• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Feudal Technocracy discussion

plop101

Absent Friend
Basically, I'm wanting to hear ideas on what a Feudal Technocracy is. I know theres been some discussion of these on other sites, but I'm still a bit fuzzy in the head on the subject. Does FT have anything to do with 'Post-Industrial Society' that political scientists are always talking about?

Any and all ideas are welcome. GIVE ME YOUR BRAIN.
file_23.gif
 
Originally posted by plop101:
Basically, I'm wanting to hear ideas on what a Feudal Technocracy is. I know theres been some discussion of these on other sites, but I'm still a bit fuzzy in the head on the subject. Does FT have anything to do with 'Post-Industrial Society' that political scientists are always talking about?

Any and all ideas are welcome. GIVE ME YOUR BRAIN.
file_23.gif
________________________________________________
Hello fellow Arkansan Traveller!

Modern interpetation, the Zaibatsu of WW-2 era Japan, as well as of today. The head of the comapny is a feudal lord, all below him are vassals. the company is an entity, power unto itself, and wields tremendous influence,wealth and power.
A Megacorporation in Traveller can viewed as such a thing. Small planetary subsector, and Sector corporations fall also into this description.
Loyalty and "nationalism" to the corporation are rewarded. Dishonor, failure to meet production, etc, anything that discredits, dishonors, or causes loss of money is punished. The reverse, anything that does the Corp good, is rewarded.
THAT is at least "on paper" the theory.
F-techs have nepotism, cronyism, corruption inherent in, much like anything else in government.
But the influence/ outlook is determined by the men/ women at the top.

my .000000125Mcr worth.
 
I had always viewed as the belovent form of TED. Technicians forming a dominant class by virtue of their access to specialized knowledge force the masses to accept them as the new rulers. With time progressing to inherited titles rather than actual knowledge.

Therefore, there might be no greater example than the old monarchs and aristocracies of Europe needing to marry the daughters of American millionares just to keep the bourgeosie at bay and at the same time acquire wealth rather than capital.
 
Which political scientists are talking about the post-industrial society? If it is Bell and Toffler, they were originally Marxists who got hooked onto the American civilization and projected it forward. If others, I need names...
 
Originally posted by kafka47:
I had always viewed as the belovent form of TED. Technicians forming a dominant class by virtue of their access to specialized knowledge force the masses to accept them as the new rulers. With time progressing to inherited titles rather than actual knowledge.[qb]
_________________________________________________
I disagree, as TED is usually singular, in form. some oligarchies are F-tech in nature either in origin, and Multiple system control requires CEO's of equal stature to run them, perhaps as an advanced form of Board of Directors.
TED's, a wilds form of govt. jealously hoards technology. AN F-tech, it flows, and is freer in its control.
Or have you swallowed the Nilsen Oriflamme is evil-Virus?
__________________________________________________
[qb]Therefore, there might be no greater example than the old monarchs and aristocracies of Europe needing to marry the daughters of American millionares just to keep the bourgeosie at bay and at the same time acquire wealth rather than capital.
_________________________________________________
My example, the Republic of Venice, a European power till 1492, is an example Of such a pre industrial (TL-3/4) Oligarchy/F-tech. But the TED, the Doge, was a figure head, by the time of its zenith, and decline.
 
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by plop101:
Basically, I'm wanting to hear ideas on what a Feudal Technocracy is. I know theres been some discussion of these on other sites, but I'm still a bit fuzzy in the head on the subject. Does FT have anything to do with 'Post-Industrial Society' that political scientists are always talking about?

Any and all ideas are welcome. GIVE ME YOUR BRAIN.
file_23.gif
________________________________________________
Hello fellow Arkansan Traveller!

Modern interpetation, the Zaibatsu of WW-2 era Japan, as well as of today. The head of the comapny is a feudal lord, all below him are vassals. the company is an entity, power unto itself, and wields tremendous influence,wealth and power.
A Megacorporation in Traveller can viewed as such a thing. Small planetary subsector, and Sector corporations fall also into this description.
Loyalty and "nationalism" to the corporation are rewarded. Dishonor, failure to meet production, etc, anything that discredits, dishonors, or causes loss of money is punished. The reverse, anything that does the Corp good, is rewarded.
THAT is at least "on paper" the theory.
F-techs have nepotism, cronyism, corruption inherent in, much like anything else in government.
But the influence/ outlook is determined by the men/ women at the top.

my .000000125Mcr worth.
</font>[/QUOTE]If I may ask, how would you say this differs from a corporate government, either the CT Government definition, or ones seen in many Cyberpunk based settings? To be honest, this sounds more like such a government then a Feudal Technocracy (although I always did have a vague concept of what one was anyway, to be honest)
 
Yer Impishness!
I see the main difference is a Corporate government, is a sole company. an F-tech would be all the industries(leaders) in concert as the govt. With the mindset of Feudalism.
 
My interpretation is pretty close to Liam's, with the added twist that the corporate rulers would strictly control acces to higher technology and parcel it out as a reward to those who do their jobs right and don't make trouble. Sort of like a company store setup.

If you're a good little salaryman, and don't make trouble, and don't speak your mind and don't make any waves, you can have this cutting edge computer and plasma screen TV and new washer and dryer. If you're not a good little salaryman, you get a Commodore 64, a 7-inch B&W TV, and a scrub board and clothes line.
 
Originally posted by Paraquat Johnson:
My interpretation is pretty close to Liam's, with the added twist that the corporate rulers would strictly control acces to higher technology and parcel it out as a reward to those who do their jobs right and don't make trouble. Sort of like a company store setup.

If you're a good little salaryman, and don't make trouble, and don't speak your mind and don't make any waves, you can have this cutting edge computer and plasma screen TV and new washer and dryer. If you're not a good little salaryman, you get a Commodore 64, a 7-inch B&W TV, and a scrub board and clothes line.
_______________________________________________
excellent feudal vassalage picture, Paraquat(bows to the brevity of wit, the soul of wisdom!)!
 
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
Yer Impishness!
I see the main difference is a Corporate government, is a sole company. an F-tech would be all the industries(leaders) in concert as the govt. With the mindset of Feudalism.
Ah, I appricate the clarification!

(Hey, just because I'm a despotic emperor, that does not mean I have any concept of political science! :D )
 
So and FT is a cross between William Gibson's conception in Johnny Mnemonic and Orwell's 1984.

Sounds like a place for Travellers to commit a bit of carnage!
 
A strict "corporate" government on a planet I think implies that it operates for the benefit of the stockholders (or parent company or charter holder or what have you) --- a Feudal Technocracy tends to operate for the benefit of the small, tight (and local) leadership.

I like the Zaibatsu spin on it.
 
Originally posted by Rodina:
A strict "corporate" government on a planet I think implies that it operates for the benefit of the stockholders (or parent company or charter holder or what have you) --- a Feudal Technocracy tends to operate for the benefit of the small, tight (and local) leadership.

I like the Zaibatsu spin on it.
_____________________________________________
Thank you sir.As one who has experience with corporate law, I thank ye fer weighing in!
 
In this debate, I think it is time to dig out the old Traveller's Digests... :( not having mine at hand...

I would say that corporate government would be best represented like an entrepot government...like the Rhodes encampments in South Africa or Hudson's Bay holdings in Canada before the selling to Canada.

But, I do also like the idea of a planet being used for the benefit of shareholders. This would be a privatization utopia, save that all things really go back to a single source - the company. Could we see the theories about Japan Inc. being the paradigm for corporate government?

Japan still proves to be a more elusive concept, even for the average Japanese...it just is what it claims to be - democracy, however imperfect. But, as are all democracies if you read your C.B. MacPherson, until a participtory democracy returns.

The really interesting question for F-Tech is where is borders between culture, politics and economics. I have always presumed from GDW sources that these were Centrally Planned Economies. Therefore, when information is hierarchical there are blockages, whose task is it to remove those blocks? At the same F-Techs relay upon minimal bureaucracy. Therefore, I think the assumption was that computers could take the role of planners.

side note: (An idea floated by The Economist at the time of Central Planning in the USSR entitled "The End of Planning?" came up with this idea and has always been floated in the so-called Socialist Calculation Debate...and except for The Economist and diehard Stalinists, the idea has always stated as a failure due to the velocity of Capital movements to run a country's economy...now imagine a planet's...)

Getting back to the issue at hand, like all forms of government in Traveller it needs to be broken down into almost microscopic detail for it, to understand its workings. Better to say, that government remains a mystery. When my players confronted a UPP they knew that is what is what the Scout service said in...* Governments changed frequently in ITU. The real challenge is to confront players with an Alien (even if it is human) regime to baffle their way through it. Then comes the issue of trying to get a handle on Interstellar governance forms, of which, players ought to only have the vaguest of sketches...but, we will see when Loren releases the Nobles book, as I did not really like the T4 version, we will see what constitues the (quasi-)cannon.

*And, maybe the Scouts were bribed, coercised by the powers that be. Plus, what was the think at time of the survey. Measuring Government is not as easy hydrographics or even Law Level. It is all these grey Social Science areas that make the Traveller universe exciting compared to monolithic games like Fading Suns (although, even FS can be tweaked through the Lost Worlds campaign). Maybe, BITS ought to mount a PDF supplement to their 101 Governments for other times and other places, as the voice of T4.
 
Originally posted by Rodina:
A strict "corporate" government on a planet I think implies that it operates for the benefit of the stockholders (or parent company or charter holder or what have you) --- a Feudal Technocracy tends to operate for the benefit of the small, tight (and local) leadership.

I like the Zaibatsu spin on it.
That's a good comparison. One examples IIRC from 101 Governments had one company/cartel being the Head of State and/or government. There can be some smaller companies that only compete in the markets and have no governmental authority. This is the model friends and myself used in developing D'BRE Corp and SpaceDock.

One that I've used is having companies being appointed/elected to govern a particular region or area of society.
 
Kafka47 writes:
Which political scientists are talking about the post-industrial society? If it is Bell and Toffler, they were originally Marxists who got hooked onto the American civilization and projected it forward.
Bingo. Daniel Bell's The Coming of Post-Industrial Society is the tract I had to read in college.

Wow. I posted this thing at midnight and already have alot of responses. Interesting.

GIVE ME MORE BRAINS.
file_23.gif
 
Ok, now that we have established that it was Bell. Bell postulates that information is going to become the key commodity rather than industrial products. Thereby, creating the basis for post-industrial society and heralding an Information Society.

This premise is fundamentally flawed by the fact that nobody can successfully define what is meant by Information Society. Rather, we see the encroachment of various Intellectual Property regimes trying to hoard or free information, as much as possible. These moves, however, are connected to powerful interests, it is to maintain copyright or brand name awareness. Nothing terribly wrong, from a government perspective with either if a government is commited to maintaining property.

Getting back to your original question, it assumes that property is in the hands of the State and the State is in the hands of Feudal Technocrats. Now what leverage do Techarchs have in providing satisfaction and meaning for the lives of their citizens? If it is to work and serve the elite in exchange for consumer goods? Then that system is highly unstable, due to individuals wanting a greater say in government, making politics a commodity. Now, under F-Tech that is not a possibility. Is it a quasi-slave state, like the USSR?

If we are then looking for a contemporary state that is run like F-Tech, according to the above description, it is Kew Yew's Singapore - pretty authoritarian government but power resides within the corporate political elite who push a quasi-Confusian capitalism.

I keep on seeing in Traveller, a push toward adopting the Asian as the Exceptional...is this a current that is running through American society at the moment that Americans seem to be losing their Exceptional status and becoming more European?
 
He's my executive summary.

If you do an analysis of which worlds are Feudal Technocracies (FTs), they are all low population (less than 10,000) worlds. These worlds have the problem that they have difficulty attracting the required highly trained (and paid) engineers to maintain the planetary infrastructure (life support, transport vehicles, starport, etc).

So the government auctions off the required techical support systems to the highest bidder, in essence saying "pay us your bid, then charge what ever the market will bear, you keep the difference". This is the feudal part. The engineer is required to pay a set tax and perform a service (or several services) for their overlord (the world government), in return for ruling over the designated area.

In medieval times, the designated area were plots of land. The feudal lord was given a plot of land to make prosporous, he was required to pay taxes for the land (and the serfs), and provide men for the defense of the overlord.

In the FT government, the areas are technical services. This is the Technocracy part. Instead of passing the position (say life support engineer) to one's son, the position goes to either the highest bidder when the contract runs out, or to the most technically qualified person as determined by a series of tests.

Matt's article goes into more detail about how this works, and provides some variations on the theme. Plus more historical background. He's also written five other articles on the various govenment types in Traveller, all very enlighting.

Now if we could get half of the people who've signed up here to subscribe to JTAS, we could get it to go weekly....
 
Back
Top