From:   IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"  8-JUN-1994 21:06:13.98
To:     IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"
CC:     
Subj:   TML biweekly: Msgs 7901-7908 V46#3

Return-path: <jamesp@engrg.uwo.ca>
Received: from engrg.uwo.ca (nova.engrg.uwo.ca)
 by delphi.com (PMDF V4.3-7 #6563) id <01HDBAMWO8N48ZEZRQ@delphi.com>; Wed,
 8 Jun 1994 21:06:06 EDT
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 1994 21:00:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML biweekly: Msgs 7901-7908 V46#3
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-to: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Reply-to: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Message-id: <9406090102.AA11513@engrg.uwo.ca>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Wed Jun  8 21:00:03 EDT
 1994
Precedence: bulk

TML biweekly    Wed Jun  8 21:00:03 EDT 1994    Volume 46 : Issue 3

Today's topics:

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 628  7901 07-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: Feudal Technocracy & TL Growth << 
 628  7902 07-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: Techno-economics << Gentlesophonts
 628  7903 07-Jun-1994 David Johnson    TNE: *Shall Not Perish* Regency Militar
 628  7904 07-Jun-1994 David Johnson    REB: Vargr and Aslan Incursions << Gent
 629  7906 08-Jun-1994 rancke@diku.dk   All: Technocracy << David Johnson) writ
 629  7907 07-Jun-1994 David Johnson    TNE: Regency Government << Gentlesophon
 629  7908 06-Jun-1994 J Roberson       << >Right, but we're not talking about 
 629  7905 07-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: Techno-economics & SW Political Th

This is a passively moderated mailing list. All messages sent to the
submission address will be distributed. The biweekly digest is currently
distributed each Wednesday and Sunday at 9:00pm.

Submissions: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca -or- uunet!engrg.uwo.ca!traveller
Administrator: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (James Perkins)

The TML is made possible by facilities provided by the University of
Western Ontario. All opinions and materials below are the responsibility
of the originator.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bundle: 628
Archive-Message-Number: 7901
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 94 18:50:40 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: Feudal Technocracy & TL Growth

Gentlesophonts:

Alistair Langsford <langsl@cbr.hhcs.gov.au> 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 <john.bogan@asb.com> 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 <CHiggin@aol.com> 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@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: Techno-economics

Gentlesophonts:

J Roberson <RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu> 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 <james@dumbcat.sf.ca.us> 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: 628
Archive-Message-Number: 7903
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 94 19:29:43 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: TNE: *Shall Not Perish* Regency Military Forces

Gentlesophonts:

Steve Charlton <scharlto@avalon.com> writes:

> If it comes to a choice between TCS fleet sizes vs 5FW fleet sizes, I would
> have to pick the economy-jumbo-sized TCS fleets.  Not for any reason
> of playability or historical realism, but mostly because I have too many
> middle and high-ranking Imperial Navy PCs and NPCs in my campaign
> to have anything less than several thousand warships in each sector.

This is a good point on which to redirect this discussion back to the
original purpose.  How do we determine naval and army (ground/air/sea)
force composition and organization for the Regency?  I don't care whether
we use *5FW*/*RS* protocols or *HG*/*TCS*/*POT* protocols.  I made an
initial suggestion for the Sword Worlds using my best guess at *5FW*/*RS*
protocols which got the shorts of a lot of TCS-ites in knots.  Fine.
So will some of those TCS-ites *please* make an alternate suggestion?
I'd do it myself but I don't have *TCS* or *POT*.

Here are some questions to consider:

How are Regency naval and army forces organized at the subsector and sector
level?

What is the overall composition of Regency military forces?

What is the compostion of a `typical' Regency naval squadron and a `typical'
army battalion/regiment/division/corps/whatever-you-think-the-`basic'-unit-
ought-to-be?

Who are the major military figures in the Regency?

> I certainly dont see why suggesting 5FW force levels would generate
> so much dismay.

I don't either.  I'd really rather see folks suggestion *alternatives* to
any point *anyone* makes rather than merely trying to rip holes in a position
they disagree with.  The latter course is neither interesting *nor* useful.

Let's get back to our TML Regency sourcebook, *Shall Not Perish*.

Peace and Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

------------------------------

Bundle: 628
Archive-Message-Number: 7904
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 94 19:48:39 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: REB: Vargr and Aslan Incursions

Gentlesophonts:

My ccr2 worth on the Vargr and Aslan incursions.

As for the Vargr at high pop worlds like Junidy, consider this: nuclear
blackmail.  A corsair band shows up, threatens to drop some nukes unless
the locals surrender, so the locals do.  This wouldn't work in the `old'
days because the Imperial Navy would show up, blockade the world, and
chase the Vargr down in the Extents if they fled.  (Remember, the Vargr
aren't suicidal, just greedy, ruthless and opportunistic.)  In the chaos of
the Rebellion such an Imperial response became much less likely so some Vargr
were emboldened.

As for the *ihatei*, clearly these Aslan came to dominate high pop worlds
like Aki and Glisten through economic and diplomatic means as well as military
means.  It's one thing to say Glisten would fight when they're assured of
eventual relief from the interior; it's quite another when that relief is
much less certain - especially when reliance upon that relief from the
interior has been ingrained for centuries.  (Texans like to think of
ourselves as tough cookies but if a Latin American army showed up at
Houston one day and it was unclear when, if ever, the US Army was going
to help out, I wouldn't put it past the Mayor to quitely succomb to `these
wonderful benefactors from the South'.)

As for the eventual reincorporation of *ihatei*-occupied worlds into the
Regency I suspect many of those Aslan settlers would have no problem
becoming Domain citizens once the Domain Navy *did* show up and it was
certainly a lot simpler (and less bloody) to accept this *fait accompli*
than to try to eject the *ihatei* squatters.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

------------------------------

Bundle: 629
Archive-Message-Number: 7906
From: rancke@diku.dk
Subject: All: Technocracy
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 04:57:20 +0100 (METDST)

David Johnson) writes:
>Andy Lilly <A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk> 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@diku.dk
- ------------
        "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: 7907
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 94 22:25:37 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: TNE: Regency Government

Gentlesophonts:

Wes Esser <wesley@hd62.haledorr.com> writes:

>          Government Structure of the Regency

First, let me say this is a *fantastic* contribution to our TML Regency
sourcebook, *Shall Not Perish*!  I've just some minor points.

>          The Regent appoints candidates to all executive
>          and judical posts on the sector and subsector levels, subject to
>          confirmation by the Senate.

>          The Moot is the senior chamber of the legislative branch

This above suggests the Senate is the `upper' house rather than the Moot, i.e.
it has more power.

>       composed
>          of the peers of baronial rank and higher in the realm who serve as
>          long as they maintain their title (usually for life, although
>          abdications do occur).  There is approximately one noble per
>          planet in the Regency

If nobles of baronial rank are to be included there will be *several* per
planet.  Barons are responsible for planetary regions and cities.  Marquises
rule at the planetary level.

>       and as such, the Moot tends to favor the
>          rights of lower population worlds.

I like this idea but it has to be rectified with the above issue.

>       The members of the Moot are
>          predominantly human.

A good point but one might hope that by the 57th(?) Century folks might have
come to realize that a person of one ethnic group might still be able to
represent the interests of other groups (as opposed to the unfortunately
commonly held view to the contrary in contemporary America).

>          Politically the Moot tends to be dominated by the Aristocratic,
>          Imperiallist and Sovreignist blocks.

>          the Senate tends to hold Democratic/Interventionist views.

Good, good.

>          The judicial branch exists to decide when (or if) Regency law has
>          been violated, and consisists of a series of courts at various

This suggests the aristocracy has given up its traditional judicial role
held under the Imperium.  This is a major change that represents a major
loss of power for the nobility.  Is there a rationale for this loss?

>          The executive branch consists of the Subsector Governors appointed
>          by the Regent and confirmed by the Senate, and Planetary Governors

This represents another loss of power for the nobility.  One wonders just
what the nobility does in the Regency?  And more importantly, how they came
to lose such influence?

>          Moot, and their different focuses (i.e., the population based
>          Senate v. the planet based Moot)

This is a good idea but I'm not sure how to rectify it with the inclusion
of barons in the Moot.  (And I don't see how barons could be excluded either.)
Maybe there is a way to deal with this by adjusting the population levels
for the Senate districts.  How many Senators are there in the Regency at one
per billion population?  Lowering this number to one per half billion (or
less) would increase the number of Senators (and correspondingly the 
influence of hi-pop worlds) with repsect to the barons of the Moot.

>          This gives a fairly compact
>          district of 3,060,900,800 (New Era figures) which is further
>          divided into three subdistricts, each of which elect one Senator.

Electing Senators at-large in any of these mulit-billion districts would
further enhance the influence of hi-pop worlds.  In your example one might
expect Pixie, Yres and Boughene (and possibly part of Menorb) to be included
as one sub-district (and thereby give the smaller worlds a chance at some
representation).  On the other hand, three at-large Senators would all be
likely to come from Menorb.

This is some great work.  I might suggest as a modification leaving the
judicial function in the hands of the nobility.  (They've already been
weakened by the appearance of the Senate abd it doesn't really affect the
split in the power structure you've outlined.)  Furthermore, the Regent's
Governors (subsector and world) are also a big threat to the nobles.  They
also seem to be in direct conflict.  (What's the relationship between the
Duke of Vincennes and the Subsector Governor or the Marquise of Efate and
the Planetary Governor?)  Maybe these Regency executives only exist in fiefs
where the noble patents have been vacated, either through death without
issue or through the dislocations resulting from the Rebellion and the Viral
Assault?  Possibly, for example, there is no longer a Marquis of Glisten
but rather an *ihatei* Governor (I'd prefer `Resident' for worlds to
distinguish them from a subsector Governor) who was appointed by the Regent
when Glisten came back `into the fold'.

Again, Wes, great work!

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

------------------------------

Bundle: 629
Archive-Message-Number: 7908
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 23:20:29 -0600
From: RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu (J Roberson)

>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.

The trick is, they're related. You can't simply nhave TL15 knowledge. You
also have to have references to TL14, TL13, TL12, etc to build upon. All of
this takes up space, whther physical or virtual. To use modern equipmetn
analogies, if a world can't afford, or decides to redirect its prioroites,
it may have less "disk space" than is required to hold all the Imperial
TL15 data. So sure, a few places may act as repositories of information,
but it may not be very available, and the world will still have (generally)
access to only TL x.

>*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.

And why do we redirect those priorites? Because we can't afford to explore
all of them equally. Six of one - I said it was half empty, and you said
itwas half full.

Creativity over Originality.
Consistency is a Flaw.
J Roberson      RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu        Priss@io.com





------------------------------

Bundle: 629
Archive-Message-Number: 7905
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 94 21:36:59 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: Techno-economics & SW Political Theory

Gentlesophonts:

Here's a second try at this post:

Hans Rancke <rancke@diku.dk> 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

------------------------------

End of TML Biweekly
******************
