Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yes I'm talking about entropy though thi relates to philosophy and such, which I'm interested to know of, if you can teach me it.

is there any political terms that correlate with this? My room is not messy I live in a closest almost.

Well, "disorder" may be a proper connotation here depending upon who is most concerned with the subject at hand. It's a common part of bourgeois philosophy to say that the world is unordered, unknowable, and much too chaotic for a scientific analysis of history. This in contrast to Marxist-Leninists who say there are definite laws of historical development and that history can be approached scientifically - and that we can guage the future based upon solid laws and theory.

Unless of course you're the other train of thought in bourgeois philosophy AKA fatalism - then it's God's will that things become more complex and it's not for you to worry about.

It's also built into the third law of thermal dynamics, which says that entropy will increase, in effect as more and more suns go out a reform and reform again they lose more elements due to fusion and they become heavier elements that can't sustain a reaction. So were left with is ash from the fire.

We can't really reburn ash since it went through the process already. The sun that contains high amounts of energy but low entropy as we get into space its high entropy but low energy. So the curves are flat in these regions and curved were energy is is condensed.

Entropy is a asymptote line with absolute zero it can go aside of it as it gets closer but it never gets to the actual finite region.

In effect what makes your car run is how the universe will end, due to red and blue shift by Hubble and others.

On a side note we cause entropy to the universe everyday just by being alive, so keep living a help to end the universe on breath at a time and every cup of tea, coffee or whatever you drink.

Ah, but what about the first law? As the sun burns, it's converting its mass into energy. All the various forms of light and radiation zipping every which way across space is the shed skins of stars and stellar phenomena.

Since energy cannot be destroyed, but must take another form, there lies the possibility of energy converting to something even more obscure to our imagination. If I'm not mistaken, neutrinos may be knocking on the door to this conclusion.

When we envision a universe being destroyed, we're considering this as material beings. It's our form of universe that's being destroyed.. rather converted... all around us.

But that goes back to the endearing tendency for time to be both liner and cyclical at the same time. Just depends on the level you wish to observe. To an individual, time is liner... they are born and die. But the material that made them is cyclical... it goes on to make new forms over and over again. If there's a real world interpretation for reincarnation, it is this. But on a cosmic level, matter becomes finite as it converts to energy. And so it goes on... one level after the other.


lol, I wish Marxists would be bold enough to cross their dependance on dialectic materialism with real world science, because they would not be disappointed. Though they might be bemused to know that the "probabilities" are not due to a class conspiracy. If nothing, it shows the strengths of dialectics to help understand the real world!

Take the Uncertainty Principle. We cannot know the position and velocity of the particle at the same time, because our observations force us to choose one or the other.

How can we interpret this? It's a duality!

Instead of forcing one side or the other, we accept that the wave function is in effect dialectic... the wave function is a synthesis of the two phenomena.

The problem is that Marx developed his appreciation for dialectics when only Newtonian physics was well known. There was a tendency for "synthesis" to be interpreted as the anti-thesis and thesis acting in such a way that one cancels the other out. But they don't really "destroy" the opposite in determinist fashion. They combine with it to create a probabilistic result. The world is in fact, NOT black and white. That is only in our heads.

The whole Marxist shabang is that history/political economy have definite laws.

Essentially, what I'm getting here is a perception that modern physics cannot already be a part of Marxism. But (avoiding quoting from my massive manual) many Soviet scientists had come to the conclusion that modern physics, if anything, backed up dialectal thinking! If anything any modern scientific principle, that's worth its weight, has been created by spontaneous materialism, that is, a scientist using materialist observation.

From The Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism: A Manual, published in 1963 by International Publishers; guided by the collaberative of international Workers and Communist Parties.

From "The Progressive Nature of Development"

"Since only what has become obsolete is "negated" in the process of development, while all that is sound and viable is preserved, development is a progressive movement , an ascent from lower stages to higher stages, from the simple to the complex. In other words, development is progress.
Often, something like the return to stages prveiously passed through occurs during this development, when certain features of outlived and replaced forms are repeated, as it were, in the new forms. Engels illustrates this proposition with a widely known example. "Let us," he writes in Anti-Duhring, "take a grain of barley. Billions of such grains of barley are milled boiled and brewed and then consumed. But if such a grain of barley meets with conditions which are normal for it, if it falls on suitable soil, then under th einfluence of heat and moisture it undergoes a special change, it germinates; the grain as such ceases to exist, it is negatedand in its place appears the plant which has arisen from it, the negation of the grain. But what is the normal life-process of this plant? It grows, flowers, is fertilized and finally once more produces grains of barley, and as soon as these have ripened the stalk dies, is in its turn negated. As a result of this negation of the negation we have once again the original grain of barley, but not as the singlue unit but ten-, twenty- or thirtyfold."

Another quote from the section entitled "Absolute and Relative Truth"

"During the nineteenth century, physics held to the wave theory of light. Early in the twentieth century it was found that the wave theory of light was one-sided and inadequate, since the light possessed both an undulatory and corpuscular nature. However, the one-sided wave theory enable scientists to make a large number of important discoveries and explain numerous optical phenomena."

The idea that matter isn't destroyed but changed was one of the Soviet scientists, and indeed dialectal materialists favorite subjects - since the old view that matter can be destroyed is less dialectal. Even matter can force time to be subservient!

More quotes
"Space and time being universal modes of existence of matter are absolute; nothing can exist outside of time and space. But their properties are changable; space and time relations depend on the speed of motin of matter; the properties of space and time change in various parts of the universe in according with the distribution of motion of material masses. In that sense, space and time are relative"

An analysis of why newtonian physics failed from "Determinism and Modern Science"

"Its distinguishing feature, which was also its defect, was that it made every cause a mechanical one.
This viewpoint was justified and confirmed by practice in the study of the motion of mechanical interaction of celestial bodies and also of macroscopic terrestrial bodies and parts of bodies. It was by the method of mechanical determinism that scientists could presidct the visible positions of the sub and planets and could calculate how to construct machines and engineering works. However, all attempts to apply the principle of mechanical determinism in studying more complex phenomena proved a failure. Biological phenomena, phsiological and mental processes, and the social activisties of people, could not be explained merely by mechanical determinism.
The second extremely important defect of mechanical determinism was that it did not recognise the objectivity of accidental phenomena. Its adherents rejected accident as being identifical with causelessness."

Also don't forget a great facet of dialectal materialism - the analysis of how qualitative and quantitative change interact.

"we are surrounded on all sides by examples of such conversions of quantitative changes into qualittative ones. Thus, a change in the length of eloctromagnetic waves is attended by the marked qualitative differences shown by radio waves, infrared radiation, the spectrum of visible radiation, ultra-violet waves, X-rays and, last but not least, so-called gamma rays.

I'll keep looking - there's a really great one demonstraiting a dialectal analysis of photon creation (as matter turns basically into light).

-apologies for any typos.

By presuming certain qualities to be "bourgeois" etc - is a personal bent, if anything, we can tell that many proletarians and petty bourgeois have been bourgeoisified so to speak. Marxism-Leninism understands, and all revolutionary theory acknolwedges, that the class lines aren't perfectly divided; some proletarians will be backward - some bourgeois will be progressive. It's just dialectically proven that the bourgeoisie is predominately predisposed to capitalism, and the proletariat has a natural inclination towards socialism if they act rationally.

The relationship between the means of production in capitalist production only allow for three general cases; you work on a bit of capital, you own and work on that capital thus employing no (or few) others, or you own and do not work on that capital yourself. We naturally acknowledge the middle range as being a sort of flip-flopper grouping, predisposed to siding with the bourgeoisie but a powerful and vital ally to the proletariat if available.

In the end doctors, artists, etc are generally proletarians or petty bourgeois - they can easily be found in both states of existence.

The idea that production is becoming centralized - but the nature of that production more socialized isn't a new idea and has been paramount to Marxist economic thought. Engels has some really nice tracts on this particular situation which appear in Anti-Duhring and the cut thereof in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific." At some point capitalist production will "leap" into socialist production - it's all very dialectal.

The Marxist class analysis relies strictly on the particular entity's relation to the means of production; hence there are only a few possibilities.

For all that I know of any *class* terminology we have these:

Proletarians: don't own the means of production, just work em'
Bourgeois: Own the means of production, don't work em'
Petty Bourgeois: Own the the means of production and work em'
Peasant: Generally mimicks the petty bourgeois with a slight hint of proletarianism - either in owning some means of production acting as an agricultural proletarian econmically or the flip side, owning agricultural land, but using another's means of production for harvesting.
Kulak: Large comercial farm owner who still works his/her own farm but employs many others.

If you're a stalinist you also include Kolkhoz peasantry (peasants who are non-antagonistic to the proletariat whose mode of production is state owned property and use collectivized property)
----------

I'll do the good ol' fashion quote and reply here..



We use the terminology to denote somebody who owns the means of production, but doesn't use them - this is much the philosophical term, if you look into any leftist or class theorist (again mostly leftist) from the early to mid 19th century everybody liked to use it differently or it had a different connotation as to its exact manifestation - though generally carrying a negative connotation.

The root of the word is probably favored because prior to the industrial revolution few people lived in towns. There are some really great statistics that show, that for instance, Britain, the home of the Industrial Revolution, had only one city prior to the industrial revolution even worth mentioning.

Then with a great clap of thunder agriculture found itself forever changed and suddenly there was surplus labor - the capitalists (who had existed in minor and premature forms as early as 1100 AD during Italy's comercial revolution and the Dutch's short lived comerical revolution a few years later) finally had labor that they could convince to come into a factory setting. Prior the "putting out" system and the handicraft industry generally only employed transients - or folks who intended to leave the industrial city and retunr to the farm at a given point in the year, this was no longer needed as the farm no longer needed them.



I don't really understand here - in general most economic theories (Marxism included) figure that the vast majority of the population has its material interests in mind - rather than being the romantic version of transients lol.



This "lower" working class I presume you're denoting the industrial working class or the more "blue collar" types than the white collar form of the proletariat - which is often better paid.

The "lower" workers are the most heavily lauded at by the bourgeoisie because they know that this is the most radical segment of the proletariat - they also tend to be poorly educated (the state prefers this arrangement) so they'll more easily fall into lock step with whatever is going on around them. I'm sorry you've obtained such a negative opinion, I know more than a few workers who have a natural predisposition to bourgeois ideology.

You can't look at a culture and say "this is how the class interacts so this is the character of the class" if the proletariat is backwards it's because they haven't been properly educated or have been bourgeoisified - as proven by their own material interests.

While we're on this subject - communists aren't against patriotism, to quote Georgi Dimitrov

“Communists are the irreconcilable opponents, in principle, of bourgeois nationalism in all of its forms. But we are not supporters of national nihilism, and should never act as such. The task of
educating workers and all working people in the spirit of proletarian internationalism is one of the fundamental tasks of every Communist
Party. But anyone who thinks that this permits him, or even compels
him, to sneer at all national sentiments of the broad masses of working people is far from being a genuine Bolshevik, and has understood nothing of the teaching of Lenin on the national question.” (United Front Against War and Fascism)

In other words, some tid bits of national pride aren't anti-proletarian, for instance America's traditional reverence for personal freedom isn't something to be set against as a communist just because it's a minor manifestation of nationalism (or rather has been absorbed by it). Let's not forget that nationalism was practically invented by the bourgeoisie in the 19th century and was hated especially by the monarchists - for instance Von Metternich in his many speeches and writings about "The Concert of Europe" he speaks out *against* nationalism - primarily because it obstructs the aristocracy. Though don't think I'm being too easy on history, the likes of Napoleon III and Bismark made careful use of nationalism later to further their aristocratic aims, but they were only "OK" with nationalism so long as it was manifested in their person.

Socialist internationalism is essentially saying "I have more in common with workers in any given country than with the rich banker in his house on the hill - who I'll never be allowed to meet."

I will however admit, that farmers and rural dwellers are traditionally more conservative, but this is out of their own self interest - farming is generally something that is overly taxed by "leaps" in the mode of production - if the crops and related commodities turn out as expected the farmer could care less about what system he/she lives in. This isn't particularly important however as only a very small percentage of the US is involved in farming - the rural dwellers are just more prone to conservative ideology as its the incumbant in their area generally as they've been transitioning from a farming based to an industrial or service economy - or they've just recently been reversed. For instance in what's now called the rust belt - conservatism is rising after being quashed for eons by a strong union presence, now dead due to out sourcing.

Two final notes:

Firstly, on "how the left divides itself" I don't know what you mean here, but if you mean sectarianism in marxism or socialism, that's always been the case because as Marx, Engels, Lenin and all other theorists worth their weight in salt have noted, socialism and progressive ideologies *must* have a unity between theory and practice, thus if one thinks one has a better method, it's inevitable for a split to occur and that which doesn't conform to the real world to die.

Secondly, I would say that the qualification is completely untrue. Humanity has only recently even gotten the idea that change or "progress" is a good thing at all. The general world view for most any time prior to the 18th century was that change, if it occured at all, was wholly bad. The 20th-21st century has seen the first appearence of the idea that progress occurs organically. Though historical materialism proves that progress is organic, we have also proven through our historical theory and utilizing our discovered laws of history that society carries itself through stages - many of these stages have default familial and social structures - predominately based around the mode of production. If one were to be in a nomadic culture, it's only because your community is somehow able to maintain itself in this way and because you haven't found any labor saving way to go about this. If you're referencing more of a "spiritual" nomad, as in a person who is "unmaterialistic" they are merely deceiving themselves, no matter how we fight so-called consumerism etc, it's going to happen, we're going to want to consume commodities that we ourselves couldn't produce, and we won't be allowed to wander about aimlessly and survive - lest it be by hand outs, but then you're no longer a proletarian you'd be what Marx termed the Lumpenproletariat, and history will leave them behind entirely.