simili between Marxism and Thermodynamics

[redmafiosi]

You know when I was studying thermodynamics in my engineering school ,it came to my mind that we can extrapolate the similitude of some of the thermodynamic characteristics of non living world into the marxian theory of change of human society- if we see it as a "system" in vertual thermodynamic sense. I'm thinking of it seriously now. Is there anybody who can take part in this ever to be found out theoritical search?

[Fidelbrand]

It's a good hypothesis, very creative and observant.

I think this should be related to philosophy. ;) Topic moved to related forum.

[encephalon]

actually, if you read up on the chaos theory, it also correlates with marxism. I think that's probably the biggest, most prominent law of the way the world works, and saturates nearly everything: all things work towards equalization. Whether that happens or not depends on the circumstances, though, but I think everything can be thought of in terms of moving towards an equal distribution.

[encephalon]

I've been considering trying to program (computer program, that is) some kind of theoretical social model based on that premise and see how it works, but I'm not sure where to begin.. it'd be a lot more work than I think I can handle at the moment.

[Trissy]

A comparison between the theories and laws of Marxism with the theories and laws of thermodynamics will seemingly always be difficult (if not impossible) because of the differences between science and social science.

The debate still rages as to whether Marxism is a science or not but because I feel that there is some truth in how Popper saw science advancing I can never see Marxist theories as being scientific. To me they're political philosophy. I feel that neither the Inductionist nor the Falsificationist accounts of science answer all the problems in philosophy of science but falsifying data at least seems to play some role what science is. What data are Marxists prepared to say falsifies Marx? Often in these discussions I get the destinct impression that many Marxists think that it is impossible for such data to exist. As much as I appreciate many of Marx's views I still believe that he was cappable of mistakes and that he indeed made mistakes mainly because he was human and not an omnipotent God.

What makes the laws of thermodynamics so important in science is the fact that they have been rigourously tested and in theory they still are on a daily basis. Any chemical reaction that takes place can be monitored and the relevant calculation done to see whether they falsify the laws of thermodynamics. One of my University chemistry lecturers said she'd pay any of us a million pounds if we could find a single chemical reactions that breaches the second law of thermodynamics. Can the same be said about Marxist laws? The habit of many is to see the world through Marxist spectacles and just incorporate everything into Marxism as verifying data. But where is the risk that is inherent in all scientific activity? In experiments the whole credibility of a theory is put at stake. What is being put on the line when Marxists examine the world?

Unless serious questions are posed about Marxism then all claims to be scientific will never be taken that seriously.

[Monty Cantsin]

... 'scientific socialism'...

...was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself; see my text against Proudhon.

Marx's "Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy"

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/wo...kunin-notes.htm (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm)

it's easy to see the general 'dialectic' within different scientific theories. But that’s because the dialectical method is quite broad in it’s principles(as I understand them).

[encephalon]

it's easy to see the general 'dialectic' within different scientific theories. But that’s because the dialectical method is quite broad in it’s principles(as I understand them).

That's mainly what I am concerned with; I'm rather positive the basic principles are the same for all things. They differ in methods and material.

[ComradeRed]

You know I have always played with the idea of having Marxism be based on Physics and Math, then decoupling totally from dialectics. If I ever had enough times on my extraordinarily lazy hands, maybe I'd do it...

[D_Bokk]

I personally wouldn't like to compare Marxism to Thermodynamics. When the universe reaches a point of equillibrium we all are likely be dead, we would probably die before then actually...

If we were too look at Marx as we look at Thermodynamics the end of entropy (end of social and economic inequalities) then the human race will cease to exist. This would disprove not only Marx, but Communism, and that's would be the last thing we would want.

[encephalon]

If we were too look at Marx as we look at Thermodynamics the end of entropy (end of social and economic inequalities) then the human race will cease to exist. This would disprove not only Marx, but Communism, and that's would be the last thing we would want.


Actually, if there's a way to disprove anything, I'm all for it. A theory that does not reflect reality is not a theory I am at all interested in. Among other things, that's why I'm an atheist.

But I don't think your comparison is a very good one, unless inequality is hardwired into the human condition and without it humanity couldn't exist. It would be an end to our social model, not humanity.

When energy disperses, it doesn't disappear (as you would suggest if it is compared to marxism). It simply reorganizes into greater equality. If humans were energy, they wouldn't disappear. The relationship between them would simply change.

[D_Bokk]

When there is no difference in temperature between any two bodies - then there will be no transfer of heat (ie no Entropy). When Entropy ceases to exist, that would imply that all things are equal in temperature. When we no longer have a difference in temperature, we will no longer have energy to power anything - society will stop. Other things will also occur with the environment - I doubt we would have a livable temperature. If we allow ourselves to think that Thermodynamics and Marxism are simular, then the phase of Marxism in which everyone is 100% equal would result in an unfunctionial/unlivable planet.

[encephalon]

When there is no difference in temperature between any two bodies - then there will be no transfer of heat (ie no Entropy). When Entropy ceases to exist, that would imply that all things are equal in temperature. When we no longer have a difference in temperature, we will no longer have energy to power anything - society will stop. Other things will also occur with the environment - I doubt we would have a livable temperature. If we allow ourselves to think that Thermodynamics and Marxism are simular, then the phase of Marxism in which everyone is 100% equal would result in an unfunctionial/unlivable planet.

I think you miss the point, for one: I think most people here are talking about the equalization factor that both concepts share in common. Now, as for entropy: energy does not ever disappear. It changes configuration, but it does not disappear. And that is another factor similar to society; of course, society could disappear at some point, but we're talking about a general law of equalization that permeates different theories, from physical to chemical to social, not whether or not the subjective entity can be nonexistant.

You're thinking in a focused, literal mode on both at the same time rather than conceptual; it is through conceptual thinking that we connect one theory to the next and so on; it is how we connected chemistry to physics and electricity to electro-magnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces and gravity. Literal representation undoubtedly has its place, but without conceptual thinking and building a connection between two seemingly starkly different concepts, we get no closer to understranding the world as a whole.

[D_Bokk]

I've never stated energy disappeared.

If the universe is considered to be an isolated system, then when all temperatures in the whole universe becomes equal, a heat death will occur. This would be maximum entropy. In order to create work, we need differences in temperature. Without work, no machine can function. The temperature of the universe would be near absolute zero, so at that point I don't think it would matter since we would all be frozen.

Comparing this to Marxism would imply once we reach the ideal state of equality, we would all just die. Unless of course you look at it differently, such as the "freezing of history" as there would be very little events that would need to be written down.

However I look at it this way:

The equilibrium of the universe will be the destruction of the human race. If compared to the equilibrium of the people will be the destruction of the human race.

I choose not to see similarities between the two. I personally don't believe in using modern science to compare to Marxism. You cannot interperate the laws of thermodynamics seperate ways, no matter what they all are the same. While Marx can be interperated to bring about a democratic or dictatorial government. The laws of Thermodynamics are always correct. No human being is always right, and that includes Marx.

Science cannot be compared to political theory.

[encephalon]

If the universe is considered to be an isolated system, then when all temperatures in the whole universe becomes equal, a heat death will occur. This would be maximum entropy. In order to create work, we need differences in temperature. Without work, no machine can function. The temperature of the universe would be near absolute zero, so at that point I don't think it would matter since we would all be frozen.

With our current means, you are correct. And, if all energy were equally distributed, no complex systems would exist, period, including humans.


Comparing this to Marxism would imply once we reach the ideal state of equality, we would all just die. Unless of course you look at it differently, such as the "freezing of history" as there would be very little events that would need to be written down.

Again, we are not talking about a literal comparison of each and every facet. We're talking about one single trend that the two share in common, as well as many other phenomena in the world: the tendency to move towards equalization.



You cannot interperate the laws of thermodynamics seperate ways, no matter what they all are the same.

First, this is a severe overgeneralization, and you are stating theory as fact. While the laws of thermodynamics operate in one way in one plane (the one in which we find ourselves in), it does not mean it operates the same way on every level.


...The laws of Thermodynamics are always correct.

Try applying thermodynamics to quantum physics. Guess what? Things behave differently. Certain (if not all) "laws" are emergent in a complex system; while they may apply on one level, they do not always apply to other levels. Gravity is another example.



No human being is always right, and that includes Marx.

I don't believe anyone made that statement, and I think it would be a very foolish statement to make. Of course, people have formulated the laws of thermodynamics, and thus far they have remained constant beyond the quantum level; so while I agree with you that no human is ever always right, I must also say that you're treating a man-made theory in the same fashion that you accuse others.




Science cannot be compared to political theory.


political theory is part of political science. It is, in fact, a science. Furthermore, you are simply stating a conviction rather than a fact, much like creationists state their convictions rather than approach things scientifically.

The fact is, we exist within a world of thermodynamics, as does our sociological and political construct. As we are products of thermodynamic activity, so too is our thought.

In any case, saying that a comparison can't be made between the equalization of society and the equalization of energy is like saying that one can't make a comparison between a statue and the image in your head of a statue when you think about one. While they are far from the same thing, certain facets exist that they share in common. That is not to say that they are wholly alike, but that they share some of the same conceptual themes.

Evolutionary algorithms in computer science can serve as another example of it: certainly, evolutionary algorithms are definitely not the same thing as biological evolution, but they do share certain aspects in common. Simply because one is a biological/chemical process and another is man-made and belongs in a conceptual sphere rather than physical does not mean one cannot make comparisons between them. It is, in fact, what humans do best, and I suspect that will continue ad infinitum.

[infernomunky]

i think that the best correlation that can be derived as true is that thermodynamics and the laws stated my marx both are in simplest form action and reaction......now we never know truely what the reaction will fully be but we do know that it has been affected by the previous action .... .....but yeah.......you will find some similarities.....and the more statements in regards to each that are true will be more and more alike........
..... :blink: .......but it gets headspinning when you start related everything to everything....cuz everything is so complex thats its simple......
....good point tho.....