From:   IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca" 12-JUN-1994 21:04:51.97
To:     IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"
CC:     
Subj:   TML biweekly: Msgs 7944-7953 V46#8

Return-path: <jamesp@engrg.uwo.ca>
Received: from engrg.uwo.ca (nova.engrg.uwo.ca)
 by delphi.com (PMDF V4.3-7 #6563) id <01HDGVQ7MU3K8WZ923@delphi.com>; Sun,
 12 Jun 1994 21:04:48 EDT
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 21:00:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML biweekly: Msgs 7944-7953 V46#8
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-to: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Reply-to: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Message-id: <9406130103.AA07247@engrg.uwo.ca>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Sun Jun 12 21:00:02 EDT
 1994
Precedence: bulk

TML biweekly    Sun Jun 12 21:00:02 EDT 1994    Volume 46 : Issue 8

Today's topics:

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 632  7944 10-Jun-1994 L.T.Bryant       TNE-RCES equipment << HI  again  all , 
 633  7945 10-Jun-1994 L.T.Bryant       more TNE/2300 guns << Hi again again
 633  7946 10-Jun-1994 L.T.Bryant       TNE/2300 yet more guns << more guns aga
 633  7947 10-Jun-1994 Steven M Bonnev  Re: Feudal Technocracy <<   FEUDAL TECH
 633  7948 10-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: PoliSci 5001: Feudal Technocracy <
 633  7949 10-Jun-1994 David Johnson    TNE: *Shall Not Perish* Regency Militar
 633  7950 10-Jun-1994 George Herbert   Re: 7949 << >> The very fact that a TCS
 633  7952 10-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: PoliSci 5003: Kudos << Gentlesopho
 633  7953 10-Jun-1994 Steven M Bonnev  Regency Blockade (Specifics) <<   A DIS
 633  7951 10-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: PoliSci 5002: Feudal Technocracy <

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: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7944
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
Subject: TNE-RCES equipment
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 14:17:40 +0100 (BST)

HI  again  all , this will be the first of several today  and  im
going to lead with a question.

Has anyone got the RCES equipment manual and some time ?
        If you have would you please calculate up the damage  for
the  shot guns as by my calculations they dont work at  all ,  id
be  much  graetful  for this as im  now  having  serios  thoughts
abought  the  reliablity of the entire TNE supplements  that  are
out so far.

Thanks very much in advance. 
L Bryant
- -- 
oh rose thou art sick
               the invisible worm that flys by night.....STEEL


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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7945
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
Subject: more TNE/2300 guns
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 14:42:53 +0100 (BST)

Hi again again
        here  come  the guns again falling from my  head  like  a
memory  ( with apoliges to the eurithmics)

M-2 assult rifle Tl12  9*44mm APHE

9mm round
ammo length = 62 mm
        Lcc = 44 mm
        weight = 27.9g
EA      = 5822 J
round price = 0.558 Cr (ball)  1.67Cr HEAP

weapon
        barrel
Bla = 71 cm
lb = 43.5 cm
barrel type = heavy
        weigt = 1.3 Kg
        price = 522 Cr

Actual muzzle energy = 4694.5 J
dam = 5d-1
pen = 2-4-nill (ball)  2-2-2 (HEAP)

reciver = light
ROF = 5
reciver length = 30.5 cm
        weight = 5.8  Kg
        cost = 1455.5 Cr

stock bullpup   5cm  0.5 Kg   10 Cr
range  43M ( ball)  33M (HEAP)

feed magazine 30 round
        empty = 0.57 Kg
        Full = 1.4 Kg

Tl9 optic sight 0.1 Kg 150Cr short ranges now 50m  Bal 38MHEAP

Recoil  3/8
bulk 5  weight 8.6 Kg  length 79 cm
cost  2137.5 Cr
  

NOTES :   Like all the firearms to follow the barrel  length  was
calculated   after the reciver to give the same length as in  the
2300  rules , any deviance is due to the barrel not fitting  into
the useable peramiters in FFS



Wu-Beijing  Type 49 assult rifle Tl12  7.5*35mm ball

7.5mm round
ammo length (necked)  = 50mm
                lcc= 35 mm
ammo weight = 15g
Ea = 3216.2 J
ammo price/ round= 0.3 Cr

weapon
barrel
bla = 57.17 cm
lb = 30.3 cm
barrel type = light
        weight = 0.606 Kg
        cost = 121.2 Cr

actual muzzle energy = 2460 J
DAM = 4d-1
Pen = 2-3-nill

reciver = light
ROF = 3
reciver length = 22.7 cm
        weight = 3.216 Kg
        price = 804 Cr

stock Folding  5/25 cm  0.5 Kg  50 Cr

range = 28 M

feed = magazine 28 rounds
empty wt = 0.261 Kg
full wt = 0.636 Kg

Tl 9 optic sight 0.1 Kg 150 Cr  short range now  32M

recoil 3/5

bulk 4/5  weight 5.1 Kg  length 58/78 cm
cost 1125.2 Cr
 
- -- 
oh rose thou art sick
               the invisible worm that flys by night.....STEEL


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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7946
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
Subject: TNE/2300 yet more guns
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 15:09:21 +0100 (BST)

more guns again
 
        and  remember  if at first you dont sucseed bye  the  GMs
pizza

SG-77  Tl12  bullpup 5.5*51mm assult rifle

round
ammo length ( necked) = 51mm
        lcc = 40mm
Ea = 1976.7 J
round price  0.19Cr

Weapon
Barrel
Bla = 65.32 cm
bl = 51 cm
barrel type = light
        weight = 1.02 Kg
        price = 204 Cr

actual muzzle energy = 1759 J 
D = 3d-1
pen = 1-nill

reciver = light
ROF = 5
reciver length = 17.78 cm Extended to 20.1cm for magazine
        weight = 1.976 Kg "         " 2,23 Kg"          "
        price = 558.4 Cr

stock bullpup 5cm  0.1 Kg 10 Cr

range = 39M

Feed magazine 40 rounds
empty wt = .25 Kg
full wt = 0.63 Kg
 
Bayonet lug presant

recoil = 3/7
bulk 5  length 76 cm   weight 3.88 Kg
cost 772.4 Cr



BF - 1 assult rifle 7.5*1mm Tl12 ETC

7.5 mm round ETC
ammo length  18.5 mm
        lcc = 11mm
ammo weight =  3.88g
average muzzle energy = 505 J
ammo price = 0.155 Cr

barrel
Bla = 35.9 cm
lb = 59 cm
barrel type = light
        weight = 1.18 kg
        price = 236 Cr

E = 667.5 J
D = 2d-1
pen = 1-nill

reciver = light self loader
ROF = 3
reciver length = (8.9cm) 17 cm
        weight = 1.1Kg
        price = 464 Cr

stock bullpup   5cm  0.1 Kg  10 Cr

range 45 M
feed = magazine 40 rounds
empty Wt = .54 Kg
full wt = 0.69 Kg

Tl9 optical sight 0.1 Kg 150 Cr  short now  52M

recoil 1/2
mass 3.17Kg    length  81 cm    bulk 5
cost  860 Cr
        

- -- 
oh rose thou art sick
               the invisible worm that flys by night.....STEEL


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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7947
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 17:32:13 -0500
From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
Subject: Re: Feudal Technocracy


  FEUDAL TECHNOCRACY AND JAPANESE TERMS (and firms!)


Hans Ranke <rancke@diku.dk> 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
  <bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu>
 

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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7948
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 18:36:33 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (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 <langsl@cbr.hhcs.gov.au> 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.

>     <In a feudal technocracy the technocracy `buzz-word' shifts the 
>     <focus from military affairs to industrial activities
>     
>     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: 7949
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 19:14:44 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: TNE: *Shall Not Perish* Regency Military

Gentlesophonts:

Les Howie <lhowie@Prograph.Com> writes:

> I would suggest that, given a strong memory of the rebellion, Regency forces
> would be controlled at a far more cetralized level.

Welcome to the *Shall Not Perish* effort, Les!

> I rather liked H. Beam Pipers term from the Terran Federation period -- The
> "Fleet-Army Force."

Ah, another Piper fan.  Always glad to meet one.

> The very fact that a TCS campaign is a straight wargame means that you start
> the whole exercise in an arms race.

Good point.  Hope some TCS-ites are paying attention.

> Then there is the
> question of the proportion of fleet resourses going to anti-virus defence...)

This seems to be a point of some disagreement.  It seems to me it has been
suggested that anti-Viral activities will be the focus of the Quarantine
Service while more `traditional' military activities would be handled by
the conventional military services.  I also seem to remember other suggestions
that there would not be such a distinction.  [WARNING! : I don't have TNE!]
What's the New Era literature have to say in this area?

> The base battalion remains fixed to a recruiting territory -- 
> a fixed area of a given world.

What's the distinction here between `indigineous' defense battalions
(those forces that remain on a particular world) and `mobile' forces
(the `regular' Army)?

> Regiments are recruited based on the society and capabilities 
> of the home world

Does this include aerospace and nautical forces?  I'd like to see work
for the Regency that focuses on the entire Army rather than one limited
to only the Ground Force Command as was the case previously in the Imperium.

> I will put some thought into higher formations, to troop 
> types

Yes, I'd prefer a `strategic' (dare I use that word again?) focus in
addition to a `tactical' focus.  It seems to me it should be simple to start
at the `General Staff' and `Admiralty' level and work down just as it is
beneficial to start at the combat unit level and work up.

Let's get busy!

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7950
Subject: Re: 7949
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 18:21:26 -0700
From: George Herbert <gwh@crl.com>


>> The very fact that a TCS campaign is a straight wargame means that you start
>> the whole exercise in an arms race.
>
>Good point.  Hope some TCS-ites are paying attention.

We had a whole lot of politics going down in all the TCS games
I've played in... *shrug* 8-)


I think the final analysis of what fleet strengths should be lies
with each individual gamer's view of the universe.  You can argue
this source or that source forever, getting nowhere.  That's pointless,
though it's a common hobby among gamers ;-)  

Work it out yourself for your world.  Me?  When I work it out from
first principles based on how I think things work, I get numbers that
look like the TCS numbers, and I shrug and use the TCS numbers
to be consistent with everyone else.  I'm sure others can assume
less military spending or different breakdowns of where it goes
and get an order or so less in magnitude in spending.

This _does_ require some imagination, people.  It's a Game 8-)

- -george


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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7952
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 21:54:20 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (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: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7953
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 22:26:09 -0500
From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
Subject: Regency Blockade (Specifics)

  A DISCUSSION OF THE DENEBIAN BLOCKADE
  
I know this has been hashed out once, but I thought another close
look at it couldn't hurt.

The maps of the Frontier-Wilds line in _Survival Margin_ and TNE 
don't quite jibe.  SM suggests that some vargr states in Gvurrdon
are still holding out.  (Look *above* the legend box near the Zho
border.)  TNE shows everything outside Regency/Consulate space to
be Wilds.  If you take all wilds to be virus-infested, then there
are no uninfected surviving vargr states.  So the Regency is 
forced to defend the entire coreward border at full force.

In Deneb, some subsectors are totally lost: Million, Atsah, and
Antra beyond the xboat line, and a world or two in Lamas.  Except
for some loss in Antra, these were mainly worlds *already* lost
to the vargr or the client states near Atadl.  The worlds in the
Great Rift, although shown otherwise, are isolated out far enough
to be safe.  The naval blockade at Catacomb (2234) is actually
*outside* the frontier line drawn.  No bases were at Catacomb as
of 1120.

In Reft, the Rift Republic is a Frontier.  However, so is the RC.
It belongs to neither side of the Rift -- it's jump-7 either way.
However, the link to the Denebians at Tonnurad was threatened by
the New Lords expansion in the 1120s.  The Republic's defense is
assured since the only virus approaches are through the Old Islands
worlds -- and we all know about how strong the local military is.
Otherwise, the Reft worlds on the Denebian side are fairly safe.
All have class-B starports, and there is a former Imperial Navy
base at Arnorac (2509) that had seen a sharp increase in traffic
since 1116, and which the RQS could use.

In Troy, the defensive line seems to exclude two important worlds
(the *only* two worlds) in the Binary subsector.  Both should be
safe.  First, they belong to the Denebian side of the Rift.  One,
Sarage (2938), was the site of an Imperial research station and
naval base.  The other, Auitawry, is a weird one.  An interdicted
droyne world at tech-15, with a class-A port, droyne naval base,
known Ancient site, and 500 million residents.  It might *own* the
other by now!  So even if virus could get there, it would have
a few troubles once the worlds had warning.

I wonder how Virus and the Ancient ship in Komesh would get along?

In Riftspan, the New Lords have it right.  The main jump-5 route
that runs through the mid-rift cluster has been cut just short
of it, at Aoki (1816).  Afatre (2219) on in is outside the line.
There is a *second* jump-5 route across the rift that branches
off at Esui, but it is also cut in the best place, at Waikhta
(1420).  The cuts are in just the right places to deny the virus
access to any worlds accessible on the Denebian side of the Rift.
From Waikhta, you can reach two worlds, and shortly the mid-Rift
cluster is accessible.  I fully expect that both systems look like
Aslan naval depots by now.

In fact, the Aslan line is far more defensible than the Regency's
position.  A better place for the Regency line would be Corridor/B
Windhorn/N, and the best would have been Corridor/D, Windhorn/P.
However, these were vargr held regions.  I suppose that the vargr
fought a valiant rear-guard action in Corridor and Windhorn to
try to save themselves and the states further to spinward (a success
would have brought "mongo charisma" <grin>) but undoubtedly it was
impossible for them to organize enough to form a tight barrier in
time.  It probably held long enough for Deneb to get organized, 
though.

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu>

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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7951
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 21:25:46 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: PoliSci 5002: Feudal Technocracy

Gentlesophonts:

First, some final stirrings of the `techno-economic cycles' debate.

Hans Rancke <rancke@diku.dk> 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

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

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