - -With 300 million people a TL increase to B or even C seems likely as does a starport improvement to class A. Animosity left over from post-5FW collaboration with the Imperials might foil any attempt to seek a leadership position in the Confederation. New UWP: 1525 A645896-A M 302 Sw M0V Biter (+4) 1526 B354623-A MX Ag Ni 301 Sw* M7V M1D - -With only three million people another good candidate for immigration. As part of the Imperial x-boat route you'd expect pro-Imperial sentiments here. Starport improvement or TL increase are unlikely. New UWP: 1526 B254623-A MX Ag Ni 501 Sw M7V M1D Steel (-2) 1529 E655000-7 Ba Lo Ni 324 Sw* M8III - -This world would have been a prime target for District 268 refugees and Aslan *ihatei*. New UWP: 1529 C655576-9 Ag Ni 424 As M8III Iron (-3) 1626 E329000-9 Ba Lo Ni 714 Sw* F0V - -While the *ihatei* might have steered clear of here, District 268 refugees would see it as a good place to escape the Aslan. New UWP: 1626 E329434-6 Ni 614 Sw F0V Bronze (-5) 1627 E201000-9 Ba Ic Lo Ni Va 510 Sw* M3V - -Clearly nothing more that a small, highly-automated refueling station on a barren ball of ice. New UWP: 1627 E201100-9 Ba Ic Lo Ni Va 810 Sw M3V Mithril (-2) 1628 E568000-7 Ba Lo Ni 301 Sw* F4D - -Another popular destination for District 268 refugees and Aslan *ihatei* except that the dwarf star means the biosphere is probaly not that hospitable. New UWP: 1628 E568568-7 Ag Ni 401 Sw F4D *`Border World' occupied by Imperium after the Fifth Frontier War and administered from Beater. Here's a revised subsector map for TNE: VILIS ------- ------- ------- ------- | | | | | | | | | B | | B | | | | | | * |-------| o |-------| |-------| |------- |Hrunting |Mjolnir| | | | | | |M G| |M G| B | | | | | |-------| |-------| * |-------| |-------| | | | | |Gungnir| | | | | | A | | |M G| | | B | | | * |-------| |-------| |-------| * |-------| | Tizon | | | | | |Dyrnwyn| | |M G| B | | | | |M G| | |-------| * |-------| |-------| |-------| | | |Colada | | | | | | | | |M G| B | | | | B | | | |-------| * |-------| |-------| * |-------| | | |Joyeuse| | | |Durendal | | | |M G| A | | |M G| | |-------| |-------| * |-------| |-------| | | | | | GRAM | | | | | | | | |M G| B | | B | | | |-------| |-------| * |-------| * |-------| | | | | |Tyrfing| | Hofud | | | | | | |M G| B |M G| | |-------| |-------| |-------| * |-------| | | | | | | |Beater | | | | | | | | A |M | A | | | |-------| |-------| * |-------| * |-------| D| | | | |SACNOTH| | Sting | | A| | | | B |M G| |M G| |L R|-------| |-------| * |-------| |-------| |U R| | | |Excalibur | | | |N I| | | B |M G| | | B | |I A| |-------| * |-------| |-------| * |-------|O N| | |Orcrist| | | | Biter | |N | | A |M G| | | |MX G| E | |-------| * |-------| |-------| |-------| * | | |Anduril| | | | | | Iron | | A |M G| | | | | | G| | * |-------| |-------| |-------| |-------| |NARSIL | | | | | | | | |M G| | | | | | | E | |-------| |-------| |-------| |-------| * | | | | | | | | |Bronze | | | | | | | | | | | |-------| |-------| |-------| |-------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | E | |-------| |-------| |-------| |-------| * | | | | | | | | |Mithril| | | | | | B | | C | G| | |-------| |-------| * |-------| * |-------| | | | | |Caladbolg (Dd) | Steel | | | | | | |SX | E | G| | |-------| |-------| |-------| * |-------| | | | | | | |Gunn (Dd) | | | A | | E | | | G| | | | * |-------| o |-------| |-------| |-------| |Flammarion (Dd)| Enos | | | | | | |NSX | |M | | | E | | | -------| |-------| |-------| @ |-------| | | | | | |Caliburn Belt (Dd) | | | | | | G| | | ------- ------- ------- ------- DISTRICT 268 ***** I'd be very interested in anyone's comments or suggestions. Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 597 Archive-Message-Number: 7470 Date: Fri, 06 May 1994 09:01:26 +1000 From: langsl(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: sword worlds I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M Date: Sent on: 06-May-1994 09:00am From: Alistair Langsford LANGSFORD ALISTAIR Dept: Information Services Tel No:289 7870 TO: Remote Addressee ( _traveller@engrg.uwo.ca ) Subject: sword worlds Regarding the Sworld Worlds.... writes: > While they seem to have been stagnant in the past, the challenges of > surviving through to the New Era might wake them up. This seems to be > suggested by David Johnsons write up (which I liked, BTW). I don't see why > you can't be optimistic and use the higher of the suggested tech level > increases, and have SACNOTH go up to TL 13. This is a good point. I'm something of a Sword Worlder though (I was in the *JTAS* `draft' a long time ago and served in the Confederation Second Grav Tank Corps during the 5FW) and decided to `be conservative' and choose the lower TL choice in my modifications for TNE to avoid any suggestion of partisanship. I'm curious what others think of this issue. Steve Bonneville writes: > Subject: Why no GDW Regency Yet. > Patience, folks. For now, you can make it up as you go! I *thought* that's what we were doing! ;-) Hans Rancke writes: > Bruce Pihlamae writes: > > On the subject of tech level advances: > > > > A tech level advance is usually a fundamental breakthrough or addition > > of knowledge to the society. Other advances are simply refinements or > > incremental improvements on existing technology. > > This is true only on the cutting edge of technology, which for most worlds > in the former Imperium (and all worlds in the Regency) is 16. Even if you > assume that the newest discoveries are kept secret that still means that > anything up to TL 15 is a question of economics: Can you afford to build > and maintain the industry for a given TL. I agree with Hans's point but I think this has major ramifications for the Regency and other Spinward States in TNE. As Alistair suggests above one would expect the Viral threat to serve as an important motivator for all interstellar states to seek to overcome the economic and social obstacles to the spread of their highest technological capabilites. Just as the Regency is most likely sending scientists and engineers from its TL 15 worlds to study on Vincennes, I would think the Sword Worlds would be doing the same. They might even put aside their distaste for Imperials and Zhodani in order to participate in technological exchange programs with them. It was in the interests of the Imperium to maintain the technological diversity of its worlds - it made the lower-tech worlds easier to control through advanced technology and the higher-tech worlds easier to control through control of the means of transportation and communication between them. Such motivations become suspect in the face of Virus. Finally, Bill White writes a whole bunch of good stuff on: > The Political Economy of the Imperium Ending with: > The assumptions I am making here are different from but no less > valid than those made by advocates of changing UWP generation. > In a sense I am making the case for an "active Imperium" that > acts on the worlds within its domain, indirectly, by governing > the relationships between them. > > Comments? I'm all ears. I agree with much of what Bill writes - his argument is well thought out. I, too, prefer to `rationalize' the `inconsistencies' that appear due to `glitches' in the rules. With Traveller world generation though these `inconsistencies' are, IMHO, just too rampant. Yes, there may be policy reasons for the Imperium to subsidize `un-needed' starports and to promote settlement of `Nifflheims' when several `Edens' are just a week away, but I find it impossible to explain these sorts of decisions when such explanations often become necessary for multiple occurrences in a single subsector. I don't like rules, but world generation is one of those places where a lot of useful information is generated very quickly - a good measure of the usefulness of a rule - and in this instance we're still plagued with relics that were developed a long time ago when sci-fi role- playing was still relatively new. It was fine - even fun and interesting - to have such `awkward' worlds when we were just adventuring in Regina subsector but now that the entire galaxy is at our disposal I think it's time for a little tinkering with the mechanics. Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 599 Archive-Message-Number: 7508 From: rancke(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: Sword World technology Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 05:34:27 +0100 (METDST) David Johnson writes: >J Roberson writes: >>I don't know much about the Sword Worlds, but to me they always seemed >>very faction-based, more akin to the Peloponnesian city-states than, >>say the Roman Empire. > >This is a fair assessment, IMHO, but this very view seems at conflict with >variable TLs. Again, if Sacnoth truly is at TL 12 while the other worlds >are at TL 9-11 then it ought to quickly come to dominate the entire >Confederation. Dominate how? And how quick is quickly? >Remember, technology is at the heart of the `feudal >technocracy' of the Sword Worlds Confederation. How would this affect the inter-planet dealings? Individual Sword Worlds may be feudal technocracies, but the Confederation itself is a - well, a confederation ;-) >This idea of a fundamental advance does need to be rectified with Hans's >point that in the Imperium campaign the ease of access to higher TLs points >to an economic or sociological basis for any TL rating rather than a basis >upon technological endeavor. If I want to build a Jump-3 starship on Gram >all I need to do is jump over to Sacnoth, buy some blueprints (or hire a >shipwright), and jump back to Gram. Since this isn't happening (otherwise >Gram would be TL C with a class A starport) then either I can't afford to >buy the blueprints (or hire the shipwright) *or* there is some social >reason why I can't do this. You can take it a step further to say that >Gram doesn't have the TL 12 factories needed to manufacture components for >such a ship but can't I just jump down to Sacnoth and get plans for them >too? Ah, but thats the whole point. You don't have the factories because you can buy your TL 12 stuff cheaper from Sacnoth than you can build them yourself. And you don't build that ship yourself becuase it's cheaper to buy it from Sacnoth, too. This also impose a natural restriction on Sacnoth's ability to dominate the Confederation: If they become too expensive the other worlds _will_ build TL 12 factories - which will propably trigger a recession on Sacnoth and close down a lot of industry - quite possibly enough to drop Sacnoth a TL in the process. That's what I mean by economic cycles. >Hans Rancke writes: > >>David Johnson writes: >>>>From Wednesday night, Hans Rancke writes: >>>>Perhaps the Sword Worlds goes through >>>>a regular cycle of booms and recessions with acompanying TL increases and >>>>decreases? >>> >>>Well, maybe, but that still doesn't explain the *variance* in tech levels >>>from world to world within the Confederation - >> >>It does if one postulates that the individual Sword Worlds are on different >>cycles. When a world has a boom it produces TL 12 stuff and exports it; when >>it is in a depression it makes do with TL 10 or 11 stuff for the most part >>and imports what it has to. > >Such variation in economic cycles from world to world would seem to suggest >that there is little integration between the economies of the Sword Worlds. On the contrary, there is a lot of intergration. That's why their economies can affect each other that way. What they don't have is much economic _control_. Each world will do what seems best for itself. >This seems unlikely to me. Even if there is little political cooperation >there ought to be much economic cooperation or the Sword Worlds would have >fallen to the Imperium - or the Darrians - long ago. How do you know that? By that logic the independent worlds along the edge of the Imperium should have fallen to the Imperium long ago too. They are certainly even weaker than the Confederation. Lots of independant worlds have fallen to the Imperium in the old days. But the Imperium had to stop somewhere. It happened to be before they swallowed the Sword Worlds (Of course, the fact that the present Sword world government (centered on Gram) is rumoured to be heavily backed by Zhodani money may explain a lot). The Imperium did occupy 12 of the Sword Worlds for a time after the Third Frontier War, as a matter of fact. They just decided to go home again. >>Their culture can perfectly well be homogenous in spite of TL variances of >>a couple of levels. > >Well, maybe, but I find this unlikely for a `feudal technocracy'. Technology >is a fundamental aspect of Sword Worlds culture. (Do me a favour and describe how a feudal technocracy functions. Of all the government types that's the one I've never been quite clear about. I have a vague idea, but I can't quite see how it would work in practice). Anyway, as I said above, the Confederation is not one. >>>Without it, one wonders why >>>Sacnoth, at tech level 12, hasn't come to dominate the Sword Worlds long >>>ago. >> >>Two possible reasons: 1) Sacnoth has its own ups and downs and just happened >>to have an up the last time the Scouts or TAS updated their world catalogue. > >Well, if this was the case, why wasn't Sacnoth the capital at that point? Because it was only one of 20+ worlds and the rest wanted it differently? >Leadership clearly fluctuates among the Sword Worlds so ought not these >fluctuations be tied to any fluctuations in technology? Why should it? It is tied to political power. One source of political power is technology, but it's not the only one. Besides, the leadership dosen't fluctuate all that much. The Sword Worlds had been led by Gram for centuries in 1120. >Again, keep in mind the `feudal technocracy'. Elucidate please. I'm not trying to be snide, I actually can't see why that should affect the inter-planet relationships. >>2) If, as I assume, a world can maintain equipment that is not too much in >>advance of its TL, then the other worlds can maintain their own TL 12 ships >>even though their TL is only 10 or 11 (though they cannot build new ones). >>Thus there is a balance of power. > >Well, again maybe, but only if that balance of power doen't destroy any >of those precious ships. If I were Sacnoth I wouldn't sell any other >worlds ships, fight them to a destructive stalemate, build some new TL12 >weapons of my own, and set myself up as a TED, in a sense. If the Sword >Worlds are as fractious as it seems, even if Sacnoth doesn't do this it >seems the next world to hit the `peak' of it's cycle would. Oh, dear! You really have a gamer's mentality, don't you? (And, yes, here I am being snide ;-) The Sword Worlds have had their civil wars, true, but they don't have them twice a decade. I think they've had four or five in 15 centuries. They're not the local Monday Evening Gaming Club trying to do each other down, reasoning that having 50 'victory points' and win is better than having 500 points and lose. Wars cost. Maybe the Sacnoth leaders think a destructive stalemate would destroy too much. And, as I've mentioned above, if Sacnoth dosen't sell those ships then the other worlds _will_ build the factories to make the parts and build their own. If that's the way it works, then the only reason why the other worlds are not TL 12 is precisely that Sacnoth IS selling them ships and spare parts. > This entire `technological cycles' idea seems to me to be more and more > difficult to rationalize. Did I help? >> "A subsector official pompously states that the >> subsector armed forces have four Kinunir class >> ships in service, each with enough troop strength >> to put down any military operations that threathen >> the peace of the Imperium." >> >> ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir > >I've been meaning to say it for a long time. I *love* this quote. It so >wonderfully demonstrates the `provinciality' of all of us who `grew up' in the >Marches - both gamers and GDW. Thanks, Hans. Thank you. Ahh, yes. I too remember a time when a Kinunir was an awesome vesel of destruction, able to pacify whole worlds at a single volley of its 15 (Count them: 15!) jump capsules <>. They just don't make Marines like that nowadays, do they? Hans Rancke University of Copenhagen rancke(at)[-- redacted --] - ------------ "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent events based on the individual situation." _76 Patrons_, p. 8 ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 601 Archive-Message-Number: 7533 Date: Wed, 11 May 94 19:13:22 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: Shall Not Perish 12 - Tech & SW Gentlesophonts: First off, my cr0.02 about deep space jumps and refueling. (Please keep in mind my avowed aversion to rules details.) I've always considered that jump calculations use gravity wells as `targets'. The better your jump drive (jump-2 over jump-1, say) and/or the better your navigator (navigation-2 over navigation-1, say) the better you are at `targeting' a specific gravity well. Furthermore, the stronger a gravity well (i.e. a star over a gas giant or giant over a rocky planet) the easier it is to target (it's also `stronger' if you're closer). Similarly, the lesser the `interference' of other gravity wells (no similarly or larger massed objects in the vicinity - and `vicinity' increases with mass) the easier a specific gravity well is to target. What this means is that in a typical system the largest star will be the easiest target. Jumps from outside the system will require higher jump numbers and/or higher skilled navigators to target smaller bodies like gas giants and planets (and at least the star's well gets me `targeting' in the general vicinity). The gas giants in a binary or trinary system will be more difficult to target than those in a solitary system. Similarly, the planets in a system with several giants will be more difficult to target than those in a system with only one giant. With this premise `coordinated jumps' are quite difficult which seems to mesh with canonical thinking. My fleet can probably all emerge in orbit about a system's major gas giant but it will have to maneuver afterwards to regain its formation. Jumps to deep space are difficult because there is no gravity well to serve as a target. Even if I stage some sort of refueling post it will be difficult to get close - the lack of any other significant gravity wells in the vicinity helps but I'm still targeting something *much* less massive than a star, gas giant or planet. It's possible but some ships are going to emerge at a distance from the staging target that is beyond the range of their maneuver drives/life support. Fuel drones will get there eventually since they don't have to worry about running out of recycled air. (I guess in this d**med New Era they'll run out of fuel too!) As I build up fuel at the staging depot my gravity well will increase making it easier to target but this will still be much more difficult than jumping to a star system. That's the rationale. I don't have any specific rules to back it up. Basically, if the ref wants them to make it they will, and if she doesn't, they won't. IMHO, that's role-playing. From Tuesday night, Hans Rancke writes: > Dominate how? And how quick is quickly? Well, something like what all this *Smash and Grab* stuff is supposed to be about for those Sword World wannabees in the Reformation Coalition. I, King David I of Sacnoth, send my TL 12 fleet down to Gram, shoot up the capital, drop a few `planetbusters', execute the King of Gram and his family, set up some disguntled duke as king, and send emmissaries to the other Sword Worlds expressing my sincerest hopes that I won't need to visit their world next. > How would this affect the inter-planet dealings? Individual Sword Worlds > may be feudal technocracies, but the Confederation itself is a - well, > a confederation ;-) The Confederation is really little more than a mutual-defense pact set up to protect the Sword Worlds from Imperial incursions and to permit joint `defensive' operations against the Darrians. Think more of NATO than the European Union. > Ah, but thats the whole point. You don't have the factories because you can > buy your TL 12 stuff cheaper from Sacnoth than you can build them yourself. Sure, I do this if I value cheaper products over dependence upon Sacnoth (or whatever world currently is on an `up' cycle). If I'm as smart as the Japanese I don't get caught in this trap. > And you don't build that ship yourself becuase it's cheaper to buy it from > Sacnoth, too. This also impose a natural restriction on Sacnoth's ability to > dominate the Confederation: If they become too expensive the other worlds > _will_ build TL 12 factories - which will propably trigger a recession on > Sacnoth and close down a lot of industry - quite possibly enough to drop > Sacnoth a TL in the process. That's what I mean by economic cycles. There are other ways for Sacnoth to preserve its dominance. The technology of the US is largely available to Latin American nations. Unfortunately, many of these nations lack the stability, primarily political, required to support a similar level of economic and technological achievement. Fostering this instability has been standard American policy for nearly a century. One of the reasons Central Americans who can't own American cars don't build their own factories is that the US military drops in every once and a while to topple the local government. When we're not doing that we're supplying arms to some `disgruntled duke' who keeps the fires of instability burning. We are able to do this because we have the will and a significant technological advantage. The other Sword Worlds won't be able to `gang up' on Sacnoth for the same reason that everyone from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego hasn't `ganged up' on the US. > On the contrary, there is a lot of intergration. That's why their economies > can affect each other that way. What they don't have is much economic > _control_. Each world will do what seems best for itself. If the King of Gram is equipping his navy with TL 12 equipment built on Sacnoth then he's *not* doing what's best for Gram and his fief-holders *ought* to depose him. > How do you know that? By that logic the independent worlds along the edge > of the Imperium should have fallen to the Imperium long ago too. They are > certainly even weaker than the Confederation. Well, except these other worlds don't keep invading the Imperium. Clearly, the Sword Worlds are able to coordinate their efforts well enough to fend off not only Imperial military efforts to neutralized them but political and economic efforts as well. The Imperium has not been doing to the Sword Worlds what I've described for the US in Latin America and suggested for Sacnoth within the Confederation. If they've tried, it hasn't worked or the Sword Worlds wouldn't keep joining the Outworld Coalitions. The Zhodani may be a factor (although the alliance between the Zhos and the Sword Worlds is one of convenience - there's little love for the Zhodani among the Sword Worlds people) but I suspect there must be a great deal of political and economic cooperation among the Sword Worlds to have permitted them to remain independent. Ooops! Maybe I've made your point. Maybe this is why Sacnoth doesn't just take over! :-o But then again, if relations among the Sword Worlds are friendly then they ought to see some advantage in several high-tech worlds with class A starports. Maybe there is some sort of negotiated `balance of power': Sacnoth gets the high tech and Gram gets the shipyard? (But don't the shipbuilding rules state that any world can build ships for its own navy regardless of starport class?) > (Do me a favour and describe how a feudal technocracy functions. Of all the > government types that's the one I've never been quite clear about. I have > a vague idea, but I can't quite see how it would work in practice). Anyway, > as I said above, the Confederation is not one. Well, first, the Confederation is nothing more than a bunch of cooperating feudal technocracies (with some exceptions). Second, keep in mind that, IMHO, GDW has never gotten the feudal technocracy aspect of the Sword Worlds right. The canonical take on this government type has been merely a `high-tech' aristocracy. A feudal system is one in which ruling authority is granted to a specific individual by others who provide support to that individual in return for his efforts at coordinating their collective activities. In medieval times this was centered around common defense. The fief-holders provided military and economic support to the `lord' and in return he used these common forces to protect each of them from `barbarians' and such. In a technocracy these efforts are not limited to military affairs but are focused on the entire range of technological activities. The `lord' is essentially the `chairman of the board' of a huge conglomerate. He coordinates the activites of manufacturers, distributors, financiers, retailers, etc. so that each can function in the marketplace. It's something like the Japanese kieritsu(sp?). In the case of the Sword Worlds this sort of thing is happening on a planetary scale. Every technological (and economic) interest on Sacnoth holds `fealty' to the King. Another good way to look at this is as a `plutocracy'. The economic elites (`technocrats' in a high-tech society) are also the political elites. Unlike conventional Western democracies (some might argue this point), there is no separation between politcal power and economic power. In the US we have as much separation of `business and state' as we do of `church and state' but in a technocracy this is not the case. It's not like the `state- controlled' economies of the old East bloc - it's still a `capitalist' system. If your `company' or `fief' goes sour your political influence does as well (because you can no longer support your `liege'). Again, the Japanese system - if you ignore the politcal government - is a good model. > >Well, if this was the case, why wasn't Sacnoth the capital at that point? > > Because it was only one of 20+ worlds and the rest wanted it differently? Maybe, but again, if I'm the King of Sacnoth my TL advantage permits me to pretty much `smash and grab' at will. > >Leadership clearly fluctuates among the Sword Worlds so ought not these > >fluctuations be tied to any fluctuations in technology? > > Why should it? It is tied to political power. One source of political power > is technology, but it's not the only one. Now you see that in a feudal technocracy, technological power *is* political power. > Besides, the leadership dosen't > fluctuate all that much. The Sword Worlds had been led by Gram for centuries > in 1120. A good point. I can't explain it. As I understand it I don't see how any world but the technological leader can be the dominant world. (And Gram is clearly mentioned as `dominating' the Sword Worlds.) Maybe the Zhodani influence is a factor but it seems to me that the anti-Zhodani sentiments in the Sword Worlds ought to work against this. (The Contact article on the Sword Worlds from *JTAS* mentions the anti-Zhodani sentiment.) > Elucidate please. I'm not trying to be snide, I actually can't see why that > should affect the inter-planet relationships. Hope my explanation of a feudal technocracy helped. I don't see any specific reason why it should apply to inter-world relations except that since many Sword Worlds are feudal technocracies I would expect them to take a similar approach to inter-world affairs. I just don't see a bunch of economic barons voting and negotiating joint communiques. > Oh, dear! You really have a gamer's mentality, don't you? (And, yes, here I > am being snide ;-) Yes, I admit it. I want the Sword Worlds to be as fractious and quarrelsome as they were in Piper's *Space Viking*. You see, since `my' Sword Worlds have always been that way I *really* have no use for the rehashed Space Viking-wannabees of the Reformation Coalition. (Speaking of rehashing Piper, does anyone remember how much that Amber Zone article about the `rogue' Sword Worlds captain in the 800-ton mercenary cruiser from the post-5FW war *JTAS* seemed *so* familiar to the plot of *Space Viking*? You know, the Sword Worlder who had (in this case) her fiance killed just as they were to be married and so sold the family estate to buy a ship and go hunting for the killer?) > The Sword Worlds have had their civil wars, true, but > they don't have them twice a decade. I think they've had four or five in > 15 centuries. Another good point but only because I don't think the Sword Worlds have been portrayed sensibly since the beginning. > Maybe the Sacnoth > leaders think a destructive stalemate would destroy too much. And, as > I've mentioned above, if Sacnoth dosen't sell those ships then the other > worlds _will_ build the factories to make the parts and build their own. If > that's the way it works, then the only reason why the other worlds are not > TL 12 is precisely that Sacnoth IS selling them ships and spare parts. Maybe, but keep in mind the US policy in Latin America. Sacnoth doesn't *need* to dominate militarily in order to dominate. Especially if the economies are as integrated as you've described then the feudal technocracy extends *across* the subsector and there ought to arise someone at the top and that someone ought to be the highest tech world. > > This entire `technological cycles' idea seems to me to be more and more > > difficult to rationalize. > > Did I help? Well, it seems to explain the way the Sword Worlds have been portrayed better than how I *think* they *ought* to be portrayed. :-) I guess I need to understand what causes these cycles - why doesn't this occur in the Imperium? I'm sitting on the fence here. I guess I'm struggling with those differences in the Sword Worlds that were introduced either to keep them `different' from Piper's novel or just because whomever `created' them wasn't really as much of a Sword Worlds fanatic as I am. In either case, I just don't think the differing TLs and lack of several starports in the Sword Worlds makes sense and I'd like to `fix' in in TNE. Thanks, Hans, for the chance to work through this. I hope it continues. Peace, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 601 Archive-Message-Number: 7535 Date: Wed, 11 May 94 22:18:56 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: Shall Not Perish 13 - RQS & SW Gentlesophonts: From Wednesday night, PBJuzyk writes: > Sinzarmes Thanks for the data on this Regina subsector line. > Regency Quarantine Service Great stuff here! A fantastic expansion of *Shall Not Perish*! > Finally should incoming hostile forces overcome an RQS base there must > be some means for notifying other nearby systems. Yes, this is a must! I would only suggest that an initial `jump drone' is dispatched as soon as the in-system forces are engaged by a hostile force - just in case things go poorly you wouldn't want the drone not to be dispatched at all. Better to have the folks at the next base prematurely worried than surprised. > Next: The RQS in 1200 and beyond. I can't wait! More, more! > - ship building outside the Regency probably increased and > starport quality with it. To successfully equip the RQS ships were > needed, ships not available from the Imperium. The Regency would need > nearly all of its shipyards to produce RQS ships. Civilians would have > to go elsewhere and initially that would probably be to Gram in the > Sword Wlds and Mire & Jacent in the darrian Confederation. An effort to > upgrade other starports to capture a share in this new market would be > made by the Sword Wlds, Darrians, Arden & Border Wlds. This is a great rationale for the improvement of starports in the Sword Worlds. I can just see the Deneb Information Service (DIS) news brief now: "Oberlindes Lines Announces Shipbuilding Contract with Gorram Yards on Gram/Sword Worlds". Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 601 Archive-Message-Number: 7537 Date: 12 May 1994 01:25:03 -0700 From: PPUGLIESE(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: Sword Worlds History vs US History From what I can see the discussion between Dave & Hans over the Sword Worlds has evolved into a discussion over real-life historical inter- pretation. Since I happen to believe that Dave's interpretation of the USA's historical relations with Latin America are grossly inacur- rate I also disagree with his analysis of Sword World dynamics. I feel that Hans model is alot closer to the way things would be. I think this points up something common to Traveller &, inci- dentally, also displayed in different views as to whether Zhodani soci- ety is Good(tm) or Bad(tm), that is that, eventually one's personal ide- ology, for lack of a better term, will eventually wind up being the de- termining factor. One of the major strengths of Traveller, less so now that TNE is upon us, has always been that *anyone* can always find *some- place* that will suit them perfectly. I personally feel, considering the preceding text, that attempting to minutely dissect the evolution of the Sworld Worlds will inevitably be a sterile exercise. Just my opinion of course so don't feel that I'm trying to suppress anything but I just thought that I should raise the point that basing an argument upon fun- damentals that others don't accept will usually result in a conclusion that those others won't accept either. Phil Pugliese ppugliese(at)[-- redacted --] ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 601 Archive-Message-Number: 7542 Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 09:41:46 -0500 From: bonnevil(at)[-- redacted --] (Steven M Bonneville) Subject: Sword Worlds David Johnson writes: >(But don't the shipbuilding rules state that any world can build ships for >its own navy regardless of starport class?) Erm. The old, old _High Guard_ rules said that was an option for planetary navies. I guess to allow tech-8 E-starport worlds to have rockets (and hence explain Earth.) It probably isn't exactly true now. There's an interesting discussion of shipbuilding in the RC in _Path Of Tears_ about B-port worlds building starships with drives imported from A-port worlds. The "One Small Step" articles in _Challenge_ also allowed some minor shipbuilding on low port worlds, but I forget the details. (Of course, in old _High Guard_, you couldn't build tech-8 ships....) I'm not sure about the current TNE ruling. Steve Bonneville ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 602 Archive-Message-Number: 7545 From: rancke(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: Sword World politics Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 13:03:29 +0100 (METDST) David Johnson: >>From Tuesday night, Hans Rancke writes: > >> Dominate how? And how quick is quickly? > >Well, something like what all this *Smash and Grab* stuff is supposed to >be about for those Sword World wannabees in the Reformation Coalition. >I, King David I of Sacnoth, send my TL 12 fleet down to Gram, Encountering their TL 12 fleet en route. Now what? (Or _not_ encountering it, which would be a lot more worrying ;-). >shoot up >the capital, drop a few `planetbusters', execute the King of Gram and >his family, set up some disguntled duke as king, and send emmissaries >to the other Sword Worlds expressing my sincerest hopes that I won't >need to visit their world next. And the next thing you know Sacnoth is being visited by the combined fleets of the rest of the Sword Worlds who are anxious to ensure that you won't visit their world next. >The Confederation is really little more than a mutual-defense pact set up >to protect the Sword Worlds from Imperial incursions and to permit joint >`defensive' operations against the Darrians. Think more of NATO >than the European Union. Yes, that was my own impression. Though perhaps it is a little more. The original Sword Worlders were refugees from a lost war. Perhaps this gave them an Us-and-Them mentality that prevails to this day. You can fight between yourselves, but only if you don't cripple the other guy so much he can't help against 'Them'. >>Ah, but thats the whole point. You don't have the factories because you can >>buy your TL 12 stuff cheaper from Sacnoth than you can build them yourself. > >Sure, I do this if I value cheaper products over dependence upon Sacnoth >(or whatever world currently is on an `up' cycle). If I'm as smart as the >Japanese I don't get caught in this trap. Which may be why Sachnoth is due for their own downturn on the cycle in the not too distant future. >>And you don't build that ship yourself becuase it's cheaper to buy it from >>Sacnoth, too. This also impose a natural restriction on Sacnoth's ability to >>dominate the Confederation: If they become too expensive the other worlds >>_will_ build TL 12 factories - which will propably trigger a recession on >>Sacnoth and close down a lot of industry - quite possibly enough to drop >>Sacnoth a TL in the process. That's what I mean by economic cycles. > >There are other ways for Sacnoth to preserve its dominance. The technology >of the US is largely available to Latin American nations. Unfortunately, >many of these nations lack the stability, primarily political, required to >support a similar level of economic and technological achievement. Fostering >this instability has been standard American policy for nearly a century. Think about this for a moment. Sacnoth is not the US in that analogy, they are another one of the Latin nations. >One of the reasons Central Americans who can't own American cars don't build >their own factories is that the US military drops in every once and a >while to topple the local government. When we're not doing that we're >supplying arms to some `disgruntled duke' who keeps the fires of instability >burning. We are able to do this because we have the will and a significant >technological advantage. Ah! There's another point. _Significant_ is a significant word here (;-). How significant is an advantage of 12 over 11 and 10? The only figures I have are some from Steve Higginbotham that are based on his extensive experience with Trillion Credit Squadron campaigns. So they apply to Classic Traveller. Quite possibly (almost certainly) things are different under Megatraveller and New Era rules, but how different and in what direction is difficult to say, so I will stick to Steve's until someone comes up with better ones. According to him, and assuming competent ship designs, a TL 12 fleet is twice as efficient, ton for ton, as a TL 11 and six times as efficient as TL 10. Not an impossible imbalance to overcome when you're 20 to one (I don't have the Sword World population figures here. What is the population of Sacnoth compared to the rest of the Confederation? It's no use being twice as good as the other fellow if there's 10 of him.) - even if the other worlds don't buy TL 12 ships elsewhere. >>On the contrary, there is a lot of intergration. That's why their economies >>can affect each other that way. What they don't have is much economic >>_control_. Each world will do what seems best for itself. > >If the King of Gram is equipping his navy with TL 12 equipment built on >Sacnoth then he's *not* doing what's best for Gram and his fief-holders >*ought* to depose him. Depends on what he buys. Some things (like computers) would be risky, other things could be checked against sabotage. But perhaps he buys them from the Imperium instead. After all, they are propably playing the US to the Sword Worlds' Latin America. >Clearly, >the Sword Worlds are able to coordinate their efforts well enough to fend >off not only Imperial military efforts to neutralized them but political >and economic efforts as well. I don't see how that follows at all. The only times the Sword Worlds invade the Imperium is with promise of Zhodani help. You can't make many assumptions based on how people behave when they think they have a powerful ally. >The Imperium has not been doing to the Sword >Worlds what I've described for the US in Latin America and suggested for >Sacnoth within the Confederation. Based on the constant instability of the Sword Worlds it seems to me that that may be precisely what the Imperium has been doing. If they've tried, it hasn't worked or >the Sword Worlds wouldn't keep joining the Outworld Coalitions. On the contrary, if the Imperium has been doing that it explains why the Sword Worlds are PO'd enough to keep on joining an alliance that has struck out again and again. >The Zhodani may be a factor I've no doubt they are a major factor. > ...But then again, if relations among the Sword Worlds >are friendly then they ought to see some advantage in several high-tech >worlds with class A starports. Maybe there is some sort of negotiated >`balance of power': Sacnoth gets the high tech and Gram gets the shipyard? And maybe the Imperium sees that advantage too and meddles to prevent it? >>>Well, if this was the case, why wasn't Sacnoth the capital at that point? >> >>Because it was only one of 20+ worlds and the rest wanted it differently? > >Maybe, but again, if I'm the King of Sacnoth my TL advantage permits me >to pretty much `smash and grab' at will. As mentioned above I disagree. I'm also not at all sure that he would want to. He may have the statesman mentality rather than the wargamer mentality. >>>Leadership clearly fluctuates among the Sword Worlds so ought not these >>>fluctuations be tied to any fluctuations in technology? >> >>Why should it? It is tied to political power. One source of political power >>is technology, but it's not the only one. > >Now you see that in a feudal technocracy, technological power *is* political >power. As I've replied, technological power _enhances_ other kinds of power. A 2/1 advantage is nice, but only decisive if everything else is balanced. >>Besides, the leadership dosen't >>fluctuate all that much. The Sword Worlds had been led by Gram for centuries >>in 1120. > >A good point. I can't explain it. As I understand it I don't see how any >world but the technological leader can be the dominant world. Well, I still believe that your understanding is mistaken. A population 1 million world with TL 12 is weaker than a population 10 million world with TL 11. Or 10 population 1 million worlds with TL 11. Not to mention the central point in my theory of Sword World economic-technological cycles: The TL 11 worlds had TL 12 themselves not so long ago and still retain TL 12 ships. >Hope my explanation of a feudal technocracy helped. I don't see any specific >reason why it should apply to inter-world relations except that since many >Sword Worlds are feudal technocracies I would expect them to take a similar >approach to inter-world affairs. I just don't see a bunch of economic barons >voting and negotiating joint communiques. Well, maybe you should try. It might help ;-). No, waitaminute. It's not economic barons, it's economic kings. There's a differenceC >>Oh, dear! You really have a gamer's mentality, don't you? (And, yes, here I >>am being snide ;-) > >Yes, I admit it. I want the Sword Worlds to be as fractious and quarrelsome >as they were in Piper's *Space Viking*. You see, since `my' Sword Worlds >have always been that way I *really* have no use for the rehashed Space >Viking-wannabees of the Reformation Coalition. I really think you should try to make up an explanation that fits the known facts rather than to make up an explanation and change the facts to fit them. (But I know just how you feel. I have the same attitude to the conduct of the Aslan and Vargr in the Rebellion. The only way they could have the succes they are described as having is if the whole Deneb Domain is run by imbeciles or traitors. There's no way they could be the threat thay are portrayed as unless their military opponents are hopeless incompetents. So perhaps my disagreement with you is just that I _can_ see a way for the Sword Worlds to work the way they are described while you can't.) >>The Sword Worlds have had their civil wars, true, but >>they don't have them twice a decade. I think they've had four or five in >>15 centuries. > >Another good point but only because I don't think the Sword Worlds have >been portrayed sensibly since the beginning. There's no answer to this argument (I know, I've used it myself ;-). All I can say is: Try sitting down one day and start all over by listing known facts about the Sword Worlds, discarding all your own interpretations for a while, and then try to make sense of them - just as an interlectual excercise. Perhaps you'll come up with something useful. >>Maybe the Sacnoth >>leaders think a destructive stalemate would destroy too much. And, as >>I've mentioned above, if Sacnoth dosen't sell those ships then the other >>worlds _will_ build the factories to make the parts and build their own. If >>that's the way it works, then the only reason why the other worlds are not >>TL 12 is precisely that Sacnoth IS selling them ships and spare parts. > >Maybe, but keep in mind the US policy in Latin America. Sacnoth doesn't >*need* to dominate militarily in order to dominate. Especially if the >economies are as integrated as you've described then the feudal technocracy >extends *across* the subsector and there ought to arise someone at the >top and that someone ought to be the highest tech world. Think about the kingdoms of medieval Europe. There were some mixing of feudal duties between kings (especially between England and France). But eventually the individual countries prevailed over the feudal structure. There's no reason why a king should welcome a feudal pattern just because their own power is based on it. And, in fact, we KNOW they don't. If they did the Sword Worlds would be an empire instead of a confederation. Hans Rancke University of Copenhagen rancke(at)[-- redacted --] - ------------ "A subsector official pompously states that the subsector armed forces have four Kinunir class ships in service, each with enough troop strength to put down any military operations that threathen the peace of the Imperium." ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 603 Archive-Message-Number: 7561 Date: Fri, 13 May 94 19:01:09 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: Shall Not Perish 15 - Sword Worlds Gentlesophonts: From Thursday night, Phil Pugliese writes: > Subject: Sword Worlds History vs US History > > thought that I should raise the point that basing an argument upon fun- > damentals that others don't accept will usually result in a conclusion > that those others won't accept either. Good point. I hope I'm not trying to `force' the Sword Worlds into my own view of how they `should' be but clearly that's how I'm being perceived. I'll have to try harder. One quick diversion, Stewart Eyres writes: > Subject: L'oeul d'Dieu 3010 B-98A510-B N Ni, Wa, Gg > > Comments: This water world is under the aegis of Sharurshid, the > megacorporation specialising in rare trade goods. This is some really good stuff, except I thought Sharurshid and the other Vilani megacorps had withdrawn to the Ziru Sirka during the Rebellion? [WARNING: I don't have TNE!] It seems to me that even if the Vilani Bureaux had maintained a presence in the Domain of Deneb this presence would have been cut-off by the Virus and the Quarantine Line and the `Imperial' megacorps would have assumed control of former Bureaux assets. Now back to the Sword Worlds. Hans Rancke writes: > Encountering their TL 12 fleet en route. Now what? Well, first, remember in my scenario, Sacnoth hasn't been selling any TL 12 goods to Gram, and since they probably can't get any from the Darrians or the Imperium (the Zhodani, maybe, I admit, but Sacnoth has similar access) so the Sacnoth Fleet only encouters a TL 11 Gram Fleet. (I believe this was the case in the 5FW. Forces from different worlds - Gram and Joyeuse - reflected the TL of the specific world. Anyone have easy access to those *Fifth Frontier War* counters who can check for sure?) Before I go further, let me say that I've taken to heart Hans's (and Phil's) comments that I should focus on the `facts at hand'. I'm really trying to come to an understanding of the situation based upon the facts rather than my own view of `how it ought to be'. I just see many inconsistencies in what few facts we have at hand. > (Or _not_ encountering > it, which would be a lot more worrying ;-). Well, yes, but this is the nature of interstellar warfare in the Traveller universe. :-) > And the next thing you know Sacnoth is being visited by the combined fleets > of the rest of the Sword Worlds who are anxious to ensure that you won't > visit their world next. Well, maybe, except that if Sacnoth does it's `front work' some of the other Sword Worlds will be allied or at least tolerant of it's actions. If it hits the `leader' of the opposition first the remaining worlds will be less likely to jump up for their own `chance in the barrel'. > Perhaps this gave > them an Us-and-Them mentality that prevails to this day. Are those refugees *Piper's* `original Sword Worlders' or GDW's? :-) I believe the original GDW Sword Worlders were merely fleeing the Interstellar Wars rather than their own specific defeat. This might be true, but I don't think Sacnoth (or whoever) will need to `cripple' the other worlds in order to dominate the Confederation. > Which may be why Sachnoth is due for their own downturn on the cycle in the > not too distant future. I admit, if these `cycles' exist it explains a lot, but I just don't see what causes them, nor understand why the same thing hasn't happened in the Imperium or the Darrian Confederation. > Think about this for a moment. Sacnoth is not the US in that analogy, they > are another one of the Latin nations. Okay, but I don't believe this situation is analogous in terms of the TL disparities (I'll get to that in a bit). In a `Latin' scenario with no US I see several different blocs centered about the `stronger' nations like Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia (which will see much more stability when the US drug market disappears). This is quite similar to Sword Worlds history. If one world rises to dominance (possibly with Zhodani aid) I suspect it will stay there. In a feudal technocracy, it ought to be the highest tech world. BTW, if Gram does maintain its position with Zhodani aid *and* the Sword Worlders have this `us vs. them' mentality it seems much more likely to me that a combined fleet is going to show up at Gram, especially in light of the anti-Zhodani sentiment in the Confederation. > How significant is an advantage of 12 over 11 and 10? > a TL 12 fleet is twice as efficient, ton for ton, as a TL 11 and > six times as efficient as TL 10. Another measure would be the TL mods used in *5FW*. I don't remember the details (and my copy is 250 mi. away in Fort Worth) but I seem to remember just a few battalions of TL 15 Imperial troops being able to hold off several TL 10-11 corps of Sword Worlders. Let's use the figures you've quoted until someone else digs up their copy of *5FW*. > What is the population of Sacnoth compared to the rest of the > Confederation? It's no use being twice as good as the other fellow if > there's 10 of him.) Okay, let's look at the info I posted a while back: Sword Worlds Subsector Data c1120 (from *MTJ* #3) Tizon (+6) 0922 B386887-A M Ri 323 Sw K2VI M3D Narsil (+6) 0927 B574A55-A M Hi In 224 Sw M0II M6D Anduril (+7) 1026 B985855-B M Ri 222 Sw F2V Gram (+8) 1223 A895957-B M Hi In Cp 603 Sw F2D M2D Sacnoth (+7) 1325 B775956-C M Hi In 301 Sw* F9V M8D Sting (+5) 1525 B645896-A M 302 Sw* M0V These are all the pop 8+ Sword Worlds. Gram, at twice the population of Sacnoth, ought to be able to fight the higher tech Sacnoth to a standstill. Anduril, at one-tenth the population of Sacnoth, could choose the `winner' in such a conflict. Narsil, at a ten-to-one advantage over Sacnoth, suffers a twelve-to-one technological disadvantage. Seems a Sacnoth-Anduril alliance should be able to topple those `Zho-puppets' on Gram. Since Gram is the capital that suggests a Gram-Anduril alliance (or Zhodani aid). > - even if the other worlds don't buy TL 12 ships > elsewhere. Where? I doubt the Imperium or the Darrians would sell to the Sword Worlds. The Zhodani, maybe, but what advantage do *they* have in fostering instability in the Confederation? A stable Sword Worlds on the border of the Imperium would have been in the interest of the Zhodani! > Depends on what he buys. Some things (like computers) would be risky, other > things could be checked against sabotage. I'm wasn't thinking sabotage - I was thinking war-time embargo. Tough to wage a military campaign if you're buying your ammo-vehicles-medkits- transport ships-*et al* from your adversary. > But perhaps he buys them from the > Imperium instead. After all, they are propably playing the US to the Sword > Worlds' Latin America. I doubt it. At the risk of beating a dead horse, if allied Mexican- Brazilian-Argentine troops had recently occupied San Diego and San Antonio you can bet there would be *a lot* of support in the US for much more than just `fostering instability' in Latin America. (It's often fashionable to make light of US resolve as being `typical' of great powers like the Imperium but keep in mind the last time any `foreign' troops were in the US proper they were from Virginia, Georgia and Maryland!) It's clear that any supposed efforts by the Imperium to merely foster instability in the Sword Worlds have been unsuccessful - it hasn't prevented them from attacking every time the Zhos get a wild hair. > I don't see how that follows at all. The only times the Sword Worlds > invade the Imperium is with promise of Zhodani help. You can't make > many assumptions based on how people behave when they think they have > a powerful ally. I'm not sure I understand your point. Regardless of why the Sword Worlds have attacked the Imperium there are clearly reasons why the Imperium hasn't `dealt' with the Sword Worlds long ago. I doubt the Zhodani would have gone to war over an Imperial invasion of the Sword Worlds so there must be some reason the Sword Worlds themselves were able to deter such action. I can't reconcile this `fact' with the proposed `cycles'. (And yet, I can't reconcile Gram's leadership either. I'm still generally confused and dissatisfied.) > Based on the constant instability of the Sword Worlds it seems to me that > that may be precisely what the Imperium has been doing. > > On the contrary, if the Imperium has been doing that it explains why the > Sword Worlds are PO'd enough to keep on joining an alliance that has struck > out again and again. Again, this seems contradictory to me. Any Imperial meddling in the Sword Worlds has caused the *opposite* result - Sword Worlds incursions - so why hasn't the Imperium sent ". . . the [Imperial] Marines to that little [subsector spinward of Glisten] and *stopped* that problem!"? > >The Zhodani may be a factor > > I've no doubt they are a major factor. Okay, this seems the only reasonable solution. The Zhodani are supporting Gram in its leadership of the Confederation. Through this support, and *despite* the generally anti-Zhodani sentiments in the Sword Worlds, Gram is able to maintain its leadership in spite of the greater technological accomlishments of Sacnoth. In addition to it's support of Gram, the Consulate has made it clear to the Imperium that it will not tolerate direct action against the Confederation. In a sense, the Sword Worlds have been nothing more than a Zhodani client state. (Ouch! That's tough to admit.) To continue to tromp on my Latin American analogy, it's as if the Soviets had supported a Cuban-Mexican- Brazilian-Argentine-*et al* confederation that overran Florida, Texas, and California every few decades (and Lanth and Glisten are more like Yuma, Del Rio, and Key West). It's shaky, but I can understand it. Maybe the `anti-Zhodani sentiment' in the Sword Worlds was just Imperial propaganda? (More likely, it was another poorly-considered `rationali- zation' by the original developers used to explain why psionics weren't rampant in the non-Imperial Sword Worlds.) Given this, one would expect some major changes in this relationship now that the Virus has severed Deneb's connection with the Imperium and there has been some *rapproachement* with the Zhodani. The Zhodani no longer get as much value from supporting Gram. Scanoth rises triumphant!?! :-) > I really think you should try to make up an explanation that fits the known > facts rather than to make up an explanation and change the facts to fit them. > Perhaps you'll come up with something useful. So, what do you think? Have I done it? :-) > There's no reason why a king should welcome a feudal pattern just because > their own power is based on it. And, in fact, we KNOW they don't. If they > did the Sword Worlds would be an empire instead of a confederation. Well, I guess I still haven't explained my view of what a feudal technocracy is. The Sword Worlds leaders may be called `kings' but they're more like `CEOs' - they are at the top of a huge, conglomerate, capitalist, economic power structure. They don't have an `empire' just like the `barons' of the Japanese `keiritsu' don't. They have a cooperative arrangement - a Confederation. I think this has been some good work. It's certainly helped me to understand the Sword Worlds better. I just hope Phil Pugliese: > I personally feel, considering the > preceding text, that attempting to minutely dissect the evolution of the > Sworld Worlds will inevitably be a sterile exercise. is wrong. :-) Peace, David Johnson Colonel, (ret.), SWCAF Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 604 Archive-Message-Number: 7569 From: rancke(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: Sword Worlds Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 16:24:16 +0100 (METDST) David Johnson writes: >Now back to the Sword Worlds. Hans Rancke writes: > >>Encountering their TL 12 fleet en route. Now what? > >Well, first, remember in my scenario, Sacnoth hasn't been selling any TL 12 >goods to Gram, and since they probably can't get any from the Darrians >or the Imperium (the Zhodani, maybe, I admit, but Sacnoth has similar access) >so the Sacnoth Fleet only encouters a TL 11 Gram Fleet. It seems I haven't explained my idea about the economic cycles well enough. Basically I postulate a series of recessions and booms. Since I postulate that the Sword Worlds have access to TL 15 physics texts from the Imperium, I also assume that a lower-than-15 TL is the result of economic conditions: A TL 12 world can't support the industry needed to build the TL 13 stuff needed to maintain the TL 14 industry needed to build the TL 14 stuff needed to maintain TL 15 industry. Got that? So a recession could (depending on its severity) drop the TL of a world while a boom could raise it. Thus I assume that Gram had TL 12 a few decades ago, which is when they built a lot of their current fleet. (Remember, I also assume that a world can maintain ships and equipment at least two levels above their own TL). So they have the ships and they can, if necessary, maintain it on their own. Furthermore, my thesis is that if Sacnoth wasn't selling TL 12 stuff at competetive prices them Gram would build it on its own - the reason why they aren't doing it now being that Sacnoth is selling it cheaper than they could build it themselves. You see? It all hangs together. The situation you postulate - that Sacnoth has a TL 12 fleet and Gram hasn't - is not possibe under my assumptions. >(I believe this was >the case in the 5FW. Forces from different worlds - Gram and Joyeuse - >reflected the TL of the specific world. Anyone have easy access to those >*Fifth Frontier War* counters who can check for sure?) I hadn't thought about that. Yes, I think you're right. I'll check. That would certainly knock my theory over the head. Except that I just might claim that FFW had made a mistake ;-) Ah, how difficult it is to abandon a well-loved theory... >Before I go further, let me say that I've taken to heart Hans's (and Phil's) >comments that I should focus on the `facts at hand'. And if the Gram ships in FFW really are TL 11 (which I think they are) then that comment is going to return and hit me in the face like a boomerang! ;-) >I'm really trying to >come to an understanding of the situation based upon the facts rather than >my own view of `how it ought to be'. I just see many inconsistencies in >what few facts we have at hand. Well, I'll continue my argument as if FFW didn't exist. For the moment, anyway. Until I get a chance to think about it a bit. >>And the next thing you know Sacnoth is being visited by the combined fleets >>of the rest of the Sword Worlds who are anxious to ensure that you won't >>visit their world next. > >Well, maybe, except that if Sacnoth does it's `front work' some of the >other Sword Worlds will be allied or at least tolerant of it's actions. If >it hits the `leader' of the opposition first the remaining worlds will be >less likely to jump up for their own `chance in the barrel'. Now you're postulating historical facts to support your view. This is no more (and no less) valid than me postulating that Gram is the one that has done its political homework and has the backing of the other Sword Worlds. Either is equally possible in theory. But one of them has things turn out the way GDW says they did and the other one dosen't. IMO one should prefer the one that corresponds most closely to GDWs version. Now, if you could demonstrate that Sacnoth couldn't possibly loose a confrontation with all the other Sword Worlds then you'd have something much more solid. >>Perhaps this gave >>them an Us-and-Them mentality that prevails to this day. > >Are those refugees *Piper's* `original Sword Worlders' or GDW's? :-) Actually, while I've no doubt that GDW's Sword Worlds owe their origin to Piper, they actualy have a lot less in common with Piper's than one might think. >I believe the original GDW Sword Worlders were merely fleeing the >Interstellar Wars rather than their own specific defeat. I believe, however, that the GDW SW ancestors did, like Piper's SW ancestors, flee a lost civil war. >I admit, if these `cycles' exist it explains a lot, but I just don't see >what causes them, nor understand why the same thing hasn't happened in the >Imperium or the Darrian Confederation. Remember that my theory ties TLs tightly to the economy. I know it hasn't worked that way on Earth today, but it's the only explanation that I can see why nearly all worlds aren't TL 15. So relegate the TLs to the back- ground for a moment and think about the world economies today. We've got economic boom/recession cycles. Why shouldn't the Sword Worlds? As to why it dosen't happen in the Imperium and the Darrian Confederation: 1) Maybe it does. Why is only 4 Imperial worlds in the Spinward Marches TL 15? 2) Maybe they have a better control of the economy than the Sword Worlds. The Imperium, at least, has enough size to dampen local problems. >Okay, but I don't believe this situation is analogous in terms of the TL >disparities (I'll get to that in a bit). In a `Latin' scenario with no US >I see several different blocs centered about the `stronger' nations like >Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia (which will see much more stability >when the US drug market disappears). This is quite similar to Sword >Worlds history. If one world rises to dominance (possibly with Zhodani >aid) I suspect it will stay there. So far no problem. This is just what the Sword world history says happened. >In a feudal technocracy, it ought to be the highest tech world. So this seems to be the assumption that dosen't fit. Examine it. Change it to fit. Specifically the part of the assumption that has the individual Sword Worlds tied together in an 'emperor-level' feudal technocracy. Try to imagine the tecnocracies stopping at the planetary level. >BTW, if Gram does maintain its position with Zhodani aid *and* the Sword >Worlders have this `us vs. them' mentality it seems much more likely to >me that a combined fleet is going to show up at Gram, especially in light >of the anti-Zhodani sentiment in the Confederation. How deep is that anti-Zhodani sentiment? You assume they think of Zhodani as a 50ties redneck thought of russians. Perhaps it's a 20th Century Yankee/Southerner dislike. >>How significant is an advantage of 12 over 11 and 10? >>a TL 12 fleet is twice as efficient, ton for ton, as a TL 11 and >>six times as efficient as TL 10. > >Another measure would be the TL mods used in *5FW*. I don't remember the >details (and my copy is 250 mi. away in Fort Worth) but I seem to >remember just a few battalions of TL 15 Imperial troops being able to >hold off several TL 10-11 corps of Sword Worlders. Well, Steve's figures was about ships and not troops, but even so, there's a ot of difference between a 12-11 disparity and a 15-10. In fact, Steve claims that a TL 15 fleet has a 500-1 advantage over a TL 11 fleet and can defeat any number of foes of lower TLs. > Sword Worlds Subsector Data c1120 (from *MTJ* #3) > Tizon (+6) 0922 B386887-A M Ri 323 Sw K2VI M3D > Narsil (+6) 0927 B574A55-A M Hi In 224 Sw M0II M6D > Anduril (+7) 1026 B985855-B M Ri 222 Sw F2V > Gram (+8) 1223 A895957-B M Hi In Cp 603 Sw F2D M2D > Sacnoth (+7) 1325 B775956-C M Hi In 301 Sw* F9V M8D > Sting (+5) 1525 B645896-A M 302 Sw* M0V > >These are all the pop 8+ Sword Worlds. Gram, at twice the population >of Sacnoth, ought to be able to fight the higher tech Sacnoth to a standstill. >Anduril, at one-tenth the population of Sacnoth, could choose the `winner' >in such a conflict. If, that is, wars were decided by mathematical formulae. Let's not get that simplistic. Lots of instances in history where the apparently certain loser didn't. I would have been satisfied if Gram wasn't too far behind. That they are equal given a TL 11 fleet and clearly superior given a TL 12 fleet just helps. Narsil, at a ten-to-one advantage over Sacnoth, suffers >a twelve-to-one technological disadvantage. Seems a Sacnoth-Anduril alliance >should be able to topple those `Zho-puppets' on Gram. Since Gram is the >capital that suggests a Gram-Anduril alliance (or Zhodani aid). Gram certainly needs allies given that the Zhodani help is covert enough to be just a rumour. Perhaps Gram buys Zhodani ships at a discount. No feudal technocrat could be very upset at a peer taking advantage of a good deal, surely? >> - even if the other worlds don't buy TL 12 ships elsewhere. > >Where? I doubt the Imperium or the Darrians would sell to the Sword Worlds. >The Zhodani, maybe, but what advantage do *they* have in fostering instability >in the Confederation? A stable Sword Worlds on the border of the Imperium >would have been in the interest of the Zhodani! Perhaps the anti-Zhodani sentiment was strong on Sacnoth but weak on Gram 300 years ago. Nowadays they _do_ have a politically stable Confederation. Gram has been in charge for three centuries. >I'm wasn't thinking sabotage - I was thinking war-time embargo. Tough to >wage a military campaign if you're buying your ammo-vehicles-medkits- >transport ships-*et al* from your adversary. How long does it take to go on a war-time production scedule? Always remember that Gram knows perfectly well how to make these things. They just can't make them as cheaply. That's the central point of my theory: THE MOMENT SACNOTH STOPS SELLING TL 12 STUFF SOME OTHER SWORD WORLD STARTS MAKING AND SELLING IT. >>But perhaps he buys them from the >>Imperium instead. After all, they are propably playing the US to the Sword >>Worlds' Latin America. > >I doubt it. At the risk of beating a dead horse, if allied Mexican- >Brazilian-Argentine troops had recently occupied San Diego and San Antonio >you can bet there would be *a lot* of support in the US for much more than >just `fostering instability' in Latin America. What time in history are you talking about? Just after the 3rd FW where the Imperium occupied 12 of the Sword Worlds? Or after the 5th where they set up a puppet government of half the Confederation? The Imperium _did_ a lot more just after these incursions. They just didn't keep it up for centuries - which I consider perfectly politically plausible. After the heat dies down a later government relaxes the more stringent measures. >>I don't see how that follows at all. The only times the Sword Worlds >>invade the Imperium is with promise of Zhodani help. You can't make >>many assumptions based on how people behave when they think they have >>a powerful ally. > >I'm not sure I understand your point. Regardless of why the Sword Worlds >have attacked the Imperium there are clearly reasons why the Imperium >hasn't `dealt' with the Sword Worlds long ago. But they did. The occupied half of them after the 3rd FW. Later they decided that keeping up the occupation wasn't worth the bother. The 4th FW was settled by negotiation, not Imperial conquest, so they didn't get a chance there. After the 5th FW they cut them in half and tried with a puppet government. >I doubt the Zhodani would >have gone to war over an Imperial invasion of the Sword Worlds 1) Why? 2) What if the Imperium wasn't as sure as you are? >so there >must be some reason the Sword Worlds themselves were able to deter such >action. Remember, on paper the Zodani _ought_ to have been able to kick the Imperial ass. Nowadays we know that the reason why they didn't commit enough forces to do this was that they didn't want to take over Deneb. They've been static for 2 millenia (I have a private theory that they have some massive internal troubles, but that's by the way). In essense, the Zhodani have been playing a very cynical game with their Vargr and Sword World allies, using them as cannon fodder. They never intended to win those wars (this, much more than their thought police/doctors makes the Zhodani bastards in my books). But neither the Imperium nor the Sword Worlds knew that. The Imperium were frightened enough of the Zhodani potential to refrain from taking drastic advantage of any of their victories; the Sword Worlds were impressed enough to get suckered into yet another Outworld Coalition. >>On the contrary, if the Imperium has been doing that it explains why the >>Sword Worlds are PO'd enough to keep on joining an alliance that has struck >>out again and again. > >Again, this seems contradictory to me. Any Imperial meddling in the Sword >Worlds has caused the *opposite* result - Sword Worlds incursions - The Sword World incursions were a result of the Zhodani alliance, and had nothing to do with their strength relative to the Imperium. >so >why hasn't the Imperium sent ". . . the [Imperial] Marines to that little >[subsector spinward of Glisten] and *stopped* that problem!"? They have. They just took them home again after a while. >Okay, this seems the only reasonable solution. The Zhodani are supporting >Gram in its leadership of the Confederation. Through this support, and >*despite* the generally anti-Zhodani sentiments in the Sword Worlds, How general are those sentiments? Or rather, how violent? Is it a general 'kill-the-zhos' hate (your choice?), a somewhat widespread 'all psionics/ zhos needs bashing' resentment (my own choice), or an occasional 'zhos stink' dislike? >Gram >is able to maintain its leadership in spite of the greater technological >accomlishments of Sacnoth. Not technological accomplishment (What's the accomplishment in buying an Imperial physics textbook?). Temporary economic advantage. >In addition to it's support of Gram, the >Consulate has made it clear to the Imperium that it will not tolerate >direct action against the Confederation. Quite possible. >In a sense, the Sword Worlds have been nothing more than a Zhodani client >state. In a sense, yes. >To continue to tromp on my Latin >American analogy, it's as if the Soviets had supported a Cuban-Mexican- >Brazilian-Argentine-*et al* confederation that overran Florida, Texas, >and California every few decades (and Lanth and Glisten are more like >Yuma, Del Rio, and Key West). It's shaky, but I can understand it. Make that overran every two centuries and you're nearer the mark. This is actually quite important. If the Sword Worlds really bothered the Imperium every other decade then I agree with you that the Imperium would do something about them. But they don't. And, disregarding the 4th FW, the Imperium has taken quite decisive action whenever the Sword Worlds have ovestepped the line. >Maybe the `anti-Zhodani sentiment' in the Sword Worlds was just Imperial >propaganda? (More likely, it was another poorly-considered `rationali- >zation' by the original developers used to explain why psionics weren't >rampant in the non-Imperial Sword Worlds.) Very propably. Or perhaps it's a "Real Men don't need psionics!" thing. >Given this, one would expect some major changes in this relationship now >that the Virus has severed Deneb's connection with the Imperium and there >has been some *rapproachement* with the Zhodani. The Zhodani no longer >get as much value from supporting Gram. Scanoth rises triumphant!?! :-) Depends on the economic developements. >>There's no reason why a king should welcome a feudal pattern just because >>their own power is based on it. And, in fact, we KNOW they don't. If they >>did the Sword Worlds would be an empire instead of a confederation. > >Well, I guess I still haven't explained my view of what a feudal technocracy >is. The Sword Worlds leaders may be called `kings' but they're more like >`CEOs' - they are at the top of a huge, conglomerate, capitalist, economic >power structure. They don't have an `empire' just like the `barons' of >the Japanese `keiritsu' don't. They have a cooperative arrangement - a >Confederation. OK. So you think the Confederation is one huge Feudal Technocracy, right? I think it is a confederation of (mostly) feudal technocracies. On what do you base your assumption that it must be the one and can't be the other? (Note that my argument is that if both are possible then we should choose the assumption that fits the facts best. Only if one is inevetable or the other impossible should we choose in despite of the known facts). I won't dispute that if you have a lot of feudal technocracies on the planetary then a further feudal level is a distinct possibility. All I'm saying is that it's not inevetable, that a planetary king could just as well think of himself as a real king and treat the other kings as such. Hans Rancke University of Copenhagen rancke(at)[-- redacted --] - ------------ "A subsector official pompously states that the subsector armed forces have four Kinunir class ships in service, each with enough troop strength to put down any military operations that threathen the peace of the Imperium." ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 604 Archive-Message-Number: 7570 Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 09:51:15 -0600 From: RJR96326(at)[-- redacted --] (J Roberson) Subject: Why Tech Levels aren't uniform >Remember that my theory ties TLs tightly to the economy. I know it hasn't >worked that way on Earth today, but it's the only explanation that I can >see why nearly all worlds aren't TL 15. When I first scoured Megatraveller, I thought I saw something to the effect that, as you postulate, economics and infrastructure are what limit TLs. TL10 traders sell TL10 computers to a TL8 world. Even if they have the manuals and maintenace books, all the buyers are going to have to rely on TL10 servicing, which would require TL10 computter training, probably from imported engineers or natives who study abroad, etc. Essentially, they can't just read the books - they need to be at least capable of manufacturing the tech themselves and support it as well. I would postulate that trade with more advanced planets may let you reach higher TLs more quickly, but not immediately. As for Earth, I think the differences between the Core and the Spinward Marches (Regency) would be more akin to the difference between New York and San Francisco & surrounding regions, circa 1890. S.F. was a pretty advanced city for its time, but it in no way rivaled New York. It was still a frontier, where they were still building the infrastructure that New York alrady had. You can't run before you can walk. Even if someone shows you how and holds your hand, you still have to get there on your own. _________________________________ Eugenics: Chlorination of the Gene Pool. Consistency is a Flaw. J Roberson RJR96326(at)[-- redacted --] Priss(at)[-- redacted --] ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 607 Archive-Message-Number: 7629 Date: Tue, 17 May 94 20:20:38 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: Shall Not Perish 17 - SW TL Gentlesophonts: I'd thought I'd posted this late Sunday night but it hasn't appeared on the TML yet so I'll try again. (Sorry, Hans. I've been wondering why you hadn't bothered to reply to this yet! :-) "In argument, truth is discovered." -Russian proverb I think we're beginning to discover some truth about the Sword Worlds. From Sunday night, Hans Rancke writes: > It seems I haven't explained my idea about the economic cycles well enough. No, I get your point, I just don't see any `facts' that support these cycles. What is it about the technological disparities between worlds that suggests these cycles? I understand that you're saying that without things cycling up and down there ought to be no disparities - every world would be TL 15. Why does this have to be the case? While it's clear that technological knowledge ought to be equivalent throughout `known space' there is nothing to suggest that economic development is constant as well. It might be that lower tech worlds just haven't `grown' to higher technological accomplishment yet - like on contemporary Earth. Why the need to propose these mysterious `techno-economic cycles'? > (Remember, I also assume that a world can > maintain ships and equipment at least two levels above their own TL) I'm not sure this is really relevant to our discussion but I'm not sure I agree with this idea. A TL 6 mechanic is going to have problems fixing the electronic-fuel-injection in my TL 8 car just as a TL 6 computeroid is going to have difficulties trying to replace the vacuum tubes in my PC. A TL 4 electrician won't have a clue how to fix the CRT on my TL 5 TV. Of course, you're going to say she can because her world was at TL 8 when she went to trade school two decades ago. :-) > Ah, how difficult it is to abandon > a well-loved theory... See. We've already found something in common. :-) > Well, I'll continue my argument as if FFW didn't exist. For the moment, > anyway. Until I get a chance to think about it a bit. If the 5FW counters `prove' that there are truly disparate TLs in the Sword Worlds doesn't that lend credence to the idea that disparate TLs are due to disparate techno-economic *development* rather than `cycles'? And won't that, in turn, generally call for Sacnoth to be the dominant world unless Gram is receiving outside help? > IMO one should prefer > the one that corresponds most closely to GDWs version. I agree. Someone *please* dig out those *5FW* counters! > Now, if you could demonstrate that Sacnoth couldn't possibly loose a > confrontation with all the other Sword Worlds then you'd have something > much more solid. If there is true techno-economic disparity in the Sword Worlds then Sacnoth can dominate *economically* - like Japan does today - and it doesn't *need* a confrontation. (But a little `demonstration' might not hurt!) > Actually, while I've no doubt that GDW's Sword Worlds owe their origin to > Piper, they actualy have a lot less in common with Piper's than one might > think. Really? How so? > I believe, however, that the GDW SW ancestors did, like Piper's SW ancestors, > flee a lost civil war. I just checked the *JTAS* Contact article again. It merely describes the original Sword Worlds settlers as `Solomani exiles'. There is no mention of *any* warfare. The time is the c-400. I'm not sure when the Interstellar Wars occurred. > Remember that my theory ties TLs tightly to the economy. I know it hasn't > worked that way on Earth today, but it's the only explanation that I can > see why nearly all worlds aren't TL 15. Doesn't different levels of `techno-economic development' explain the disparate TLs as well? This *is* how it works today! Why the need for something different? Maybe `techno-economic development' is really what TL is measuring. > As to why > it dosen't happen in the Imperium and the Darrian Confederation: > 1) Maybe it does. Why is only 4 Imperial worlds in the Spinward > Marches TL 15? Because these are the only four that have achieved that level of `techno- ecomomic development'? > So this seems to be the assumption that dosen't fit. Examine it. Change it > to fit. Specifically the part of the assumption that has the individual > Sword Worlds tied together in an 'emperor-level' feudal technocracy. Try > to imagine the tecnocracies stopping at the planetary level. But this isn't what *you've* proposed! If Sacnoth is selling its high-tech goods to all the other Sword Worlds then the technocracy can't stop at the individual worlds because the economy doesn't! This is the nature of a feudal technocracy - the poltical situation is tied directly to the economic situation. If the economy is interstellar then political power in inter- stellar and the center of power out to be the strongest technocracy - Sacnoth. Unless there is outside influence like the Zhodani. Again, quoting the *JTAS* Contact article: "A Confederation Council, made up of representatives from all worlds, regulates interworld trade, handles diplomatic relations with outside powers, and adjudicates interworld disputes." Sounds like the Japanese *keiritsu* to me. > How deep is that anti-Zhodani sentiment? You assume they think of Zhodani > as a 50ties redneck thought of russians. No, I don't. I have no idea how deep this sentiment is. Remember, I suggested that this `sentiment' might not exist anywhere except in the mind of Imperial propagandists. Here's the quote from the *JTAS* Contact article: "This public prejudice against psionics has been the major element in limiting Zhodani influence in the region." > If, that is, wars were decided by mathematical formulae. Let's not get that > simplistic. Well, fine, but I'm merely trying to provide some data for your 10-to-1 question. > Lots of instances in history where the apparently certain loser > didn't. I would have been satisfied if Gram wasn't too far behind. Actually, with the benefit of historical observation there are very few incidents where any `unlikely' victory can not be explained. We share this `historical viewpoint' as `developers' of the Sword Worlds. > Perhaps the anti-Zhodani sentiment was strong on Sacnoth but weak on Gram > 300 years ago. Well, again, maybe. Another interesting fact from the *JTAS* Contact article: the only Psionics Institute in the Sword Worlds is on Sacnoth! Which is listed as a "third factor (and in may ways the most significant)" why psionics have not been made an integral part of Sword Worlds culture because "the omnipresent interworld rivalry reinforces the latent anti-psi prejucice among the inhabitants (and governments) of those worlds not politically dominated by Sacnoth." > Nowadays they _do_ have a politically stable Confederation. Doesn't sound like it from the above quote. > What time in history are you talking about? Just after the 3rd FW where > the Imperium occupied 12 of the Sword Worlds? Or after the 5th where they > set up a puppet government of half the Confederation? I was thinking more along the line of a `mini-pacification campaign'. > >I doubt the Zhodani would > >have gone to war over an Imperial invasion of the Sword Worlds > 1) Why? > 2) What if the Imperium wasn't as sure as you are? The geo-political reason is called `spheres of influence'. Examples are the US in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Sword Worlds are removed from the Consulate yet are situated on the Imperial border. > The Sword World incursions were a result of the Zhodani alliance, and had > nothing to do with their strength relative to the Imperium. I wasn't trying to explain the SW incursions. I was trying to explain the lack of an Imperial pacification campaign. > >why hasn't the Imperium sent ". . . the [Imperial] Marines to that little > >[subsector spinward of Glisten] and *stopped* that problem!"? > > They have. They just took them home again after a while. They haven't `stopped' it - it keeps occurring! > Make that overran every two centuries and you're nearer the mark. This is > actually quite important. If the Sword Worlds really bothered the Imperium > Imperium has taken quite decisive action whenever the Sword Worlds have > ovestepped the line. I merely saw `decades' as analogous to centuries when comparing a millenia- old empire to a two-century-old nation. I feel the Sword Worlds *have* been a bother and that the Imperium *hasn't* taken *decisive* action. A pacification campaign is decisive and consistent with past Imperial actions. > Very propably. Or perhaps it's a "Real Men don't need psionics!" thing. This is what the *JTAS* Contact article suggests. My suggestion is that that entire `real man' schtick for the Sword Worlds is all just a bunch of Imperial propaganda. I suspect the Sword Worlders are no more `paternalistic, macho, vain, braggarts' than Zhodani are `mind-sucking, inhuman totalitarians' once the veneer of Imperial propaganda is removed. > Depends on the economic developements. Not if the reason for Gram's leadership has been access to Zhodani aid. In TNE one might suspect King Angus of Gram to be cherising his last cigar and cursing his former patrons like Fidel. > OK. So you think the Confederation is one huge Feudal Technocracy, right? No, I think it is a bunch of planetary technocracies too. *You* have suggested there is a great deal of economic integration between these economies which, in my understanding, calls for a broader interstellar technocracy as well. In this view there are no `planetary kings'. There are just `CEOs' that see their influence and power spread across several worlds. They don't have a direct economic interest in things like diplomacy so they relegate it to the Confederation Council. But since economic power is political power in a feudal technocracy then the strongest poltical power ought to be the strongest economic power. We both see this as Sacnoth. You choose to see mysterious cycles to explain Gram's leadership while I blame the Zhodani. Who's assumptions better fit these facts? Some more good work. Peace, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 611 Archive-Message-Number: 7672 From: CHiggin(at)[-- redacted --] Date: Thu, 19 May 94 13:01:05 EDT Subject: Sacnoth Discussion between David Johnson & Hans Rancke: > This is what the *JTAS* Contact article suggests. My suggestion > is that that entire `real man' schtick for the Sword Worlds is all > just a bunch of Imperial propaganda. I suspect the Sword Worlders > are no more `paternalistic, macho, vain, braggarts' than Zhodani > are `mind-sucking, inhuman totalitarians' once the veneer of > Imperial propaganda is removed. I've been watching this discussion for a while, and it has prompted me to post some of my own material on Sacnoth. Regarding the above, I sifted through the description of the Sword Worlders in the Contact article, compared it to the apparent Imperial standards of behavior, compared the Imperial culture to 1980's American culture (the two are quite different), and concluded that Sword Worlders are probably a lot like conservative 1970's Americans. By *IMPERIAL* standards, the SWers are `paternalistic, macho, vain, braggarts'; by 1990 normal American standards, they *might* be mildly sexist and/or racist; by 1990 American liberal standards, they're Republicans :-). By 1970 American standards, they're just plain folks. What follows is my campaign summary for Sacnoth: Sacnoth is a very Earth-like world, one of the most Earth-like in the entire Spinward Marches. It is slightly smaller than Earth, and the gravity is slightly lower (0.89 G). There is slightly more than half as much water (49% of the surface area). Its sun is somewhat brighter than Earth's - an F9 V. The temperature and climate is about the same, though there are more local climatic extremes due to more land and less water to buffer the climate than Earth has. The atmosphere is standard O2-N2 mix, but polluted from Sacnoth's industries and cities. Fortunately, Sacnoth's medical and environmental technology keeps up with the resultant health problems. It has a long day, 33.68 hours, and a long year (504 Sacnoth days, 708 Earth days). The seasons are correspondingly long, and, in the early days of Sacnoth's settlement, the six months of winter resulted in a very high rate of clinical depression and suicide. At the present time, this hazard is averted by light-enhancing interior design and customary use of stimulant-laden drinks during the winter. (They drink lots of coffee-type drinks.) Winter Melancholy is still a frequent affliction, but is almost instantly recognizable and easily treated. Sacnoth is inhabited by 8.91 billion people, the overwhelming majority of which are human (A very few Vargr, no Aslan, no minor races), mostly of Solomani descent. There are some people of mixed Vilani-Solomani blood, but the cultural heritage is overwhelmingly Solomani Scandinavian-Germanic. The major population centers are the megalopoli of Berkagerdi, Trettigard, Jordestad, Tyssestad, and Asarna, and various other, lesser cities (under 100 million). The megalopoli are divided into city-sized administrative units called Cantons, ruled by a noble of at least Baronial rank. There are two city-sized orbital habitats, Vemdalhavn and Eyrarhavn, and many smaller, factory-sized installations. The shipyards of Berkagerdi and Vemdalhavn are capable of building up to 5000 ton starships, and a variety of non-starships. The current government of Sacnoth is a feudal monarchy (NOT a constitutional monarchy!); the current King is Harald VII. He is the same monarch who ruled before the war, though certain of his advisors were ousted in the political re-alignment that resulted in the formation of the Border Worlds. Sacnoth nobles traditionally have families late in life (age 75 to 125), and King Harald's heir, Prince Johann, was killed in naval combat during the war, so the question of succession is somewhat uncertain right now. Current politics revolve around the succession question, and the very real resentment felt by a significant fraction of the population (esp. the military) at "knuckling under" to the Imperium and "becoming an Impy puppet state". The military in particular feels betrayed by the government they served so loyally, much like the German Army after WWI. Transportation is uniformly gravitic; wheeled vehicles are quaint museum pieces from other worlds -- much like chariots in the real world. Sacnoth builds very high quality grav vehicles (TL 13). Sacnoth medical technology is extremely advanced (TL 14); if there are any pieces of you left to put back together, they can probably fix you. As a result, in addition to the standard crimes defined now, violence against another person falls into the categories of Assault, Lethal Assault, and Murder. Murder is an Assault that results in permanent death, whereas Lethal Assault is an Assault that results in temporary death (dead, but resuscitated later). The standard of living is uniformly high, though there are always people who are less advantaged than others. However, there are no "backward" parts of the world. As is to be expected in a world of almost 9 billion people, laws and regulations affect most fields of endeavour, but are not particularly oppressive -- just annoying. Paper is another quaint historical curiousity, but entering data into administrative databases is still called "paperwork". Sacnoth's industries are mostly automated, but household robots are unknown and the use of robots to replace anything besides dumb manual labor is virtually unknown. However, all equipment more sophisticated than a broom is quite "smart" (think modern microwave oven, but voice controlled, for example). A few noted products/brand names: Husqvarna - energy weapons, gauss weapons Nibellung Gravitics - grav vehicles - Enclosed air/raft Tonsonig Metals - fissionables, industrial crystals, basic alloys System Fleet - After FFW about 70% of Sacnoth's fleet was destroyed during the Fifth Frontier War. What remains include 32,000 heavy fighters, approx. 600,000 tons Jump-3 capable (avg 50,000 tons?, approx 12 hulls), 4.8 million tons Jump-2 capable, and 7.2 million tons Jump-1 capable (avg 5000 tons, 2 biggest 30,000 tons, total approx 1440 hulls). World Builder's Handbook write-up: Spinward Marches 1325 / Sacnoth B775956-C diameter: 11500km density: 1.02 mass: .68 surface G: 0.89 Rotation: 33.68 hrs year: 505.54 local/708.04Earth days axial tilt: 26 Eccentricity: 0 satellites: core: molten seismic stress: atm pressure: 1.0 atm atm composition: O2-N2 w/pollutants Hydro: 49% Hydro comp: H2O BMST: 15.4 C summer mod: 15.60 ecc mod: 0 day mod: 7.57 Rfactor: .90 winter mod: -26 lat mod: 6 nite mod: -16.84 HEX ROW Summer Winter day night day night 1 40.98 16.57 40.98 16.57 2 34.98 10.57 34.98 10.57 3 32.88 8.47 22.48 -1.93 4 30.78 6.37 9.98 -14.43 5 28.68 4.27 -2.52 -26.93 6 26.58 2.17 -15.02 -39.43 7 20.58 -3.83 -21.02 -45.43 8 14.58 -9.83 -27.02 -51.43 9 8.58 -15.83 -33.02 -57.43 10 2.58 -21.83 -39.02 -63.43 11 -3.42 -27.83 -45.02 -69.43 Mapping: 7 plates Resources: radioactives, crystals, agroproducts, non-metals, parts, durables, recordings, software population: 8.91E9 native life: yes City/port: Port Pop Orbital City Port Pop --------------------------------- ---- --- ------------------ --- Trettigard B 4E9 Vemdalhavn B 7E6 Berkagerdi B 3E9 Eyrarhavn F 6E6 Jordestad F 7E8 Tyssestad F 5E8 Asarna F 2E8 ?????? H 9E7 ?????? H 5E7 ?????? H 4E7 ?????? H 4E7 ?????? H 3E7 ?????? H 1E7 33 x H 5E6 90 x H 5E5 330 x H 5E4 RURAL 1.05E7 Social Outlook: Progressiveness Att: Conservative Act: Advancing Aggressiveness Att: Competitive Act: Neutral Extensiveness Global: Discordant Interstellar: Aloof Customs: nobles have families late in life, stimulant drinks used during winter, Lethal Assault and Murder are different crimes, Government: Ruler (no division) Legal: Uniformity - Profile: 6-69775 Technological: Profile: CC-CBBED-DDDC-DC-E SYSTEM DATA Primary : F9 V Orbit: 0 DM companion 1 EMPTY 2 G880236-C(9) Muspelheim Mn Re Nv 3 Y550000-0 Surtheim 10 Y100000-0 30 Y100000-0 4 B775956-C(8) Sacnoth 5 SGG [84 0.16 185 1.68] Niffleheim 7 YS00000-0 8 H400000-B(9) 60 YS00000-0 -- Cynthia Higginbotham "Q: What is the difference between the BATF and the Gestapo?" "A: BATF agents speak English." ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 613 Archive-Message-Number: 7702 Date: Fri, 20 May 94 20:27:03 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: TNE: Sword Worlds Gentlesophonts: Cynthia Higginbotham writes: > I've been watching this discussion for a while, and it has prompted me > to post some of my own material on Sacnoth. Welcome to the Sword Worlds Development League, Cynthia! Thanks a bunch for some really great stuff on Sacnoth. We've only got 22 more worlds to go. > There are some people of mixed > Vilani-Solomani blood, but the cultural heritage is overwhelmingly > Solomani Scandinavian-Germanic. This may be what you've said but I just want to get clear that the *JTAS* Contact piece says very specifically that this Teutonic heritage is merely `cultural' and that the Sword Worlds enjoy the full range of Solomani *ethnic* diversity. > The current government of Sacnoth is a feudal monarchy (NOT a > constitutional monarchy!); the current King is Harald VII. He is the > same monarch who ruled before the war, though certain of his advisors > were ousted in the political re-alignment that resulted in the > formation of the Border Worlds. So your work represents the post-5FW era. Have you brought Sacnoth up to TNE? Where do you stand on the capital of the Sword Worlds in TNE? Does Sacnoth have a chance? :-) > System Fleet - After FFW > > about 70% of Sacnoth's fleet was destroyed during the Fifth Frontier > War. What remains include 32,000 heavy fighters, approx. 600,000 > tons Jump-3 capable (avg 50,000 tons?, approx 12 hulls), 4.8 million > tons Jump-2 capable, and 7.2 million tons Jump-1 capable (avg 5000 > tons, 2 biggest 30,000 tons, total approx 1440 hulls). Is this *TCS* information? Didn't you say somewhere else (maybe you didn't, I can't find it now) that Sacnoth's shipyard could only build 5000-ton ships? If so, where do the larger ships mentioned above get built? Some great work. And once again, welcome to the `club'. :-) Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 614 Archive-Message-Number: 7713 From: rancke(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: Sword Worlds Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 15:43:52 +0100 (METDST) David Johnson writes: >>From Sunday night, Hans Rancke writes: > >>It seems I haven't explained my idea about the economic cycles well enough. > >No, I get your point, I just don't see any `facts' that support these cycles. >What is it about the technological disparities between worlds that suggests >these cycles? I understand that you're saying that without things cycling >up and down there ought to be no disparities - every world would be TL 15. >Why does this have to be the case? While it's clear that technological >knowledge ought to be equivalent throughout `known space' there is nothing >to suggest that economic development is constant as well. It might >be that lower tech worlds just haven't `grown' to higher technological >accomplishment yet - like on contemporary Earth. Why the need to propose >these mysterious `techno-economic cycles'? I think we've lost track of the original question. As I recall it (correct me if I'm wrong) you started out by asking how come Gram was the leader of the Sword Worlds when Sacnoth was so much more powerful. I assumed that you were talking about powerful in the naval sense (since a TL or two dosen't mean nearly as much as the population size in the economic sense). So I proposed two possible reasons why the Gram and Narsil fleets maybe wasn't less powerful than the Sacnoth: One possibility was that Gram and Narsil bought TL 12 ships. Another, postulating these economic cycles, was that maybe they had been TL 12 themselves and still had a lot of TL 12 ships from back then. (Those two possibilities turned out to dovetail so neatly that they subsequently got intermixed, but that's by the way). Since then I've tried to defend the notion that the economic cycles are _possible_. I don't say that they definitely must be, that there are no other possibilities. Just that they are perfectly possible. I don't try to prove that they exist, only that they could exist. OK? Nor did I use them to explain the disparity of different TLs. My argument in that direction was: 1) TL 15 _knowledge_ is readily available to anyone in contact with Imperial society. 2) That many worlds have lower than TL 15 _industry_, cannot therefor be explained by a lack of knowledge, but must be due to other reasons. 3) The most likely limiting factors are economic. 4) Economic cycles are well-known on Earth today. 5) Granted, economic cycles does not cause TL swings on Earth today (as far as I know). 6) However _if_ technology is limited by economy (as it is in the Traveller universe), sufficiently large booms and recessions _ought_ to be able to affect the TL of a world. >>(Remember, I also assume that a world can >>maintain ships and equipment at least two levels above their own TL) > >I'm not sure this is really relevant to our discussion It applies to the ability of Gram and Narsil to maintain a TL 12 fleet with TL 11 and 10 economies. >but I'm not sure >I agree with this idea. A TL 6 mechanic is going to have problems fixing >the electronic-fuel-injection in my TL 8 car just as a TL 6 computeroid >is going to have difficulties trying to replace the vacuum tubes in my PC. >A TL 4 electrician won't have a clue how to fix the CRT on my TL 5 TV. But my whole point is that they _will_ have much more than a clue. The knowledge is there even if the industry isn't. >Of course, you're going to say she can because her world was at TL 8 when >she went to trade school two decades ago. :-) That too. >If the 5FW counters `prove' that there are truly disparate TLs in the >Sword Worlds doesn't that lend credence to the idea that disparate TLs >are due to disparate techno-economic *development* rather than `cycles'? No, it proves that the authors of a board game have different priorities from the authors of a role-playing game. >And won't that, in turn, generally call for Sacnoth to be the dominant >world unless Gram is receiving outside help? Not in terms of the economy according to _Trillion Credit Squadron_. The GPP (Gross Planetary Product) of Gram is close to that of Sacnoth and that of Narsil is a lot bigger. >>IMO one should prefer >>the one that corresponds most closely to GDWs version. > >I agree. Someone *please* dig out those *5FW* counters! There are 7 SW squadrons that must be TL 12 (jump3 capable), 9 that could be TL 12, but propably are TL 11 (jump2 capable), and none that can be TL 10 (no jump1 squadrons). The troops are marked with TL: One brigade from Gram is TL 11 and one from Joyeuse is TL 10. The rest are anonymous and consists of four TL 10 corps and 2.5 TL 11 corps. No TL 12 corps at all. The whole force is much less than the total available Sword World forces; the attack on the Imperium appears to be a secondary effort. Most of their prime units must have gone against the Darrians. Any Gram TL 12 units could be there. >>Actually, while I've no doubt that GDW's Sword Worlds owe their origin to >>Piper, they actualy have a lot less in common with Piper's than one might >>think. > >Really? How so? I had always assumed that GDW just took all the Sword World names they could find in "Space Viking" and used the Tolkien names and the Norse Mythology names (not even swords!) to fill out the subsector. But a short while ago I checked, and it turns out that there are a whole bunch of Piper SWs that has no Traveller SW counterpart. Most of the duplications are with really famous swords like Excalibur, Joyeuse, and Durendal - the kind of names anyone would dig up once the idea of 'Sword Class' names had ocurred to them. So what the Traveller SWs owe to Piper is actually little more than the concept of the sword names. The societies are different in a number of ways too (Women accepted in 'male' roles for instance). >>I believe, however, that the GDW SW ancestors did, like Piper's SW ancestors, >>flee a lost civil war. > >I just checked the *JTAS* Contact article again. It merely describes the >original Sword Worlds settlers as `Solomani exiles'. There is no mention >of *any* warfare. The time is the c-400. You're right. I've mixed my own idea up with the official info. 'Exiles' does imply some sort of pressure on them, though. >I'm not sure when the Interstellar Wars occurred. This was long after the Interstellar Wars. _Cats&Rats_ says that they left Terra in -420. That they used 29 years to get to the Spinward Marches implies a desire to get _really_ away from it all. My interpretation is that they were losers in a civil war in the Old Earth Union. Not official. >>Remember that my theory ties TLs tightly to the economy. I know it hasn't >>worked that way on Earth today, but it's the only explanation that I can >>see why nearly all worlds aren't TL 15. > >Doesn't different levels of `techno-economic development' explain the >disparate TLs as well? That's just what I said. It's two different and independent bits of my argument. The disparate TLs indicates a close tie to economy. Economy can (and often does) fluctuate. Ergo TLs can fluctuate. If you postulate that Sword World economy dosen't fluctuate you get stable TLs. If you postulate that it does you get unstable TLs. >>As to why >>it dosen't happen in the Imperium and the Darrian Confederation: >> 1) Maybe it does. Why is only 4 Imperial worlds in the Spinward >> Marches TL 15? > >Because these are the only four that have achieved that level of `techno- >ecomomic development'? Certainly. The stable economy theory. But one set of UPPs isn't enough to say anything one way or the other about this. Of course, we do have several sets of UPPs for the Sword Worlds, but since they have world populations fluctuating by bilions within a decade I don't know that we can really rely on them. >>So this seems to be the assumption that dosen't fit. Examine it. Change it >>to fit. Specifically the part of the assumption that has the individual >>Sword Worlds tied together in an 'emperor-level' feudal technocracy. Try >>to imagine the tecnocracies stopping at the planetary level. > >But this isn't what *you've* proposed! If Sacnoth is selling its high-tech >goods to all the other Sword Worlds then the technocracy can't stop at the >individual worlds because the economy doesn't! Are the US and Europe and Japan different countries? Yet their economies are tightly intertwined. >This is the nature of a >feudal technocracy - the poltical situation is tied directly to the economic >situation. >If the economy is interstellar then political power in interstellar... I don't see how that follows. >...and the center of power out to be the strongest technocracy - Sacnoth. >Unless there is outside influence like the Zhodani. Again, quoting the *JTAS* >Contact article: > >"A Confederation Council, made up of representatives from all worlds, >regulates interworld trade, handles diplomatic relations with outside powers, >and adjudicates interworld disputes." > > Sounds like the Japanese *keiritsu* to me. Sounds like a slightly stronger European Union to me. >>If, that is, wars were decided by mathematical formulae. Let's not get that >>simplistic. > >Well, fine, but I'm merely trying to provide some data for your 10-to-1 >question. No offense meant. >>Nowadays they _do_ have a politically stable Confederation. > >Doesn't sound like it from the above quote. Perhaps not, but it sure sound like it from the length of time the Gram Coalition has lasted. >>Make that overran every two centuries and you're nearer the mark. This is >>actually quite important. If the Sword Worlds really bothered the Imperium > >>Imperium has taken quite decisive action whenever the Sword Worlds have >>ovestepped the line. > >I merely saw `decades' as analogous to centuries when comparing a millenia- >old empire to a two-century-old nation. I think that is wrong. Whatever the age of an institution, the people who run it usualy thinks in terms of their own generation. >I feel the Sword Worlds *have* >been a bother and that the Imperium *hasn't* taken *decisive* action. A >pacification campaign is decisive and consistent with past Imperial actions. The pacification campaigns took place before even the Ante-bellum period of the Imperium. The 3rd frontier War took place after the Civil War and the Psionic suppressions. I find no problem with accepting that Imperial attitudes were different in those two periods. >>OK. So you think the Confederation is one huge Feudal Technocracy, right? > >No, I think it is a bunch of planetary technocracies too. *You* have suggested >there is a great deal of economic integration between these economies which, >in my understanding, calls for a broader interstellar technocracy as well. I must have a different definition of 'intergration' than you. I think these worlds all produce whatever is most profitable at any given time and sell it to anyone who will buy. That's not intergration in my book. Hans Rancke University of Copenhagen rancke(at)[-- redacted --] - ------------ "A subsector official pompously states that the subsector armed forces have four Kinunir class ships in service, each with enough troop strength to put down any military operations that threathen the peace of the Imperium." ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 615 Archive-Message-Number: 7726 From: CHiggin(at)[-- redacted --] Date: Mon, 23 May 94 10:46:34 EDT Subject: re:TNE: Sword Worlds From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) >So your work represents the post-5FW era. Have you brought Sacnoth up >to TNE? Where do you stand on the capital of the Sword Worlds in TNE? >Does Sacnoth have a chance? :-) (1) No. My groups are still post-5FW, and I doubt I will ever use the TNE universe. (However, we have the Imperial Occupation of the Islands Cluster and the Sixth Frontier War coming up instead... and possibly the 2nd Solomani Rim War.) (2 & 3) Sacnoth will take Capital of the Border Worlds Confederation away from Beater as the popular backlash against "knuckling under to Impy puppets" crests; the Border Worlds will cease to be a tame puppet...er client state of the Imperium. However, true to traditional Sword Worlds fractiousness, the Border Worlds/Sword Worlds split will stand, as Gram and Sacnoth will be unable to agree on proper usage of the Metal Worlds. (The Border Worlds has opened them to colonization, particularly from overcrowded Sacnoth -- the Sword Worlds, still having many underpopulated, relatively pleasant worlds open for further colonization, demands that they be closed to further colonization and retained as "resource worlds"...i.e., they don't want Sacnoth having more political allies and votes in a reunited Confederation government). The Joyeuse civil war will finally grind to a close, as those who have been fostering instability there change policies, and Joyeuse will become an significant part of Sword World politics once it rebuilds. >Is this *TCS* information? Didn't you say somewhere else (maybe you didn't, >I can't find it now) that Sacnoth's shipyard could only build 5000-ton ships? >If so, where do the larger ships mentioned above get built? Some were built on Gram, and some in Sacnoth's yards *before* the war, before the Impy Navy raid that trashed Sacnoth's A yards... (yes, I am playing fast & loose with old history -- i.e., the CT Spinward Marches Supplement; remember that UPPs are based on IISS surveys and can be out of date... especially if they update them by hiring a detached duty scout to spend 20 years per sector updating them... remember Adventure #0, that came with some versions of the CT boxed set?) >22 more worlds to go. Sorry, Sacnoth is the only world I have quite that much detail on (one of my PBSEM players has a character that lives and works there), but I have some information on Big Game Hunting on Hrunting,... ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 615 Archive-Message-Number: 7728 From: JSHiggin(at)[-- redacted --] Date: Mon, 23 May 94 10:09:37 EDT Subject: Sword Worlds & TCS David Johnson: > Let's assume a `subsector government' of 5 (feudal technocracy). > The Sword Worlds population (c1120) is approximately 30 billion. > These parameters give: > Budget: cr500 x .95 x 30,000,000,000 = 14,240 Gcr > Capacity: (30,000,000,000 x .95)/1000 = 28.5 Mt This is pretty accurate, but quite misleading. Based on what you wrote here: > Now I don't have much idea how to convert this to ships and squadrons > but just using the tonnage figure and an estimate of 50,000 tons per > `capital' ship gives 570 ships! No wonder the Imperium hasn't > conducted a pacification campaign against the Sword Worlds! _You_ misunderstood the significance of these numbers, at least. The budget is an annual budget, and the capacity is shipyard capacity. Since TCS requires 10% of ship cost as annual maintenance, to all intents, the _value_ of the SW Navy is 10 times the annual budget, or TCr142.4. The shipyard capacity has some bearing on Navy size, but, in my experience, not much. The only world in any of my TCS games that _ever_ operated its shipyard at capacity was one doing a lot of contract work for other players (due to its higher TL). Most of the worlds seldom operated at more than 20% capacity. However, a good guideline for Fleet size is 1 ton of ship for KCr750. This results in a Sword Worlds' Fleet of about 190,000,000 tons, or 3800 ships in the 50,000T range. Note that this thumbrule can vary quite a lot, depending on TL, but it works reasonably well from TL11-15. > Either you *TCS* wonks have to help me out here or we need to begin to > accept that the *TCS* rules just aren't compatible with the naval > forces that appeared in *5FW*. (And start arguing about which to > throw out? :-) The two sets of rules are completely incompatible. I have, however, always assumed that the FFW fleets are a simplification of the reality it pretends to model for ease of play. Who wants to play a game with 10,000 pieces, after all? ---Steve ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 615 Archive-Message-Number: 7733 Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 10:52:13 -0600 From: RJR96326(at)[-- redacted --] (J Roberson) Subject: Economic TLs - or why everyone doesn't have the bomb Hans & Dave are at it again, arguing over the Sword Worlds. Please, allow me to offer my own examples and illustratons to the argument. Many would agree that the knowledge on how to build an atomic bomb is readily available in books stashed in libraries the world over. Thus, anyone can get the knowledge to build a bomb. I want one, so I go to the library and check out "How to win friends & influence people the Oppenheimer way". I read carefully, and build a case and timer, etc. Then I hit a stumbling block: Plutonium. Where do I get it? Regulations aside, I can't afford it. Looks like if I want my own nuke, I will need to invest some money or play the lottery frequently until I get enough cash to buy or manufacture Plutonium. Similarly, even if a TL10 world had access to TL12 technology, they wouldn't be able to put that knowledge to much use until they had invested time & money into developing the appropriate infrastructure. I agree that most world have access to the knowledge. However, I would bet that some wouldn't, and even those that did still would'nt be able to put it to much use. Take the example of the TL6 mechanic trying to fix a TL8 car. Sure, he's read the manual, and maybe seen a videotape or two, but he hasn't actually *done* it. Mechanically, I would rule that he still has a skill penalty. Knowledge must be confirmed. I imagine that what would happen would be that a number of specialists who were familiar with higher TL equipment would make a living fixing it, though the market would be smaller since all that hi-TL equipment is going to be imported. Creativity over Originality. Consistency is a Flaw. J Roberson RJR96326(at)[-- redacted --] Priss(at)[-- redacted --] ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 616 Archive-Message-Number: 7745 Date: Mon, 23 May 94 21:47:57 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: TNE: Sword Worlds Technology Gentlesophonts: The Hans and David show continues. :-) Hans Rancke writes: > I think we've lost track of the original question. Probably. :-) > As I recall it (correct > me if I'm wrong) you started out by asking how come Gram was the leader of > the Sword Worlds when Sacnoth was so much more powerful. Yes, I think that's it. > I assumed that > you were talking about powerful in the naval sense (since a TL or two > dosen't mean nearly as much as the population size in the economic sense). Okay, here's where I diverge. I was thinking more along the lines of `economic' strength, which I agree is tied to population, than mere naval strength. Keep in mind that Gram and Sacnoth are on the same order of population (6 billion and 3 billion, respectively). Narsil is at 20 billion but it's two TLs below Sacnoth. Still, in a feudal technocracy, one tech level is going to make a *tremendous* amount of difference. (It's like the difference between Japan and Mexico if Japan's economic power gave it corresponding political power in Mexico.) > Since then I've tried to defend the notion that the economic cycles are > _possible_. I don't say that they definitely must be, that there are no > other possibilities. Just that they are perfectly possible. I don't try > to prove that they exist, only that they could exist. OK? Nor did I use > them to explain the disparity of different TLs. I believe I've accepted that these cycles *might* exist and that if they do they would explain Gram's leadership of the Confederation. My concern has been that I can't see what *causes* these `techno-economic' cycles (since we've agreed they have no `real world' parallel) and that I don't see how they explain the tech level disparities. > >>(Remember, I also assume that a world can > >>maintain ships and equipment at least two levels above their own TL) > > > >I'm not sure this is really relevant to our discussion No, sorry, I meant I didn't think *my* rebuttal was relevant! :-) I get the point you were making which was why I said: > >Of course, you're going to say she can because her world was at TL 8 when > >she went to trade school two decades ago. :-) I just disagree with you though when you say: > But my whole point is that they _will_ have much more than a clue. The > knowledge is there even if the industry isn't. I feel that it takes more than just knowledge. I don't care how much you know about internal combustion engines, if you can't refine oil to make gasoline and you don't have a continental highway network you're going to have a rough time getting your Yugo or Hyundai from Houston to Detroit. The knowledge may be there on a lower tech world but the corresponding infrastructure isn't. > No, it proves that the authors of a board game have different priorities > from the authors of a role-playing game. Now wait a minute! :-) What happened to: > I really think you should try to make up an explanation that fits the known > facts rather than to make up an explanation and change the facts to fit them. And: > IMO one should prefer > the one that corresponds most closely to GDWs version. Please, Hans, I've got a smile on my face right now and there is absolutely no malice in it. I'm enjoying the living daylights out of our discussions. > Not in terms of the economy according to _Trillion Credit Squadron_. The > GPP (Gross Planetary Product) of Gram is close to that of Sacnoth and that > of Narsil is a lot bigger. Well, I think we're beginning to see there are some serious conflicts between *5FW*, *TCS* and the TNE military forces per *POT*. > The troops are marked with TL: One brigade from > Gram is TL 11 and one from Joyeuse is TL 10. Hmmm, Steve Bonneville has reported: > Note that Gram is stated to be TL 10! Looks like there is a discrepancy *within* *5FW* between the counters (TL 11) and the map board (TL 10). Is this the case? More Hans: > The whole force is much less than the total available Sword World forces; > the attack on the Imperium appears to be a secondary effort. Most of > their prime units must have gone against the Darrians. Any Gram TL 12 > units could be there. Well, maybe, but this doesn't agree with the campaign as it was reported in *Spinward Marches Campaign*. According to *SMC*, the Narsil Fleet patrolled the Darrian border (and eventually lost the disputed worlds in Querion to the Darrians) while the Sacnoth Fleet patrolled the rimward border and was eventually destroyed by the Imperial 214th Fleet attacking from Glisten and occupying what became the Border Worlds. Note the Narsil Fleet was deployed against the lower tech Darrians rather than the Imperial Navy. > So what the Traveller SWs owe to Piper is actually little more than > the concept of the sword names. Well, not exactly. There are other similarities. The whole feudal technocracy thing. The *JTAS* article on the former Sword Worlds naval captain who's spouse/fiance was killed on their wedding day so she sold the family estate to buy a ship and chase the killers - nothing more than Lucas Trask in a dress! > The societies are different in a number of > ways too (Women accepted in 'male' roles for instance). I think this `liberation' issue is merely a matter of when Piper was writing (early 60's) versus when GDW was creating Traveller (late 70's). Remember, the GDW material makes a big deal of the `mis-treatment' of women in the Sword Worlds. As Steve Bonneville points out: > The ranking flag, Riksdattar, is > much like Santanocheev. [Incidentally, if her name is formed > in the Icelandic manner, Riksdattar is a woman. Just an > observation for the SW culture watchers.] I think there's a great deal of similarity between Piper's Sword Worlds and GDW's Sword Worlds on the issue of how women are portrayed/treated. > _Cats&Rats_ You mean *Solomani and Aslan*? Ouch! :-) > says that they left > Terra in -420. That they used 29 years to get to the Spinward Marches > implies a desire to get _really_ away from it all. My interpretation is > that they were losers in a civil war in the Old Earth Union. Not official. This sounds like a good rationalization. > That's just what I said. It's two different and independent bits of my > argument. The disparate TLs indicates a close tie to economy. Economy can > (and often does) fluctuate. Ergo TLs can fluctuate. If you postulate that > Sword World economy dosen't fluctuate you get stable TLs. If you postulate > that it does you get unstable TLs. Okay, but why suppose these still-unexplained cycles when they're not needed to explain the disparity? If the different economies are merely at different stages of development (with higher TL being an indication of greater `advancement') there is no need of these cycles. Then Zhodani aid, already well established in the canonical material, explains why Gram has lead the Confederation when one would expect more advanced (higher tech) Sacnoth to do so. > Certainly. The stable economy theory. But one set of UPPs isn't enough to > say anything one way or the other about this. Ah, but what about *all* those other worlds *outside* the Sword Worlds that aren't experiencing these cycles? What `facts' suggest the Sword Worlds should be different from the rest of the universe? > several sets of UPPs for the Sword Worlds, but since they have world > populations fluctuating by bilions within a decade Billions? Really? Can you cite the sources? This is interesting from our allegiance/borders viewpoint too. > Are the US and Europe and Japan different countries? Yet their economies > are tightly intertwined. No, they're not tighly entwined politically *and* economically like the case would be in a feudal technocracy. A better example would be, say, California and, heck, all the other states west of the Rockies put together. When California wants federal water in Montana, it gets it. Largely because of it's greater population (which also gives it a larger economy) which gives it greater political power in the representative democracy we have here. > >If the economy is interstellar then political power in interstellar... > > I don't see how that follows. By definition. In a feudal technocracy, economic power translates *directly* into political power. You get to be `king' because you control the largest share of stock. > > Sounds like the Japanese *keiritsu* to me. > > Sounds like a slightly stronger European Union to me. Yes, it does, except that in Europe representatives are chosen through a representative democracy that places power in the hands of individuals equally while in a feudal technocracy (and in the *keiritsu*) those representatives are chosen by shareholders that place power in the hands of the owners of production. > >>Nowadays they _do_ have a politically stable Confederation. > > > >Doesn't sound like it from the above quote. > > Perhaps not, but it sure sound like it from the length of time the Gram > Coalition has lasted. I agree. I would explain this apparent conflict (it's a fact Gram has led for a *long* time but it's someone's opinion that the Sworld Worlds are `unstable') as more cleverly-disguised Imperial propaganda. [Has anyone realized how convenient this has become for GDW? By clearly placing some misleading information in published works (like the library data in the *Imperial Encyclopedia* that was identified as having a SMART bias) they (and we) can explain away just about any inconsistency at a latter date. Clever, or just lucky?] > I think that is wrong. Whatever the age of an institution, the people who > run it usualy thinks in terms of their own generation. Good point. > The pacification campaigns took place before even the Ante-bellum period of > the Imperium. The 3rd frontier War took place after the Civil War and the > Psionic suppressions. I find no problem with accepting that Imperial > attitudes were different in those two periods. Another good point, but it still begs the question of the Imperium not `dealing with' the Sword Worlds. > I must have a different definition of 'intergration' than you. I think these > worlds all produce whatever is most profitable at any given time and sell it > to anyone who will buy. That's not intergration in my book. If I'm Freya Freighters of Sacnoth and I buy a controlling interest in Loki Levitation of Gram I have not only gained economic influence on Gram but *political* power as well. Since, at TL 12, I'm clearly the strongest economic power then I'm going to gain more and more of this sort of control. As soon as the King Harald of Sacnoth (thanks, Cynthia) buys a controlling interest in the holdings of King Angus of Gram, Angus becomes Harald's *vassal*! That's how a feudal technocracy works. Some really good stuff, Hans. BTW, I think you've got the *ihatei* situation pegged exactly. Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 617 Archive-Message-Number: 7755 Date: Tue, 24 May 94 19:57:42 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: All: Imperial Propaganda: Sword Worlds Gentlesophonts: Been thinking about the portrayal of the Sword Worlders in the official campaign material. Let's look a little closer at the "Contact" article on the Sword Worlders from *JTAS* #18. On the status of women: "Sword Worlds society is militaristic and male-dominated, women having a much more subordinate position than in the Imperium." Sounds bad, right? Here's the specifics: "Almost without exception, men fill important public offices, business positions, and high military commands. While women are not legally or culturally prohibited from any occupation, any woman in a `male' profession is expected to exhibit male rather than female behavior (at least in public). The reverse, however, is not true. Men may never exhibit female behaviors (in public at least) without losing face." Sounds more like the US today, or at least in 1970. On the instability of Sword Worlds governments and interworld rivalry let's look at the historical timeline: - -189 First interstellar government, the Sacnoth (or First) Dominate, formed. - -102 First Dominate falls in First War of Rebellion, various individual and multiworld governments exist. 104 Triple Dominion formed 217 Triple Dominion falls, again various smaller governments prevail. 604 Second Dominate formed after First Frontier War. 698 Gram Coalition overthrows Second Dominate 788 Trilateral Alliance replaces Gram Coalition after loss in Darrian War. 848 Trilateral Alliance falls, replaced by Gram government four years later. 1110 Border Worlds break-off after Imperial occupation following the Fifth Frontier War. Thus, we have six governments ruling for over 700 years over a period of nearly 1300 years (not counting the Border Worlds). Prior to the current government (c1110) at Gram each Sword Worlds government lasted an average of approximately 90 years - three generations, which is pretty good for a feudal system. The most recent government had existed for over 260 years by 1110! The interregnum between the current government and the previous one was only four years. There was virtually no interregnum in the two government changes prior to the last one which means the Sword Worlds have had a single interstellar government, albeit with changes in the seat of government, almost continuously since the Second Dominate was formed in 604 - over half a millenia and nearly half the life of the Third Imperium! Imperial propaganda: "a battle for the hearts and minds" indeed! Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 618 Archive-Message-Number: 7762 From: rancke(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: Sword World Technology Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 17:29:14 +0100 (METDST) David Johnson writes: >Hans Rancke writes: >>As I recall it (correct >>me if I'm wrong) you started out by asking how come Gram was the leader of >>the Sword Worlds when Sacnoth was so much more powerful. > >Yes, I think that's it. > >>I assumed that >>you were talking about powerful in the naval sense (since a TL or two >>dosen't mean nearly as much as the population size in the economic sense). > >Okay, here's where I diverge. I was thinking more along the lines of >`economic' strength, which I agree is tied to population, than mere naval >strength. Keep in mind that Gram and Sacnoth are on the same order of >population (6 billion and 3 billion, respectively). Narsil is at 20 >billion but it's two TLs below Sacnoth. Still, in a feudal technocracy, >one tech level is going to make a *tremendous* amount of difference. (It's >like the difference between Japan and Mexico if Japan's economic power >gave it corresponding political power in Mexico.) But according to the only _Traveller_ rules we have on the subject (_TCS_) technology _dosn't_ make that much difference. If you look at the credit conversion table you'll see that the credits of two worlds with the same starport type (which I take in this context to mean the same level of trade) differ by only 5% per TL. Now, I'm not an economics major. Perhaps that notion is as ridiculous as some of the mistakes that I am able to spot. But since I don't know any better I'm arguing from those tables. With twice the population of Sacnoth Gram is nearly twice as powerful as Sacnoth economically. >I believe I've accepted that these cycles *might* exist and that if they >do they would explain Gram's leadership of the Confederation. My concern >has been that I can't see what *causes* these `techno-economic' cycles >(since we've agreed they have no `real world' parallel) We don't agree on that. We have plenty of real world parallels for economic cycles. Since we agree that a lower-than-15 TL can only be due to economic reasons, economic instability _should_ result in TL instability. (Btw. I'm not so sure we don't have any examples of that. Didn't some farmers put their cars in the barn and go back to the horse waggon during the Great Depression?). >>But my whole point is that they _will_ have much more than a clue. The >>knowledge is there even if the industry isn't. > >I feel that it takes more than just knowledge. I don't care how much you >know about internal combustion engines, if you can't refine oil to make >gasoline and you don't have a continental highway network you're going >to have a rough time getting your Yugo or Hyundai from Houston to Detroit. >The knowledge may be there on a lower tech world but the corresponding >infrastructure isn't. Make that steamships instead and you have a better analogy, since the ships of space don't need any highways. Even if you can't produce boiler plates you may still be able to rivet them together when they come apart. >>No, it proves that the authors of a board game have different priorities >>from the authors of a role-playing game. > >Now wait a minute! :-) What happened to: > >>I really think you should try to make up an explanation that fits the known >>facts rather than to make up an explanation and change the facts to fit them. > >And: > >>IMO one should prefer >>the one that corresponds most closely to GDWs version. > >Please, Hans, I've got a smile on my face right now and there is absolutely >no malice in it. I'm enjoying the living daylights out of our discussions. No offense taken. I do mean that, but I also direct you to the word 'try'. If different sources disagree we have to choose between them, and in most cases I'd be inclined to choose the role-playing source over the board game source. I'd be happier if we could reconcile them, but it's just not possible. _TCS_ gives much bigger fleets than is present in 5FW. >>The whole force is much less than the total available Sword World forces; >>the attack on the Imperium appears to be a secondary effort. Most of >>their prime units must have gone against the Darrians. Any Gram TL 12 >>units could be there. > >Well, maybe, but this doesn't agree with the campaign as it was reported in >*Spinward Marches Campaign*. According to *SMC*, the Narsil Fleet patrolled >the Darrian border (and eventually lost the disputed worlds in Querion to >the Darrians) while the Sacnoth Fleet patrolled the rimward border and >was eventually destroyed by the Imperial 214th Fleet attacking from Glisten >and occupying what became the Border Worlds. Note the Narsil Fleet was >deployed against the lower tech Darrians rather than the Imperial Navy. I had forgotten that. OK, consider the above retracted. 5FW forces are just generally understrength. >>So what the Traveller SWs owe to Piper is actually little more than >>the concept of the sword names. > >Well, not exactly. There are other similarities. The whole feudal >technocracy thing. The *JTAS* article on the former Sword Worlds naval >captain who's spouse/fiance was killed on their wedding day so she sold >the family estate to buy a ship and chase the killers - nothing more >than Lucas Trask in a dress! I said 'little more'. You're right on both above counts. But Elaine would have had no chance of going Space Viking from Piper's Gram if Lucas had been the one killed. That 'nothing more' is quite a lot. >>The societies are different in a number of >>ways too (Women accepted in 'male' roles for instance). > >I think this `liberation' issue is merely a matter of when Piper was >writing (early 60's) versus when GDW was creating Traveller (late 70's). I think so too, but what's that got to do with it? It _is_ a pretty significant difference between the two societies. >Remember, the GDW material makes a big deal of the `mis-treatment' of >women in the Sword Worlds. Mistreatment? Men and women are assigned different roles in society, thereby denying some women the chance to fulfill their potential (and some men too, btw.) That's not good, but I wouldn't call it mistreatment. On top of that women have a safety valve in that they are accepted in 'male' roles provided they adopt 'male' behaviour. Males are never accepted in 'female' roles. As Steve Bonneville points out: > >>The ranking flag, Riksdattar, is >>much like Santanocheev. [Incidentally, if her name is formed >>in the Icelandic manner, Riksdattar is a woman. Just an >>observation for the SW culture watchers.] Nothing contradictory in that. Riksdattar is a female accepted in a 'male' role. And apparently she's really accepted, not just tolerated (Either that or she's the daughter of a king. 'Rik' is a nordic name, but it could also mean 'realm'). >I think there's a great deal of similarity between Piper's Sword Worlds >and GDW's Sword Worlds on the issue of how women are portrayed/treated. I think there's quite some difference. >>That's just what I said. It's two different and independent bits of my >>argument. The disparate TLs indicates a close tie to economy. Economy can >>(and often does) fluctuate. Ergo TLs can fluctuate. If you postulate that >>Sword World economy dosen't fluctuate you get stable TLs. If you postulate >>that it does you get unstable TLs. > >Okay, but why suppose these still-unexplained cycles I despair of explaining those cycles any better than by the sentence 'Economy can (and often does) fluctuate'. >when they're not needed >to explain the disparity? If the different economies are merely at >different stages of development (with higher TL being an indication of >greater `advancement') there is no need of these cycles. Except to explain why it took Gram 14 centuries to go from TL 12 to TL 11. OK, there's been some civil wars in between, but they've had centuries since the 3FW. This _could_ be explained by a slow, steady, uneventful economic rise over the centuries with, say, a TL per two centuries. Or it could be an economic roller-coaster that pulls one world two steps back every time it get one step ahead. Personally, knowing how today's industrial magnates love to screw around with each other, the second picture seems much more likely than the first. >Then Zhodani aid, >already well established in the canonical material, explains why Gram has >lead the Confederation when one would expect more advanced (higher tech) >Sacnoth to do so. Or much richer Narsil. >>Certainly. The stable economy theory. But one set of UPPs isn't enough to >>say anything one way or the other about this. > >Ah, but what about *all* those other worlds *outside* the Sword Worlds >that aren't experiencing these cycles? What `facts' suggest the Sword >Worlds should be different from the rest of the universe? First of all, how do you know they haven't? Regina was settled in 75. It was TL 10 in 1105. It was TL 11 or 12 in 1120, wasn't it? (I haven't the books with me here and may be misremembering). Why did Regina gain one or no TLs in 10 centuries and one more in 15 years? It dosen't make much sense if you assume that TLs always increase or stagnate (barring wars). It makes perfect sense if TLs rise and fall over the centuries. Secondly, even if the Imperium _is_ stable there could be a very good reason for that: Imperial control. The Sword Worlds have a political machine, a commitee, to rule them. The Imperium has a single authority who can shift things around to keep the economy more or less stable whoever it may hurt in the short run. The Confederation Council has to take short term hurts into consideration. >>several sets of UPPs for the Sword Worlds, but since they have world >>populations fluctuating by bilions within a decade > >Billions? Really? Can you cite the sources? This is interesting from >our allegiance/borders viewpoint too. Yep, I'll dig it out and post it later. >>Are the US and Europe and Japan different countries? Yet their economies >>are tightly intertwined. > >No, they're not tighly entwined politically *and* economically like the >case would be in a feudal technocracy. A better example would be, say, >California and, heck, all the other states west of the Rockies put >together. When California wants federal water in Montana, it gets it. >Largely because of it's greater population (which also gives it a larger >economy) which gives it greater political power in the representative >democracy we have here. I'm beginning to see where you're going wrong. See below. >>>If the economy is interstellar then political power in interstellar... >> >>I don't see how that follows. > >By definition. In a feudal technocracy, economic power translates *directly* >into political power. Where did you get that definition? I mean, if you made it up yourself you're begging the question. I admit that I'm vague about just how a feudal technocracy works, but isn't that because it's a term GDW made up (Or lifted from some SF book?)? Or is there some dictionary definition of the term? Have there ever been a formal feudal technocracy in Real Life? >You get to be `king' because you control the largest share of stock. In a feudal society you get to be king because you have the support of the great lords. In theory you gets that support because you own the land and lend it to the great lords in return for their sworn support (In practice the great lords often control the land whatever the King wants). By analogy a feudal technocracy is one where the King theoretically owns all the industry (the source of power analogous to land in a feudal society) and lend it out in exchange for support. In practice many great lords propably control their 'fiefs' whatever the King wants. >Yes, it does, except that in Europe representatives are chosen through a >representative democracy that places power in the hands of individuals >equally while in a feudal technocracy (and in the *keiritsu*) those >representatives are chosen by shareholders that place power in the hands >of the owners of production. What you are describing is a corporate government, not a feudal one. In a feudal government power (in this case, ownership of shares) flows from the top to the bottom. What you describe is power flowing from the bottom (the individual shares) to the top. >>The pacification campaigns took place before even the Ante-bellum period of >>the Imperium. The 3rd frontier War took place after the Civil War and the >>Psionic suppressions. I find no problem with accepting that Imperial >>attitudes were different in those two periods. > >Another good point, but it still begs the question of the Imperium not >`dealing with' the Sword Worlds. After the 3FW the Imperium dealt with the Sword Worlds by invading them. Later a different administration decided that the occupation was either unnecessary ("They'll never dare do anything again, not in a thousand years"), or just too expensive, or both. The 4FW was settled by negotiations and one proviso must certainly be that the Imperium did not retaliate against the Sword Worlds. And after the 5FW they again dealt with the Sword Worlds, this time by setting up a puppet governmnt on half of them. I just don't understand how you can say that they didn't deal with them. They've dealt with them at least twice. >>I must have a different definition of 'intergration' than you. I think these >>worlds all produce whatever is most profitable at any given time and sell it >>to anyone who will buy. That's not intergration in my book. > >If I'm Freya Freighters of Sacnoth and I buy a controlling interest in >Loki Levitation of Gram I have not only gained economic influence on Gram >but *political* power as well. Granted, but the only way you can get that influence is if the king of Gram allows you to buy that controlling interest. Remember the 'feudal' in the government class. The king theoretically _owns_ those shares and what you pay for must be the right to benefit from them. And one of the things you must pay with is the promise to support him. So it's even possible that King Harald will not allow you to invest in anything on Gram. >Since, at TL 12, I'm clearly the strongest economic power Fallacy. See above. >then I'm going to gain more and more of this sort of >control. As soon as the King Harald of Sacnoth (thanks, Cynthia) buys >a controlling interest in the holdings of King Angus of Gram, Angus Angus? Could we select some oth name, please? How about Anders? >becomes Harald's *vassal*! That's how a feudal technocracy works. Is it? Perhaps our first step should be to define just what a feudal technocracy is and how it works. Hans Rancke University of Copenhagen rancke(at)[-- redacted --] - ------------ "This gives a possible range of 56 to 178 starships total in the three Terran starport facilities, a believable quantity for such a star system." "We have a maximum of 178 ships in port, and (as it is a busy star system) we will say that there are 70 docking berths at the Phoenix facility." ---Journal of the Traveller's Aid Society # 18 ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 621 Archive-Message-Number: 7789 Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 10:02:27 +0100 From: A.S.Lilly(at)[-- redacted --] (Andy Lilly) Subject: Various DEMOCRACY? Re 616/7745 djohnson: > ...in Europe representatives are chosen through a representative democracy > that places power in the hands of individuals equally while in a > feudal technocracy those representatives are chosen by shareholders that > place power in the hands of owners of production. (Any spelling errors are mine, not Dave's) Hmm. Perhaps ideally... :-) It might be fairer to note that the 'elected' representatives only get where they are by lying, back-handers, use of the media to portray them as 'nice people', etc. [allegedly]. They rarely think for themselves, preferring to tow the 'party line'. In the case of a certain current European government within a few miles of myself, the strings are, in reality, pulled totally by the owners of production, who ensure the politicians vote as they desire in order that they can maintain their high profits and so that the politicians can become directors when they retire from politics. Perhaps not so different from a feudal technocracy? :-) or should it be :-( ? THE SWORD WORLDS 'DEBATE' A lot of the problem seems to be over someone having TL11 and not having as good starships as a TL12 world, etc. Given the World Builder's Handbook, for TL11, maximum TL for a particular facet (power, ships, domestic, etc.) is 11 + (11/5) = 13. So in theory the world might be rated TL11 but actually still retain (or have built up to) TL12 or TL13 in their starship production. This might well be the case if the world was particularly worried about being able to defend itself from attack. Perhaps the TL12 ship production is military only, so all other ships (traders, etc.) are only TL11. Perhaps the domestic economy (if you play TL as a reflection of economy) has suffered to make up for this input into the military such that the populace only has TL9 or worse facilities. Just some thoughts... WHY DOESN'T EVERYONE HAVE THE BOMB? New Scientist once carried an article describing how to make a nuclear bomb in your own home. It did point out that you'd die of radiation poisoning but that if the exercise was being carried out by a terrorist this might not matter. Given the theory that plutonium is available by cash or manufacture, how does one get it? Obvious answer is to go and TAKE it. That's what terrorists could do. If your own country isn't suitable, pop across to a nearby dissolving multi-state ex iron-curtain country, tip some guards a few credits and walk off with a preprepared warhead. Hell, take the whole missile. :-) To apply this to a wider range of products, even should your own world be TL11 and unable to supply TL12 replacements for your bought-in TL12 thingummy-jigs, there's no reason why you shouldn't buy, steal or smuggle such from other worlds. If it's important enough then I would assume a government would be quite willing to go many jumps and deal with less than scrupulous worlds in order to obtain what they want. You only have to look at today's arms trade. "What's this consignment of pipes for Iraq?" "Oh, just some plumbing for a water refinery." "And these huge pointed bullet-like cylinders." "I think they go along inside the pipes - for cleaning... probably..." alternatively... "So you never did see this memo mentioning this firm selling gun-manufacturing machinery to this country?" "I have so many pieces of paper passing across my desk I can't possibly read every one. Anyway the machinery was marked as for industrial use." "But that's because your own government department tipped them off that if they made any implication the machinery could make weapons they'd be refused an export permit." "Er..." or even... Foreign gentleman: "About this dam you've been so kind to invest in..." Govt trade rep: "Oh yes old chap?" (knowing smile) "Just happen to have a few contracts for your military boys..." "Oh, how jolly nice of you." "Nothing to do with the dam of course..." "Of course not. How silly. Incidentally, do you need any 'investment' anywhere else?" GREEN VIRUS Thanks Steve and Cynthia. Anyone else care to play? Enough for now... Andy Commander Lilly, PITS (Political Intelligence Team, Scout) Nothing I say or do in any way reflects the views of my very kind and generous employers. ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 622 Archive-Message-Number: 7811 Date: Fri, 27 May 94 20:26:40 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: All: Sword Worlds and Technology Gentlesophonts: First, please excuse me if I'm being redundant. I'm having some mail problems and have yet to see TML msgs 7773-7789 from Thursday night. Hans Rancke writes: > But according to the only _Traveller_ rules we have on the subject (_TCS_) > technology _dosn't_ make that much difference. Uncle! I don't have *TCS* so I can't discuss it. We've fallen over into the discussion with Cynthia and Steve about *TCS* and *HG* vs. *5FW* and *RS*. > >has been that I can't see what *causes* these `techno-economic' cycles > >(since we've agreed they have no `real world' parallel) > > We don't agree on that. We have plenty of real world parallels for economic > cycles. Yes, I know. This is where we agree. There are Real World examples of *economic* cycles, but . . . > economic instability _should_ result in TL instability. Why? This is what I'm having difficulty with. You realize just *one* single example of a world that went *down* in TL and then back up would make your case? So far, I haven't seen such an example. > not so sure we don't have any examples of that. Didn't some farmers put > their cars in the barn and go back to the horse waggon during the Great > Depression?). I think you're confusing the *use* of technology with the ability to *produce* technology. I think this figures in the historical example of Regina that you keep using. (I'll get to that in a bit.) Nevertheless, I'll give you this Depression-era `techno-economic' cycle if you'll grant me that the *keiritsu* are a good example of feudal technocracy. > Make that steamships instead and you have a better analogy, since the ships > of space don't need any highways. Okay, a poor analogy but you get my point. > Even if you can't produce boiler plates > you may still be able to rivet them together when they come apart. But I wouldn't call that capability the same as the tech level of the folks that built the boiler. Again, I think you're confusing use with the ability to produce. Didn't we already settle on that a long time ago? ("That" being the idea that TL measures the ability to *produce* a certain level of technology rather than the mere use or presence of it.) > If different sources disagree we have to choose between them, and in most > cases I'd be inclined to choose the role-playing source over the board > game source. This is a good rationale. I can accept this, but . . . > I'd be happier if we could reconcile them, but it's just not > possible. _TCS_ gives much bigger fleets than is present in 5FW. *TCS* *also* gives much bigger fleets than the MegaTraveller *Rebellion Sourcebook*, another role-playing *and* later-occurring source. Since *5FW* and *RS* seem to be somewhat in agreement, one might make the case for accepting them over *TCS* and *HG*. I'm not necessarily proposing this, I'm just trying to point out that the choice isn't as clear to me as it seems to be to others. > >I think this `liberation' issue is merely a matter of when Piper was > >writing (early 60's) versus when GDW was creating Traveller (late 70's). > > I think so too, but what's that got to do with it? It _is_ a pretty > significant difference between the two societies. I don't think it's appropriate to judge works outside the era they were created. My point is that if Piper had been writing in the late '70s, I doubt this particular difference would exist, just as it was `impossible' for the folks at GDW to create an `unenlightened' Sword Worlds in 1978. > thereby denying some women the chance to fulfill their potential (and > some men too, btw.) This is a very insightful point but, alas, we're not on alt.soc.conteporary. roles. :-) > On top of that women have a safety valve in that they are accepted in > 'male' roles provided they adopt 'male' behaviour. Males are never > accepted in 'female' roles. But isn't this information no more `reliable' than early `official' data that painted the Zhos as `mind-sucking totalitarians'? We have to accept that these sorts of observations reflect the bias of whatever Imperial `observer' provided the information. GDW has established a tradition of painting such sources as being `biased' to one degree or another. That's always been one of the appeals of Traveller to me. Every point of view is ambiguous - no simplistic `chaotic good' templates here! > I think there's quite some difference. Okay, let's a gree to disagree. This whole Piper bit is an obscure tangent anyway. (But I'll bet some TML'ers are out combing the shelves of used book stores for Piper works!) > I despair of explaining those cycles any better than by the sentence 'Economy > can (and often does) fluctuate'. I *get* the *economic* fluctuation, what I don't get is how *technological* ability gets tied to it! Beside your Depression-era example (which represents the most serious economic cycle ever *and* confuses use with ablity to produce) I can't think of any other. > Except to explain why it took Gram 14 centuries to go from TL 12 to TL 11. > This _could_ be explained by a slow, steady, uneventful > economic rise over the centuries with, say, a TL per two centuries. Or > it could be an economic roller-coaster that pulls one world two steps > back every time it get one step ahead. Basic scientific method: my explanation of "slow, steady, uneventful" growth explains the observable facts without any need of your mysterious cycles. On the other hand, just *one* example of a *down-turn* would make your case. So far, it hasn't been made. (And things like the Long Night or the Viral Collapse don't count!) > Regina was settled in 75. It > was TL 10 in 1105. It was TL 11 or 12 in 1120, wasn't it? > Why did Regina gain one > or no TLs in 10 centuries and one more in 15 years? Okay, here's where I think you're confusing *use* with *ability to produce*. The comment above suggests to me that you're assuming Regina was at TL 10 in 75. How could it possibly be at the time it was settled? There were no factories, no maintenance facilities, no *anything*! The only technological capability in the system was on the settlement ship(s). Maybe these were at TL 7 or something but it must have been *decades* (if not longer) before any starships were being built on Regina. Of course, this all goes to pieces if you don't accept the `ability to produce' definition for TL. The problem with `use' is that every world on the map becomes *at least* TL 9 every time a starship lands! > I'm beginning to see where you're going wrong. Well, at least we've found something to agree upon again. :-) > Where did you get that definition? I mean, if you made it up yourself you're > begging the question. Bingo! You've caught me. This is how I understand a feudal technocracy from reading Piper. Since I believe the GDW Sword Worlds have a great deal in common with Piper's I accept that GDW must have lifted the idea of a feudal technocracy from Piper. > I admit that I'm vague about just how a feudal > technocracy works, but isn't that because it's a term GDW made up (Or lifted > from some SF book?)? Or is there some dictionary definition of the term? Not that I have come across. > Have there ever been a formal feudal technocracy in Real Life? Yes, I think the Japanese *keiritsu* (which is not a `corporate government' but I'll get to that in a bit) is a feudal technocracy. > In a feudal society you get to be king because you have the support of the > great lords. In theory you gets that support because you own the land and > lend it to the great lords in return for their sworn support (In practice > the great lords often control the land whatever the King wants). > > By analogy a feudal technocracy is one where the King theoretically owns > all the industry (the source of power analogous to land in a feudal > society) and lend it out in exchange for support. In practice many great > lords propably control their 'fiefs' whatever the King wants. This is good, but you're about to confuse *owning* the means of production with *managing* an operation, i.e. a corporate government. > What you are describing is a corporate government, not a feudal one. In a > feudal government power (in this case, ownership of shares) flows from the > top to the bottom. What you describe is power flowing from the bottom (the > individual shares) to the top. A corporate government is a specialized form of autocracy. In a corporate government everyone involved is an *employee* of the person(s) in charge. They have no choice but to follow the dictates of the manager or leave the company. Maybe I led you astray by describing the `king' in a feudal technocracy as a `CEO'. This was inaccurate and I apologize. The `king' is like the Chairman of the Board of Directors (often also the CEO). As such she is repsonsible for seeing that the will of the shareholders is carried out. In a corporate government the CEO does not have to listen to the Vice Presidents or other officers of the company - she gives the orders and they carry them out. In a feudal technocracy, the Chairman ignores the voices of the other Directors (who represent blocs of shareholders) at her peril. When things get tough, the directors *remove* the Chairman and find a replacement. In the corprate model, when things get tough for an Executive Vice President, she finds another job (or jumps out a window). In a feudal technocracy the `king' owns the largest bloc of shares of *everything* but he doesn't necessarily own everything. If no one owns a controlling bloc you get balkanization, like Joyeuse. The `king' may own everything, may own a majority of shares, or may own a plurality of shares (the biggest bloc but not a majority). `Fief' holders under the `king' will have stronger positions (and more independence) as the `king' owns less of the total holdings. A good modern example outside the *keiritsu* would be the influence of pension fund managers on corporate America today. Because pension funds often hold huge blocs of stock in a corporation they are able to influence the policies and practices of the corporation. They are, in effect, the `fiefholders' of the Chairman or `king' who may still control the largest bloc of shares but is no where near having a majority holding. The key element here is that in a feudal technocracy the economic influence of shareholders translates directly into politcal power. > Granted, but the only way you can get that influence is if the king of > Gram allows you to buy that controlling interest. No, only if he owns everything. If he only owns a plurality or majority his `barons' can sell their shares at will. > The king theoretically _owns_ those shares and > what you pay for must be the right to benefit from them. And one of the > things you must pay with is the promise to support him. Right, and if King Harald buys an interest in Gram's holdings he becomes a player in the political system there. He may choose to honor his `bond' to King Angus (sorry, I'm sticking with Piper) or he may not. My point is that since, under my world view, Sacnoth is the strongest economic power, Harald will one day triumph over Angus. Unless of course Angus has managed to control all the shares on Gram, in which case Gram becomes an autocracy rather than a feudal technocracy. (And then Harald just uses his higher TL military to defeat Angus!) > >Since, at TL 12, I'm clearly the strongest economic power > > Fallacy. See above. I'll give you this is you give me an example of a downward turn in your cycles, otherwise I'm sticking with the scientific method. :-) > Perhaps our first step should be to define just what a feudal > technocracy is and how it works. I think I've made a decent start. Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 623 Archive-Message-Number: 7815 From: rancke(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: Economy, technology, and feudal technocracies Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 18:12:29 +0100 (METDST) David Johnson writes: >First, please excuse me if I'm being redundant. I'm having some mail >problems and have yet to see TML msgs 7773-7789 from Thursday night. I've had the same problem. >Hans Rancke writes: > >>But according to the only _Traveller_ rules we have on the subject (_TCS_) >>technology _dosn't_ make that much difference. > >Uncle! I don't have *TCS* so I can't discuss it. We've fallen over into >the discussion with Cynthia and Steve about *TCS* and *HG* vs. *5FW* and >*RS*. Not quite. In your discussion with Cynthia and Steve you have two different conditions (the different sizes of fleets) that is irreconcilable and consequently the problem of which source to accept. In the economy question we have one condition set forth by one source and not mentioned in any other source. Since there is no contradiction I submit that we should go by the one source we do have (Actually, we have two since _Striker_ gives similar (though not identical) results. _Striker_ and _TCS_ are, however, contemporary). The only known source we have on the effect of TLs on the economy states that the difference of one TL on otherwise identical worlds is that the higher TL planet's money is worth 5% more. >>economic instability _should_ result in TL instability. > >Why? This is what I'm having difficulty with. Is the difficulty with the fact that there are no examples, or is it the very concept you can't accept? If the first there's not much I can do since I proposed them to explain somthing else. Since they are, therefor, merely inferred I don't see how you can expect an example. If I had an example I wouldn't have to infer it. If it's the concept, however, I shall try to illustrate. Not that technological cycles must be, but merely that they could be: Example 1: "I/S Hansen Motor" on Gram who builds jump-1 and -2 engines decides to expand and builds an new assembly line in their factory for producing jump-3 engines. Gram now becomes TL 12 in space technology (by definition). "Sleipner Spring-motorer", the well-known jump engine manufacturer on Sacnoth notes the subsequent drop in sales of jump engines to Gram and lowers the price on jump-3 engines. Baron Hansen decides that he can't afford to fight this move and converts his jump-3 assembly line to make jump-2 engines. Gram is now, once again, TL 11. Example 2: As before, but this time Hansen manages to get some other nobles to back him and proceeds to sell jump-3 engines to all of Sleipner's former customers driving Sleipner off the market. Sacnoth is now TL 11 (in space tech). (Btw. there's another, perfectly simple, explanation of how Gram could be as strong as Sacnoth (Note that I don't agree that they need to be): Gram could be solidly TL 11 in most areas and TL 12 in space technology while Sacnoth was TL 12 in just enough parts to qualify for TL 12 status but of only TL 10-11 in other, vital areas (Check _World Builder's Handbook_ for details).) >You realize just *one* >single example of a world that went *down* in TL and then back up would >make your case? So far, I haven't seen such an example. How many worlds do we have any historical data on? A mere handful. While an example might prove my point, the absence dosen't disprove it (since I'm merely trying to establish that it could happen). >>not so sure we don't have any examples of that. Didn't some farmers put >>their cars in the barn and go back to the horse waggon during the Great >>Depression?). > >I think you're confusing the *use* of technology with the ability to >*produce* technology. No I don't. If the depression drove some people to abandon their cars, a more severe depression could, conceivably, have driven almost everybody to do so. If that happened, most car factories would close down and very few new cars would be made (In fact, for a time you might have people using old cars that were no longer manufactured - a use TL _higher_ than the production TL). >I think this figures in the historical example of >Regina that you keep using. (I'll get to that in a bit.) Nevertheless, >I'll give you this Depression-era `techno-economic' cycle if you'll grant >me that the *keiritsu* are a good example of feudal technocracy. Can't do that since I still don't know exactly how the *keiritsu* work. I'll accept that they form your definition of a feudal technology, but I suspect that your definition is not the only possible one. Certainly your definition is not that of a feudal system (though I acknowledge that compound words sometimes take on a meaning quite different from any of it's components. I would regard that as a bit of a cop-out, though. IMO a feudal technocracy ought to be feudal in some way). >>Even if you can't produce boiler plates >>you may still be able to rivet them together when they come apart. > >But I wouldn't call that capability the same as the tech level of the folks >that built the boiler. Neither did I. I said that the people who couldn't _build_ a boiler might, nevertheless, be perfectly capable of repairing it. This was in connection with being able to maintain higher-han-your-own-TL equipment, remember? >Again, I think you're confusing use with the >ability to produce. Didn't we already settle on that a long time ago? >("That" being the idea that TL measures the ability to *produce* a certain >level of technology rather than the mere use or presence of it.) I think so. At least, I heartily concur. TL _ought_ to indicate the ability to produce (unfortunately there are countless worlds with low population and high TL where that dosen't make sense. How can 10 men build a starship?). >>If different sources disagree we have to choose between them, and in most >>cases I'd be inclined to choose the role-playing source over the board >>game source. > >This is a good rationale. I can accept this, but . . . > >>I'd be happier if we could reconcile them, but it's just not >>possible. _TCS_ gives much bigger fleets than is present in 5FW. > >*TCS* *also* gives much bigger fleets than the MegaTraveller *Rebellion >Sourcebook*, another role-playing *and* later-occurring source. Since *5FW* >and *RS* seem to be somewhat in agreement, one might make the case for >accepting them over *TCS* and *HG*. I'm not necessarily proposing this, >I'm just trying to point out that the choice isn't as clear to me as >it seems to be to others. Try comparing the _TCS_ naval expenditure of Cr 500 per citizen with the real world (Double it to account for non-space forces too). A credit is supposed to correspond to a US$. Now compute the taxes the average swordworlder would pay to support 42 200,000 T battleships - no, make that 500,000-tonners if you like. Compare that figure to the real world. >I don't think it's appropriate to judge works outside the era they were >created. My point is that if Piper had been writing in the late '70s, >I doubt this particular difference would exist, just as it was `impossible' >for the folks at GDW to create an `unenlightened' Sword Worlds in 1978. Do you really think that no contemporary of Piper wrote about social systems with more equal treatment of men and women than his Sword Worlds? Or that TCS couldn't have gotten away with describing a minor, antagonistic power as far more repressive than they did? >>I despair of explaining those cycles any better than by the sentence >>'Economy can (and often does) fluctuate'. > >I *get* the *economic* fluctuation, what I don't get is how *technological* >ability gets tied to it! Because if technology wasn't tied to economic features then most every world in Charted Space would be TL 15! (Except those with religious or philosophically induced limits.) >Beside your Depression-era example (which >represents the most serious economic cycle ever *and* confuses use with >ablity to produce) I can't think of any other. Conceeded, but let me address that confusion of use and ability to produce. I'm not confusing the two. But if something becomes too expensive to buy, don't you think that it would shortly thereafter go out of production? So if use decline sufficiently and does pick up again, the ability to produce automatically disappears too. >>Except to explain why it took Gram 14 centuries to go from TL 12 to TL 11. >>This _could_ be explained by a slow, steady, uneventful >>economic rise over the centuries with, say, a TL per two centuries. Or >>it could be an economic roller-coaster that pulls one world two steps >>back every time it get one step ahead. > >Basic scientific method: my explanation of "slow, steady, uneventful" >growth explains the observable facts without any need of your mysterious >cycles. Except that they represent a stagnation of the economy that is quite incredible to me. It's the 'slow' I object to. One TL in umpteen centuries is not slow, it's moribund. >>Regina was settled in 75. It >>was TL 10 in 1105. It was TL 11 or 12 in 1120, wasn't it? >>Why did Regina gain one >>or no TLs in 10 centuries and one more in 15 years? > >Okay, here's where I think you're confusing *use* with *ability to produce*. >The comment above suggests to me that you're assuming Regina was at TL 10 >in 75. True. I conceed that point. >How could it possibly be at the time it was settled? There were >no factories, no maintenance facilities, no *anything*! The only >technological capability in the system was on the settlement ship(s). >Maybe these were at TL 7 or something but it must have been *decades* >(if not longer) before any starships were being built on Regina. Right. I will give you those decades. I'll even make them centuries. So the question becomes: Regina was TL 9 in 275. Why did Regina gain only one TL in EIGHT centuries and two more in two decades? >Of course, this all goes to pieces if you don't accept the `ability to >produce' definition for TL. No, I accept that. >>Where did you get that definition? I mean, if you made it up yourself you're >>begging the question. > >Bingo! You've caught me. This is how I understand a feudal technocracy >from reading Piper. Since I believe the GDW Sword Worlds have a great deal >in common with Piper's I accept that GDW must have lifted the idea of a >feudal technocracy from Piper. Funny, I too think that Piper's Gram describes a feudal society, possibly even what GDW thought of when they coined the term 'feudal technocracy', but I disagree that it describes one that works the way you claim. The only shares I remember mentioned is the ones in the Tanith Venture, an offworld commercial venture. Every other 'holding' in the book is a solid land fief. The holdings are enhanced by various commercial features like the mines on Traskon and the Karvall steel mills, but the old feudal fiefs were also enhanced in value from whatever water mills and mines to be found on them. Piper's Gram is merely a feudal monarchy set in a more technological advanced age than the medieval feudal monarchies of Terra. >>In a feudal society you get to be king because you have the support of the >>great lords. In theory you gets that support because you own the land and >>lend it to the great lords in return for their sworn support (In practice >>the great lords often control the land whatever the King wants). >> >>By analogy a feudal technocracy is one where the King theoretically owns >>all the industry (the source of power analogous to land in a feudal >>society) and lend it out in exchange for support. In practice many great >>lords propably control their 'fiefs' whatever the King wants. > >This is good, but you're about to confuse *owning* the means of production >with *managing* an operation, i.e. a corporate government. I don't think so. >>What you are describing is a corporate government, not a feudal one. In a >>feudal government power (in this case, ownership of shares) flows from the >>top to the bottom. What you describe is power flowing from the bottom (the >>individual shares) to the top. > >A corporate government is a specialized form of autocracy. In a corporate >government everyone involved is an *employee* of the person(s) in charge. >They have no choice but to follow the dictates of the manager or leave >the company. In a feudal society a vassal's ability to disregard the dictates of his liege lord is no greater. His whole right to his fief is tied up with his obligation to obey his liege lord's legitimate orders. >The `king' >is like the Chairman of the Board of Directors (often also the CEO). As >such she is repsonsible for seeing that the will of the shareholders is >carried out. It only just struck me, but why are you assuming that there are any share- holders? I repeat: "By analogy a feudal technocracy is one where the King theoretically owns all the industry (the source of power analogous to land in a feudal society) and lends it out in exchange for support." >In a corporate government the CEO does not have to listen to the Vice >Presidents or other officers of the company - she gives the orders and >they carry them out. In a feudal technocracy, the Chairman ignores >the voices of the other Directors (who represent blocs of shareholders) >at her peril. When things get tough, the directors *remove* the Chairman >and find a replacement. In the corprate model, when things get tough >for an Executive Vice President, she finds another job (or jumps out >a window). Who owns the corporation in a corporate government? Who owns it in a feudal technocracy? What's the difference? I think it would be useful to agree on the equivalences of various terms in the three systems we're talking about. Here's mine: Traditional feudal society Corporation Feudal technocracy King - King The king is the man who owns the fiefs and doles them out in return for support from his vassals. In that respect he is the equivalent of the owner or the shareholders of a corporation. But an owner's power does not depend on the support of their CEOs, so there is no real correspondence. Fief Corporation Corporation Land was what supported the fighting men that was the military power in the old feudal monarchies. In more advanced societies industrial holdings pro- duce wealth that pays for military power. Vassal (Duke/Count/etc.) CEO Vassal The vassal manages the fief for the king. If the fief is an industrial holding then his work resembles that of a company CEO. Steward/Reeve/Guard Captain Company Officer Company Officer The officers who helps to run the holding, hired and fired by the man in charge. Sub-fief Subsidiary Subsidiary A vassal may parcel out parts of his holding to lesser vassals. Feudal service Dividends Feudal service In a feudal society a vassal pays his liege lord with service, not with money. Shareholders, on the other hand, recieve their pay in money. - Board of Directors - - Shareholders - These have no real equivalents in a feudal society. >In a feudal technocracy the `king' owns the largest bloc of shares of >*everything* but he doesn't necessarily own everything. You didn't get this from Piper. Duke Angus owns his holdings outright. Baron Trask owns all of Traskon. Baron Karvall owns all of Karvall. When Lucas Trask pledges Traskon in return for a ship, Angus gets the whole bit, not just a share of it. >If no one owns a >controlling bloc you get balkanization, like Joyeuse. If the Dukes can't agree on who to support for king you get balkanization. >A good modern example outside the *keiritsu* would be the influence of >pension fund managers on corporate America today. Because pension funds >often hold huge blocs of stock in a corporation they are able to influence >the policies and practices of the corporation. They are, in effect, the >`fiefholders' of the Chairman or `king' who may still control the largest >bloc of shares but is no where near having a majority holding. Still sounds like corporate politics. I don't see where the feudal bit gets into it at all. The Chairman of a Corporation dosen't excersise _any_ control over the pension funds, does he? The pension fund managers dosen't perform services for the Corporation Chairman, do they (They don't even pay him money). Thus there is no true equivalence between the pension fund managers and a fiefholder in a feudal society. I realize that I assume that the word 'feudal' in 'feudal technocracy' has a semantic content close to the normal definition of the word and is not a mere buzz-word. >The key element here is that in a feudal technocracy the economic influence >of shareholders translates directly into politcal power. In a feudal technocracy industrial holdings IMO takes the place of land for the purposes of generating the wealth that translates into power. >>Granted, but the only way you can get that influence is if the king of >>Gram allows you to buy that controlling interest. > >No, only if he owns everything. If he only owns a plurality or majority >his `barons' can sell their shares at will. If he owns them he can dictate who gets to buy them. >>The king theoretically _owns_ those shares and >>what you pay for must be the right to benefit from them. And one of the >>things you must pay with is the promise to support him. > >Right, and if King Harald buys an interest in Gram's holdings he becomes >a player in the political system there. But what if King Anders just refuse to let his baron sell his holding? >He may choose to honor his `bond' to King Angus He damn well better. >(sorry, I'm sticking with Piper) Why? We are talking about the GDW Sword Worlds, aren't we? Why invite confusion? >or he may not. Thereby forfeiting his right to the fief. >My point is that since, under my world view, Sacnoth is the strongest >economic power, Harald will one day triumph over Angus. 1) Being stronger is not an automatic ticket to victory. 2) He isn't that much stronger. 3) Assuming just for a moment that your view of feudal technocracies is true (which I doubt), the whole concept could as easily work the other way round. King Anders could own huge blocks of Sacnoth industry, making Harald a puppet of his. >Unless of course >Angus has managed to control all the shares on Gram, in which case Gram >becomes an autocracy rather than a feudal technocracy. If Anders owns all of Gram he will have to put people in charge of parts of it, which could result in various systems, including a feudal technocracy. .(And then Harald >just uses his higher TL military to defeat Angus!) Again you assume that Harald and his ancestors would want to conquer Gram militarily. Again I suggest that they may not be ready to pay the price. >>>Since, at TL 12, I'm clearly the strongest economic power >> >> Fallacy. See above. > >I'll give you this is you give me an example of a downward turn in your >cycles, otherwise I'm sticking with the scientific method. :-) No, I was talking about their respective GPPs. Of course, if King Anders owns a big slice of Sacnoth, he gets a good slice of their GPP too ;-) Hans Rancke University of Copenhagen rancke(at)[-- redacted --] - ------------ "A subsector official pompously states that the subsector armed forces have four Kinunir class ships in service, each with enough troop strength to put down any military operations that threathen the peace of the Imperium." ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 624 Archive-Message-Number: 7826 Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 09:56:09 +1000 From: langsl(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: Definitions... I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M Date: Sent on: 31-May-1994 09:57am From: Alistair Langsford LANGSFORD ALISTAIR Dept: Information Services Tel No:289 7870 TO: Remote Addressee ( _traveller@engrg.uwo.ca ) Subject: Definitions... MY 2 CENTS ON FEUDAL TECHNOCRACY & THE SWORD WORLDS --------------------------------------------------- Reading Hans' and David's discussions on Sword Worlds government prompted me to do some research. Here are my results. TECHNOCRACY: ------------ n. Organisation and management of a county's industrial resources by technical experts for the good of the whole community; Hence technocrat, advocate of this. (from the Concise Oxford Dictionary) 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. (from TNE, p188). This could be lots of things. However, it sounds like the feudal system we all know from history/hollywood/fantasy role playing could fit in with this. CONCLUSION (IMO, of course 8-)) ---------- One possible interpretation of a Feudal technocracy comes from combining what we understand by the terms Feudal and Technocracy. The Feudal bit is in fact just like the Feudal system we know from history, with for example a King and his vassal Nobles (Dukes, Marquis, Counts, Barons, Knights) each of which has his/her own vassals who comprise the remainder of the population (e.g. Upperclass, Middleclass, and Lowerclass). And of course Nobles may also have lesser ranking Nobles as vassals, depending on your version of the Feudal system. Each Noble (including the King) has a staff (e.g. a council of advisors supported by a 'civil service' or 'public service') to assist in the administration of his domains. When it comes to managing the industry within a noble's domain, the staff are technical experts in that relevant technologies. This last is the 'technocracy' bit. The ruling classes believe in this method of managing industry, which makes them technocrats. By analogy, the practice would probably extend to the management of fields other than those traditionally thought of as comprising 'industry'. To me the above description seems to fit the term 'Feudal Technocracy' better than David Johnsons *kieretsu* (sp?) model. I don't know enough about *kieretsu* to say whether or not they also fit the description. To me they sound like a better model for Corporate governments. So, what do people think? Comments welcome. -- Alistair Langsford, langsl(at)[-- redacted --] ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 624 Archive-Message-Number: 7836 From: CHiggin(at)[-- redacted --] Date: Tue, 31 May 94 14:11:49 EDT Subject: Techno-Economic Fleet Size Cycle From: Grant Sinclair >To further explain the apparent inconsistency, there is the maintenance >overhead aspect of the TCS rules (10% for operational ships and 1% for >ships in ordinary). Both the economics of shipbuilding and published >sources surely show that there would be many ships in ordinary. I have Based on TCS campaign experience, this is true. >not seen this taken into account in some of the discussions. >(Incidentally, does anyone know why these are so high? Operational >civilian ships only need 0.1%). TCS maintenance costs include stuff like crew payrolls, military pensions, life support costs, berthing costs, bases, training schools, etc, etc, etc, that are paid for separately from "annual maintenance" when using the role-playing rules (CT Book 2, High Guard, MT, TNE) for ships. >In Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium (which I know is not the >best source of designs in the world, but it is official) "Shattered Ships" is utterly worthless as a source of ANY information, official or unofficial. It is so riddled with typos that EVEN GDW has apologized for it; furthermore, the ships that aren't typographical errors violate the published rules six ways from Sunday. Ignore it. Hans & David: >Except that they represent a stagnation of the economy that is quite >incredible to me. It's the 'slow' I object to. One TL in umpteen >centuries is not slow, it's moribund. Yes. I excuse this rate of progress in most of the Imperium by chalking it up to "Vilani Cultural Influence"; the Sword Worlds has no such excuse. Rather the opposite: technophile Terran cultural heritage, surrounded by enemies, constantly fighting wars. You need a really good explanation why Sacnoth isn't TL21 already... Feudal Technocracy: Hans: >I realize that I assume that the word 'feudal' in 'feudal >technocracy' has a semantic content close to the normal definition of >the word and is not a mere buzz-word. So do I. If anything, the "technocracy" part is the buzz-word. David, what you keep describing sounds like a plain old Corporate state (Gov 1) to me. Frankly, a true "Feudal Technocracy" as described in the CT/MT/TNE definition is either extremely rare or describes the standard Vilani bureaucracy when it is still small enough to be functional. Most non-Vilani Gov 5 worlds are probably just High-Tech Feudalisms, a la Piper's Gram, or the worlds of the Keltiad (Patricia McNeally). To further muddy the issue, I have somewhere an issue of High Passage or JOTAS (I forget which), in which Mark Miller describes the Traveller government codes. He said that these government codes DO NOT actually describe the whole government, but how it appears to outsiders (travellers) that must deal with it (i.e., what kind of government hassles your PCs get...). Don't pin too much on a single UPP digit; set up your world's government anyway you like, and pick a UPP digit that approximates it. There will be several to chose from. Is the U.S. a representative democracy (gov 4) (based on government structure as outlined in the Constitution), a civil service bureaucracy (gov 8) (based on how the Federal government is supposed to work), an impersonal bureaucracy (gov 9) (based on how the Federal government usually works) or a charismatic oligarchy (gov C)(the country is really run by a relatively small coterie of elected and appointed officials who know each other, pat each other's backs, and get the job by looking good in 30-second sound bites)? As with TechLevel definitions, GDW created endless fodder for arguments by mixing structural definitions (Representative Democracy, Tech level of a given artifact), with procedural or functional definitions (impersonal bureaucracy, production level of a world). When doing detailed looks at a world, I find that GURPS Space has better random-generation tables for government type than Traveller. The government descriptions are more informative, too. David: >I'll give you this is you give me an example of a downward turn in your >cycles, otherwise I'm sticking with the scientific method. :-) You are confusing "scientific method" and Occam's Razor. OR is not "scientific method", it is simply a useful heuristic for sorting out multiple explanations. It is not necessarily correct, either. Steve Bonneville: >Somebody asked recently why so many old-time "classic" Traveller >players are complaining about the rules changes, because they'd never >seen AD&D players react like this when AD&D Second Edition came >out. Well, my friend, that's because TSR didn't do something >that at times I could describe with a pungent four-letter Anglo-Saxon >word to the rules. Right now is one of those times, but I'm >restraining myself. AD&D 2nd Ed. *is* AD&D. Yep. I can take a 1st ed. AD&D character, monster or scenario and drop it *unchanged* into a 2nd ed. AD&D campaign. Any necessary changes are trivial enough to do in my head as I encounter them -- for the most part. The only exceptions are dragons and the "d" critters - -- most of them went thru upscaling in combat abilities and hit dice, and scenarios involving them have to be rebalanced. To drop a CT/MT scenario into TNE, I have to redo the NPCs, the equipment, the animals, and the ships. All that is left is the plot, and most of the MT stuff had really poor plots. In some cases, the change from unlimited delta-V thrusters (or CT non-specific "maneuver drive") to limited delta-V reaction drives totally throws the plot out the window. Let's not even mention that if you use the TNE "Virus" background, all the old 3rd Imperium background material is worse than useless. TNE is an entirely NEW game with the Traveller name still attached... From: "Les Howie" > 2. The frontier war happens in a small corner of a huge empire. >Larger forces may deployed against greater threats, or as a part of >core imperial politics. This may be true of, say, Ley sector, but the Spinward Marches faces one of the 3rd Imperium's two biggest enemies, and GDW material has repeatedly stated that the Spinward Marches, Deneb, and Corridor Fleets are *OVERSIZED* because of the Zhodani and Vargr threats. There is no greater threat besides the Solomani, and GDW material has depicted the 3I deploying more forces against the Zho/Vargr front than the Solomani Rim -- apparently, the Solomani were trounced during the Rim War... . -- Cynthia Higginbotham "Q: What is the difference between the BATF and the Gestapo?" "A: BATF agents speak English." ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 628 Archive-Message-Number: 7899 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 94 13:37:17 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: All: Sword Worlds Technology Gentlesophonts: Here's my second try at this post. Andy Lilly writes: > So in theory the world might be rated TL11 but actually still > retain (or have built up to) TL12 or TL13 in their starship production. This is a good point but one might wonder then why Sacnoth has not made similar efforts to push its space TL to 14. > To apply this to a wider range of products, even should your own world be > TL11 and unable to supply TL12 replacements for your bought-in TL12 > thingummy-jigs, there's no reason why you shouldn't buy, steal or smuggle > such from other worlds. Maybe, but it's tough to fight a prolonged war this way against an opponent who can produce his own goods internallly. Essentially though, this is what I've proposed for Gram - it's been receiving aid from the Zhodani. Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 628 Archive-Message-Number: 7901 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 94 18:50:40 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: All: Feudal Technocracy & TL Growth Gentlesophonts: Alistair Langsford writes: > One possible interpretation of a Feudal technocracy comes from > combining what we understand by the terms Feudal and Technocracy. > > The Feudal bit is in fact just like the Feudal system we know from > history, with for example a King and his vassal Nobles (Dukes, > Marquis, Counts, Barons, Knights) each of which has his/her own > vassals This is fine but you have to recognize the `inter-relatedness' of the feudal system. The vassals provide local resources (knights, taxes, etc.) to the lord in return for coordinated services (military protection). This is what distiguishes a feudal system from a simple aristocracy where their is no inter-relatedness. > When it comes to > managing the industry within a noble's domain, the staff are > technical experts in that relevant technologies. This last is the > 'technocracy' bit. The ruling classes believe in this method of > managing industry, which makes them technocrats. Yes, this is technocracy but it has no system of inter-relatedness. If the technocrats are merely advisors appointed by the ruler then they serve at her whim. This is not a feudal system. > To me the above description seems to fit the term 'Feudal > Technocracy' I don't think so. Rather, it is merely a technocracy (such as exists in many contemporary nations) within an aristocratic system. > I don't know enough about *kieretsu* to say whether or not they > also fit the description. To me they sound like a better model for > Corporate governments. I hope I've distinguished the difference between corporate government and a feudal technocracy in my prior post in response to Hans. One key is the matter of scale. A corporate government only works on a relatively small scale (hence the lower government digit) while a feudal technocracy works on a larger scale. This difference of scale results in siginficant differences between the two types. John Bogan writes: > Hans writes: > > >So the question becomes: Regina was TL 9 in 275. Why did Regina gain > >only one TL in EIGHT centuries and two more in two decades? > > Well, we all know the REAL reason for that is that Regina was made out to be > an important world in the Marches' affairs that having such a relatively low > as 10 seemed a bit peculiar. > > I tend to regard the lower tech level as one of those "early Traveller > inconsistencies" There is a more elegant solution to this inconsistency and Hans has already suggested the answer. If you think of tech level as being tied to economic growth in an environment where each technological breakthrough need not be `rediscovered' but merely `grown into' (in an economic sense) it's actually quite simple. If you think of the economic growth of Regina from it's settlement in 75 you would expect the situation to go something like this: early economic activity would be highly exploitative with natural resources being extracted for export and most manufactured goods imported; eventually, indigineous industry would appear but even this would be limted at first. Regina quickly became a hub for further exploration and development in the Marches so it's economy would move from exploitation of natural resources to one of trading services where manufactured goods from the Core were shipped out to developing worlds and resources from these worlds were shipped back to the Core (probably just Deneb sector). This `trading post' economy would continue for quite some time (similar to, say, St. Louis in the exploitation of the American West - it had been settled a *long* time and had quite a large population before any automobiles were manufactured there). Eventually, as `civilization' moved into the Marches, a `full' economy would emerge on Regina with a significant industrial base. This would lead to rather significant increases in economic output and thus tech level. Cynthia Higginbotham writes: > Hans: > >I realize that I assume that the word 'feudal' in 'feudal > >technocracy' has a semantic content close to the normal definition of > >the word and is not a mere buzz-word. > > So do I. If anything, the "technocracy" part is the buzz-word. > David, what you keep describing sounds like a plain old Corporate > state (Gov 1) to me. I hope I made this clearer in my last response to Hans. It seems to me that what's happening (and not particularly with you, Cynthia, nor Hans) is that many folks are confusing feudalism with aristocracy. Feudalism is based upon mutual obligations between the lord and his vassals. An aristocracy has no such requirement. In medieval feudal aristocracies these obligations were centered around military affairs. In a feudal technocracy the technocracy `buzz-word' shifts the focus from military affairs to industrial activities (including service industries) but the system of mutual obligations remains. It is these mutual obligations that distinguish a feudal technocracy from a corporate government. > As with TechLevel definitions, GDW created endless fodder for > arguments by mixing structural definitions (Representative Democracy, > Tech level of a given artifact), with procedural or functional > definitions (impersonal bureaucracy, production level of a world). Yes, of course, we all must labor under this confounded burden. :-) Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ Bundle: 628 Archive-Message-Number: 7902 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 94 19:13:52 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: All: Techno-economics Gentlesophonts: J Roberson writes: > >I *get* the *economic* fluctuation, what I don't get is how *technological* > >ability gets tied to it! > > Try this: The knowledge exists, but is still very expensive. Right, but we're not talking about knowledge here, we're talking about the ability to *produce* a certain level of technology, i.e. industry. (Tech level 15 *knowledge* ought to be available from your local library data terminal on most Imperial worlds.) For the ability to *produce* a certain level of technology to `go away' you'd have to have a *severe* economic down turn like the Long Night or the Viral Collapse. > An example > might be our very own space program. How many projects have been cancelled > or postponed because of budget constraints? (With the number of NASA people > on the list I'm sure I'll get an answer ;) As one of those people and a long-time space advocate I have to admit that *no* space project has been cancelled or postponed due to budgetary constraints. Budget decisions represent a redirection of *priorities*, not a lack of economic resources. In the same period that space technology has been virtually stagnant (c1970 to the present) there have been *tremendous* advances in computer, medical and biological technologies. (Of course these fields haven't had the `advantage' of almost complete government subsidy that the space program has had.) > Money funds research. Research advances Technology. Therefore, economic > fluctuations will affect the development of technology. Yes, but it won't affect the ability to produce technology in the Imperium where the higher tech knowledge already exists. Neither does it explain *reductions* in the ability to produce a certain level of technology. A better example (Oh no, I'm making Hans's point!) might be to compare Detroit to the Japanese automakers. Because Nissan, Toyota and Honda were able to produce higher quality automobiles more efficiently there was nearly a *de facto* tech level drop in the US. Nevertheless, even this example only concerns a particular industry which might explain a drop in one of the *WBH* tech level specialty areas. An overall tech level drop would have to affect *several* sectors at the same time. IMHO, that could only be caused by a major economic catastrophe. James Kundert asks: > All I ask is that the participants start editing in a more > ruthless fashion How am I doing? :-) Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 629 Archive-Message-Number: 7905 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 94 21:36:59 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: All: Techno-economics & SW Political Theory Gentlesophonts: Here's a second try at this post: Hans Rancke writes: > >>economic instability _should_ result in TL instability. > > > >Why? This is what I'm having difficulty with. > > Is the difficulty with the fact that there are no examples, or is it the > very concept you can't accept? It's the very concept. I accept that some technological variations might be tied to economic fluctuations but I have great difficulty with the idea that overall technological capability (what TL measures) is going to vary much unless there are *huge* fluctuations in the economy, i.e. the Long Night or Viral Collapse. The examples you cited are fine but they only refer to individual firms. For the techno-economic cycles to occur they have to affect entire industries. A particular Gram jump drive manufacturer might get a `jump' on a particular Sacnoth jump drive manufacturer but for the techno- economics theory to hold *several* Gram industries (ship building, medical tech, communications, robotics, *et al*) would have to `get a jump' on similar industries on Sacnoth. This really seems to be a stretch of the imagination to me. I'll admit it's possible but it's not very darn likely. > (Btw. there's another, perfectly simple, explanation of how Gram could be > only TL 10-11 in other, vital areas (Check _World Builder's Handbook_ for > details).) Yes, I'm aware of *WBH* but while this might explain a particular circumstance it doesn't explain the subsector-wide situation. Gram might have higher space tech than Sacnoth but by the same reasoning Narsil might have higher space tech than both. This just leads to ever-more-insidious possibilities. > How many worlds do we have any historical data on? A mere handful. While an > example might prove my point, the absence dosen't disprove it (since I'm > merely trying to establish that it could happen). Wait a minute! This is the same `reasoning' UFO-nuts use to make claims about ET visitors. It is the burden of any claimant to provide evidence of their claim. Merely suggesting that your argument can't be disproved does not make your point! > Do you really think that no contemporary of Piper wrote about social > systems with more equal treatment of men and women than his Sword Worlds? Certainly there were more `progressive' contemporaries of Piper but he was consistent with the general attitudes of his period. > Or that TCS couldn't have gotten away with describing a minor, antagonistic > power as far more repressive than they did? Certainly they could have but I believe they were copying Piper wholeheartedly and were merely `updating' to fit the general attitudes of their own time. They certainly intended for folks to `play' Sword Worlders and so didn't want them to be too repressive (like the Solomani which were never featured as anything but `bad guys' until *Solomani and Aslan*). > >>I despair of explaining those cycles any better than by the sentence > >>'Economy can (and often does) fluctuate'. > > > >I *get* the *economic* fluctuation, what I don't get is how *technological* > >ability gets tied to it! > > Because if technology wasn't tied to economic features then most every > world in Charted Space would be TL 15! (Except those with religious or > philosophically induced limits.) We seem to go back and forth on this. I accept that technological achievement (TL) is tied to economic capability. What I don't accept is that fluctuations in the economy (relatively minor in the overall scheme of things) are reflected in *fluctuations* in technological achievement (a relatively major event). Again, why the need to propose this in the absence of *any* evidence of a downward technological `fluctuation'? > Except that they represent a stagnation of the economy that is quite > incredible to me. It's the 'slow' I object to. One TL in umpteen centuries > is not slow, it's moribund. Okay, but who's feelings are competing with the factual record now? > Right. I will give you those decades. I'll even make them centuries. So the > question becomes: Regina was TL 9 in 275. Why did Regina gain only one TL in > EIGHT centuries and two more in two decades? I don't know but nothing about this slow rate of advancement calls out for your mysterious techno-economic cycles. I might suggest that this problem arises from our own limited contemporary experience in which GDW has tied technological achievement of several tech levels (TL ~5-8) to a chronological period that only spans a single lifetime. > Piper's Gram is merely a feudal monarchy set in a more technological > advanced age than the medieval feudal monarchies of Terra. Not true. Gorram Shipyards was an industrial fief, not a land fief. There was also banking fief. A feudal technocracy works similar to the feudal aristocracy we are more familiar with. The difference is that the medieval feudal arstocracy was tied to land fiefs as you describe while a feudal technocracy is tied to industrial and service fiefs that exist in `modern' society. > In a feudal society a vassal's ability to disregard the dictates of his > liege lord is no greater. His whole right to his fief is tied up with his > obligation to obey his liege lord's legitimate orders. We all know these obligations were often ignored and `legitmacy' often fell to the most charismatic or otherwise powerful liege lord. This is the whole basis of the Arturian legend. Uther Pendragon lost his kingship as his vassals rebelled or refused to support him. Arthur regained that kingship by uniting those vassals in the Fellowship of the Round Table. > It only just struck me, but why are you assuming that there are any share- > holders? I repeat: "By analogy a feudal technocracy is one where the King > theoretically owns all the industry (the source of power analogous to land > in a feudal society) and lends it out in exchange for support." No. A feudal technocracy is a system of government where the owners of industrial production give their support in exchange for economic opportunity or `protection'. A medieval baron pledged his knights and a portion of his economic wealth to his liege. In return, the liege-holder (ulitmately a king) agreed to use the combined strength of all of his barons to protect each fiefdom from assault or other danger (like internal strife). Similarly, in a feudal technocracy like the *kieritsu*, the owners of industrial production pledge their economic support (i.e. cooperation) to a central authority which cooridinates the efforts of various industrial and service sectors towards the perceived common good, namely profits. This is a voluntary arrangement where the individual corporate entities may or may not choose to continue to cooperate. Just as feudal barons might choose to no longer support their liege and often did just that when they perceived an advantage for themselves. > Who owns the corporation in a corporate government? Who owns it in a feudal > technocracy? What's the difference? In a corporate government there are a single group of shareholders as represented by the corporate board of directors. This board acts in essence as a single entity. In a feudal technocracy there are several *different* and independent groups of shareholders (i.e. the `barons') who each act as *separate* and distinct entities. > I think it would be useful to agree on the equivalences of various terms > in the three systems we're talking about. I don't think it's appropriate at all to discuss a corporate model here. A corporate government is a specialized form of an autocracy. In a corporate model there is, in theory at least, no imput at all from those participating in the system. You just do what the boss says or you're fired. I'll focus my comments on the comparison of feudal aristocracy and feudal technocracy and try to point out where the corporate model isn't relevant as appropriate. > Traditional feudal society Corporation Feudal technocracy > > King - King *ditto* *CEO* *ditto* > The king is the man who owns the fiefs and doles them out in return for > support from his vassals. This isn't correct. In a feudal aristocracy the king does not `own' the land. Rather the king supplies `coordinated services' (i.e. joint military protection) in return for `cooperation' from his vassals (i.e. local military forces and tax revenue). > In that respect he is the equivalent of the > owner or the shareholders of a corporation. But an owner's power does not > depend on the support of their CEOs, so there is no real correspondence. No, the king is the equivalent of the Chairman of the Board of Directors. The Chairman provides `coordinated activites', i.e. `running the company' in return for the financial support of the shareholders, i.e. `cooperation'. A true feudal technocracy is much more complicated than this because it concerns *all* of the shareholders of *all* of the industrial and service entities acting in the entire marketplace. In this sense, if there is a `king' he has gained monopoly control of the entire economic sytem. This is why US industry fears the Japanese *kieritsu* so much. They are concerned that their coordinated activity gives Japanese industry a competitive advantage. > Fief Corporation Corporation *ditto* no equivalent autonomous unit Block of Shares > Vassal (Duke/Count/etc.) CEO Vassal *ditto* not applicable *ditto* > The vassal manages the fief for the king. No, the vassal agrees to put the resources of the fief at the disposal of the king in exchange for centrally-coordinated joint services. > Steward/Reeve/Guard Captain Company Officer Company Officer *ditto* again not applicable *ditto* > Sub-fief Subsidiary Subsidiary *ditto* again not applicable *ditto* > Feudal service Dividend Feudal service *ditto* again not applicable *cash* (in exchange for `shares' of the profits) > In a feudal society a vassal pays his liege lord with service, not with > money. Shareholders, on the other hand, recieve their pay in money. No, the dividends received by shareholders in a feudal technocracy are equivalent to the military protection received by fiefholders in a feudal aristocracy. > - Board of Directors - > - Shareholders - > > These have no real equivalents in a feudal society. No, *shareholders* are the equivalent of *fiefholders*. Each block of shareholders, represented by their boards of directors, is equivalent to the fiefholders of a feudal aristocracy. Each block of shares is a fief. > >In a feudal technocracy the `king' owns the largest bloc of shares of > >*everything* but he doesn't necessarily own everything. > > You didn't get this from Piper. Duke Angus owns his holdings outright. Baron > Trask owns all of Traskon. Baron Karvall owns all of Karvall. When Lucas > Trask pledges Traskon in return for a ship, Angus gets the whole bit, not > just a share of it. There's no conflict here! Trask could have sold only a portion of Traskon. He owned that entire block of shares of the total economic sector of Gram. Remember, it was partially because of the greater economic power he gained from the acquisition of Traskon that *Duke* Angus eventually became *King* Angus. Traskon Barony increased Angus's share of the total economic output (GPP?) of Gram and thereby led to him becoming king by virtue of his control of the largest portion of the entire economy. > >If no one owns a > >controlling bloc you get balkanization, like Joyeuse. > > If the Dukes can't agree on who to support for king you get balkanization. Right. And in a feudal technocracy, `dukes' are merely those who control large blocks of industrial production - shareholders. > Still sounds like corporate politics. I don't see where the feudal bit gets > into it at all. The Chairman of a Corporation dosen't excersise _any_ > control over the pension funds, does he? Yes, he provides coordinated control of the combined assets of shareholders (like the pension funds) in an effort to produce profits and hence dividends or increased stock value for the shareholders. This is just like the feudal aristocratic model where the king provides coordinated control of the combined resources of fiefholders in an effort to produce security. > The pension fund managers dosen't > perform services for the Corporation Chairman, do they (They don't even > pay him money). *Au contraire*! The pension funds and other shareholders provide *cash* to the chairman just as aristocratic vassals provided military forces and tax revenue to the king. > Thus there is no true equivalence between the pension fund > managers and a fiefholder in a feudal society. It is *exactly* the same. > I realize that I assume that the word 'feudal' in 'feudal technocracy' has a > semantic content close to the normal definition of the word So do I. > >The key element here is that in a feudal technocracy the economic influence > >of shareholders translates directly into politcal power. > > In a feudal technocracy industrial holdings IMO takes the place of land for > the purposes of generating the wealth that translates into power. We're saying the same thing. If the technocratic baron chooses to place his support in the hands of a different lord he transfers not only economic power but political power as well. > If he owns them he can dictate who gets to buy them. He doesn't own them just as an aristocratic king didn't own his vassals' fiefs. If Uther Pendragon had `owned' the fief of Cornwall he could have just `removed' the Duke and taken his wife Igrayne. Instead he was forced to lay seige to Cornwall when the Duke no longer chose to support him. > Why? We are talking about the GDW Sword Worlds, aren't we? Why invite > confusion? Okay, okay. It's King Anders then. > Thereby forfeiting his right to the fief. No, thereby forfeiting his right to protection from the aristocratic king or profits from the technocratic king. > >My point is that since, under my world view, Sacnoth is the strongest > >economic power, Harald will one day triumph over Angus. > > 1) Being stronger is not an automatic ticket to victory. It is in a feudal technocracy. Again, it's why US industry fears the Japanese. > 2) He isn't that much stronger. He is if he really enjoys a full tech level advantage. (Of course, you must give up your `cycles' to accept this point.) > King Anders could own huge blocks of Sacnoth industry, making > Harald a puppet of his. Yes, he might except that the TL 12 vassals on Sacnoth might choose to no longer support Anders (since their TL 12 industry ought to be better able to compete *against* Anders's TL 11 holdings on Gram) and so they would strive for their own competitive advantage and thus greater politcal power. Eventually, some Sacnoth vassal of Anders's would rise to a position of dominance on Sacnoth as King Thorvald or whomever. > If Anders owns all of Gram he will have to put people in charge of parts of > it, which could result in various systems, including a feudal technocracy. No, if Anders of placing people in control then they enjoy their control *at his whim*. This is not a feudal arrangement at all. It is autocracy *and* similar *then* to the corporate model. > Again you assume that Harald and his ancestors would want to conquer Gram > militarily. Again I suggest that they may not be ready to pay the price. No, I'm just assuming that a little military action might make the economic conquest of Gram a little simpler. Think of Japan with a full tech level advantage, a nuclear arsenal and the ability to project global military force. There'd be no `voluntary' import restrictions on Japanese autos in the US in that scenario! Peace, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ Bundle: 629 Archive-Message-Number: 7906 From: rancke(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: All: Technocracy Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 04:57:20 +0100 (METDST) David Johnson) writes: >Andy Lilly writes: > >>So in theory the world might be rated TL11 but actually still >>retain (or have built up to) TL12 or TL13 in their starship production. > >This is a good point but one might wonder then why Sacnoth has not made >similar efforts to push its space TL to 14. For the same reason Entrope isn't TL 15: Economic problems at a level of detailing that we haven't bothered to go into. The facts we can't get away from is that Gram is TL 11 (overall) in 1110 and Sacnoth is Tl 12 (again overall). Apart from that we can do anything as long as we think it makes sense. Like make Gram TL 12 in Space Technology (and even Sacnoth TL 11 in space technology if you feel that is necessary to explain why they aren't top dog). But to make Sacnoth TL 14 in space technology (or in anything) is to magnify the very problems you complain about. >>To apply this to a wider range of products, even should your own world be >>TL11 and unable to supply TL12 replacements for your bought-in TL12 >>thingummy-jigs, there's no reason why you shouldn't buy, steal or smuggle >>such from other worlds. > >Maybe, but it's tough to fight a prolonged war this way against an opponent >who can produce his own goods internallly. So? With imported tech you may be able to win a short war against someone who can produce what you have to import even if you can't win a long one. With no imports you'd lose even a short war. So the imports makes sense in any case. >I hope I've distinguished the difference between corporate government and >a feudal technocracy in my prior post in response to Hans. Unfortunately I haven't seen it. Could you mail me a copy if you still have it on file? I'm particularily interested in your response to my comparisons of various features of feudal, corporate, and feudal tech societies. >Right, but we're not talking about knowledge here, we're talking about >the ability to *produce* a certain level of technology, i.e. industry. >(Tech level 15 *knowledge* ought to be available from your local library >data terminal on most Imperial worlds.) For the ability to *produce* a >certain level of technology to `go away' you'd have to have a *severe* >economic down turn like the Long Night or the Viral Collapse. But why do you assume that the TL digit of an UWP has anything to do with _ability_ to produce? To me it makes just as much sense that the TL is the level of technology actually produced, regardless of capability. That's why I think an economic downturn can affect TL; when it's no longer profitable to build something the society stops doing it, even though they still could if they had to - and we have a TL decline. >>An example >>might be our very own space program. How many projects have been cancelled >>or postponed because of budget constraints? (With the number of NASA people >>on the list I'm sure I'll get an answer ;) > >As one of those people and a long-time space advocate I have to admit that >*no* space project has been cancelled or postponed due to budgetary >constraints. Budget decisions represent a redirection of *priorities*, >not a lack of economic resources. It dosen't reflect the fact that the ressources to do both isn't there? >A better example (Oh no, I'm making Hans's point!) might be to compare Detroit >to the Japanese automakers. Because Nissan, Toyota and Honda were able to >produce higher quality automobiles more efficiently there was nearly a >*de facto* tech level drop in the US. Nevertheless, even this example >only concerns a particular industry which might explain a drop in one >of the *WBH* tech level specialty areas. And if a number of these coincided? >An overall tech level drop would >have to affect *several* sectors at the same time. IMHO, that could only >be caused by a major economic catastrophe. That brings us to a dead end. I think it could be caused by less than catastrophic declines in economic affairs, but then, I'm profoundly ignorant of economics. It's mostly SF to me ;-). So by now we're down to different articles of faith. So I'm signing off the 'technological cycles' debate unless someone else interjects new blood. You don't think they're possible, I do. End of story. I'd much rather get on with finding out just how a feudal technocracy actually works. Hans Rancke University of Copenhagen rancke(at)[-- redacted --] - ------------ "A subsector official pompously states that the subsector armed forces have four Kinunir class ships in service, each with enough troop strength to put down any military operations that threathen the peace of the Imperium." ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 629 Archive-Message-Number: 7909 Date: Wed, 8 Jun 94 0:31:15 EDT From: William White Subject: Feudal Technocracy I tried to post this last week, but it was a no-go. Since there's still some discussion re: feudal technocracies, I thought I'd try again. Here goes: FEUDAL TECHNOCRACY I have been following the Sword Worlds debate with only mild interest, but a line in one of the posts struck my attention. What follows is entirely tangential to that discussion, however. One of the participants in the SW thread said, concerning feudal technocracies, that he or she thought there should be "something feudal" about them. That set me to thinking about what a feudal technocracy is, at least in Traveller terms. First, some purely hypothetical statistics as background. How often do feudal technocracies occur within the Imperium? The number of worlds in the Third Imperium is given as 11,000: I don't know where that came from, but I will use it here. That means, using the world generation routine given in the rules -- THIRD IMPERIUM FEUDAL TECHNOCRACIES BY POPULATION Pop Freq Feud Tech: %Occur #Occur 0 2.7% DR 12 .001 11 1 5.5% DR 11 .003 33 2 8.3% DR 10 .007 77 3 11.1% DR 9 .012 132 4 13.9% DR 8 .019 209 5 16.6% DR 7 .028 303 6 13.9% DR 6 .019 209 7 11.1% DR 5 .012 132 8 8.3% DR 4 .007 77 9 5.5% DR 3 .003 33 A 2.7% DR 2 .001 11 TOTAL = .112 1227 Pop: UWP Population Code Freq: Population code frequency within Imperium Feud Tech: Die roll required for UWP gov code 5 %Occur: Frequency of UWP gov 5 worlds @ pop code #Occur: Number of UWP gov 5 worlds @ pop code Thus, approximately one-tenth of the worlds within the Imperium may be feudal technocracies. A majority of these are small communities under one million in population, though a very few high-pop feudal technocracies exist. Interestingly, UWP Gov Code 5 may be the mode of the government type data set -- that is, the most frequently occuring value. I haven't done the math on that, but it is intuitive given the results above. The above chart implies that feudal technocracies are a common category of government throughout the Imperium. It can be inferred from the above that a feudal technocratic government is best suited to an intermediate-sized community, for reasons which may or may not be clear. I would argue that feudal arrangements, by defining the relationships among the individual members of a society, grow too complicated above a certain population size or density. It may be helpful, at this point, to elaborate upon what a feudal technocracy is. In a discussion of the concept of feudalism, a historian named Morris Bishop said that it is "one of those words that have taken on so many extended and figurative meanings that the original [one] has been obscured." Bishop goes on to say that feudalism "is a total organization of society," specifying the status of individuals within its purview, and establishing implicit and explicit responsibilities among them. In medieval times, this feudalism centered around land, agriculture, and military service. In terms of the Third Imperium, a feudal technocracy may focus on very different elements. The central idea of a feudal society, in any event, is the codification of the complex web of social, legal, and economic interrelationships among its members. The term "government" is therefore somewhat of a misnomer. (I suspect that many a feudal technocracy may appear to be a balkanized world to the untrained observer.) UWP Gov Code 5 refers to feudal *societies*. If we accept the definition of a "technocracy" to be "a government by an elite controlling some aspect of the application of the society's technology", then the worlds to which we assign UWP Gov Code 5 must meet two criteria. First, the legal rights, responsibilities, and roles of individuals must be defined in terms of their socioeconomic status (thus, "feudal"). Second, an elite class which controls some critical technology must make up a privileged, ruling class (ergo, "technocracy"). This critical technology may be military technology -- the lance, armor, and warhorse of the medieval knight, for example -- but does not have to be. Nor is it necessarily a single technology: access to more advanced technical knowledge and resources may be sufficient. However, the existence of a critical technology helps to differentiate a feudal technocracy from an oligarchy. It occurs to me as well that, whereas oligarchies may tend to be relatively homogeneous ("monolithic" in World Builder's Handbook terms), feudal technocracies admit more possibility for conflict, as the elites may sometimes work at cross-purposes -- though within the social bounds established by the feudal arrangement. How many different types of social systems can be posited which fit the first half of this definition? I could think of five; there are probably more. 1. Traditional Feudalism: An elite, usually military, ruling over a producing "proletariat" of farmers and laborers. A separate intellectual class may exist, as well as a small mercantile class. 2. Corporate Feudalism: A complex arrangement consisting of individual economic organizations within which "employees" and "managers" have certain specified tasks. "Owners" in one form or another may serve as the ruling class, but the managerial elite will, by virtue of their expertise, have considerable power. The corporations themselves are bound by a web of economic alliances and buyer-seller arrangements. 3. Contract Feudalism: Within this type of society, economic relations between individuals are defined in terms of "contracts" which may be implicit or tacit but which, by certain behaviors, all parties acknowledge to be legally binding. 4. Arcological Feudalism: The society is arranged as one or more arcologies; that is, self-contained and economically self- sufficient communities. As with corporate feudalism, an elite managerial class of technical experts holds considerable power within the society. 5. Caste Feudalism: All economic roles are hereditary and confer a greater or lesser degree of social status upon the possessor. The highest caste controls the society's critical technologies. It is difficult, perhaps, to imagine a society wherein the critical technology is not military. It might help, therefore, to do some brainstorming on this issue. Some of the following may be reasonable: 1. MEDICAL - The society's elite are the doctors who can extend or deny life-saving treatment, including anagathics. Rather than the Hippocratic Oath, their credo is to advance the interests of society as a whole by their efforts. 2. TRANSPORT - In a world where communities are isolated and not self-sufficient, those who control transport technology exert a great deal of influence upon other members of the society. 3. COMPUTER - In a complex economy, those who control the computers and telecommunications technology that enable it to run smoothly hold considerable power to direct resources as they see fit. In some places, highly advanced AI-like "expert systems" may be the elite. ("The Computer is your friend.") 4. ENERGY - By controlling an industrial society's sources of energy, those who build, maintain, and direct a world's power grid can gain considerable political influence and economic advantage. 5. ENVIRONMENT - In a hostile environment, the engineers who control and maintain life support systems are of critical importance, and may be able to extract political power from their position. Alternately, the toxin-removing, food-preparing "shugilii" of the Vilani may fall into this category. The above elements can be combined to provide the referee with some inspiration when obliged to detail a UWP Gov Code 5 world. For example, a Pre-stellar world with caste feudalism and medical technocracy may require the genetic typing of children to determine their "proper" function in society. The highest caste may be the Eugenes, who manipulate the breeding of the lower castes to achieve their ends. Lower castes accept the system with the belief that adherence to "Wedding Protocols" will result in higher caste offspring, and thereby advancement. Travellers to this planet will be struck by its unusual social structure. Alien, indeed. Possibilities for patrons and adventures exist here, as well. The Eugenes may wish to improve the breeding stock by gaining some high-quality off-world genetic material, and commission the PCs to find suitable donors. A rich but low-caste trader might desire the PCs to use their High Stellar computer expertise to falsify her son's genetic record so that he will be declared suitable for high caste upon reaching maturity. The point of this admittedly lengthy post is that worlds in a science fiction adventure should be to some degree alien or at least exotic, and should serve as gateways to adventures that are not just "cowboys with rayguns". Or Star Vikings with assault rifles. Feudal technocracies, to continue the metaphor, do not have to be barons with blasters. All the above is IMHO, of course. I know there are some holes in my argument. Any comments, gripes, protestations, modifications, exhortations, helpful hints, complaints, or accusations will be greatly appreciated. Bill White whitew(at)[-- redacted --] ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 630 Archive-Message-Number: 7916 Date: Thu, 09 Jun 1994 09:41:15 +1000 From: langsl(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: More Feudal Technocracy I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M Date: Sent on: 09-Jun-1994 09:42am From: Alistair Langsford LANGSFORD ALISTAIR Dept: Information Services Tel No:289 7870 TO: Remote Addressee ( _traveller@engrg.uwo.ca ) Subject: More Feudal Technocracy David Johnson (djohnson(at)[-- redacted --]) writes: When it comes to <> managing the industry within a noble's domain, the <> staff are technical experts in that relevant <> technologies. This last is the 'technocracy' bit. The <> ruling classes believe in this method of managing <> industry, which makes them technocrats. As with TechLevel definitions, GDW created endless fodder <> for arguments by mixing structural definitions <> (Representative Democracy, Tech level of a given artifact), <> with procedural or functional definitions (impersonal <> bureaucracy, production level of a world). < writes: > I tried to post this on the TML, but it didn't show up. I'll stick to TML for my response. I'm sure glad I'm the first to be able to get into this mess the two lists are going to cause. :-) > feudalism "is a total organization of society," > specifying the status of individuals within its purview, and > establishing implicit and explicit responsibilities among them. Keep this is mind. This `inter-relatedness' between the participants in feudalism is the key point that distinguishes it from other government types. > If we accept the definition of a "technocracy" to be "a > government by an elite controlling some aspect of the application > of the society's technology", then the worlds to which we assign > UWP Gov Code 5 must meet two criteria. I question this defintion below. > First, the legal rights, responsibilities, and roles of > individuals must be defined in terms of their socioeconomic > status (thus, "feudal"). There is nothing specific about socioeconomic status with respect to feudalism. It is rather the differences in the responsibilities of the various parties that determines their relative *political* power. A vassal may very well have greater *wealth* than her liege but the nature of the feudal relationship ties her to her liege nonetheless. > Second, an elite class which controls some critical > technology must make up a privileged, ruling class (ergo, > "technocracy"). Again, there is nothing about `elites' or `priviledge' inherent in feudalism *or* technocracy. Elite trappings from medieval times are related to the aristocractic relationships based upon heredity between the ruling class (nobles) and the ruled (commoners). This was not a feudal relationship but rather an oligarchic one. > This critical technology may be military technology -- the > lance, armor, and warhorse of the medieval knight, for example -- > but does not have to be. Nor is it necessarily a single > technology: access to more advanced technical knowledge and > resources may be sufficient. In medieval feudalism the ruling class controlled *all* forms of technology as well as the economic basis for that technology. Furthermore, the modern meaning of the term technocracy does not pertain to a single type of technology but instead refers to a source of authority based upon technical ability in general (as opposed to some other source such as property ownership, heredity, divine access, popular consent, etc.). In contemporary society, technical ability is also closely tied to industrial capability and the economic base. This suggests that a feudal technocracy based upon a single form of technology will be the exception rather than the rule. Most feudal technocracies will therefore be based upon an `inter-related' relationship between those with industrial capabilities. > However, the existence of a critical technology helps to > differentiate a feudal technocracy from an oligarchy. It occurs > to me as well that, whereas oligarchies may tend to be relatively > homogeneous ("monolithic" in World Builder's Handbook terms), > feudal technocracies admit more possibility for conflict, as the > elites may sometimes work at cross-purposes -- though within the > social bounds established by the feudal arrangement. Actually, it is the fact that the feudal technocracy is based upon a full range of technological endeavor that permits different segments of the ruling class to work at cross purposes. Look at how the hegemony of the AMA has been rattled now that insurance providers and employers have entered the health care debate. > How many different types of social systems can be posited > which fit the first half of this definition? I could think of > five; there are probably more. These are all interesting suggestions but some might be better classified as types other than feudal technocracies. > 1. Traditional Feudalism: An elite, usually military, ruling > over a producing "proletariat" of farmers and laborers. This is the oligarchic or aristocractic aspect of medieval society. It was called serfdom. The feudal relationship existed *between* the members of the ruling class (lords and vassals), not between the ruling class and the commoners. > 2. Corporate Feudalism: A complex arrangement consisting of > individual economic organizations within which "employees" and > "managers" have certain specified tasks. This is more akin to an aristocratic model. In most corporate systems the employees will serve at the whim of management. Even heavily unionized systems that limit management's ability to replace workers still do not create any obligation upon management toward the workers other than that of continued employment. If management chooses to run the company into the ground, the workers are powerless and unable to stop them or correct the move - at least not through any agreed upon and previously defined relationship. > corporations themselves are bound by a web of economic alliances > and buyer-seller arrangements. Here is the system of `inter-relatedness' that characterizes the Japanese *kieritsu* and begins to describe the true nature of a feudal technocracy. > 3. Contract Feudalism: Within this type of society, economic > relations between individuals are defined in terms of "contracts" > which may be implicit or tacit but which, by certain behaviors, > all parties acknowledge to be legally binding. This is essentially redundant but it describes the mechanics of the feudal relationship quite well. > 4. Arcological Feudalism: The society is arranged as one or > more arcologies; that is, self-contained and economically self- > sufficient communities. Again, self-sufficiency makes a feudal relationship problematic. Without the need for `inter-relatedness' there can be no feudal relationship. > 5. Caste Feudalism: All economic roles are hereditary and > confer a greater or lesser degree of social status upon the > possessor. This is another aristocractic form. Basing authority upon heredity removes the need for an agreed upon relationship between parties based upon their `inter-relatedness'. Under a caste system there is no obligation placed upon the upper castes toward the lower castes. > 1. MEDICAL - The society's elite are the doctors who can extend > or deny life-saving treatment, including anagathics. If medical practitioners can deny their services at will then this is an aristocractic relationship, not a feudal one. > 2. TRANSPORT - In a world where communities are isolated and not > self-sufficient, those who control transport technology exert a > great deal of influence upon other members of the society. Again, there must be some sort of `inter-relatedness' for this relationship to be feudal. > 3. COMPUTER - In a complex economy, those who control the > computers and telecommunications technology that enable it to run > smoothly hold considerable power to direct resources as they see > fit. In some places, highly advanced AI-like "expert systems" > may be the elite. Again, this may be a technocracy but it is not feudal. Am I beginning to sound like a broken record? (Please stop, Dave. Dave? What are you doing, Dave? Dave? Please stop . . . . Daisy, daisey, give me your answer, do . . . .) > The above elements can be combined to provide the referee > with some inspiration when obliged to detail a UWP Gov Code 5 > world. This has been some excellent work and is quite a contribution to anyone's campaign. It may even fit many folk's view of government code 5 but I think we could be more careful in our defintions of any type of government if instead of focusing upon the particular manifestations of a certain government type, in this case various forms of technology, we instead focus upon the nature of authority (who has it) and the source of that authority (how it is legitimized). > All the above is IMHO, of course. I know there are some > holes in my argument. Any comments, gripes, protestations, > modifications, exhortations, helpful hints, complaints, or > accusations will be greatly appreciated. Same goes here. Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 631 Archive-Message-Number: 7923 From: rancke(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: All: Feudal technocracies Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 13:13:55 +0100 (METDST) David Johnson writes: >Wait a minute! This is the same `reasoning' UFO-nuts use to make claims >about ET visitors. It is the burden of any claimant to provide evidence >of their claim. Merely suggesting that your argument can't be disproved >does not make your point! It depends on exactly what is being claimed. You asked for an explanation of how come Gram dominated Saxnoth when Saxnoth was more powerful than Gram. I suggested that maybe Gram had been a higher tech level recently (and/or Sacnoth lower) due to an econo-technological cycle effect. You _claimed_ that this wasn't possible. Since then I've been arguing that they are. Not necessarily likely (although I think they are, but then, as I've stated before, economics are mostly SF to me), but at least possible. Obviously, if I could come up with just one example, I would prove my point outright. But just because I can't dosen't mean it isn't possible. Now, if I were to claim that the lack of evidence to the contrary _proved_ anything, then I would be making a UFO-nutter type claim. But I'm only saying that the lack dosen't disprove anything. >>Except that they represent a stagnation of the economy that is quite >>incredible to me. It's the 'slow' I object to. One TL in umpteen centuries >>is not slow, it's moribund. > >Okay, but who's feelings are competing with the factual record now? What factual record? We have _one_, count them, one, complete listing of world UWPs for the Spinward Marches, the one first published in _Spinward Marches Campaign_ and since reprinted (with the UWPs _unchanged_) in _Imperial Encyclopedia_ and _Megatraveller Journal_ #3 (Before you decide to dispute that, check the data. Despite the changes in alliegiance noted in IE and MJ3 there are no changes in world population level or multiplier (this based on a spot check of 40+ of the planets, including all the Vargr- occupied ones in Aramis Subsector)). How can you establish any sort of projection on that? So it _could_ be that the TLs have grown slowly and steadily. Or they could have been rollercoasting up and down over the centuries. We just can't tell from the record. >>Right. I will give you those decades. I'll even make them centuries. So the >>question becomes: Regina was TL 9 in 275. Why did Regina gain only one TL in >>EIGHT centuries and two more in two decades? > >I don't know but nothing about this slow rate of advancement calls out for >your mysterious techno-economic cycles. The _discovery_ tech level of the Imperium have been one TL per three or four centuries, hasen't it (I forget exactly; the discovery times of Jump-4, -5, and -6 was mentioned somewhere once. I think it worked out at one per three centuries)? But we're talking about _developement_ TLs. I say again: A moderately important colony like Regina that advances it's economy by 5% (or even 20% if you go by _Striker_ rules) in eight centuries by slow, steady increments that never declines, is difficult to believe. I can believe in economic up- and downturns that averaged out into 5% over the centuries much more readily. Hmmm. Perhaps I can restate my argument in a clearer way than I have done before: Assumtion: The only reason why an Imperial planet in 1105 is not TL 15 is that it can't afford to be (I'm ignoring those few planets where there are legal, moral, or philosophical objections to advanced technology). (This is the crucial assumption.) A planet with TL A therefor has an economic condition we will call Economic Level A. Should the planet advance from EL A, its technological level will advance too (To, say, TL B). If the planet at any future date becomes poorer, its economic level would decline to EL A again. Its technology should decline as a consequence, since the planet obviously cannot afford to maintain the technology (if it could, it would have had TL B in under EL A in the first place). Since economies do seem to have a tendency to fluctuate (vide the world as we know it), it seems plausible that it will do so in the Spinward Marches too. >>Piper's Gram is merely a feudal monarchy set in a more technological >>advanced age than the medieval feudal monarchies of Terra. > >Not true. Gorram Shipyards was an industrial fief, not a land fief. There >was also banking fief. It would be nice to have a few quotes. I skimmed _Space Viking_ last night without findng any reference to either Gorram or Lothar Ffayle being barons, but I did notice that while Traskon is a farming and ranching barony (hence a land barony) Sesar Karvall is, indeed, baron of Karvallsmills, not of Karvall. And there is a reference to the 'financial and industrial barons of Wardshaven'. So, yes, Gram does have industrial fiefs. >A feudal technocracy works similar to the feudal >aristocracy we are more familiar with. That's the assumption I'm working from. >The difference is that the medieval feudal arstocracy was tied to land >fiefs as you describe while a feudal technocracy is tied to industrial >and service fiefs that exist in `modern' society. I agree completely. >We all know these obligations were often ignored and `legitmacy' often >fell to the most charismatic or otherwise powerful liege lord. This is >the whole basis of the Arturian legend. Uther Pendragon lost his kingship >as his vassals rebelled or refused to support him. Arthur regained that >kingship by uniting those vassals in the Fellowship of the Round Table. I don't really think that a retelling of the doings of 5th century tribal chiefs is all that useful as a basis of comparison. Though I suppose that they do reflect how Mallory thought things worked. >No. A feudal technocracy is a system of government where the owners of >industrial production give their support in exchange for economic opportunity >or `protection'. Then its not analogous to a feudal society. Let's get a few definitions straight: From "Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary" (1974): _feudal_: of the method of holding land (by giving services to the owner) during the Middle Ages in Europe. _fief_: land held from a feudal lord. _vassal_: (in feudal times) person who held land in return for which he wowed to give military service to the owner of the land. And from "Funk&Wagnall's Standard Dictionary": _feudalism_ The medieval European system of land tenure on condition of military aid and other services. _feudal system_: A politico-economic system [...] founded on the tenure of feuds, or fiefs, given as compensation for military services rendered by chiefs and by them sublet by allotments to their subordinates and vassals. _feud[2]_: Land held of a superior on condition of rendering service; a fief. >in a feudal technocracy like the *kieritsu*, the owners of industrial >production pledge their economic support (i.e. cooperation) to a central >authority which cooridinates the efforts of various industrial and service >sectors towards the perceived common good, namely profits. This is a >voluntary arrangement where the individual corporate entities may or may not >choose to continue to cooperate. Just as feudal barons might choose to >no longer support their liege and often did just that when they perceived >an advantage for themselves. The feudal baron held his lands on condition that he supported his liege lord. Many broke their oaths on occasion, but that was in defiance of the law. (The only valid excuse was winning). >>Who owns the corporation in a corporate government? Who owns it in a feudal >>technocracy? What's the difference? > >In a corporate government there are a single group of shareholders as >represented by the corporate board of directors. This board acts in essence >as a single entity. And these shareholders never represent different interest groups that wheel and deal and compromise to get their respective representatives on the board? The board is always composed of people who are in complete accord? And all the shareholders are always in accord too? >In a feudal technocracy there are several *different* >and independent groups of shareholders (i.e. the `barons') who each act >as *separate* and distinct entities. Act in what way that is different from owners of different share blocks in a corporation? >I don't think it's appropriate at all to discuss a corporate model >here. A corporate government is a specialized form of an autocracy. I didn't include the corporate model as an example of the equivalent of a kingdom, but as the equivalent of a fief. >In a corporate model there is, in theory at least, no imput at all from those >participating in the system. You just do what the boss says or you're fired. And a vassal does what his liege lord says or he is 'fired'. >>Traditional feudal society Corporation Feudal technocracy >> >>King - King > >*ditto* *CEO* *ditto* If a corporate government, yes. Not if the corporation is a FT fief. >>The king is the man who owns the fiefs and doles them out in return for >>support from his vassals. > >This isn't correct. In a feudal aristocracy the king does not `own' the >land. Yes and no. He owns a lot of it from the days where his father was the biggest lord around. He became king when he conquered the other lords around him (in which case he came to own their land) or when the other independent lords decided to back him, in which case he did not own their land... yet. But when he became strong enough, he made those formerly independent lords do homage for their own lands, thereby actually laying claim to it. Or he made war against a recalcitrant lord, acquired the land by conquest, and made the former owner or somebody else do homage for it. Check a history of medieval Europe for more detail. >Rather the king supplies `coordinated services' (i.e. joint military >protection) in return for `cooperation' from his vassals (i.e. local military >forces and tax revenue). Coordinated services may be the reason why the other lords decided to back him. But what they owe him fealthy for is the tenure of their fiefs. >No, the king is the equivalent of the Chairman of the Board of Directors. >The Chairman provides `coordinated activites', i.e. `running the company' >in return for the financial support of the shareholders, i.e. `cooperation'. Look, the shareholders in a corporation is a conglomerate owner. In theory they make up one person, the owner of the corporation. The Chairman works for the owner. The vassals 'works' for the king. See the difference? >A true feudal technocracy is much more complicated than this because it >concerns *all* of the shareholders of *all* of the industrial and service >entities acting in the entire marketplace. A fief has _one_ owner. A baron can't sell off shares of his barony to make the buyers part-barons of the fief (He may be able to sell bits of the fief, but these bits then become parts of other fiefs). And if a company is the equivalent of a fief then there won't be any shareholders, just one baron. You're getting mixed up because so many of the companies we know of today are incorporated. In fact, I realize that I've been using 'corporation' and company interchangably. That was wrong. Please read 'company' whenever I've used 'corporation' in connection with a feudal technocracy. There can be no shareholders in a feudal fief, technocratic or not. >In this sense, if there is a `king' he has gained monopoly control of the >entire economic sytem. This is why US industry fears the Japanese >*kieritsu* so much. They are concerned that their coordinated activity >gives Japanese industry a competitive advantage. It sound like the *kieritsu* is merely capitalism without anti-trust laws. >> Fief Corporation Corporation This should read: Fief Corporation Company >>The vassal manages the fief for the king. > >No, the vassal agrees to put the resources of the fief at the disposal of >the king in exchange for centrally-coordinated joint services. See definition. >>Feudal service Dividend Feudal service > >*ditto* again not applicable *cash* (in exchange > for `shares' of the > profits) Nope. The central tenet of feudalism is *service* as a medium of repayment. >>In a feudal society a vassal pays his liege lord with service, not with >>money. Shareholders, on the other hand, recieve their pay in money. > >No, the dividends received by shareholders in a feudal technocracy are >equivalent to the military protection received by fiefholders in a feudal >aristocracy. The feudal technocrcy equivalent of the military protection received by fiefholders in a feudal aristocracy is military protection. >No, *shareholders* are the equivalent of *fiefholders*. Each block of >shareholders, represented by their boards of directors, is equivalent to >the fiefholders of a feudal aristocracy. Each block of shares is a fief. I suppose that a part holding in a BIG company could be a fief in itself. But that would be owned by _one_ person, and that person would have the title. And there's certainly no mention of any 'Baron of a Third of the Megatronics Company' in _Space Viking_ ;-) >>Duke Angus owns his holdings outright. Baron Trask owns all of Traskon. >>Baron Karvall owns all of Karvall. When Lucas Trask pledges Traskon in >>return for a ship, Angus gets the whole bit, not just a share of it. > >There's no conflict here! Trask could have sold only a portion of Traskon. That's just precisely what I claim he couldn't. He gives the barony in its entirety to Duke Angus, and Angus appoints another Trask as 'Vicar- Baron'. And just like that Lucas is no longer a baron. >He owned that entire block of shares of the total economic sector of Gram. He owned a barony. I'll sonceede that the fact that it was a land barony is irrelevant, and that it could just as well have been a computer firm. But if it had been, it would have been as indivisible as any land barony (ie. he might be able to sell off peripheral parts, but the core must remain relatively intact). >Remember, it was partially because of the greater economic power he gained >from the acquisition of Traskon that *Duke* Angus eventually became *King* >Angus. Traskon Barony increased Angus's share of the total economic output >(GPP?) of Gram and thereby led to him becoming king by virtue of his control >of the largest portion of the entire economy. Have we read the same book? Angus increased wealth allowed him to buy more fighting men which allowed him to attack Omfray and other enemies and to gain the support of some of the other big dukes. And, as someone says on page 124, "He's King as long as the great lords like Count Lionel and Joris of Bigglersport and Alan of Northport want him to be" (Obviously Angus hasn't reached the point where he can annex the big counties and dukedoms for himself, but then, he's only a first-generation king). >> If the Dukes can't agree on who to support for king you get balkanization. > >Right. And in a feudal technocracy, `dukes' are merely those who control >large blocks of industrial production - shareholders. No, in a young FT it's the ones who has glommed onto a big slice of the industry and dole it out to vassals. In a well-established FT it's the ones whose ancestors did that and then supported an even bigger duke for king. >>The pension fund managers dosen't >>perform services for the Corporation Chairman, do they (They don't even >>pay him money). > >*Au contraire*! The pension funds and other shareholders provide *cash* >to the chairman just as aristocratic vassals provided military forces and >tax revenue to the king. Wait a minute. The Chairman keeps back part of his employees' salaries and place them in a pension fund, right? That gives hin lot of pull in electing the board of the fund, agreed. But the money that accrues from the fund belongs to the employees, don't it? How does the Chairman see a penny of it? >>In a feudal technocracy industrial holdings IMO takes the place of land for >>the purposes of generating the wealth that translates into power. > >We're saying the same thing. If the technocratic baron chooses to place >his support in the hands of a different lord he transfers not only economic >power but political power as well. We're most certainly not saying the same thing. If a noble holds his land from an overlord he cannot transfer his support without breaking his oath. If he's an independent lord that is not a king we're still in the early state of the formation of the kingdom. >>If he owns them he can dictate who gets to buy them. > >He doesn't own them just as an aristocratic king didn't own his vassals' >fiefs. But a feudal king did own the fiefs, at the very least formally. >If Uther Pendragon had `owned' the fief of Cornwall he could have >just `removed' the Duke and taken his wife Igrayne. Oh no he couldn't. The feudal contract was binding on the overlord too. He had promised to protect his vassal's rights. Uther couldn't remove the Duke without cause. (Also, of course, the whole episode takes place long before the feudal system evolved). >>Thereby forfeiting his right to the fief. > >No, thereby forfeiting his right to protection from the aristocratic king >or profits from the technocratic king. A fief is held in tenancy from the owner. Fail in your obligations and you forfeit the fief. >>>My point is that since, under my world view, Sacnoth is the strongest >>>economic power, Harald will one day triumph over Angus. >> >>1) Being stronger is not an automatic ticket to victory. > >It is in a feudal technocracy. Again, it's why US industry fears the >Japanese. You're talking about economic might regardless of the social system. But a sovereign power is only vulnerable to outside economic influence if they are vulnerable. By this I mean that if Gram has all the raw material they need then they can impose trade restrictions that leaves Sacnoth's greater economic strength whistling at the door. The reason US Industry fears the japanese is that the US _is_ vulnerable. But why should Gram be vulnerable just because the US is? >>2) He isn't that much stronger. > >He is if he really enjoys a full tech level advantage. Not according to the Traveller rules. >(Of course, you must give up your `cycles' to accept this point.) No, the cycles has nothing to do with that argument. They just provide one explanation (out of several) of how Gram can have homebuilt TL 12 ships if we decide that a military parity is necessary to explain anything. >> King Anders could own huge blocks of Sacnoth industry, making >> Harald a puppet of his. > >Yes, he might except that the TL 12 vassals on Sacnoth might choose to >no longer support Anders. If Anders _owns_ fiefs on Sacnoth then it's actually equivalent to the England/Calais situation. So I don't think that's likely, since that would make Sacnoth balkanized. Still, the Scouts might have misunderstood the situation when they compiled their survey. But those vassals could only get out of supporting Anders by breaking their oaths and turning to Harald for protection. Then he would be their overlord. Nohow would they become kings themselves. >>If Anders owns all of Gram he will have to put people in charge of parts of >>it, which could result in various systems, including a feudal technocracy. > >No, if Anders of placing people in control then they enjoy their control >*at his whim*. Subject to King Anders' oaths to his vassals. The feudal oath is a two-way one. >This is not a feudal arrangement at all. It is autocracy >*and* similar *then* to the corporate model. No. _If_ Anders could appoint and remove governors of his holdings at will then he would be an autocrat. If he gives the holding in fief he cannot revoke it except for cause. That _is_ the feudal system >>Again you assume that Harald and his ancestors would want to conquer Gram >>militarily. Again I suggest that they may not be ready to pay the price. > >No, I'm just assuming that a little military action might make the economic >conquest of Gram a little simpler. Think of Japan with a full tech level >advantage, a nuclear arsenal and the ability to project global military force. >There'd be no `voluntary' import restrictions on Japanese autos in the US in >that scenario! Now we're suddenly into the military situation. I thought you were talking about economic superiority? I've always postulated that Gram had access to TL 12 ships of its own. And I postulate that neither Harald nor Anders wants to duel with submachineguns at 5 paces. William White writes a whole heap of good stuff: > It may be helpful, at this point, to elaborate upon what a >feudal technocracy is. In a discussion of the concept of >feudalism, a historian named Morris Bishop said that it is "one >of those words that have taken on so many extended and figurative >meanings that the original [one] has been obscured." Sure. I've never said 'feudal technocracy' couldn't actually be non-feudal. I've merely postulated that it was and argued from that assumption. > If we accept the definition of a "technocracy" to be "a >government by an elite controlling some aspect of the application >of the society's technology", then the worlds to which we assign >UWP Gov Code 5 must meet two criteria. > First, the legal rights, responsibilities, and roles of individuals >must be defined in terms of their socioeconomic status (thus, "feudal"). The essence of the definitions of feudalism I've seen is that you 'pay' for tenancy with services instead of money. > Second, an elite class which controls some critical technology must >make up a privileged, ruling class (ergo, "technocracy"). The rest of your arguments are all very nicely thought out. But I suggest that the technocracy bit lies in the substitution of industry for land as the feudal fief. Thus the fiefholder might render technological service instead of or in addition to military service. Otherwise your posting is most impressive. Hans Rancke University of Copenhagen rancke(at)[-- redacted --] - ------------ "A subsector official pompously states that the subsector armed forces have four Kinunir class ships in service, each with enough troop strength to put down any military operations that threathen the peace of the Imperium." ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 632 Archive-Message-Number: 7930 Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 09:31:52 -0500 From: bonnevil(at)[-- redacted --] (Steven M Bonneville) Subject: Zaibatsu and Feudal Tech I've been seeing the terms "zaibatsu" and "keiretsu" tossed about rather freely in the discussion on what "feudal technocracy" really means in Traveller. Just in case the only understanding of these terms is coming from bad cyberpunk, here's a fairly lengthy except from _The Japanese Today_ which hopefully explains some of this. Incidentally, I highly recommend that book if you are interested in Japan and need a place to start, especially since I had to hack up this essay a bit to hit the high points. I also think that I should take a moment to point out that DGP's WBH allows representative authority of a feudal technocracy to range from a single ruler, through various types of councils, to rule by the *demos*, so there should be a wide range of types of feudal technocracies. Be flexible! from: _Traveller: The New Era_, 1993, p.188. "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." from: Reischauer, Edwin O. _The Japanese Today_, 1988, p.305-7. "In prewar times, the distinctive Japanese economic institution that most caught the attention of the outside world was the so-called *zaibatsu* system. The term *zaibatsu* is perjorative, meaning "financial clique". It is specifically applied to certain giant financial, commercial, and industrial combines but is loosely used for prewar Japanese big business in general. [...] "The zaibatsu came to control a very large part of the upper level of the Japanese economy [...] ...before long the government became suspicious of the growing influence of big business... [...] "It is ironic that after the war the American occupation in turn attacked the zaibatsu for being the root cause of Japanese imperialism and on these grounds singled them out for destruction. Their ownership was removed from the controlling families virtually without compensation, and the great combines were broken up into their component parts. Before they could be further atomized in a traditional American "trust- busting" operation, the occupation's reform program was halted, leaving the larger corporate subunits of the original zaibatsu intact. Since the occupation, these have gradually reassumed their old names [...] and have drawn together in loose, informal associations, now known in Japan as *keiretsu*. "Because of the existence of these keiretsu groupings, many observers have asserted that the zaibatsu system has been restored, but this is not correct. The keiretsu form something like clubs, whose members may look first to each other for aid and cooperation before trying other sources. [...] But these relations are by no means exclusive, and there is no central ownership and none of the rigid controls once excersised within a zaibatsu organization. [...] " ...zaibatsu were typically under the control of a central holding company, largely owned by the original family. The holding company controlled several major affiliates and these in turn a series of minor affiliates. This sort of pyramiding of control is common enough in the West, but what made the Japanese case unique was the fact that the controlling company often lacked majority ownership.... Control, however, was exercised through other means. The affiliate would probably be completely dependent on the banking, shipping, and trading facilities of the combine; interlocking directors were common; executives were switched around among the component firms as though they were members of a unified bureaucracy; the advantages and prestige of belonging to a large zaibatsu combine were great; and a strong sense of personal loyalty to the combine permeated the leadership, much as in a pre-modern feudal domain. Young executives joined a zaibatsu enterprise for a lifetime career. "A typical zaibatsu organization was not like the contemporary American conglomerates, which bring together entirely unrelated corporations under the same ownership. Instead, they were rational outgrowths of evolving economic activity and therefore are better described as combines. They tended to cluster around a central bank that financed the various activities of the combine. These functions often stood in a vertical relationship. For example, a series of seperate companies might mine a certain ore, fashion it into manufactured products, transport those abroad on the combine's shipping line, and sell them abroad and purchase the needed raw materials for the whole process through the combines "general trading company" [...], while all of these different stages of the operation would be financed by the combine's bank." I hope this helps out a bit! Steve Bonneville ------------------------------ Bundle: 632 Archive-Message-Number: 7931 Date: Thu, 09 Jun 1994 16:45:34 BST From: tom(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: Re: Feudalism Hi all, in the recent discussion of feudalism and feudal technocracy it seems there has been some talking at cross-purposes. Some relevant powers of a feudal king which have not been mentioned are the powers to grant new titles and existing unheld titles and the administration of disputes between vassals( and hence law). This power is significant when it comes to the sharing-out of newly obtained resources, whether from conquest, purchase or legal skulduggery. The feudal system is inherently unstable, especially in times of transition when there may be no clear heir or successor. (this sounds familiar...oops :-) ). It involves a continual struggle for power between the king and the vassals and between the vassals, as the king attempts to safeguard his position by centralising power, and the vassals attempt to strengthen their positions, and reduce the king's power (consciously or otherwise). David Johnson has been alluding to the "strong barons" version of feudalism where the vassals are in a position to pick and choose their king(IMHO). Hans Rancke has written about a "strong king" version of feudalism where the vassals are due to circumstances stuck with the current king, like it or not. Both these versions are historically recorded examples of the feudal system in action. In the first version the king's power is limited to what the vassals will accept. This may even go so far as to the king being relegated to a figurehead. The vassals are most definitely the owners of their feifs and will strenuously resist interference in them by the king( or anyone else for that matter). Here the vassals may form a united block behind a figurehead king (oligarchy-like) or may squabble disastrously as an ineffectual king's calls for peace and unity are ignored. In the latter case the king may fall and total balkanisation may ensue if no resolution is reached. In the second version the king is most definitely boss, with overwhelming support from the majority of his vassals. In this position the king is very powerful, and effectively does control 'everything'. He can introduce laws strengthening his rule, declare rebellious vassals to be outlaws and strip them of their holding,(to be awarded to loyal followers), and pretty much do as he likes. If this continues for long enough the government may change to another type, such as a dictatorship. (In this version of feudalism all land WAS ultimately ruled by the king, and doled out to his loyal vassals). The normal feudal position is between these two extremes. The king is powerful and has significant latitude of action, but must listen to his vassals and be careful not to upset the majority of them too much. The vassals wish stability and will follow the king unless he becomes too unreasonable or overbearing in his rulings. David wishes to prove that Sacnoth should rule the Sword Worlds by virtue of its TL advantage over the official ruling planet, Gram. While is certainly possible for this change to occur, it is by no means automatic. There are many other relevant factors which are not specified and which would affect the outcome. It is possible to set up a campaign to justify almost any prejudice a referee has. Maybe Sacnoth has a policy of appeasement so they are not the ones bombed by an attacking force. Maybe there is something in the atmosphere or soil of Sacnoth that makes the inhabitants less aggressive, or conversely the inhabitants of Gram are more aggressive. Maybe the Zhodani are mind-controlling the Sacnothians into acquiescence etc, etc. Anything can be justified, nothing is automatic. Hope my contribution to this thread makes sense, Tom Tom O'Neill | Tom(at)[-- redacted --] SCCS6085(at)[-- redacted --] - ---------------!-------------------------------------------------------------- Fact is stranger than fiction ------------------------------ Bundle: 632 Archive-Message-Number: 7932 From: "Bruce Johnson" Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 09:38:24 MST Subject: TML: Feudal Technocracies Bill, And only a few weeks ago people were arguing that TML was moribund! Excellent post! A few nits to pick, though. Many of the examples you give of feaudalism, such as corporate feudalism, are already present in the government type structure, such as the corporate state. I think the critical difference is the lack of or highly limited societal mobility. A common thread throughout all your examples is the codification of position as hereditary...I think that this could serve as the sole definition of a feudal state, and the basis of that segregation, military, contract, medical or whatever is less important. Indeed many of your examples are not precisely feudal in nature, but more like technocracies, ie: the technical or scientific elite holding power. A feudal society was as marked by the responsibilities of the higher classes to the lower as by their rights...all power derived from the bottom, in reality...just look at the restoration of the Meijii emperor over the Shogunate in 19th century Japan. That change was spearheaded by some rather small, rural provinces. Since, whether GDW based the Sword Worlds entire or only part on Piper's book, I re-read Space Viking the other day. In it the protagonist (Prince Trask) expresses surprise that an outsider declared his (very classic land and production based) feudal society as a tyranny. Trask than explains that no one has any power that is not explicitly granted by the people below, and all that has to be done to eliminate a tyranny is withhold the support necessary. In fact, this is very much like European 'classical' feudalism...The king theoretically wielded great power, but only as long as he held the support of the lesser nobles, who only wielded their power with the support of those below, etc. because the true power...armies, were not standing, but composed of all those lower knights and barons, who quite freely looked out for their own hides. The pledged fealty to the king, but that oath was binding both ways...the king had to act to their benefit, or he had no power. This is really only possible in lower populations, where the lowest tiers of the society still wields enough political power to make a difference. This argues forcefully against large population feudal states. The Japanese example I had mentioned before was not the best. By the time of the Meijii restoration, the Shogunate had evolved from a true military-based feudal state to a giant bureauocracy, hereditarily determined, to be sure, but still a bureauocracy. Bruce Johnson The University of Arizona johnson(at)[-- redacted --] (work :-( bej(at)[-- redacted --] (play :-) My opinions, All Mine! ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 632 Archive-Message-Number: 7941 From: PSUAlum(at)[-- redacted --] Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 07:38:49 EDT Subject: GEN - Swold World bickering I think this post might be one of the missing posts, if not please excuse me for wasting the bandwidth. > you started out by asking how come Gram was the leader of > the Sword Worlds when Sacnoth was so much more powerful. > Since then I've tried to defend the notion that the economic cycles > are possible. > I believe I've accepted that these cycles *might* exist and that if > they do they would explain Gram's leadership of the Confederation. My > concern has been that I can't see what *causes* these techno-economic > cycles (since we've agreed they have no `real world' parallel) and > that I don't see how they explain the tech level disparities. Perhaps the fluctuations in the SWs TLs are due to a variety of internal causes. I'm not entirely sure I understand the feudal technocracy govt but suppose it allows for a large amount of 'infighting' among the junior levels of the technocracy on each world. This may only take the form of buying out each other's economic assets on up to sabotage of various forms and possibly assassination and warfare. Suppose every so often these small manueverings among the technocrats build to a particularly large crescendo that results in a large loss of the economic/industrial infrastructure with a corresponding drop in TL. Furthermore perhaps this postulated internecine rivalry may be more prevalent on some worlds (such as Sacnoth) than on others (Gram) which causes more of an introspective world-view and prevents Sacnoth from gaining political control of the Sword World governing body despite a higher level of technological achievement. In fact it isn't all that difficult to imagine, given such a scenario, that Gram may very well sponsor various acts of espionage and intrigue just to ensure their position and also to see that Sacnoth doesn't come to power. Just an idea that occurred to me while enjoying the "The Hans and David Show." :) PBJuzyk | 'Most plans don't even survive Reading, PA | contact with Reality' Terra/Solomani Rim (1827 G867975-8) | -Hammer Lanthrop, *Smash & Grab* ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 633 Archive-Message-Number: 7947 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 17:32:13 -0500 From: bonnevil(at)[-- redacted --] (Steven M Bonneville) Subject: Re: Feudal Technocracy FEUDAL TECHNOCRACY AND JAPANESE TERMS (and firms!) Hans Ranke writes: [David Johnson, I think...] >>In this sense, if there is a `king' he has gained monopoly control of the >>entire economic sytem. This is why US industry fears the Japanese >>*kieritsu* so much. They are concerned that their coordinated activity >>gives Japanese industry a competitive advantage. As for US industry, part of the problem is the Japanese are much better about long-term planning than we have been. US companies seem to think of next-quarter's profits. Japanese firms try to think of next decade's. Then, there's other cultural barriers...but that's off on a tangent. >It sound like the *kieritsu* is merely capitalism without anti-trust laws. No, not really. The Japanese *do* have anti-trust laws -- the US helped write some of them in the late forties. They're run by that boogeyman of the US, MITI (Ministry of Int'l Trade and Industry), I believe. And please be careful about the differences between keiretsu and zaibatsu -- they are like apples and oranges (to use a cliche). They're both fruit. They're both more-or-less round. They are not the same thing. Let me try explaining the difference again in a *very* rough and at least partly inaccurate way. Zaibatsu were focused, vaguely feudal cartels which, while not monopolies, occasionally were able to form oligopolies in certain fields. Keiretsu are loose, informal associations which are in a sense networks of informal corporate "connections" that can work together to overcome problems. Members of a keiretsu aren't tied together in the way the zaibatsu were. The part that makes either of these look "feudal" to Westerners has a lot to do with, among other things, the associated lifetime employment traditional in Japan. Let's look at the Traveller terms again: "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." The first sentence is the "feudal" part. The second sentence is the "technocracy" part. (Roughly.) Note both what this says and doesn't say. Government "for those who agree to be ruled". The zaibatsu concept works for this; you can choose who you work for. Maybe they aren't interested in what you can offer. Maybe you aren't interested in what they offer. So then you both pick someone else. Once you choose, it's expected that you have chosen for life. In return, you have a place for life. The organization won't desert you, and you won't desert it. This whole thing is a lot like the freemen --> vassal process worked in the middle ages. Those relationships were based on mutual protection, so the equivalence isn't quite total. Whether or not these relationships are hereditary isn't specified. Neither is societal inflexibility. Such a system might be constructed in which it is possible to start at the bottom and be gradually promoted into a position of power, perhaps even one of the "specific individuals" that help to run the whole system, by being at the top of their particular feudal chain. Another quote on early zaibatsu, same source as yesterday (p. 297): "The ownership of large family enterprises remained in the hands of the original family, but management was gradually transferred to head clerks, who stayed with the company for life. In fact, the whole business firm was a sort of extended family, with a strong sense of mutual loyalty between employees and employers...." Kind of a cross between the two. And more extreme systems either way can easily be imagined. And companies don't even need to be part of it -- that isn't specified either! There are many ways to develop a government by specific individuals by those who agree to be ruled, based on whatever. ASLAN AND FEUDALISM Another system to look at in Traveller while considering this is the Aslan Hierate's clan system, which culminates in the Tlaukhu, the council of the Twenty-Nine. While not a feudal technocracy, it is a fairly feudal system. The fteirle have no king. But one is properly respectful to the Yerlyaruiwoko! Some clans are considered "more important" than others in stature, but there is no true central authority. There's other cultural stuff going on here too, so be careful. But you don't even *need* a single leader over everyone, if you have another stable solution -- like a lot of little leaders that don't go for each other's throats. OTHER RELATED GOVERNMENT TYPES "Company/Corporation. Government by a company managerial elite; citizens are company employees." Note that this seems to imply one company in control. Which makes sense -- this government type is most often seen with small population codes, so it works well for isolated mines, facilites, and so forth. This covers everything from a SuSAG psi-drug facility on an otherwise uninhabited world, to "The Chartered Zarathustra Company" which is in charge of the resources and colonization of Zarathustra. Now, if you have a collection of companies which own or control bits of the planet, perhaps a better code would be: "Balkanization. No central ruling authority exists; rival governments compete for control." And in fact, most of the government types can be twisted in a way that allow companies to be used, if you twist the company enough too. That's the beauty of Traveller government types; they are flexible. A lot of the codes in the UWP are like this. The idea of the UWP is to have a system in which you can generate a sample world in ten minutes and then be able to take it and develop it massively in many different possible directions. Without a system in the game like the UWP, we'd never be able to develop entire sectors in a way that was at all realistic in a reasonable amount of time. Steve Bonneville ------------------------------ Bundle: 633 Archive-Message-Number: 7948 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 18:36:33 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: All: PoliSci 5001: Feudal Technocracy Gentlesophonts: We seem to have sparked a great deal of interest with the feudal technocracy discussion. It's generated a lot of useful information, IMHO. From Thurday night, Alistair Langsford writes: > Perhaps if I say that the technical managers are also vassals of > the noble they serve this helps? I guess I was looking for an explanation of the nature of the vassal relationship. In a medieval feudal aristocracy the lord received military services and local resources from the vassal and in return provided coordinated security. In a situation in which the technical vassals `manage' activities for the lord I don't see what they're getting in return that is equivalent to the security provided by the medieval lord. If all the `technocrats' get is pay you really only have a corporate system. > I was not, > by the way, proposing that the system I posted was the ONE TRUE > DEFINITION OF FEUDAL TECHNOCRACY. Just that it describes -a- > system that fits the term. Okay, I was trying to focus on the specifics that distinguish a feudal technocracy from other forms like a corporate model or aristocractic oligarchy. > After all, given Traveller's method for > classifying governments, the same government could be classified > different ways depending on which aspects of it are seen to be > most apparent by the typical traveller. Yes, this is true but focusing here doesn't really allow for much discussion does it? > Obviously I could have been > clearer by describing the importance of the mutual obligations > between vassals and his/her liege lord. Yes, this is key regardless of what terms are used to describe the participants. > > I agree it can do. I don't agree it automatically does. The 'buzz > word' as it has been termed describes an approach to managing > industrial resources (see the definition I posted earlier). I think technocracy speaks of more than mere `management' of technical activities. I beleive technocracy calls for *rule* of the society by those with technical knowledge and skills. I see `technical' as being much broader than just engineering and science - it is the entire network of infrastructure that permits technical activities to occur - industry. > I think you can still have a high tech militarily centred Feudal > system which is technocratic in nature. Certainly, but as I've suggested elsewhere, I believe such a `specialized' feudal technocracy will be the exception rather than the rule, just as representative democracies with a very narrowly defined demos will be the exception. > To me your kieretsu description seems like it -also- fits the > description of a Corporate Government. Maybe except the key difference as I see it is that in a corporate system there is no bond between employer and employee. The employer may sever the relationship (in effect remove your `citizenship') at will. This is why corporate systems only occur at low population levels. > Given Traveller's way of > classifying governments, there is no reason why it can't be both. Again, yes, but this sort of dampens the discussion. I find it useful and interesting to focus on those aspects which *do* distinguish one form from another. > And since we have gotten on to discussing government types, does > anyone else have an example of how they have interpreted a > Traveller government type they'd like to post? As I'm always one to stir the pot, how about this idea? If we look at all government types in terms on two key points: the nature of ruling authority (who rules) and the source of that authority (who consents to that rule) we can see that *all* government types, except those where a *single* individual is able to exert *direct*, personal control over the others (i.e., very small groups), are inherently *democratic* in the source of of authority. Even the most oppressive totalitiarian theocracy requires *some* degree of consent from the populace in order to function. Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 633 Archive-Message-Number: 7951 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 21:25:46 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: All: PoliSci 5002: Feudal Technocracy Gentlesophonts: First, some final stirrings of the `techno-economic cycles' debate. Hans Rancke writes: > You asked for an explanation of > how come Gram dominated Saxnoth when Saxnoth was more powerful than Gram. I > suggested that maybe Gram had been a higher tech level recently (and/or > Sacnoth lower) due to an econo-technological cycle effect. You _claimed_ > that this wasn't possible. Since then I've been arguing that they are. I'm worried we're getting a little acrimonious here. Let me state that I *accept* that the techno-economic cycles are *possible*. I find them very *unlikely* based upon my understanding of economics *and* technology. I also find the idea of Zhodani support to be a more credible (and therefore more likely) explanation for Gram's domination of the Sword Worlds. I also prefer this explantion from a *gaming* standpoint because it provides for some interesting ramifications in the Sword Worlds should the nature of Zhodani support for Gram change in the New Era. > What factual record? We have _one_, count them, one, complete listing of > world UWPs for the Spinward Marches, the one first published in _Spinward > Marches Campaign_ and since reprinted (with the UWPs _unchanged_) in > _Imperial Encyclopedia_ and _Megatraveller Journal_ #3 I accept this. And it *is* a factual record. From *Supplement 3: The Spinward Marches* to *MegaTraveller Journal* #3 we have a period of about fifteen years of elapsed time. Clearly there were some changes in this data (you've mentined the allegiance codes) so the fact that UWP changes weren't made *must* be assumed to be intentional. (Although I *suspect* there *was* no intention, as in much of what's appeared over the years.) Now [WARNING: I don't have TNE!] it's my understanding that there were some significant UWP changes for the the Regina subsector material presented in *TNE*. Clearly, this is intentional as well. Whether it is *reconcilable* with any of the pre-TNE material is another matter. > So it _could_ be that the TLs have grown slowly and > steadily. Or they could have been rollercoasting up and down over the > centuries. We just can't tell from the record. I don't think it's that certain. Yes, there may have been cycles but as it stands the records show fifteen years of stagnation and *no* evidence of any down turn. > I say again: A moderately important colony like Regina that advances it's > economy by 5% (or even 20% if you go by _Striker_ rules) in eight centuries > by slow, steady increments that never declines, is difficult to believe. I > can believe in economic up- and downturns that averaged out into 5% over the > centuries much more readily. Let's remember all this is occurring in a 2D universe! How's that for a suspension of disbelief? Seriously, I, too, find the rate of technological advancement inscrutably slow but can rationalize it as a legacy of Vilani culture. These `techno-economic cycles' seem to add one more layer of required suspension of disbelief for me, especially in the absence of any evidence to support them. You must also realize by now that we're you to come up now with just *one* example of a down turn, I'd explain it away as a mere typo? :-) > If the planet at any future date > becomes poorer, its economic level would decline to EL A again. Its > technology should decline as a consequence, since the planet obviously > cannot afford to maintain the technology (if it could, it would have had > TL B in under EL A in the first place). This is what grates with my economic and technological sensibilities. You, yourself, have maintained that *maintenance* of a particular level of technology is easier than *advancing* into a new level. Technological capability may be tied to economic capability but it is not directly so. Economies fluctuate all the time. Technological fluctuation occurs much less frequently and is a much more *serious* event. I maintain that a *severe* economic downturn would be required to produce a significant (in terms of a tech level change) technological downturn. Recall that our only modern example where this sort of event *might* have happened is during the Great Depression. So, in conclusion Hans, I agree that these `techno-economic cycles' are quite *possible*, but based upon my understanding of economics and technology they are, IMHO, very *unlikely* and virtually impossible on a wide-scale basis such as an entire subsector, much less across an entire sector or more. Now on to the question of feudal technocracy. > >No. A feudal technocracy is a system of government where the owners of > >industrial production give their support in exchange for economic opportunity > >or `protection'. > > Then its not analogous to a feudal society. Why not? What if I had said `*holders* of industrial production'? > Let's get a few definitions > straight: What I get from your emphasis on these defintions is a focus on *land*. Is that where our disagreement lies? I grant the `ownership of land' by the lord but don't see it as being very important despite what the venerable Oxford tome has to say. The key part of the lord's end of the feudal agreement was the provision of coordinated security services, not some tenuous grant of land possession. > And these shareholders never represent different interest groups that wheel > and deal and compromise to get their respective representatives on the > board? The board is always composed of people who are in complete accord? > And all the shareholders are always in accord too? Of course there is dissent among the various shareholders, just as there was often dissent among the vassals of a particular lord. I don't see your point here. What is there about this that suggests it isn't feudal? > >In a feudal technocracy there are several *different* > >and independent groups of shareholders (i.e. the `barons') who each act > >as *separate* and distinct entities. > > Act in what way that is different from owners of different share blocks in > a corporation? The various shareholders in a *particular* corporation all hold `fealty' to the Chairman of *that* company. This is akin to a medieval situation in which a single individual had risen to the top of the feudal structure, a king. Maybe the difference here is that you're looking at, say, Gram, as medieval Germany, while I'm at looking the entire Sword Worlds as all of medieval Europe? > I didn't include the corporate model as an example of the equivalent of > a kingdom, but as the equivalent of a fief. I'm confused. You wrote: > >>Traditional feudal society Corporation Feudal technocracy Which suggested a three-way comparison to me: feudal aristocracy, corporate system *and* feudal technocracy. I guess I misunderstood you. > And a vassal does what his liege lord says or he is 'fired'. In theory, yes. In practice, not very often, unless the system had travelled well down the road toward autocracy. A corporate model is *always* auto- cratic. > >This isn't correct. In a feudal aristocracy the king does not `own' the > >land. > > Yes and no. He owns a lot of it from the days where his father was the > biggest lord around. Etc. Okay, I stand corrected. I maintain though that this `ownership' was not the important, *practical* aspect of the lord's part of the feudal agreement. Rather, it was his provision of coordinated military services that was what *mattered* in the feudal arrangement. > Coordinated services may be the reason why the other lords decided to back > him. But what they owe him fealthy for is the tenure of their fiefs. Okay, I stand corrected again, You're talking about the *philosophy* of feudalism (the legal basis) and I'm talking about the *practice* of it (its practical implementation). I think my focus is more useful in trying to understand the translation of the medeival feudal aristocracy to the feudal technocracy of Traveller. > Look, the shareholders in a corporation is a conglomerate owner. No. The shareholders are a morass of different interests just like the various vassals of a medieval lord. > In theory > they make up one person, the owner of the corporation. Again, I don't think talking about theory is particularly useful. > The Chairman works > for the owner. The vassals 'works' for the king. See the difference? In practice there is *no* difference. In *practice* the medieval king `works' for the vassals in provinding coordinated security services just as the technocratic king works for the shareholders in providing coordinated profit services. The medieval vassals provided military service *and* taxes and the technocratic vassal provides financial capital. The two situations are *very* analogous, IMHO. > A fief has _one_ owner. Just as any single bloc of shares has *one* owner. > A baron can't sell off shares of his barony to make > the buyers part-barons of the fief (He may be able to sell bits of the fief, > but these bits then become parts of other fiefs). Exactly. Just as purchasers of shares gain title to their own new fief! > And if a company is the > equivalent of a fief then there won't be any shareholders, just one baron. No. A private company, without public shareholders (there may *still* be several *private* shareholders), is akin to a `barony' on an island in the middle of an ocean somewhere. It's not part of a feudal system either. > There can be no > shareholders in a feudal fief, technocratic or not. The group of shares held in common by any single shareholder (this may be a group of individuals but with respect to their stock they are acting in concert) *is* a fief! > It sound like the *kieritsu* is merely capitalism without anti-trust laws. I think that is a *great* definition of feudal technocracy! See, because it considers the entire economy (i.e., `capitalism') it is much more complicated than any single corporate system. (BTW, the reason there *aren't* any anti-trust laws in a feudal technocracy is because political power is tied directly to economic power - there is no `government' to control the economic barons. In a sense, the civil war on Joyeuse can be seen as an `anti-trust' action!) > Nope. The central tenet of feudalism is *service* as a medium of repayment. Again, you're arguing feudal *theory* and I'm arguing feudal *practice*. Medieval vassals paid taxes to their lords. > I suppose that a part holding in a BIG company could be a fief in itself. > But that would be owned by _one_ person, and that person would have the > title. And there's certainly no mention of any 'Baron of a Third of the > Megatronics Company' in _Space Viking_ ;-) It seems to me you're still focused on a single company. A feudal technocracy has to involve the *entire* economy. To use the *Space Viking* model, there were probably `veterinary service' fiefs under Traskon and `geological service' fiefs under Karvalmills, just as Traskon and Karvallmills were held in fealty to Duke Angus. Remember that Trask and Karvall were Angus's *vassals* but Trask later *sold* Traskon to Angus. Ownership was not the legal basis for homage in Piper's Sword Worlds. Profit generation was. > That's just precisely what I claim he couldn't. He gives the barony in > its entirety to Duke Angus, and Angus appoints another Trask as 'Vicar- > Baron'. And just like that Lucas is no longer a baron. Trask sold the entire barony because he needed it for the ship, *not* because he couldn't sell it in parts! (He was also anxious to get away from Gram.) > But if it had been, it would have been as indivisible as any land barony > (ie. he might be able to sell off peripheral parts, but the core must > remain relatively intact). Why? This happens all the time, now. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions International Telephone and Telegraph (IT&T) no longer has any telecommunications businesses as it's `core'. > Have we read the same book? Angus increased wealth allowed him to buy more > fighting men which allowed him to attack Omfray and other enemies and to > gain the support of some of the other big dukes. Okay, so he did just like I've suggested Sacnoth ought to do with Gram. He used his greater economic strength to acquire military force that permitted him to quicken the process of economic hegemony and eventual monopoly. He convinced other Gram nobles to support him just like I suggested Sacnoth might find supporters among the other Sword Worlds for a move against Gram. Are you arguing my case now? :-) > No, in a young FT it's the ones who has glommed onto a big slice of the > industry and dole it out to vassals. In a well-established FT it's the > ones whose ancestors did that and then supported an even bigger duke for > king. Doesn't `glommed onto' here mean the same thing as `controlling large blocks of industrial production'? What difference does it make how they came into possession? > Wait a minute. The Chairman keeps back part of his employees' salaries and > place them in a pension fund, right? That gives hin lot of pull in electing > the board of the fund, agreed. But the money that accrues from the fund > belongs to the employees, don't it? How does the Chairman see a penny of it? No, I'm not talking about the *company's* pension fund. It's pension funds for, say, teachers. The teachers' union has a pension fund for its members. These funds can run to billions of dollars. The manager of this pension fund, hired by the teachers' union, is responsible for gaining the best return for the fund (or she get's fired - a corporate arrangement). The pension fund manager chooses to buy shares in, say, IBM. The teachers' union becomes a shareholder of IBM, a `technocratic vassal'. If the fund has purchased a large enough share of IBM it enjoys a great deal of influence on the IBM board. If IBM isn't profitable it's shares lose value and the pension fund loses money. This makes the teachers mad and the next thing you know, CEO Akers (the technocratic lord) is out and CEO Gerstner in now running IBM. It's actually much more complicated because the teachers' union pension fund is invested in General Motors and Exxon and Mitsubishi Industries, etc. as well. And then you have the railroad union, and the government employees union, and Ross Perot, all the other investing shareholders in the market place, including the corporations themselves which all own shares in each other. It's as complicated as medieval Germany. > We're most certainly not saying the same thing. If a noble holds his land > from an overlord he cannot transfer his support without breaking his oath. Again, you're focused on theory and legal underpinnings. Do you suppose Duke Angus was acting within `legal' bounds when he invaded Glaspyth? The teachers' union has no legal `right' to replace the CEO but it happens when they're displeased nonetheless. > If he's an independent lord that is not a king we're still in the early > state of the formation of the kingdom. Tom O'Neill has already identified our respective focuses upon opposite ends of the feudal spectrum. (Although I don't see myself as *being* on the other end - it's just easier to illustrate the workings of the system from there.) > You're talking about economic might regardless of the social system. But > a sovereign power is only vulnerable to outside economic influence if > they are vulnerable. No. In a feudal *technocracy*, economic power is tied directly to political power. (Just as political power was tied to land and military power in the medieval feudal system.) > The reason US Industry > fears the japanese is that the US _is_ vulnerable. But why should Gram > be vulnerable just because the US is? Because the Sword Worlds do not have the political stucutures outside of the economic stucture that contemporary free-market governments do. In actuality, Gram is *more* vulnerable than the US. > >>2) He isn't that much stronger. > > > >He is if he really enjoys a full tech level advantage. > > Not according to the Traveller rules. Okay. You argue this one with former-TMLer and flame-prone Mr. Higginbotham. > Now we're suddenly into the military situation. I thought you were talking > about economic superiority? I was simply pointing out, as Duke Angus of Wardshaven recognized, that military action would speed up the process of economic domination. It makes domination happen quicker but it will happen regardless. > William White writes a whole heap of good stuff: Yes, he did. Very good. I've already responded on some points. > The essence of the definitions of feudalism I've seen is that you 'pay' > for tenancy with services instead of money. Try to get away from theoretical definitions an instead think about how it is implemented in *practice*. > But I suggest > that the technocracy bit lies in the substitution of industry for land as > the feudal fief. No. It's based upon *possession*, of a land fief or a stock fief. It is manifest in the nature of the *obligations* (coordinated services on the part of the lord, local services and resources on the part of the vassal) arising from the feudal agreement. Peace, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ Bundle: 633 Archive-Message-Number: 7952 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 21:54:20 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: All: PoliSci 5003: Kudos Gentlesophonts: Just a quick bit of recognition to those of you who joined in the feudal technocracy debate. Thanks to Bill White, Steve Bonneville, Tom O'Neill, Bruce Johnson, Pete Juzyk and, of course, my sparring partner, Hans Ranke, for your participation and contributions. This has been the sort of inclusive discussion I've always known the TML was capable of. BTW, have you noticed the paltry level of particpation over on XTML so far? I told you all those gigabytes of pre-PIE (Post Imperial Era) in the sky posts were mostly hot air. :-) Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 634 Archive-Message-Number: 7959 Date: Sat, 11 Jun 94 13:23:57 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: All: PoliSci 5004: Feudal Technocracy Gentlesophonts: Steve Bonneville writes: > Hans Ranke writes: > > >It sound like the *kieritsu* is merely capitalism without anti-trust laws. > > No, not really. The Japanese *do* have anti-trust laws -- the US > helped write some of them in the late forties. They're run by that > boogeyman of the US, MITI (Ministry of Int'l Trade and Industry), > I believe. This is a key difference between the feudal technocracy model and contemporary free-market economies. In a feudal technocracy there is no governmental entity outside of the economic system to intervene with anti-trust or any other sort of regulation. Thanks again for all this material about the *keiretsu* and *zaibatsu*, Steve. It's been very helpful *and* interesting. (BTW, I have a great picture of me in front of the MITI building in Tokyo. There's a `homeless' man sitting in the background right in front of the headquarters of this US `boogeyman'.) > Members of a keiretsu > aren't tied together in the way the zaibatsu were. The part that makes > either of these look "feudal" to Westerners has a lot to do with, among > other things, the associated lifetime employment traditional in Japan. What makes it look feudal to me is the `inter-relatedness' of the various corporate entities - something that is quite uncommon here in the US. There is clearly a system of agreements (explicit or implicit) that define the roles and responsibilities of all participants. It's *quite* different from the autocractic corporate model. I never meant to suggest that the *keiretsu* (I'd never heard of the *zaibatsu* before you mentioned it, Steve) fit my idea of a feudal technocracy perfectly. Rather, the *keiretsu* merely served to introduce the economic and industrial aspects of a feudal technocracy. I felt this was needed since many of us are already familiar with the aristocractic aspects of medieval feudalism but have little or no familiarity with the industrial and economic basis of a technocracy. > "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." I refuse to live with this miserably vague definition. The first sentence describes *any* representative democracy. If we look at `technical' in the second sentence as meaning `any specialized branch of knowledge' then this entire definition might be used to describe a popular theocracy in which clerical specialists perform various religious rites for the `governed'. Thus, this canonical definition is virtually useless. > This > whole thing is a lot like the freemen --> vassal process worked in > the middle ages. The relationships between freedmen and serfs and the nobles in medieval society was not feudalism at all. Feudalism concerned the relationship between members of the aristocracy, the ruling class. Hence, a feudal technocracy gives a system in which the relationships between the members of the ruling class (the technocracy) are governed by feudal principles. > "The Chartered Zarathustra Company" which is > in charge of the resources and colonization of Zarathustra. Ah, still another Piper fan. James, might it be possible to get another list started: PTML - Piper Traveller Mailing List? :-) > That's the beauty of Traveller government types; they are flexible. One person's beauty is another's bugbear! :-) > A lot of the codes in the UWP are like this. The idea of the UWP is > to have a system in which you can generate a sample world in ten > minutes and then be able to take it and develop it massively in many > different possible directions. Without a system in the game like > the UWP, we'd never be able to develop entire sectors in a way that > was at all realistic in a reasonable amount of time. Good point. I hadn't thought of it this way. I still think the government codes could be improved though by focusing on the nature of authority (who rules) and the source of authority (who consents). Good work here. Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 634 Archive-Message-Number: 7961 Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 15:38:54 -0500 From: bonnevil(at)[-- redacted --] (Steven M Bonneville) Subject: Re: Feudal Technocracy David Johnson writes: >From Thurday night, Alistair Langsford writes: >> After all, given Traveller's method for >> classifying governments, the same government could be classified >> different ways depending on which aspects of it are seen to be >> most apparent by the typical traveller. > >Yes, this is true but focusing here doesn't really allow for much discussion >does it? I suppose so. Alistair is right, though. >> To me your kieretsu description seems like it -also- fits the >> description of a Corporate Government. > >Maybe except the key difference as I see it is that in a corporate system >there is no bond between employer and employee. The employer may sever the >relationship (in effect remove your `citizenship') at will. This is why >corporate systems only occur at low population levels. Give the gent a prize! This gets at the difference between "feudal" and non-"feudal" government. (My understanding of why company/corporate rule is a low population feature is a bit different, but I went over that in my last post.) >we can see that *all* government types, except those where a *single* >individual is able to exert *direct*, personal control over the others >(i.e., very small groups), are inherently *democratic* in the source of >of authority. Even the most oppressive totalitiarian theocracy requires >*some* degree of consent from the populace in order to function. "Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word *democratic* that I wasn't previously aware of." :) I get the thesis here, that power is ultimately derived from the masses. But I don't know that I could possibly call an oppressive authoritarian government "democratic". Steve Bonneville ------------------------------ Bundle: 634 Archive-Message-Number: 7962 Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 17:26:47 -0700 From: Muir Macpherson Subject: Econ Cycles In an effort to save bandwidth, I won't quote anyone at all. But I did want to weigh in on the possibility of economic cylces causing TL fluctuations. I do not think this is likely except under extreme and prolonged circumstances because moving to a lower TL would require NEW INVESTMENT. The point has been made many times on sci.space that it is not possible to ressurect the Saturn V because the whole TL 6 infra- structure of suppliers would have to be recreated. This costs money, some- thing one doesn't have a lot of in an economic down-turn. To use another example, lets say this country was in a severe depression and GM wanted to cut costs. Since it already had an existing TL 7 production plant, it is not immediately going to switch to TL 6, because this would involve retooling. However, if this depression continued long enough the might stop replacing their robot welders, and might start using people again. GM also might begin designing "low-tech" cars that would eliminate a lot of the cost of a car. But again, it wouldn't do this quickly because it would require them to retool their factories. Also, GM would only do this if they thought conditions would exist long enough to make the investment worthwhile. This whole process depends on how long their old plant lasts until it wears out and how much it costs to go "low-tech." The above situation is unlikely to come about through the normal business cycle because there are so many "automatic stabilizers" in economies that keep recessions from getting too deep or lasting too long. Feudal Technocracies are likely to have even more of these stabilizers than we do. Life-time employment means that people will not quickly lose their jobs, which will buoy consumer spending, for instance. To recap, TL decline through economic decline will only occur through non-economic shocks like war, Virus, etc. and even then will only occur when people have reason to believe that the economy will remain depressed for some time to come. ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 636 Archive-Message-Number: 7968 Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 14:14:44 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: All: PoliSci 5005: Democracy Gentlesophonts: Steve Bonneville writes: > David Johnson writes: > > >From Thurday night, Alistair Langsford writes: > > >> After all, given Traveller's method for > >> classifying governments, the same government could be classified > >> different ways depending on which aspects of it are seen to be > >> most apparent by the typical traveller. > > > >Yes, this is true but focusing here doesn't really allow for much discussion > >does it? > > I suppose so. Alistair is right, though. > > >we can see that *all* government types, except those where a *single* > >individual is able to exert *direct*, personal control over the others > >(i.e., very small groups), are inherently *democratic* in the source of > >of authority. Even the most oppressive totalitiarian theocracy requires > >*some* degree of consent from the populace in order to function. > > "Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word *democratic* that > I wasn't previously aware of." :) > I get the thesis here, that power is ultimately derived from the masses. > But I don't know that I could possibly call an oppressive authoritarian > government "democratic". Sorry for the heavy quoting but I think this provides a great opportunity to examine just how the Traveller government codes might be improved so that they are less arbitrary and therefore more useful. I've mentioned this before but, IMHO, it is uesful when examining a government type to look at two issues: the *nature* of authority (who rules) and the *source* of authority (who consents to that rule, or who *is* ruled). The keys here from a definition standpoint are the two suffixes *-archy* and *-cracy*. These are often used interchangeably to mean "rule". They are sometimes used to mean the same thing as in "monarchy" and "autocracy" which are often seen as meaning "single or self rule". Generally though, the suffix *-archy" is used to denote a ruler or a system of rulers ("matriarch", "hierarchy") while the suffix *-cracy* is used to denote the source of rule ("technocracy", "aristocracy", "theocracy"). It is useful to look at the distinction between the two suffixes when they are used with the same prefix, say, "demarchy" and "democracy". Demarchy is used to distinguish actual, direct rule by the people, or *demos*, (through referrenda and the like) as opposed to democratic rule based merely upon the *consent* of the people in which actual authority may be placed in the hands of some representative group or person. When viewed in this fashion the *nature* of authority can have only three manifestations: a single ruler (autarchy), a group of rulers (oligarchy), or rule by the entire *demos* (demarchy). Similarly, the *source* of authority has only two manifestations: either it comes from the ruler(s) themselves (autocracy) or else it is based upon the consent of the *demos* (democracy). This gives the following five government types: - -Autocractic autarchy: rule by a single individual without *any* consent of the governed group. Obviously this can only occur in *very* small groups where the `ruler' is able to exercise direct, personal control over the `ruled', say, a parent-child relationship or a captor-prisoner relationship. - -Autocractic oligarchy: rule by a group of individuals without any consent of the governed group. Again, this can only occur in small groups where the `rulers' can exercise direct, personal control over the `ruled', say bankrobbers holding bank employees hostage. - -Democractic autarchy: rule by a single individual based upon the consent of the governed. This fits our conceptions of a `traditional' monarchy but actually it also can only occur over relatively small groups, say a company or a small military organization. (It's how Jean-Luc Picard rules the starship *Enterprise*.) - -Democractic oligarchy: rule by a group of individuals based upon the consent of the governed. This permits the rule of large groups such as modern nation states. In this case, the rulers are not just the exective and legislative figures at the top of the government but the entire system or regulators, tax collectors, police enforcers, etc. that exercise authority in the `government'. This form may sometimes be very oppressive (the Iranian `theocracy' came to power in a popular revolt and continues to enjoy a great deal of consent among a majority of the *demos*) but it is unable to continue once the consent of the *demos* is lost (hence the collapse of the Soviet Union). - -Demarchy (democractic demarchy is redundant): direct rule by the *demos*. This is very difficult to accomplsh on a large scale but is facilitated by the advent of high technology which permits quick and broad disemination of information. (Imagine a instantaneous global communications network that would permit `real time' discussion and voting on governmental issues.) In the Earth Colonies campaign we have developed the following table to generate UWP government codes using this scheme: Government (Throw 2D-5 + pop) Digit Government 0- none 1 autocratic autarchy 2 demarchy 3 autocratic oligarchy 4-6 democratic oligarchy 7 no central authority 8-9 democratic oligarchy A-B democratic autarchy C+ democratic oligarchy Higher population worlds almost exclusive have `democractic' governments because of the inability of any single individual or group of individuals to directly, personally exercise authority over the rest of the populace. This system leaves the actual characterization of the populace's consent to authority up to the referee (or at least independent of population). A Code C `democractic oligarchy' may be a "theocracy", a "technocracy", a "plutocracy", or a `representative democracy'. Which seems to make sense since there is no clear relationship between these sorts of charcteri- zations and the *size* of the particular *demos* involved. Observations, questions and contrary views are solicited and encouraged. Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bundle: 637 Archive-Message-Number: 7969 From: rancke(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: Technological decline Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 22:59:17 +0100 (METDST) David Johnson writes: >Hans Rancke writes: > >>You asked for an explanation of >>how come Gram dominated Saxnoth when Saxnoth was more powerful than Gram. I >>suggested that maybe Gram had been a higher tech level recently (and/or >>Sacnoth lower) due to an econo-technological cycle effect. You _claimed_ >>that this wasn't possible. Since then I've been arguing that they are. > >I'm worried we're getting a little acrimonious here. I'm sorry you think so. I haven't felt acrimonious in this debate (until today; but I will get to that later), and I regret if I've given any such impression. >>What factual record? We have _one_, count them, one, complete listing of >>world UWPs for the Spinward Marches, the one first published in _Spinward >>Marches Campaign_ and since reprinted (with the UWPs _unchanged_) in >>_Imperial Encyclopedia_ and _Megatraveller Journal_ #3 > >I accept this. And it *is* a factual record. From *Supplement 3: The >Spinward Marches* to *MegaTraveller Journal* #3 we have a period of about >fifteen years of elapsed time. Clearly there were some changes in this >data (you've mentined the allegiance codes) so the fact that UWP changes >weren't made *must* be assumed to be intentional. (Although I *suspect* >there *was* no intention, as in much of what's appeared over the years.) If you're really prepared to argue that all the population levels and population multipliers in the Spinward Marches could possibly remain intact for 15 years of peaceful development, much less Vargr raids galore, then I'm dropping out of that discussion. Think about what you're saying for just a moment. No world increased it's population by as much as 10%? No world lost as much as 10% in a raid? They all remained at _exactly_ the same population? Every single one of them? >Now [WARNING: I don't have TNE!] it's my understanding that there were some >significant UWP changes for the the Regina subsector material presented in >*TNE*. Clearly, this is intentional as well. Whether it is *reconcilable* >with any of the pre-TNE material is another matter. You don't need TNE. I'm talking CT and MegaT. I've ignored TNE because I anticipated the argument that the years from 1120 to 1200 represent rather unusual circumstances. >I don't think it's that certain. Yes, there may have been cycles but as >it stands the records show fifteen years of stagnation and *no* evidence of >any down turn. There's no way all 400 worlds in the Spinward Marches could have had their population level totally stagnant for 15 years. some of them, sure. Not even most of them, but some. Since the data in _Imperial Encyclopedia_ and _Megatraveller JOurnal 3_ dosen't show these changes, the data on population must derive from the same census. Perhaps no new census was made between 1105 and 1120. Other parts of the UPP may have been updated. But as far as the population data goes, the three sources is one and the same. >Let's remember all this is occurring in a 2D universe! How's that for a >suspension of disbelief? Put's quite a strain on it. That's why I don't need any more. >Seriously, I, too, find the rate of technological advancement inscrutably >slow but can rationalize it as a legacy of Vilani culture. Good for you. I can't. Not for the Marches, whose culture in most every Traveller publication to date has been shown to be overwhelmingly solomani- style, and certainly not for the Sword Worlds who are spcifically _said_ to be Solomani-derived. >>If the planet at any future date >>becomes poorer, its economic level would decline to EL A again. Its >>technology should decline as a consequence, since the planet obviously >>cannot afford to maintain the technology (if it could, it would have had >>TL B in under EL A in the first place). > >This is what grates with my economic and technological sensibilities. You, >yourself, have maintained that *maintenance* of a particular level of >technology is easier than *advancing* into a new level. Sure. That's propably why we haven't seen any technological downturns in the wake of economic downturns here on Earth. I admit that there will be a cushioning effect so that you could propably maintain TL B for a while, since the investment in the factories and tools have been made. But factories have to be maintained too. And if noone can afford to buy the stuff the factories produce, why maintain them? And how? Try imagining economic boom cycles scaled to an interplanetary population, rather than a single planet population. If a depression is severe enough, the factories will close. >Technological >capability may be tied to economic capability but it is not directly so. >Economies fluctuate all the time. Technological fluctuation occurs much >less frequently and is a much more *serious* event. I maintain that a >*severe* economic downturn would be required to produce a significant (in >terms of a tech level change) technological downturn. How severe? That's the whole point, isn't it? A planet with billions of inhabitants may be difficult to affect... but maybe not too dificult if you have even more billions of people to do it. Recall that our only >modern example where this sort of event *might* have happened is during the >Great Depression. Seems to me I've heard about factories in third-world countries that have closed down after the parent company has pulled out. Admittedly I can't quote any examples. Hans Rancke University of Copenhagen rancke(at)[-- redacted --] - ------------ "A subsector official pompously states that the subsector armed forces have four Kinunir class ships in service, each with enough troop strength to put down any military operations that threathen the peace of the Imperium." ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 637 Archive-Message-Number: 7970 From: rancke(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: Feudal technocracy Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 23:26:37 +0100 (METDST) David Jhonson writes: >Now on to the question of feudal technocracy. This is where I'm tempted to become a tad acrimonious. I'll try to hold it down, but it's a little hard to provide definitions of what I'm talking about and then having them dismissed as "not relevant". If you have any authorities on feudal Europe that informs you that the feudal lords didn't really care about formalities, could you quote them for me, please? If you can't, don't you think you just might consider the possibility that the old feudal system actually worked in some way at least remotely related to the teory? Even if you are right, for which you presented absolutely no evidence, it's also possible that if someone looked at a new type of government and called it 'feudal' something, they might be having dictionary definitions in mind too. >>>No. A feudal technocracy is a system of government where the owners of >>>industrial production give their support in exchange for economic >>>opportunity or `protection'. >> >>Then its not analogous to a feudal society. > >Why not? What if I had said `*holders* of industrial production'? Because a feudal society is one where the feudal lord gives out land fiefs in return for allegiance and support. By analogy a feudal technocracy is one where the lord gives out industrial fiefs in support for allegiance and support. Gee, I could have sworn I said this before. >>Let's get a few definitions >>straight: > >What I get from your emphasis on these defintions is a focus on *land*. That's great. That means you got half my argument. These definitions focus on land because that's what the people in feudal Europe focused on. The second half of my argument substitutes industrial holdings for land in order to derive a definition of a feudal _technocracy_ and assumes an analogous treatment of those holdings. >Is that where our disagreement lies? I grant the `ownership of land' by >the lord but don't see it as being very important despite what the venerable >Oxford tome has to say. That seems to be the problem in a nutshell. You don't see it. Why? What do you know that I don't? From where do you derive your deep insight into how feudal Europe REALLY worked? Tell me what books I've missed. >The key part of the lord's end of the feudal >agreement was the provision of coordinated security services, not some >tenuous grant of land possession. Is this something you just know? Who told you? Not the dictionary. Did you read it in a book? Quotes, please. >>And these shareholders never represent different interest groups that wheel >>and deal and compromise to get their respective representatives on the >>board? The board is always composed of people who are in complete accord? >>And all the shareholders are always in accord too? > >Of course there is dissent among the various shareholders, just as there >was often dissent among the vassals of a particular lord. I don't see >your point here. What is there about this that suggests it isn't feudal? I just don't see how the shareholders in your description of a feudal technocracy acts any different from the shareholders in any other system with corporations. The standard capitalist society, for example. Where does the feudal come into it? >>>In a feudal technocracy there are several *different* >>>and independent groups of shareholders (i.e. the `barons') who each act >>>as *separate* and distinct entities. >> >>Act in what way that is different from owners of different share blocks in >>a corporation? > >The various shareholders in a *particular* corporation all hold `fealty' >to the Chairman of *that* company. How? Why? They elected him (well 51+% of them did). They can fire him any time they want to. Legally. They employ him. Where's the fealthy in that? >This is akin to a medieval situation in which a single individual had risen >to the top of the feudal structure, a king. The king's vassals have all sworn to support him. Did the shareholders swear to support their Chairman? No. They offered him a good salary and a pension plan. Not fealthy. >Maybe the difference here is that you're looking at, say, Gram, >as medieval Germany, while I'm at looking the entire Sword Worlds as all of >medieval Europe? At the moment I'm not looking at the Sword worlds at all. I'm looking at the whole concept of feudal technocracy. Of which I have several times said: "By analogy, a feudal technocracy is one where industrial holdings takes the place of land". I then presented a definition of a feudal society. Let's have your definitions. Not examples, since I'm apparently to dim to understand them. Straight definitions. >>And a vassal does what his liege lord says or he is 'fired'. > >In theory, yes. In practice, not very often, unless the system had travelled >well down the road toward autocracy. Take an early feudal society. See a knight who holds a manor from a baron. See him give two fingers to his baron. See his baron take his (the baron's) manor back from the knight and decorate the gate with the knight's head. >>>This isn't correct. In a feudal aristocracy the king does not `own' the >>>land. >> >>Yes and no. He owns a lot of it from the days where his father was the >>biggest lord around. > >Etc. > >Okay, I stand corrected. I maintain though that this `ownership' was not >the important, *practical* aspect of the lord's part of the feudal >agreement. Rather, it was his provision of coordinated military services >that was what *mattered* in the feudal arrangement. Why do you maintain that? What facts do you base this on? How come you know more than the dictionary (Not just a snide question. Dictionaries have been known to be wrong. But I do feel that the burden of proof is on you in this case. Why do you think feudal society differed so radically in theory and practice? Let's have some reasons). >>Coordinated services may be the reason why the other lords decided to back >>him. But what they owe him fealthy for is the tenure of their fiefs. > >Okay, I stand corrected again, You're talking about the *philosophy* of >feudalism (the legal basis) and I'm talking about the *practice* of it (its >practical implementation). Oh, are you? That means that you can quote me reams of examples of how things really worked in practice, while I won't be able to find very many examples of thing working according to the mere theory, right? Would you care to begin? >I think my focus is more useful in trying to >understand the translation of the medeival feudal aristocracy to the >feudal technocracy of Traveller. I will tentatively agree that this seems reasonable. Ignoring for the moment the possibility that 'feudal technocracy' is defined in terms of the theory of feudal society instead of the practice. So let's hear about this practice. >>Look, the shareholders in a corporation is a conglomerate owner. > >No. The shareholders are a morass of different interests just like the >various vassals of a medieval lord. The shareholders of a corporation makes the same decisions a sole owner of a company makes. The only difference between a corporation and a non-corporation is that the first has shareholders where the second has an owner. I repeat: the shareholders in a corporation is a conglomerate owner. >>In theory they make up one person, the owner of the corporation. > >Again, I don't think talking about theory is particularly useful. I suggest you make up your mind on that on a case by case basis. Certainly any great difference between theory and practice makes relying on the theory problematical. But what is the great, yawning chasm between theory and practice in this instance? Why are shareholders not like an owner? (And why is a raven like a writing desk? ;-) >>The Chairman works >>for the owner. The vassals 'works' for the king. See the difference? >In practice there is *no* difference. In *practice* the medieval king >`works' for the vassals in provinding coordinated security services This is where I say "No he dosen't!", right? >just as the technocratic king works for the shareholders in providing >coordinated profit services. And just how does the technocratic king (your version) differ from the Chairman of a corporation? If there isn't any difference then why have two seperate names for the same system? >The medieval vassals provided military >service *and* taxes and the technocratic vassal provides financial >capital. The two situations are *very* analogous, IMHO. The medieval vassals provided various kind of service in return for holding the land. The people you describe acquire their holdings and band together for mutual benefit. The first is a feudal system. The second is just a gang. >>A fief has _one_ owner. > >Just as any single bloc of shares has *one* owner. Sigh. OK, let's try to get past the redundancy into something constructive. This bloc of shares you're talking about. Does it have any sort of coherence? Is it all shares in one single corporation, or is it simply a portfolio? Is it possible to put a lable on the bloc and call it something other than 'Martin Vesterlund's current stock portfolio'? Can it be called 'The barony of Thorvallsmines' and is there a specific baronial title associated with it? Can the title be transferred to someone else by sale or inheritance? Can the bloc be sold off in small bits, and if it does, what happens to the title? >>A baron can't sell off shares of his barony to make the buyers part-barons >>of the fief (He may be able to sell bits of the fief, but these bits then >>become parts of other fiefs). > >Exactly. Just as purchasers of shares gain title to their own new fief! Who decides on the new title? And if a 'fief' is just a stock portfolio, what's the difference between this system and any capitalist society? >>And if a company is the >>equivalent of a fief then there won't be any shareholders, just one baron. > >No. A private company, without public shareholders (there may *still* be >several *private* shareholders), is akin to a `barony' on an island in >the middle of an ocean somewhere. Like the Isle of Man? >It's not part of a feudal system either. Why not? So the baronies you're talking about has nothing to do with the examples we see in _Space Viking_? (All the fiefs we hear named are owned by one single person apiece - what you claim to be isolated baronies that are not part of the feudal structure (this might surprise Duke Angus to learn)). >>There can be no >>shareholders in a feudal fief, technocratic or not. > >The group of shares held in common by any single shareholder (this may be >a group of individuals but with respect to their stock they are acting in >concert) *is* a fief! You DO mean a stock portfolio! How do you figure out the baronial titles? >>It sound like the *kieritsu* is merely capitalism without anti-trust laws. > >I think that is a *great* definition of feudal technocracy! See, because >it considers the entire economy (i.e., `capitalism') it is much more >complicated than any single corporate system. (BTW, the reason there >*aren't* any anti-trust laws in a feudal technocracy is because political >power is tied directly to economic power - there is no `government' to >control the economic barons. In a sense, the civil war on Joyeuse can >be seen as an `anti-trust' action!) OK. I arrive on Gram with a draft for a billion credits in my back pocket. For that I buy 10% of Megatronics, 30% of Dynaline, 51% of Gombril Spaceyards and 1% of a half dozen more (Assume for purposes of argument that I can find people willing to sell). Now. What's my title? Who is my liege lord? Who are my vassals? What's my rights and what's my obligations? >>Nope. The central tenet of feudalism is *service* as a medium of repayment. > >Again, you're arguing feudal *theory* and I'm arguing feudal *practice*. Again you dismiss evidence without any further argument. >Medieval vassals paid taxes to their lords. Some medieval vassals paid part of their service in money. All of them paid some or all of it in service. >>I suppose that a part holding in a BIG company could be a fief in itself. >>But that would be owned by _one_ person, and that person would have the >>title. And there's certainly no mention of any 'Baron of a Third of the >>Megatronics Company' in _Space Viking_ ;-) > >It seems to me you're still focused on a single company. I am. The company is IMO the FT equivalent of the feudal land holding. Like Karvalmills is one holding. Traskon is one. Etc. >A feudal technocracy has to involve the *entire* economy. It does. Each company is a fief, owned by a nobleman. All the fiefs together constitutes the entire economy. >To use the *Space Viking* model, there were probably `veterinary service' >fiefs under Traskon and `geological service' fiefs under Karvalmills, Propably? What makes you say that? Where does it even imply that anywhere in the book? >just as Traskon and >Karvallmills were held in fealty to Duke Angus. Remember that Trask >and Karvall were Angus's *vassals* but Trask later *sold* Traskon to >Angus. Ownership was not the legal basis for homage in Piper's Sword >Worlds. It wasn't the sole basis, granted. But neither was it in early feudal Europe. In an early feudal system each lord is independent. But they are lords because they have vassals. They band together for mutual protection, promising to support the king. Eventually they king assumes ownership of their land. >Profit generation was. Elucidate, please. >>That's just precisely what I claim he couldn't. He gives the barony in >>its entirety to Duke Angus, and Angus appoints another Trask as 'Vicar- >>Baron'. And just like that Lucas is no longer a baron. > >Trask sold the entire barony because he needed it for the ship, *not* because >he couldn't sell it in parts! What do you base that on? I base my argument on the analogy between a medieval barony and what I believe to be the feudal technocratic equivalent of such a barony. The fact is that Trask did sell the whole thing. And that it was called "The Barony of Traskon", not "Lucas Trask's holdings". >>But if it had been, it would have been as indivisible as any land barony >>(ie. he might be able to sell off peripheral parts, but the core must >>remain relatively intact). > >Why? Because it didn't happen in feudal Europe and I assume that a feudal technocracy works analogously to a feudal society. >This happens all the time, now. We're not living in a feudal society, now. >Through a series of mergers and acquisitions International Telephone and >Telegraph (IT&T) no longer has any telecommunications businesses as it's >`core'. True. And if a society you imagine to be a feudal one allows such things to happen then perhaps it isn't one, after all. >>Have we read the same book? Angus increased wealth allowed him to buy more >>fighting men which allowed him to attack Omfray and other enemies and to >>gain the support of some of the other big dukes. > >Okay, so he did just like I've suggested Sacnoth ought to do with Gram. >He used his greater economic strength to acquire military force that >permitted him to quicken the process of economic hegemony and eventual >monopoly. No. He gained enough strength to deal with an arch enemy. The operative word is 'enough'. It's not enough for Sacnoth to gain an advantage over Gram, it must be a decisive advantage. And Harald must be willing to pay the price of using it. >He convinced other Gram nobles to support him just like I >suggested Sacnoth might find supporters among the other Sword Worlds for >a move against Gram. Are you arguing my case now? :-) No, I'm arguing that since Sacnoth hasn't moved against Gram just maybe Harald hasn't been able to find supporters among the other Sword Worlds. And/or perhaps he dosn't dislike Anders as much as Angus hated Omfray. >It's pension funds for, say, teachers. The teachers' union has a pension >fund for its members. These funds can run to billions of dollars. The >manager of this pension fund, hired by the teachers' union, is responsible >for gaining the best return for the fund. [...] The pension fund manager >chooses to buy shares in, say, IBM. The teachers' union becomes a >shareholder of IBM, a `technocratic vassal'. Bingo! There's the fallacy. The teacher's union dosen't become a vassal, it becomes a part owner. >If the fund has purchased a large enough share of IBM it enjoys a great >deal of influence on the IBM board. Of course they do. you'd expect an owner, even just a part owner, to have some say in how his property is run, wouldn't you? >If IBM isn't profitable it's shares lose value and the pension fund loses >money. This makes the teachers mad and the next thing you know, CEO Akers >(the technocratic lord) is out and CEO Gerstner in now running IBM. In a capitalist society CEO Akers isn't a lord, he is an employee of the teacher's union pension fund and the other part owners. In a feudal technocracy he would be a vassal (He wouldn't be a vassal of any pension fund, though. In fact, he'd propably be a duke and may or may not be independent. And IBM wouldn't be a corporation, but a company/fief). >It's actually much more complicated because the teachers' union pension fund >is invested in General Motors and Exxon and Mitsubishi Industries, etc. as >well. And then you have the railroad union, and the government employees >union, and Ross Perot, all the other investing shareholders in the market >place, including the corporations themselves which all own shares in each >other. It's as complicated as medieval Germany. What's so complicated about medieval Germany? >>We're most certainly not saying the same thing. If a noble holds his land >>from an overlord he cannot transfer his support without breaking his oath. > >Again, you're focused on theory and legal underpinnings. I certainly am. So did a lot of feudal lords. Look at the whole business of the civil war between Stephen of Blois and the Empress Maud. Some lords, like Geoffery de Manderville, played fast and loose with their oaths and their allegiance, but lot's of noblemen actually acted on the 'theory'. >Do you suppose Duke Angus was acting within `legal' bounds when he invaded >Glaspyth? He propably was. Angus and Omfray were both sovereign lords. >The teachers' union has no legal `right' to replace the CEO but it happens >when they're displeased nonetheless. They don't? I thought they owned a big slice of IBM? Why don't they have any right to do so? And if they don't, how did they manage it, and why isn't this Akers person suing the pants off them? >>You're talking about economic might regardless of the social system. But >>a sovereign power is only vulnerable to outside economic influence if >>they are vulnerable. > >No. In a feudal *technocracy*, economic power is tied directly to political >power. You keep saying that, but how does it work? Start with the basic building blocks, show me how they hang together and why it works fundamentally differently from a garden variety capitalist society. >>The reason US Industry fears the japanese is that the US _is_ vulnerable. >>But why should Gram be vulnerable just because the US is? > >Because the Sword Worlds do not have the political stucutures outside of >the economic stucture that contemporary free-market governments do. Why not? You have a world. The world is a feudal technocracy. They produce a king. The king sez: "No sale of industry to outsiders. Dixit". They just happen to have a balanced economy. How are they vulnerable? And don't say that I don't know that Gram is like that. I know I don't (I can't have both economic fluctuations and a balanced economy). What I want to know is, why couldn't it possibly be? Why MUST Gram be vulnerable? >>Now we're suddenly into the military situation. I thought you were talking >>about economic superiority? > >I was simply pointing out, as Duke Angus of Wardshaven recognized, that >military action would speed up the process of economic domination. It > makes domination happen quicker but it will happen regardless. It worked for Angus in one particular combination of strength and allies. Dosn't mean it would work for Sacnoth in another situation. (Actually, it d idn't work for Angus, btw. He blew it in the end. But it could have if he hadn't been crazy). >>The essence of the definitions of feudalism I've seen is that you 'pay' >>for tenancy with services instead of money. > >Try to get away from theoretical definitions an instead think about how >it is implemented in *practice*. Try to consider the possibility that the definitions are as they are because that's the way things worked at times. >>But I suggest >>that the technocracy bit lies in the substitution of industry for land as >>the feudal fief. > >No. It's based upon *possession*, of a land fief or a stock fief. It is >manifest in the nature of the *obligations* (coordinated services on the >part of the lord, local services and resources on the part of the vassal) >arising from the feudal agreement. So why use the word 'feudal' if the arrangement isn't feudal? Hans Rancke University of Copenhagen rancke(at)[-- redacted --] - ------------ "A subsector official pompously states that the subsector armed forces have four Kinunir class ships in service, each with enough troop strength to put down any military operations that threathen the peace of the Imperium." ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 639 Archive-Message-Number: 7991 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 94 21:14:37 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: All: PoliSci 5006: Feudal Technocracy Gentlesophonts: My good friend Hans Rancke writes: > This is where I'm tempted to become a tad acrimonious. I'll try to hold > it down, but it's a little hard to provide definitions of what I'm > talking about and then having them dismissed as "not relevant". I apologize. I didn't mean to dismiss your points about medieval feudalism. Clearly, you have a much better understanding of medieval feudalism than I do. I suggest though that your very familiarity with medieval feudalism is hindering your ability to see a feudal technocracy as something different. I feel that it is in terms of *technocracy* and how a technocratic system might be "feudal" that I have failed the most in communicating my ideas. I will endeavor to be more successful. > it's > also possible that if someone looked at a new type of government and called > it 'feudal' something, they might be having dictionary definitions in mind > too. Certainly, but they chose to call it "feudal technocracy", not "technocractic feudalism". This is an important distinction when one is focusing on precise definitions. > By analogy a feudal technocracy is > one where the lord gives out industrial fiefs in support for allegiance > and support. Gee, I could have sworn I said this before. 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. > The second half of my argument substitutes industrial holdings for > land in order to derive a definition of a feudal _technocracy_ and assumes > an analogous treatment of those holdings. Here's one problem in communication. We do not share the same definition of an "industrial holding". I believe to you this means a single corporate entity, a company. To me, it is a block of stock - a share - in an industrial enterprise. I believe my definition is more accurate but in any event we ought to be able to discuss this in common language now. We both see an "industrial holding" as being the equivalent feudal "fief" but we have identified them as different things. > That seems to be the problem in a nutshell. You don't see it. Why? What do > you know that I don't? From where do you derive your deep insight into how > feudal Europe REALLY worked? Tell me what books I've missed. Alas, I'm not discussing how medieval feudalism worked. I'm trying to show how some of the *practices* of medieval feudalism would be manifest in a futuristic *technocracy*. This is another source of our communication problem. > >The key part of the lord's end of the feudal > >agreement was the provision of coordinated security services, not some > >tenuous grant of land possession. > > Is this something you just know? Who told you? Not the dictionary. Did > you read it in a book? Quotes, please. This is the "key part" of the feudal arrangement that will be manifest in a feudal technocracy. In `theory' one might say that a corporation `owns' its shares and merely `grants possession' of them to it shareholders in return for `services rendered' in the form of financial capital. > I just don't see how the shareholders in your description of a feudal > technocracy acts any different from the shareholders in any other > system with corporations. The standard capitalist society, for example. > Where does the feudal come into it? In a capitalist market economy an external governmental entity exists to provide the legal framework for interactions between actors in the market. (This lack of a stable source of legal authority is the major barrier to market reforms in Russia today.) In a feudal technocracy, feudal principles provide the legal framework for interractions in the marketplace. > >The various shareholders in a *particular* corporation all hold `fealty' > >to the Chairman of *that* company. > > How? Why? They elected him (well 51+% of them did). They can fire him any > time they want to. Legally. They employ him. Where's the fealthy in that? The various shareholders can only act through cooperation. An individual shareholder cannot fire the Chairman (the `technocractic lord') on their own (unless they hold a controlling share which is uncommon). Thus they can only remove the technocractic lord if a majority of the shareholders (vassals) agree that she had failed in her duties as prescribed by the `feudal' arrangement. (These are primarily related to the generation of profits for the firm.) Keep in mind that this is not equivalent to contemporary market systems which have an external governmental entity to define *all* aspects of the system from embezzlement to anti-trust action. > The king's vassals have all sworn to support him. Did the shareholders > swear to support their Chairman? No. They offered him a good salary and > a pension plan. Not fealthy. No, they provide the technocratic lord with financial capital. This is the equivalent to `fealty' in a technocracy. (The enterprise provides the Chairman's salary and pension. A few years back Lee Iacocca was paid *one* dollar one year. Clearly, there is a different principle at work here than the mere employee-employer relationship of the corporate model.) > At the moment I'm not looking at the Sword worlds at all. I'm looking at > the whole concept of feudal technocracy. Of which I have several times > said: "By analogy, a feudal technocracy is one where industrial holdings > takes the place of land". I then presented a definition of a feudal > society. Let's have your definitions. Not examples, since I'm apparently > to dim to understand them. Straight definitions. See. I don't want to talk about medieval feudalism. I want to talk about how aspects of feudalism will be manifest in a futuristic technocracy. > Take an early feudal society. See a knight who holds a manor from a baron. > See him give two fingers to his baron. See his baron take his (the baron's) > manor back from the knight and decorate the gate with the knight's head. Not if the if the rest of the baron's knights had the same beef. > >Okay, I stand corrected. I maintain though that this `ownership' was not > >the important, *practical* aspect of the lord's part of the feudal > >agreement. Rather, it was his provision of coordinated military services > >that was what *mattered* in the feudal arrangement. > > Why do you maintain that? What facts do you base this on? How come you > know more than the dictionary (Not just a snide question. Dictionaries > have been known to be wrong. But I do feel that the burden of proof is > on you in this case. Why do you think feudal society differed so > radically in theory and practice? Let's have some reasons). I guess I should have said "`ownership *is* not the important" and "coordinated military service that *is* what *matters*" and added that I was speaking in terms of how feudalism is manifest in a technocracy. > >Okay, I stand corrected again, You're talking about the *philosophy* of > >feudalism (the legal basis) and I'm talking about the *practice* of it (its > >practical implementation). > > Oh, are you? That means that you can quote me reams of examples of how > things really worked in practice, while I won't be able to find very > many examples of thing working according to the mere theory, right? > Would you care to begin? Again, I guess I should have been more clear that I was talking about how the principles of feudalism would be manifest in a futuristic technocracy. I didn't realize that we were arguing over what medieval feudalism was. I thought we were trying to discover what feudal technocracy would be. > I repeat: the shareholders in a corporation is a > conglomerate owner. It's not the same. It's *very* different. A single owner needs no system of rules to govern how she makes her decisions. A group of shareholders *does*. In a feudal technocracy it is my view that feudal principles will serve as this system. > I suggest you make up your mind on that on a case by case basis. Certainly > any great difference between theory and practice makes relying on the > theory problematical. But what is the great, yawning chasm between theory > and practice in this instance? Why are shareholders not like an owner? > (And why is a raven like a writing desk? ;-) Shareholders are not like a single owner because they require a set of principles to govern their coordinated (there's that word again) actions. It is specifically the portions of the medieval feudal definition that relate to the ownership of *land* that are *least* useful when trying to understand how feudal principles might be applied to a futuristic technocracy. > And just how does the technocratic king (your version) differ from the > Chairman of a corporation? If there isn't any difference then why have > two seperate names for the same system? Well, I don't really see the differences in names or titles as relevant. I see the Chairman as serving in the role of technocratic *baron* (if there was one single Chairman in the entire economy then she would be `king'). There are some differences here because the contemporary market system is not the same as a feudal technocracy due to the influence and role of government entities external to the marketplace. This is where the *kieretsu* come in because the relationships among the players there occur (mostly) outside the influence of the government. (You must realize that none of these examples fit the model entirely.) > The medieval vassals provided various kind of service in return for > holding the land. The people you describe acquire their holdings > and band together for mutual benefit. The first is a feudal system. > The second is just a gang. I disagree. Medieval feudal vassals "banded together for mutual benefit" under an aristocratic lord who provided coordinated security services. Forget the focus on `land' and one might descibe this as a mere `gang' as well. (I don't choose to, mind you.) > This bloc of shares you're talking about. Does it have any sort of > coherence? Is it all shares in one single corporation, or is it simply > a portfolio? I would express this the other way around. It is a *portfolio* rather than `simply' shares in a single corporation. A group of shares in a single corporate entity makes the shareholder the `vassal' of the `baron' of that particular corporation. As the holder of different blocks of shares in a variety of corporations I will have a variety of `vassal' relationships to several different `barons'. This is how the technocracy becomes more complicated but I believe this sort of situation even occurred under the medieval feudal system on occasion (and I can't cite examples). Rememeber as well that each `baron', each corporation, also holds shares (or is bound by other relationships such as supplier agreements) to other `barons', who might be better classed as `counts' or even `dukes'. > Is it possible to put a lable on the bloc and call it > something other than 'Martin Vesterlund's current stock portfolio'? Can > it be called 'The barony of Thorvallsmines' and is there a specific baronial > title associated with it? Can the title be transferred to someone else by > sale or inheritance? Can the bloc be sold off in small bits, and if it does, > what happens to the title? Certainly. Why wouldn't this be the case? The `title' (which is actually the definition of the prescribed responsibilities associated with that share of stock) transfers with ownership by sale or inheritance or whatever. If a particular block of stock represents a majority or even full holding then one might call is something like `the Barony of Traskon'. :-) > Who decides on the new title? And if a 'fief' is just a stock portfolio, > what's the difference between this system and any capitalist society? The title is defined by the feudal responsibilities associated with that block of shares. Contemporary market systems attach no such relationship to shareholding because all such responsibilities are provided through the external government entity. Remember this is not just legal things like right to ownership and such but basic principles of the entire economic system like currency supplies, interest rates, rates of exchange, etc. (Recall Steve Bonneville's post that pointed out most *zaibatsu* were organized around a central bank.) > Why not? I wasn't talking about the Isle of Man. I was talking about an isolated island that existed independent of any other feudal system. A privately- held corporation is in essence `outside' the rest of the economic system if you focus merely on *ownership* as too much of the medieval model might lead you to do. > So the baronies you're talking about has nothing to do with the examples > we see in _Space Viking_? I think the system I'm describing fits *Space Viking* pretty darn well. Mind you I'm not sure Beam put the effort into his system that we've already put in here! :-) > (All the fiefs we hear named are owned by one > single person apiece - We don't know this. *All* we know is that *Trask* owned *Traskon*. > what you claim to be isolated baronies that are > not part of the feudal structure (this might surprise Duke Angus to learn)). A wholly-owned holding still may still be part of the feudal system if the feudal arrangements cover things in addition to mere ownership. The feudal arrangement for Traskon Barony may have descibed things like the price Wardshaven would pay for Traskon beef, the nature of such transfers, where Traskon acquired feed for its bisonoids, how veterinary services were received, hiring and pay issues for ranch hands, etc., etc., etc. Remember, in a contemporary market economy the external government entity does most of these things. There is no external government entity in a feudal technocracy. > You DO mean a stock portfolio! How do you figure out the baronial titles? I don't know. How did they do it in medieval times? I imagine something in the feudal agreement defines these sorts of things. > OK. I arrive on Gram with a draft for a billion credits in my back pocket. Well, I think you could probably figure this out yourself now but here goes. You are Hans, Baron of Spindleworks (under the Duke of Megatronics), Count of Gronemetrics (under the Duke of Dynaline), Duke of Gombril, and a minor squire to a half dozen other lords. You hold fealty to all of these lords. You probably have dozens of your own vassals now. (Now please don't hold me to specifics here, but you get the idea I hope.) You see that if King Anders of Gram were to do this on Sacnoth he would be in vassalage to any lord of which he owned a minority holding. > >>Nope. The central tenet of feudalism is *service* as a medium of repayment. > > > >Again, you're arguing feudal *theory* and I'm arguing feudal *practice*. > > Again you dismiss evidence without any further argument. Again, I apologize. I should have said "medieval feudal theory (or practice)" and "futuristic feudal technocractic practice". > I am. The company is IMO the FT equivalent of the feudal land holding. > Like Karvalmills is one holding. Traskon is one. Etc. Now you see how I'm using "industrial holding" differently. There is nothing about a technocracy that requires a holding to be held in full. (And I'm not sure you can support the claim that Karvallmills was held in full. Also, it's even possible that Trask only held a majority interest in Traskon. Angus would still have gained control had Trask only sold a majority holding. The very fact that Nik Trask was appointed Vicar-Baron suggests he might have held a minority interest.) > It does. Each company is a fief, owned by a nobleman. All the fiefs > together constitutes the entire economy. *Technocractically-speaking*, what's the rationale for insisting that all companies must be held in full? > >To use the *Space Viking* model, there were probably `veterinary service' > >fiefs under Traskon and `geological service' fiefs under Karvalmills, > > Propably? What makes you say that? Where does it even imply that anywhere > in the book? Nothing. How does it conflict with what's in the book? It helps me explain what's required for an economy, any economy, to function though. > >Ownership was not the legal basis for homage in Piper's Sword > >Worlds. > > >Profit generation was. > > Elucidate, please. What `service' did Duke Angus provide to Trask and Karvall and his other vassals that was equivalent to the medieval duke riding forth with his knight to protect an embattled baron? (I suppose you'll say the same military service. Ug!) What the Duchy of Wardshaven did, IMHO, was coordinate economic activites (there's the feudal part) so that the economic baronies of his vassals were able to function. The Bank of Wardshaven provided a source of investment capital for Karvallmills to purchase milling equipment, some other vassal provided civil engineering services so that Traskon had reliable water supplies, Karvallmills provided collapsium for the vehicle manufacturing barony to build earthmovers for the civil engineering barony, etc., etc., etc. > I base my argument on the analogy between a > medieval barony and what I believe to be the feudal technocratic > equivalent of such a barony. I don't see much technocracy in your model. If political power is based merely on industrial (as opposed to land) holdings where does the "government by those with specialized knowledge" part of technocracy come in? Your model of feudal technocracy looks merely like futuristic feudalism to me. > And that it was called "The Barony of Traskon", not "Lucas > Trask's holdings". Excuse me for being dense, but what's the difference what it's called? As I envision it (and as I've *tried* to describe it) the terms `barony' and `holdings' mean the same thing. Okay, before I get into to my entire "IBM as feudal technocratic barony" model let me make the disclaimer that despite the fact the I was using the real names of the CEO and former CEO all my references to shareholders (teachers' union and such) are strictly for illustrative purposes and do not have anything remotely to do with the actual situation at IBM. > Bingo! There's the fallacy. The teacher's union dosen't become a vassal, > it becomes a part owner. You say, "Tomato." Dan Qualye says, "Tomatoe." :-) It's the same thing. In a feudal *technocractic* model a `part owner' *is* a vassal. > In a capitalist society CEO Akers isn't a lord, he is an employee of the > teacher's union pension fund and the other part owners. Well, yes, but I wasn't talking about a market economy. I was using this example to illustrate how a feudal technocracy works. > In a feudal > technocracy he would be a vassal What can I say? We have exactly opposite understandings here. Again, you're focused on the ownership of land, or now shares of stock. You get this from your understanding of medieval feudalism. Where does the technocracy fit in your model? Or does the mere fact that there's `something technical' about IBM or any industrial firm satisfy you in this regard? IMHO, `technocracy' describes the basis for the ruling class's exercise of authority and `feudal' describes the nature of the relationships between the members of this ruling class. > What's so complicated about medieval Germany? Wasn't one of the problems with the formation of a nation-state in Germany the fact that under the feudal system there the holdings were always split among all the heirs of a dead lord? This led to more and more fragmentation among the various principalities and greater and greater intermingling of the feudal agreements between various barons. This was unlike the experience in other medieval nations where holdings passed to the eldest heir. (Or do I need to get my money back for those Western Civ courses? :-) > I certainly am. So did a lot of feudal lords. Look at the whole business > of the civil war between Stephen of Blois and the Empress Maud. Some > lords, like Geoffery de Manderville, played fast and loose with their oaths > and their allegiance, but lot's of noblemen actually acted on the 'theory'. Again, I admit I'm way out of my league here. Let's get away from medieval fedualism and back to feudal technocracy. > >Do you suppose Duke Angus was acting within `legal' bounds when he invaded > >Glaspyth? > > He propably was. Angus and Omfray were both sovereign lords. And what was the basis of this `legal' authority? How was it defined? Under what jurisdiction could such a dispute be brought for adjudication? > They don't? I thought they owned a big slice of IBM? Why don't they have > any right to do so? And if they don't, how did they manage it, and why > isn't this Akers person suing the pants off them? A minority shareholder has no legal influence in a corporation (other than that pertaining specifically to the ownership of its shares). A large minority shareholder nevertheless has a great deal of *influence* among other shareholders and can sway these other shareholders to action against the Chairman of it can convince them that the Chairman, by not adequately providing coordinated profit services, has violated his `feudal' duties. It *is* legal for a majority of shareholders to `fire' the Chairman. Your question about `suing' illustrates the difference between our market economy and a feudal technocracy once again - there is no external entity under which to seek such redress in a feudal technocracy. > You keep saying that, but how does it work? Start with the basic building > blocks, show me how they hang together and why it works fundamentally > differently from a garden variety capitalist society. Are you beginning to see the difference? In a market economy a government entity external to the marketplace provides the framework of principles which govern the nature of interactions in the marketplace. In a feudal technocracy these principles will be provided by the feudal agreements. > Why not? You have a world. The world is a feudal technocracy. They produce > a king. The king sez: "No sale of industry to outsiders. Dixit". They just > happen to have a balanced economy. How are they vulnerable? Could a medieval king do this if a majority of his barons did not support this move? It's my view that in a feudal technocracy a majority of barons would not support a king who proposed this course of action because it is counter to the enhancement of profit. If someone shows up from offworld with a wad of cash willing to pay twice what you think your ranching barony is worth and your liege tells you you can't do it you're going to be mighty displeased. It's as if a medieval king had proposed unilateral disarmament! Now let's talk about economic might. The entire Mexican economy is about 5% of the US economy. Where would Mexican industry be in the face of US industry if there were not an external government entity (the Mexican government) trying to protect it and another external government entity (the US government) making some effort to see that US industry respect the will of the Mexican government? The entire European Union economy is about 120% of the US economy but it is highly fractured when compared to US industry. The only thing protecting European industry from being diced up and swallowed by US industry is the intervention once again of external government entities on both sides of the Atlantic (this is, in fact, a major motivation behind the whole idea of the European Union) and these powers enjoy roughly the same level of technological capability. Does that give you some insight on what Sacnoth *ought* to be able to do to Gram under a feudal technocracy where there are *no* external government entities to protect less powerful economic players? Remember, we have already tied technological capability to economic output so *clearly* Sacnoth's technological edge over Gram should translate to an equivalent economic edge. > Try to consider the possibility that the definitions are as they are > because that's the way things worked at times. Accepted. How does a technocracy work? How is a futuristic feudal technocracy different from medieval feudalism? > So why use the word 'feudal' if the arrangement isn't feudal? Two things: Feudalism was much more than the ties to ownership of land; and a feudal technocracy is something quite different from medieval fedualism. Peace, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bundle: 640 Archive-Message-Number: 7996 Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 00:28:47 -0700 From: "Glenn M. Goffin" Subject: Feudal Technocracy I've been enjoying the discussion so far. Please advise as to whether I'm summarizing correctly (that will depend on which camp you're in, I suppose): Historical feudalism could be described as a "feudal landlord-ocracy," in which the landowner granted the right to use his land to certain vassals. The vassals obtained the land and the people on the land (serfs, peasants, or tenant farmers), and were obliged to fight at the landlord's bidding, and usually to provide some men-at-arms from the people. The people gave all of their surplus production (food in historical times -- I'm referring to Europe, but there were analogous situations in Japan, China, and Russia as well) to the landlord's vassal. The people got protection from outside enemies -- the landlord and his vassals would protect their lands and the people on them -- as well as from internal problems -- their lord, the landlord's vassal, would establish as manorial court and provide police-type services. The landlord's vassals got the surplus of the lands, which could be traded, as well as often absolute power over the people. The landlord got troops, as well as taxes, and the surplus of his own personal holdings. Maybe I've left some details out, but that's how I recall European feudalism working in broad outline (remember from history class, not from being there). In a feudal technocracy, some technology is substituted for the land; rule is by the owners of the technology, who grant a right to use it to some vassal class. The vassals then hold the technology and the people who apply it. The people give the technocrat's vassals their surplus production (which is probably not food), which the vassals can sell. Probably the people give all of their production to the vassal class (vassal is really a misnomer here; it just means someone who owes fealty to someone higher in the feudal hierarchy), which sells it and pays a wage to the people who buy items for their subsistence. The vassals owe the technocrat something -- possibly military service, or the provision of some military items. Perhaps the vassal's fief creates enough surplus production to finance a tank or a COACC fighter. It's very unlikely that the vassal and his men-at-arms just show up for war, but it's not impossible, either. 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? Ok this probably has ended up obfuscating more than clarifying. I'll try again when I'm fresher. Here are two unrelated questions (maybe not so unrelated): How have referees handled the question of slavery in the CT era? Do your Imperia allow slaves? Interstellar slave trading? Feudal technocratic serfdom? Labor unions? Scratch that last one for now -- in fact, scratch the last two. I want to know about your views on regular sophont-as-chattel slavery in the CT Imperium (and other states, too, I suppose). What were the cultural effects of the psionics suppressions? Are religious visions considered a form of clairvoyance, and persecuted? Are mind-altering drugs associated with the Zhodani and avoided? Or are they embraced as a way of altering one's own mind without the interference of another person? Do people make psionic jokes? Is meditation outlawed (or embraced)? Is hypnotherapy practiced? What about psychiatry? What about neurosurgery? ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 640 Archive-Message-Number: 7995 From: rancke(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: Re: All: PoliSci 5006: Feudal Technocracy Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 08:50:25 +0100 (METDST) David Johnson writes: >I didn't mean to dismiss your points about medieval feudalism. Clearly, you >>have a much better understanding of medieval feudalism than I do. Hey! You'll be making me blush next. I'm no expert. I have read quite a lot of historical fiction, including some set in this time frame, but I know full well that one should be wary of relying on such information. Some fiction authors know what they're talking about, others definitely do not. That's why I checked with a dictionary. >I suggest though that your very familiarity with medieval feudalism >is hindering your ability to see a feudal technocracy as something different. Not quite. It's the basis of MY assumptions about feudal technocracy. I realize that if a feudal technocracy is not feudal, then it may work very differently. What is hindering my ability to see it working differently is my faiure to see any fundamental difference between what you describe and ordinary capitalism. >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. In the first case the vassal does not pay money to acquire the fief, he undertakes to perform the technical duties involved in running it. In other words, he agrees to perform a service in exchange for the holding. In the second case he possesses goods equivalent in value to the holding and pays for it. In the first case he is obviously beholden to the lord, since he has been given something for nothing (or rather, nothing more than his solemn word that he will perform certain services as compensation. That is of course quite a lot in any society where a man's word is considered important). In a sense he is paying rent on is holding, except that he pays his rent party or totally in service - and that is a central facet of a feudal arrangment: service as payment for tenancy. In the second case he is under no obigation to the seller. Goods of (supposedly) equal value has been exchanged. >>The second half of my argument substitutes industrial holdings for >>land in order to derive a definition of a feudal _technocracy_ and assumes >>an analogous treatment of those holdings. > >Here's one problem in communication. We do not share the same definition of >an "industrial holding". I believe to you this means a single corporate >entity, a company. Right. >To me, it is a block of stock - a share - in an industrial enterprise. So I gather. Now the question becomes, does it make sense? >I believe my definition is more accurate Of course you do. Otherwise you would be agreeing with me. >Alas, I'm not discussing how medieval feudalism worked. I'm trying to >show how some of the *practices* of medieval feudalism would be manifest >in a futuristic *technocracy*. This is another source of our communication >problem. For a start I'd ike a definition of a technocracy. Not a FT, but any system that can be described as a technocracy. What are the essential features of a technocracy? >In `theory' one might say that a corporation `owns' its shares and merely >`grants possession' of them to it shareholders in return for `services >rendered' in the form of financial capital. That would be an extremely distorted view of a very simple arrangement: A number of people pool their ressources to become joint owners of a business. >In a capitalist market economy an external governmental entity exists to >provide the legal framework for interactions between actors in the market. That turns out not to be the case. 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. Yet would you claim that the interactions between the U.S, EU, Japan, Russia, China, ect. is not capitalist in nature? >(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. 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. >In a feudal technocracy, feudal >principles provide the legal framework for interractions in the marketplace. But the principles you've mentioned is not feudal. >>>The various shareholders in a *particular* corporation all hold `fealty' >>>to the Chairman of *that* company. >> >>How? Why? They elected him (well 51+% of them did). They can fire him any >>time they want to. Legally. They employ him. Where's the fealthy in that? > >The various shareholders can only act through cooperation. As is the case in any corporation. >An individual shareholder cannot fire the Chairman [...] on their own (unless >they hold a controlling share which is uncommon). As is the case in any corporation. >Thus they can only remove the technocractic lord if a majority of the >shareholders (vassals) agree that she had failed in her duties as >prescribed by the `feudal' arrangement. Which seems to be a normal, standard business relationship. We buy a part of the company. A majority of us decides how it should be run and hire someone to do it for us. If he dosen't perform as we like, we fire him and hire someone else. >(These are primarily related to the generation of profits for the firm.) As is the case in any corporation. >Keep in mind that this is not equivalent to contemporary market systems >which have an external governmental entity to define *all* aspects of the >system from embezzlement to anti-trust action. 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? >>The king's vassals have all sworn to support him. Did the shareholders >>swear to support their Chairman? No. They offered him a good salary and >>a pension plan. Not fealthy. > >No, they provide the technocratic lord with financial capital. This is >the equivalent to `fealty' in a technocracy. Why call it 'fealthy' then, since it isn't remotely like fealthy? >(The enterprise provides the Chairman's salary and pension. Of course it does. His salary (and pension) is an operating expense. Naturally the enterprise has to generate enough money to cover that. Wether the salary is fixed or depends on profits has no bearing on that (It has a lot of bearing on the Chairman's incentive to strive for the best possible results). >A few years back Lee Iacocca was paid *one* dollar one year. Clearly, there >is a different principle at work here than the mere employee-employer >relationship of the corporate model.) No. This merely means that his salary depends on the results he gets. >>Take an early feudal society. See a knight who holds a manor from a baron. >>See him give two fingers to his baron. See his baron take his (the baron's) >>manor back from the knight and decorate the gate with the knight's head. > >Not if the if the rest of the baron's knights had the same beef. But the other knights dosen't have a beef. We were talking about how an employee has to obey orders or get fired. So does a knight. Unless he can talk the other knights into joining him. Just as an employee who gets his fellow empoyees to support him might get away with a strike. >>I repeat: the shareholders in a corporation is a conglomerate owner. >It's not the same. Not quite. >It's *very* different. Not very. >A single owner needs no system of rules to govern how she makes her >decisions. A group of shareholders *does*. They need one rule: Decisions are taken by a share majority. The only difference between shareholders and a single owner is that the single owner can run his company himself OR hire someone to do it, while shareholders HAS to hire someone (although that someone can be one of the shareholders, maybe even a majority shareholder, in which case the difference is even less). >In a feudal technocracy it is my view that feudal principles will >serve as this system. Principles, you say? As in theory? OK. What feudal principles? >Shareholders are not like a single owner because they require a set of >principles to govern their coordinated (there's that word again) actions. They _require_ ONE pinciple: Majority rules. They can have more. >It is specifically the portions of the medieval feudal definition that >relate to the ownership of *land* that are *least* useful when trying to >understand how feudal principles might be applied to a futuristic >technocracy. That's unfortunate, because that is the basis of the whole feudal system. And that, of course, is why a system where you can become a vassal by running a business instead of a land holding cannot be called a straight feudality, but must be qualified to include industrial holdings. >>And just how does the technocratic king (your version) differ from the >>Chairman of a corporation? If there isn't any difference then why have >>two seperate names for the same system? > >Well, I don't really see the differences in names or titles as relevant. No, I meant a feudal technocracy and any other capitalist system. If there isn't any real difference why have two seperate names for the same systems? >I see the Chairman as serving in the role of technocratic *baron* Agreed. >(if there was one single Chairman in the entire economy then she would be >`king'). Only if she partitioned out the various industries to fiefholders in return for their services. Otherwise it would be an autocracy. >>The medieval vassals provided various kind of service in return for >>holding the land. The people you describe acquire their holdings >>and band together for mutual benefit. The first is a feudal system. >>The second is just a gang. > >I disagree. Medieval feudal vassals "banded together for mutual benefit" >under an aristocratic lord who provided coordinated security services. No, no, no. The cornerstone of the feudal arrangement were the manorial holdings a big landholder gave to strong men in return for their promise to support him. That made them vassals and him a feudal lord - a sovereign feudal lord. It was these lords who banded together under princes or kings for mutual benefit. Eventually the difference between the king's own direct vassals, who had sworn fealthy to him in return for land, and the other feudal lords who had sworn fealthy to him in return for protection, became blurred and in the end those sovereign lords were not sovereign any more. >It is a *portfolio* rather than `simply' shares in a single corporation. A >group of shares in a single corporate entity makes the shareholder the >`vassal' of the `baron' of that particular corporation. I can well understand that you put 'vassal' and 'baron' in quotes, because this has nothing to do with vassalage og baronies. It's simpy a fancy way of saying that if you buy some shares in a corporation you and your fellow shareholders get to elect the man who runs the business and in return he should make sure the shares pay dividends, because if not you will fire him. >Certainly. Why wouldn't this be the case? The `title' (which is actually >the definition of the prescribed responsibilities associated with that >share of stock) transfers with ownership by sale or inheritance or whatever. So a 'title' isn't a title either. >The title is defined by the feudal responsibilities associated with that >block of shares. Contemporary market systems attach no such relationship >to shareholding because all such responsibilities are provided through the >external government entity. If you mean that a government will enforce obligations freely entered into by subjects of that government, then you're right, but what's that got to do with it? The 'responsibiities' inherent in paying money for shares in a company is usually defined by the parties involved without recourse to the government. "I pay you for part of that company. I get a say in who we hire to run it. I get a share of the profits. Agreed?". The government need only ensure that people keep their word (athough admittedely most governments don't have the good sense to stop there). >Remember this is not just legal things like >right to ownership and such but basic principles of the entire economic >system like currency supplies, interest rates, rates of exchange, etc. You'll have to explain that. How does owning shares in a company allow me to have a say about currencies, interest rates, and rates of exchange, etc? >A privately-held corporation is in essence `outside' the rest of the >economic system if you focus merely on *ownership* as too much of the >medieval model might lead you to do. But I don't focus *merely* on ownership. A medieval fief-holder certainly interacted with other people than his liege lord. Like all the neighbours for a start. Likewise a private company interacts with other companies as much as any corporation. In fact, if you were the chairman of a company dealing with the chairman of another company then it would matter not a whit wether you had been hired by a single owner or a bunch of shareholders. Nor would it matter if he had been hired by one or the other. >I think the system I'm describing fits *Space Viking* pretty darn well. I think it fits terribly. Obviously this is a different subject. >>(All the fiefs we hear named are owned by one single person apiece - > >We don't know this. *All* we know is that *Trask* owned *Traskon*. You don't think Sesar Karvall owned Karvallmills? Andray Dunnan did. So did whoever it was who called him 'Baron of Karvallmills'. >>what you claim to be isolated baronies that are >>not part of the feudal structure (this might surprise Duke Angus to learn)). > >A wholly-owned holding still may still be part of the feudal system if the >feudal arrangements cover things in addition to mere ownership. A feudal arrangement is not about mere ownership. It's about tenancy in exchange for service. >The feudal arrangement for Traskon Barony may have descibed things like the >price Wardshaven would pay for Traskon beef, the nature of such transfers, >where Traskon acquired feed for its bisonoids, how veterinary services >were received, hiring and pay issues for ranch hands, etc., etc., etc. There's not a shred of evidence to support that. The only thing we are told for sure is that the fighting men of Traskon and Karvallmills henceforth will be seen as solidly behind Duke Angus. Very possibly Trask and Karvall have been independent (though themselves feudal lords to _their_ liegemen) until the wedding and the ceremony we see is the public declaration of fealthy to Angus. >>I am. The company is IMO the FT equivalent of the feudal land holding. >>Like Karvalmills is one holding. Traskon is one. Etc. > >Now you see how I'm using "industrial holding" differently. Yes. What I can't see is how your 'industrial holding' differs from an ordinary stock portfolio. And if there isn't any diference then why have a special name for the system? >>It does. Each company is a fief, owned by a nobleman. All the fiefs >>together constitutes the entire economy. > >*Technocractically-speaking*, what's the rationale for insisting that all >companies must be held in full? That the service a vassal gives in return for an industrial holding is to manage the holding for the liege lord. Since the holding is a business of some kind the vassal has to be competent to run the business. >>>Ownership was not the legal basis for homage in Piper's Sword >>>Worlds. Profit generation was. >> >>Elucidate, please. > >What `service' did Duke Angus provide to Trask and Karvall and his other >vassals that was equivalent to the medieval duke riding forth with his >knight to protect an embattled baron? (I suppose you'll say the same >military service. Ug!) Right. 'The fighting men of Traskon and Karvallmills', remember? And Lucas explained that the reason he supported Angus was that Angus was the only duke Lucas thought had a chance to unite Gram and become a king, and Lucas thought a king was a good idea. And how did Angus unite Gram? He used his fighting men to conquer the lords he couldn't persuade to support him. >What the Duchy of Wardshaven did, IMHO, was coordinate economic activites >(there's the feudal part) so that the economic baronies of his vassals were >able to function. What's the difference between this and what the head of a conglomorate does that makes it feudal in any way, shape, or form? >The Bank of Wardshaven provided a source of investment capital for >Karvallmills to purchase milling equipment, some other vassal provided >civil engineering services so that Traskon had reliable water supplies, >Karvallmills provided collapsium for the vehicle manufacturing barony >to build earthmovers for the civil engineering barony, etc., etc., etc. That may be so, but there's not one jot of evidence in the book that this was the basis of the feudal relationship between Trask and Karvall on one side and Duke Angus on the other, and some evidence to the contrary. And btw, to fit your above definition, shouldn't Trask and Karvall own a share of Wardshaven in order to be Angus' vassals? >I don't see much technocracy in your model. If political power is based >merely on industrial (as opposed to land) holdings where does the >"government by those with specialized knowledge" part of technocracy >come in? You need to be able to perform whatever technical task your holding demands in order to perform the service you pay for your tenancy. >Your model of feudal technocracy looks merely like futuristic feudalism to >me. Right. But since the whole definition of feudalism has to do with land, a system where industrial holdings can substitute cannot be called true feudalism. >>Bingo! There's the fallacy. The teacher's union dosen't become a vassal, >>it becomes a part owner. > >You say, "Tomato." Dan Qualye says, "Tomatoe." :-) It's the same thing. >In a feudal *technocractic* model a `part owner' *is* a vassal. In spite of the fact that the relationship between a part owner and the chairman he helped elect is nothing remotely like the relationship between a vassal and his liege lord. That's not "Tomato/tomatoe". That's "Tomato/fried egg". >>In a capitalist society CEO Akers isn't a lord, he is an employee of the >>teacher's union pension fund and the other part owners. > >Well, yes, but I wasn't talking about a market economy. I was using this >example to illustrate how a feudal technocracy works. And I was using the example to demonstrate that your concept of a liege lord was nothing more than an ordinary business chairman. Nothing like a liege lord at all. >>In a feudal technocracy he would be a vassal > >What can I say? We have exactly opposite understandings here. Again, you're >focused on the ownership of land, or now shares of stock. Not shares. Companies. >Where does the technocracy fit in your model? Or does the mere fact that there's `something technical' about IBM or any industrial firm satisfy you in this regard? If it hadn't been for that four-line definition provided by GDW then that would have been enough. To satisfy that I add that these holdings require the vassal to run them himself. >IMHO, `technocracy' describes the basis for the ruling class's exercise >of authority and `feudal' describes the nature of the relationships between >the members of this ruling class. All very well. I admit that I may be on thin ice with the 'technocracy' part (Maybe a definition of 'technocracy' would help). But you are under the ice about the feudal relationship. Nothing you've described resembles a feudal arrangement. >>>Do you suppose Duke Angus was acting within `legal' bounds when he invaded >>>Glaspyth? >> >>He propably was. Angus and Omfray were both sovereign lords. > >And what was the basis of this `legal' authority? How was it defined? >Under what jurisdiction could such a dispute be brought for adjudication? That's the whole problem with sovereignity. There is no authority over the sovereign. That's one reason petty lords support a king: to provide a legal authority to settle their disputes. >A minority shareholder has no legal influence in a corporation (other than >that pertaining specifically to the ownership of its shares). Like the right to replace the chairman if he can get enough other share- holders to agree. >A large minority shareholder nevertheless has a great deal of *influence* >among other shareholders and can sway these other shareholders to action >against the Chairman of it can convince them that the Chairman, by not >adequately providing coordinated profit services, has violated his `feudal' >duties. Or, as it could also be expressed, that by not doing his job properly the Chairman had become a liability and should be replaced by his employers. >It *is* legal for a majority of shareholders to `fire' the Chairman. That's what I thought. >Your question about `suing' illustrates the difference between our market >economy and a feudal technocracy once again - there is no external entity >under which to seek such redress in a feudal technocracy. Why can't there be? >Are you beginning to see the difference? In a market economy a government >entity external to the marketplace provides the framework of principles >which govern the nature of interactions in the marketplace. Except in those market economies where no government exists. A government is not an absolute requirement for a market (although it can be a big help in keeping people from shooting each other), nor does it _have_ to interfere with the market whose tranquiity it ensures (Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, few politicians can resist the temptation to meddle). >In a feudal >technocracy these principles will be provided by the feudal agreements. And in what way does these agreements differ from contracts? >>Why not? You have a world. The world is a feudal technocracy. They produce >>a king. The king sez: "No sale of industry to outsiders. Dixit". They just >>happen to have a balanced economy. How are they vulnerable? > >Could a medieval king do this if a majority of his barons did not support >this move? That would depend on wether they disliked the idea more than the idea of the disruption it would cause to depose the king. Or wether the king could make it worth the while of enough of them to agree. >It's my view that in a feudal technocracy a majority of barons would not >support a king who proposed this course of action because it is counter to >the enhancement of profit. Unless, maybe, the king can persuade you that dealing with an outsider is detrimental to your home planet and a treasonous, dastardly thing to do. >If someone shows up from offworld >with a wad of cash willing to pay twice what you think your ranching barony >is worth and your liege tells you you can't do it you're going to be mighty >displeased. Possibly, but will your neighbours be? Unless the offworlder can buy their holdings too, why would they care? Don't you think they would support the king against you? For that matter, would you sell that which gives you your position in society for mere money? >Now let's talk about economic might. [...] Does that give you some insight >on what Sacnoth *ought* to be able to do to Gram under a feudal technocracy >where there are *no* external government entities to protect less powerful >economic players? It does, except that I don't accept the postulate that a feudal technocracy can't have a government. Certainly not my concept of a FT and not even the kind of FT you've described. Even granted the conglomorate type society you call a feudal technocracy there's nothing to prevent the players on Gram from realizing that allowing the stronger Sacnoth players to play wil eventually mean loosing all the marbles to them. Now, if Gram needs something that only Sacnoth can provide, Sacnoth can use that dependency to force Gram to let them play. But if that vulnerability isn't there, Sacnoth can go fly a kite made out of their stronger credit notes. Or if Sacnoth is considerably stronger than Gram, militarily, they can force their way in, provided they are willing to use force. But if they aren't that much stronger, or if they aren't willing to use their strength, that still leaves them out in the cold. >Remember, we have already tied technological >capability to economic output so *clearly* Sacnoth's technological edge over >Gram should translate to an equivalent economic edge. Sure. In _TCS_ terms their money is worth the same (higher technology, but lower starport type, (indicating less trade relatively)). In _Striker_ terms their money is worth 14.3 % more. But 14% or even 50% superiority is cold comfort if you're exchanging nuclear missiles. >Two things: Feudalism was much more than the ties to ownership of land; >and a feudal technocracy is something quite different from medieval fedualism. Something different, obviouly. But as I mentioned earlier, I assumed from the start that 'feudal' had some meaning analogous its old one. Hans Rancke University of Copenhagen rancke(at)[-- redacted --] - ------------ "A subsector official pompously states that the subsector armed forces have four Kinunir class ships in service, each with enough troop strength to put down any military operations that threathen the peace of the Imperium." ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 641 Archive-Message-Number: 8011 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 00:03:13 -0700 From: "Glenn M. Goffin" Subject: Feudal technocracy potshots Potshots at feudal technocracy arguments: David Johnson writes: >This is the "key part" of the feudal arrangement that will be manifest in >a feudal technocracy. In `theory' one might say that a corporation `owns' >its shares and merely `grants possession' of them to it shareholders in >return for `services rendered' in the form of financial capital. This doesn't make any sense. Under what theory can a corporation own its shares and grant possession of them to shareholders, when shares themselves are merely evidence of ownership? Shareholders provide capital only once, when they buy. Lenders providing loan facilities maybe have some duty to render service in the form of providing capital. >No, they provide the technocratic lord with financial capital. This is >the equivalent to `fealty' in a technocracy. Fealty is loyalty. How is the provision of money equivalent to loyalty? 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. >I would express this the other way around. It is a *portfolio* rather than >`simply' shares in a single corporation. A group of shares in a single >corporate entity makes the shareholder the `vassal' of the `baron' of that >particular corporation. >You say, "Tomato." Dan Qualye says, "Tomatoe." :-) It's the same thing. >In a feudal *technocractic* model a `part owner' *is* a vassal. 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. The employees of the corporation are closer to vassals of the CEO, and maybe a feudal structure could be arranged around this idea. Hans Rancke writes >A feudal arrangement is not about mere ownership. It's about tenancy in >exchange for service. I (probably obviously) agree with this analysis. What is being held in tenancy, and what kind of service, are the defining issues here. The text: 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. [Book 3: Worlds and Adventures 11 (1981).] ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 641 Archive-Message-Number: 8013 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 13:21:33 BST From: tom(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: Re: Feudal Technocracies etc. > "Glenn M. Goffin" 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). > 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 | Tom(at)[-- redacted --] SCCS6085(at)[-- redacted --] - ---------------!-------------------------------------------------------------- Fact is stranger than fiction ------------------------------ Bundle: 641 Archive-Message-Number: 8014 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 13:28:24 BST From: tom(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: RE: feudal system -Magna Carta Given all the feudal discussion, just to tell you that the Magna Carta was signed at Runnymede on this day, 15 June, 1215 AD, when King John's strong baron's forced him to reduce his power and cede them more rights. :-) Tom Tom O'Neill | Tom(at)[-- redacted --] SCCS6085(at)[-- redacted --] - ---------------!-------------------------------------------------------------- Fact is stranger than fiction ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 642 Archive-Message-Number: 8018 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 09:30:14 +0600 From: RJR96326(at)[-- redacted --] (J Roberson) Subject: I can't believe it's not Feudalism! >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 RJR96326(at)[-- redacted --] Priss(at)[-- redacted --] ------------------------------ Bundle: 642 Archive-Message-Number: 8019 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 12:41:48 ADT From: "Les Howie" Reply-To: "Les Howie" Subject: A comment on Feudal Technocracy 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 ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 642 Archive-Message-Number: 8023 From: rancke(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: All: Spinward Marches census (singular?) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 01:25:57 +0100 (METDST) David Johnson writes: >First off, I thought we had given up on the technology issue? :-) More or less. But the discussion keeps shifting to new interesting aspects. Now you're trying to suspend our disbelief in the notion that three different UWP listings for the Spinward Marches made over a period of at least 12 years could possibly have _all_ the population data identical. >I merely stated that since there were changes to the UWP data over this >fifteen year period It is 17 years if your're talking about data from the earliest Traveller background material (which didn't have population multipliers) and 12 years if you're talking about the three full listings I've mentioned before. The only change I know of (although there may be others; I've only spot checked) is Regina's change from TL 10 to TL 12, and it was suggested that that was merely a correction of a typo. >*and* the population and other figures were not changed that it must be >*assumed* to have been done intentionally. Only if there is no simpler explanation. I suggest that they are all three based on the same census and that only the allegiance codes were updated for the _Imperial Encyclopedia_ and the _Megatraveller Journal_ publications. If there should be a few differences (and with a spot check of 10% of the systems I didn't find a single one) I suggest that they are typos or corections of typos. >I did a little arithmetic though and found some interesting numbers. A >population increase of 10% over a period of 15 years works out to an annual >rate of increase of 0.64%. Here are some `real' annual rates from a handy >1990 almanac (these are net figures, accounting for births, deaths and >migrations): > >US 0.7% >Denmark 0.0% >Japan 0.5% >Spain 0.5% >UK 0.2% >France 0.4% >USSR 1.0% >Greece 0.1% >Italy 0.0% >Germany -0.1% (a decrease!) >India 2.2% > >It's clear for `developed' countries that something less than a 10% increase >over a period of fifteen years is not unreasonable. Agreed. As a matter of fact I'm of the opinion that the history of the settlement of Charted Space does not make sense unless one postulates that most well-developed worlds (not excluding the Aslan ones) practise population control. But to go from there to the assumption that _all_ worlds in the Spinward Marches (a not yet developed area, after all) practise it is IMO to go to far. >Keep in mind as well that due to rounding conventions, a 10% increase (or >decrease) will not show up even in the PBG population multipler (the >mantissa) for values under 5 and that *only* a 10% *increase* will affect >the actual UWP population code *if* the population multipler is 9. I'm well aware of that. I used 10% as an average. Remember that roughly 10% of the worlds should have a mantissa of X.4 (whatever X may be) and that in that case considerably less than 10% increase is necessary to kick it over into the next higher number. A world with a mantissa of 8.4, for example, needs only a 1.2% increase to reach 8.5. Fulacin, a TL 5 world with a population of 543 million in 1105 needs only a 1.3% increase. In 17 years! >It's my impression that most worlds in the Spinward Marches are going to be >more equivalent in terms of population growth to contemporary `developed' >nations than to `developing' nations (just my opinion). They certainly _ought_ to be, since they've had up to ten centuries of developement. Yet Spinward Marches is again and again referred to as a 'frontier' - not only in the 'frontier with other nations' sense, but also the 'developing area' sense. Certainly scores of systems seems to be woefully undeveloped. >Furthermore, while one might expect high birth rates and low death rates >(due to available high tech medical care) on `developing' worlds one would >also expect high rates of *emigration* (to high population worlds) to keep >the net growth rate low. Now, are you SURE you're not allowing the discussion to affect your good sense here? I would expect a lot of emigration FROM high-population planets to developing low-population planets. That's usually the way it goes here on Earth: From the crowded (or opressive) to the less crowded. >In fact, it is internal migration that ought to have the greatest effect >on population for worlds within the Domain/Regency. Oh, sure. But that should register too, shouldn't it? >Now, I accept that it is quite incredulous not to see any change in *any* >world population over a span of fifteen years (and I suspect if we looked >hard enough we might even find a couple of changes due to errors in >transcription) but I submit the above information in an effort to suggest >that such an occurrence is not *impossible*. (Maybe only as unlikely as >the occurrence of `techno-economic cycles'. :-) Far more unlikely. I refer you to the examples of Forboldn, Fulacin, and Vanejen. Each of them ought to have had changes in population, most likely also TL and starport type in the case of the first two. In each case the lack of change could be explained away. But it would have to be explained AWAY. And my point is that if you need a new and distinct explanation for each world you examine, then a simpler solution that explains them all is to be preferred. I stand by my claim that the three different UWP listings we have are one and the same (and one that was already somewhat out of date in 1110). >Nevertheless, I believe we were discussing tech levels not population levels >and the fact that no tech levels changed still does not suggest that *any* >of them went *down* so the lack of any evidence for the `techno-economic >cycles' remains. (Remember, I've already admitted the *possibility* that >they *could* exist. I can just explain Gram's domination of the Sword >Worlds through the less incredulous agency of Zhodani aid.) ^^^^^^^^^^^ incredible, surely? I see no reason why both can't be true. Nevertheless, if you think that the Zhodani help alone is sufficient (and I don't intend to dispute that) and you don't believe the other then don't use it. (But I STILL think the developement of the Spinward Marches has been slow, SLOW, *S*L*O*W*!!!) >>There's no way all 400 worlds in the Spinward Marches could have had their >>population level totally stagnant for 15 years. Some of them, sure. Not >>even most of them, but some. > >It's *possible*, just not very damn likely. I'd say that it's the same kind of "possible" you get when you're talking about all the air in a room suddenly collecting under one table. Sure, it's *possible*. ;-) >>Try imagining economic boom cycles scaled to an interplanetary population, >>rather than a single planet population. If a depression is severe enough, >>the factories will close. > >Well, first off, it's my sense that as the size of the economy *increases* >it becomes *more* difficult for economic down turns to affect technological >capabilities (since there is more of a buffer to absorb down turns in >particular sectors). The size of a unified economy, yes. But do you really think that the Mexican economy is the more stable because of the size of the population of the US? >I've admitted this is possible though. So, please give me some sense of >your sense of the relative likeliness of these `techo-economic cycles' >occurring as compared to the likelihood of there being no population change >in the Marches over fifteen years. Twice as likely? Five times? Ten times? >A hundred times? It's my sense that these two occurrences are about >*equally* likely. :^) Oh, far, far from it. Orders of magnitude different. But then, I know something of statistics and can't see the population thing happening in a thousand years and have very little knowledge of economics and see no difficulty at all in those economic swings. As for putting numbers on it, that's difficult. But taking a wild stab I'd say that at any given year at least one in a hundred worlds inside the Imperium is getting shafted enough by outside manipulation to be on the decline and several times that number outside the Imperium. Exactly how long it takes for a downturn to affect the TL is another difficulty. Not less than 10 years, I'd say. And of course a downturn would not always last long enough (As you can see, I'm weaseling like crazy. That's because I really know too little about economics to put numbers on anything. But I'll have a shot at defending these ones). >>How severe? That's the whole point, isn't it? A planet with billions of >>inhabitants may be difficult to affect... but maybe not too dificult if >>you have even more billions of people to do it. > >Again, see above. As the size of the economy grows it becomes *more* >difficult for economic factors to affect overall technological capabilities. Yes, but are you saying that 10 billion people have a greater difficulty affecting 1 billion people than 1 billion people have affecting 100 million? My guessing bone tells me that the proportions would remain roughly the same. >>Seems to me I've heard about factories in third-world countries that have >>closed down after the parent company has pulled out. Admittedly I can't >>quote any examples. > >Even if you could this is not a matter of technological fluctuation that >is tied to economic factors. If the country is unable to continue to >operate the factory then it never *had* that level of capability. The >company that pulled out maintains its own tech level at its other facilities. Oh yes it is. This is one thing I'm certain of (as defined by Traveller, that is). There are scores of low-population worlds with a high-tech classification that they couldn't _possibly_ maintain on their own population base. In 1105 Fulacin ran a Type A starport and a TL of 13 with a population of 800. You couldn't even run a civilization with half that TL with that. All these worlds must have their TLs artificially maintained by outside sources. Hans Rancke University of Copenhagen rancke(at)[-- redacted --] - ------------ "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent events based on the individual situation." _76 Patrons_, p. 8 ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 643 Archive-Message-Number: 8032 From: CHiggin(at)[-- redacted --] Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 10:19:01 EDT Subject: Feudal TechnoEconomics (2nd try) I feel compelled to comment on the Hans & David show: David Johnston: >> You keep saying that, but how does it work? Start with the basic building >> blocks, show me how they hang together and why it works fundamentally >> differently from a garden variety capitalist society. >Are you beginning to see the difference? In a market economy a government >entity external to the marketplace provides the framework of principles >which govern the nature of interactions in the marketplace. In a feudal >technocracy these principles will be provided by the feudal agreements. After reading much of your post, I think I am finally coming understand your point of view -- not necessarily agree with it, but at least understand it. The question arises: what is the difference between your view of "feudal technocracy" and laissez-faire capitalism, or libertarianism? If the government concerns itself merely with external defense and preventing violent crime, and leaves economic interactions to "market forces", how does that differ from your picture of a "feudal technocracy"? >Now let's talk about economic might. The entire Mexican economy >is about 5% of the US economy. Where would Mexican industry be in >the face of US industry if there were not an external government >entity (the Mexican government) trying to protect it and another >external government entity (the US government) making some effort to >see that US industry respect the will of the Mexican government? Probably in much better shape. Mexico's "formerly" socialist habits of nationalizing industries and "protecting" the hell out of them with tariffs, etc. guaranteed inefficient, ineffective national industries unable to compete against an efficient free-market economy. With the opening up of Mexico, we are seeing more efficient, competitive Mexican companies going into partnership with U.S. companies and/or competing with them. >The entire European Union economy is about 120% of the US economy >but it is highly fractured when compared to US industry. The only >thing protecting European industry from being diced up and swallowed >by US industry is the intervention once again of external government >entities on both sides of the Atlantic (this is, in fact, a major >motivation behind the whole idea of the European Union) and these >powers enjoy roughly the same level of technological capability. I hate to burst your soap bubble, but the main thing keeping the EU economy from dominating the world is the "intervention once again of external government entities on both sides of the Atlantic". The socialist, interventionist policies of most European nations has hobbled and crippled their economies to the point where most of these economies are on the edge of collapse from spiraling budget deficits and skyrocketing unemployment, all directly traceable to socialist "tax the producers until they can't produce anymore and throw revenues down a fiscal black hole" policies. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the best way to make an economy boom, and improve the standard of living for all is to provide the basic legal foundations for entrepreneurship to flourish (i.e., establish and respect property rights), and then get the government the hell out of the way! Government intervention beyond protecting property rights just gums up the works. The U.S. is productive IN SPITE of the U.S. Government; German corporations are productive in spite of the German government, and in spite of the European Union. Excuse me for getting up on the soapbox, but I can't stand to see outright misinformation spread about without some attempt at correction. From: "Glenn M. Goffin" >Having advanced from feudalism to capitalism, can we have a feudal >structure again? It would be difficult at high-population levels, because feudalism depends on the responsibilties of each individual to each other individual, going up and down the ladder. OTOH, many idealists have postulated that in an enlightened society, the only "government" would be that of each individual willingly carrying out his/her/its responsiblities and obligations to other individuals above and below him, a la feudalism. I expect that a true Libertarian society would appear feudal with class mobility. As for the concept that societies inevitably go from tribalism -> feudalism -> capitalism -> communism, (if that's what you're referring to) hasn't Marx been discredited yet?!? :-) ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 643 Archive-Message-Number: 8035 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 16:47:52 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: TNE: Population and Tech Level Growth Gentlesophonts: First off, I accept that the most likely explanation of the constant population levels in the CT/MT Spinward Marches UWP sources is that this information all comes from a single census. I still feel though that this population issue isn't really relevant to and somewhat needlessly confuses the tech level growth issue. My good friend Hans Rancke writes: > Regina's change from TL 10 to TL 12, and it was > suggested that that was merely a correction of a typo. It wasn't a typo. The TL 10 listing for Regina also appears in *Book 6: Scouts* and *Book 7: Merchant Prince*. > Yet Spinward Marches is again and again referred to as a > 'frontier' - not only in the 'frontier with other nations' sense, but > also the 'developing area' sense. Maybe, but I think `frontier' might mean something quite `advanced' in terms of `development' in a millenium-old interstellar empire. > I would expect a lot of emigration FROM high-population planets > to developing low-population planets. That's usually the way it goes here > on Earth: From the crowded (or opressive) to the less crowded. No. Most migrations are from rural areas to urban areas and result in an increase in population in developed areas and a decrease in developing areas. Even in developed areas migration is only from the urban center to the suburban fringe. There is no sigificant migration from New York City to rural Iowa, much less to rural Somalia. There has been a great deal of migration from rural Haiti and rural Central America to urban Florida, California and Texas. Similarly, migration in the Regency can be expected to be from low-pop worlds to high-pop worlds. This may not show up as changes in population figures because *a lot* of folks from *a lot* of low pop worlds would have to immigrate to Porozlo, say, before the population number there changes much. > The size of a unified economy, yes. But do you really think that the Mexican > economy is the more stable because of the size of the population of the US? To some extent, yes. I'm not sure what you mean by `unified'. Do you mean `isolated' instead? > Yes, but are you saying that 10 billion people have a greater difficulty > affecting 1 billion people than 1 billion people have affecting 100 million? > My guessing bone tells me that the proportions would remain roughly the > same. I'm not sure I get your point. If you mean could an economy of 1 billion easily affect a neighboring economy of 100 million (assuming somewhat equivalent tech levles), I'd have to agree. If you mean could an economy of 1 billion cause severe *fluctuation* (enough to affect tech level) in a neighboring economy of 100 million, I'd have to say again that it's not very likely. The larger economy would have to fluctuate quite a lot to do that. This might be more pronounced in a 10 million economy or smaller though. > There are scores of low-population worlds with a high-tech > classification that they couldn't _possibly_ maintain on their own > population base. Yes, yes. I thought we'd already agreed that these anomalies don't fit our understanding of tech level as measuring technological capability? Happy Travelling, David Johnson Houston, TExas, USA ------------------------------ Bundle: 642 Archive-Message-Number: 8024 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 19:57:03 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: 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 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 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 ------------------------------ Bundle: 643 Archive-Message-Number: 8034 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 16:05:24 CDT From: djohnson(at)[-- redacted --] (David Johnson) Subject: All: PoliSci 5008: Feudal Technocracy 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 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 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 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 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 ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 643 Archive-Message-Number: 8039 From: rancke(at)[-- redacted --] Subject: All: Technocracy, Feudal or otherwise Date: Sun, 19 Jun 1994 00:58:14 +0100 (METDST) David Johnson writes: >My good friend Hans Rancke writes: > >>Regina's change from TL 10 to TL 12, and it was >>suggested that that was merely a correction of a typo. > >It wasn't a typo. The TL 10 listing for Regina also appears in *Book 6: >Scouts* and *Book 7: Merchant Prince*. What does that have to do with it? If an authoritaive source makes a misprint, that misprint can make it's way into a lot of secondary publications that rely on the primary source. Then the primary source is reprinted and the typo corrected; all without the original source being updated. And if it wasn't a misprint we're back to my old question: Why did it take Regina many centuries to reach TL 10 when they advanced two TLs from 1107 to 1110? >Similarly, migration in the Regency can be expected to be from low-pop >worlds to high-pop worlds. It might make for migration from rural areas on low-pop worlds to urban areas on the same worlds (always providing that such planets had urban areas). The classic SF theme is from overcrowded planets to frontier planets. And the only colonization project we have any knowledge of (The Forboldn Project, mentioned in _Kinunir_) has people transported to the Spinward Marches from the Core. >>The size of a unified economy, yes. But do you really think that the Mexican >>economy is the more stable because of the size of the population of the US? > >To some extent, yes. I'm not sure what you mean by `unified'. Do you mean >`isolated' instead? An economy so tied together as to actively compensate for fluctuations in production. A large country is less suceptible to a bad harvest because the governing forces can transport food from areas not affected to areas affected. If the same population was a number of isolated economies, the very same harvest would cause some of these countries disaster despite the total number of people involved being the same. >>There are scores of low-population worlds with a high-tech classification >>that they couldn't _possibly_ maintain on their own population base. > >Yes, yes. I thought we'd already agreed that these anomalies don't fit our >understanding of tech level as measuring technological capability? It fits my understanding perfectly. Some outsider brings in (or some local imports) the machinery needed to produce some kind of high-tech stuff from local raw materials. As long as the factory is functioning that planet is effectively of the equivalent tech level - even if the factory has to be maintained with imported spare parts. >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. So far so good. >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. Here's the fallacy. Nothing in the definition requires the expertise to be economic. Sure, it _could_ be - if economy is accepted as a science with an associated technology. Focussing on the sixth most common meaning on a word to the exclusion of all other meanings seems very specious. I'd be happier if you could include some of the more common meanings too. The definition of technocracy didn't say "see _Technical_ (6)", did it? Any society managed by technical experts would seem to fit. >A technocracy ties political power (government) to economic power (industry, >the `practice of economicpower might well be a technocracy, but to conclude that a technocracy has to be such a ociety is a coe fallacy. Of course, a government that is a technocracy musogical expertise. >This is something much more sophisiticated than meregovernment by engineers rial economy. If economics is a science, then a chnician ca rn an economy. If it's not aence then someone who can run an economy can't be mery a technocrat (By definition). However, a merenment by engineers and scientis is enough to satisfy the definition and is therefor a technocracy. Stick with thebroad definitions. >n contemporary market economies much of the polframework that >permits theindustrial economy to function is provide by democratically >establised gvernments that exist external to the economic system. Why does it have o be democratically estab any technocray needs a political framework to pemit the >functioning of the industrial eco To meet the requirements of >technocracy this framework must arise from *within te market plac. A complete red herring. To meet the requirements of a technorcy, the leaders of the society must be >>based on negotiations betweeve n ernal governmental entity to provide any legal framework. > >Nation-state *are* the `external government entities'. They are not actors >*wiin the industrial economy. Of course they are. Why wouldat takes place betwn nation-states may take place at the political level, but it's re in the eonomic sector. If General Motors didn't give a hoot in hell about Japanesears on the American market, do you think the President would? However, ta wasn't quite my point. One of the prime fesThat's what the 'sovereign' means. (In the last half century the nations of he ebeen trying to bootstra som sort of system superior to the individual nations. I doubt anyoe will arue that they've succeeded yet. When they do, they won't be soveign nymore). So any deal str, was what I meant). If those deals are economic i nature they are examples of economic eane without governen intervention. >Exactly (except for the part about "without a government). It is clear >framewrk is needed. No. It is clear thacnomic deals struck between people wh had nothing but the god fat of their opponent (and his hoped-fosire to continue trading) to ensure the ullfillment of the deal. In fact, unless two nations have anaking to protec each other's traders even against their ow n deal between traders of differezakh oilfield and an Australian >drilling oporation, that are not enforced by some governmental entity >that exextern* to the marketplace. Insofar as most governments frown on non-governmentsanctioned forc you're quite right. They can't be _enforced_. But you canstill make agreements. And in the old days ampe, but any armed merchant an could do it in the absence of an _opposing_ government. So you might actu ay that one only needs government help to enforce ageeents if there are governments around. >Of course one can have market systes without government supervision. Well,>>you may need a government tsomeone to prit currency, Promisory notes bakd by the issuing company. >to establish pros to guarrantee control occess to >profits, Idon't quite know what you men by "control of investments and access to profit, but any proceurs can be established by negotiation what way, and why can this not be doneby negotiation? >In capitalist market economies governmentities extnal to the market >perform these functions. They do so today, but they are not neessary. Convenient, maybe. >Let's take for example this iea of a `technocrcti lord' `selling' sharee goverment prints that money and >guarranees its value. This is what the do today (and ipor system), but the didn't do so before they left the gold standard. Before that moneywabcked by real value. There is no reason why a company can't issue it's own money backed by it's ow resry note. So is a check. >In a technocracy the lord and vasal must come to some agreement themselv>as to just what that `financi cpital' is worth because the vassal >(shareholder) doesn't have any `ney' to `give' to the lord (chaidoes the 'vassal' bring to the deal?And if he dondustrialists buying Gram industries as an examl ofwhy a feudal technocracy was vulnerable to a stroconomic entity?) >In essnce, money is nothing more than pomise guarranteed by the >governme Right. But in earlier times many banks issuedtheir own notes.Just because governments today doseney. >I think that's enough or now. I hope I've made some progress in explaining >what, IMHO, a echnocracy is. To recap: > >1. The nature of authority: authority is eercised by those posseing > specialized knowledge related to the practice of technology as manifest > in an industrial ecooomy must > arise from *within*he industrial economy. Like the man who owns the factory decides who rn it? > 3. Feudal principles will be used to establish the framework through a system of well-defined relationships between the actors in the market. Li the man who ges o run the factory is under a specific obligation to the liege-lord who made him manager. I agree completely. >Remember, it's feudal *technocracy*, not technocratic feudalism. What's the difference? Or rather, what do you think is the difference? >I see this `evidence of ownership' as being analogous to the feudal title >granted by an aristocractic lord to his vassal tenants. Why, so do I! >Ownership of a portion of industry in a technocracy (a block of shares) is >the same as *tenancy* under the feudal system. There's a small, but important difference between ownership and tenancy that makes it impossible to equate the two. (Hint: with ownership you own, with tenancy you don't). >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. Leaving aside that you can have technocracy with or without a government and that you can have money with or without government and government with or without currency (I use 'currency' as 'government-backed' money here)... hmmm... leaving that aside there's not much left of that argument... >>Fealty is loyalty. How is the provision of money equivalent to loyalty? > >In a technocracy there is no external entity to provide `money'. I can't keep repeating myself each time this comes up, so from now on please insert your own 'Fallacy!' comment after every occurrence. >What serves as currency in a technocratic system must be arranged through >agreement by the participants. Not 'must be'. 'Can be'. One company could put out money backed by its products, another money backed by its. Or they could use some rare metal. Or government-backed money. There are lots of possibilities. >One might call the shareholders portion of this agreement `loyalty'. So the socalled shareholders does not provide any goods or capital? This begins to resemble my notions more and more. >The key is that the system requires inter-dependent relationships between >the actors - `lord' and `vassal'. Absolutely right. Otherwise it's not a feudal arrangement. But by now you can drop the quotes around lord and vassal. If the vassal dosen't buy the 'share' then he is a vassal and his lord a lord. >The Chairman is the technocratic lord. An aristocratic lord had a duty to >his vassals to provide coordinated security services. That's true enough. _In addition_ to giving out the fief in exchange for the loyalty of the vassal the lord also assumed the duty to protect his vassal. >A technocractic lord (Chairman) has a duty to her vassals (shareholders) >to provide coordinated profit services. That makes sense. In addition to giving them their fiefs she also assumes the duty to protect them financially. A good analogy. Of course, the crucial part of the feudal relationship is the providing of the fiefs, since lots of other systems require the leader to protect the followers. In fact, I can't think of any that dosen't. >Focus on the `duty' rather than the more nebulous `loyalty'. Not a good idea. In a feudal relationship both sides have duties to the other part, so you can't say who's the lord and who's the vassal from that. >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. This is pure gibberish. Oh, sorry! I mean, I don't understand a word you're saying here. Could you put it in layman's terms? Hans Rancke University of Copenhagen rancke(at)[-- redacted --] - ------------ "I used to argue the matter at first, but I'm wiser now. Facts are stubborn things, but not half so stubborn as fallacies." - Stella Maynard in "Anne of the Island" ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 644 Archive-Message-Number: 8049 Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 09:14:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Llaneza Subject: Feudal Technocracies If in a traditional feudalism the economic basis is land;; then would in=20 a feudal technocracy the basis be technical resources? By this I mean the resources that are required for a functioning high=20 tech society. F=D5rinstance the Duke of Water Management would own all=20 water purification and sewage treatment plants, aqueducts, and=20 reservoirs. He would claim fealty and service from the Countess of the=20 Western Region and she would in turn claimservice from her site managers;= =20 which positions being assigned by her much as a medieval lord would=20 assign land. The question is in allocation of resources. To keep with the feudal=20 tgadition I will suggest that many of these positions be inherited. We=20 may also see a situation where a university degree would carry the same=20 prestige as minor patent of nobility.=20 With education being a prerequisite for technical functioning most=20 schools operating under a fedal technocracy, much of the school=D5s=20 resources would go towards educating the noble children. Likely,=20 =D4peasant=D5 children who show promise would receive an education and beco= me=20 minor nobility themselves. I doubt that education would be directly linked to educational=20 acheivment. More likely noble rank will be linked to educational=20 opportunities. If anyone else would like to expand on these notes, please feel free. Michael Carter Llaneza ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Bundle: 645 Archive-Message-Number: 8069 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 16:11:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Diane Kelly Subject: Feudal Technocracies, Missiles, and other flamebait I realize this is probably a foolish thing to do, but nevertheless I am compelled to dive into two ongoing controversies on this mailing list: the nature of a feudal technocracy and the reasoning behind x-ray laser missiles. First: Feudal Technocracies. This government type has been perplexing me ever since I first read Book 3 of the original _Traveller_ set. For a while I thought it might mean knights-and-lasers, then (after reading Niven and Pournelle's _Oath of Fealty_) I assumed it was a patriarchal sort of corporate state. But then I got to thinking about the meanings of the two words. A feudal system is one in which there is no distinction between economic and political roles -- the nobles control the basis of wealth (land), and the more land you own, the bigger and more important a noble you are. Relationships are determined by personal ties rather than by institutional offices. A technocracy is a system in which governing tasks are performed by experts, selected on the basis of training and expertise. The exact mechanism has never been specified, so a technocracy could be elective, hereditary, appointive, or whatever. Putting the two into the Cuisinart and turning it to "high" produces the following scenario: A feudal technocracy is one in which _knowledge_ is the fundamental basis of economic and political power. (Perfect for an "information economy" by the way.) Individuals control access to stores of information which they possess, and those with greater supplies of data are more powerful. In place of feudal oaths we have the equivalent of copyrights and patents (which, interestingly enough, descends from the "letters of patent" granted to new nobility). So here I am, a feudal-tech baron. What do I do? I own (say) the patent on role-playing games. Anybody who wants to produce them must become my vassal, and give me a share of the profits. If I am a smart baron, I will use much of my resources to expand my "data fief" through research and development, buying-out of smaller holders, education, etc. Note that feudal barons occasionally had to defend their rights by force; as a Techno-baron I must do the same, by sending goons to beat up unauthorized users of my role-playing patent. Similarly, I can try to steal other baron's information holdings -- by all the usual methods so familiar to readers of cyberpunk fiction. What appeals to me about this model is that it is _plausible_. I can see it developing already in the current fight over the "Information superhighway" and control of movie libraries. None of the other f-tech societies made much sense. I offer this for constructive criticism and opinions. Flames and gripes will be sneered at. Forging bravely ahead, I will now deal with the Missile Question: This one is fairly simple. A nuke in space is not really much good unless you get it very close to the target; on the order of a few hundred meters. A real nuke does its damage by shockwave, and there just _isnt_ any blast wave in space. (Well, yes, you do get a cloud of plasma ejected by the bomb, but its mass is small and it dissipates rapidly.) Radiation flash effects dissipate following the inverse-square law, so even they fall off fairly quickly (and remember that ships will be shielded against radiation anyway). To damage an enemy ship with a nuclear missile, you need fantastically good tracking and prediction electronics, a _huge_ warhead, on the order of 10 or 100 megatons, and a vast amount of fuel, so that it can chase down the target and get close enough to do damage. Contrast this with the x-ray laser missile. It uses a smallish warhead (500 ktons max), which is nice if you worry about somebody using one as a bomb. It delivers its energy across a large distance without attenuation; so the missile merely needs to get in the same hex as the target (recall that Brilliant Lances hexes are 30,000 kilometers across). It delivers the damage at lightspeed, so doesn't need to catch up to the target before going off. Want some "real-life" proof? The SDI organization picked nuke-det laser bombs as the weapon of choice against incoming missiles. They could have chosen plain nukes, but x-ray lasers did the job better. Jim Cambias Fearless Authority on Everything Misusing My Wife's Internet Account At Duke ------------------------------ [-- Somewhere near this point the discussion went "off-List" to a private e-mail exchange. Also at this time there was a disruption in the server hosting the TML. When the TML was revived a few weeks later on a new server the discussion did not re-appear, except for the following summary (which became an entry on the TML FAQ). --] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 12:41:21 BST From: "TOM O'NEILL" To: traveller@MPGN.COM Subject: FTML - a summary Message-ID: <00983B8C.E71D3826.3(at)[-- redacted --]> Earlier in the year there was a thread on the TML regarding the definition of a Feudal Technocracy (Government Type 5) in Traveller. This is a summary of the conclusions of the "Feudal Technocracy Mailing List", which was formed when the discussion went to private E-Mail. This all originated in the beginning of May as a spin-off from a discussion between David Johnson and Hans Rancke about the Sword Worlds. (David is no longer available at the address above). It became clear that different people had very different ideas about what was and was not a Feudal Technocracy. Hans favoured emphasising the feudal aspect while David emphasised the technocratic aspect, using the term 'practise of technology'. He approximately defined this as requiring industrial activity in all possible areas for a certain TL, producing sufficient surplus resources to support research, development, production and operation and support the expansion of the economy and stated that he regarged this as the prime requirement of a technocracy. However, Bill White has calculated that the average FT in the Imperium has a population in the 100,000's, insufficient to support the broad spread of industry David requires by the above definition( David believes a minimum population of the order of millions is required). Also, a number of people (including me) had expressed the preference that 'critical technology' governments, who govern by virtue of control of some critical technology, be possibly describable as Feudal Technocracies. This type of society is possible at the lower population levels at which FT's commonly occur in the Imperium. Given these arguments David made the following comment: "Maybe we have to accept that, in Traveller terms, there is no distinction between feudal technocracy, technocratic oligarchy, technocratic feudalism, or anything else that might be considered in any way `feudal' or `technocratic' since neither of these terms exist in any of the other government codes." Any such government could be described with a government code of 5. While David dislikes the vagueness of the resulting government type, it does embrace all of the proposed examples of FT's, including his own. This was the compromise conclusion that we reached, Tom Tom O'Neill | Tom(at)[-- redacted --] SCCS6085(at)[-- redacted --] ---------------!-------------------------------------------------------------- Fact is stranger than fiction ------------------------------ End of TD94024.TXT (29-30 August, 1994) ------------------------------ [-- END --]