Socialism: The Engine of Economic Entropy
Posted on November 9, 2008
Filed Under Economy, Politics, Reason, Religion, Science, Socialism | 2 Comments
Even by my grossly over-simplified definition, entropy is the measure of the useless energy found in a system, useless energy being energy that is not available for doing work.
One of the great contributions that Newton provided for the world of science–the world in general, really–was the presentation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The second of these laws deals with entropy, specifically stating that the amount of entropy of systems tends to increase over time, and that the more complex a system is, the stronger this tendency is, due to the amount of useful energy required to maintain the complexity of the system. In other words, the longer a system operates, the more it tends to break down, and the more complex the system is, the faster it will tend to break down.
Entropy increase is caused by the tendency of heat (energy) to disperse, spreading from the point of origin out to the cold regions surrounding it, thereby warming the colder regions, and cooling the warmer regions until the system reaches a point of energetic equilibrium, or in effect, status quo. At this point, the system still has energy (see the first Law of Thermodynamics dealing with the conservation of energy), but absent the dynamic tension provided by the disparate temperatures (hot and cold), the energy of the system becomes increasingly useless, that is, not useful for actual production (work). The system becomes stagnant and begins to decay and die.
The concept of entropy is not unique to physics. Information theory, mathematics, medicine, and sociology all identify the phenomenon of entropy within the context of their respective disciplines. It’s reasonable to deduce that entropy is not simply a characteristic of physical or social systems, but is the description of a characteristic of immutable natural law that applies to all levels of organization.
Given that sociology recognizes the inevitability of social entropy, we should examine all social constructs to understand the energies that power them, and thereby be prepared and able to overcome the inevitability of entropic decay. One such social construct is economics.
Economics has as its “fundamental concern…the material standard of living of society as a whole and how that is affected by particular decisions made by individuals and institutions” (Sowell, 2007). So, if we are to understand what makes economies strong or weak, grow or recede, work or not work, we have to examine the decisions being made by those in positions of economic influence, bearing the tendecies of systemic decay–entropy–always in mind.
So, how does entropy apply to economy? First, we have to identify the systems involved.
Despite the foul-crying of liberals and socialists (which cries are deceptions meant only to hide their true intent, but we’ll come back to that), the systems of economy are the classes of society. Much debate can be waged over definitions of classes and the thresholds that separate one class from another, but for the purposes of this argument, we’ll identify only two, separated by an age-old standard: the haves, and the have-nots. Obviously this is also grossly oversimplified, because depending on perspective and the specifics of what (i.e. have what, or have not what), anyone could rightly be identified in either class. That being understood and conceded, regardless of the what, there is in human society always a division between those who have and those who have not.
Now, given these two classes, lets examine the decisions that might be made by those in governing positions relative to each of these classes.
In the first case, we’ll look at socialism, which has as one of its defining characteristics the redistribution of wealth. In other words, socialists believe that the natural separation between haves and have-nots is actually not natural, or if it is natural, that it is not fair to the have-nots. So, in the interest of balancing this inequity, they feel they are justified in taking some portion of the what from those who have and giving it freely to the have-nots. Now, no matter how much of the what is given to the have-nots, there will always be something that they have not : they have not earned that which they now have. They did not work to produce it, it was simply taken from those who have and given to them.
And thus begins the decay.
Economic energy–heat–originates with those who produce. Their having is directly correspondent to their production. Given that any individual, no matter how productive, is still only one person, there is an inherent physical limit on that person’s productivity, and therefore a cap on how much they can earn (have). If the person hopes to break beyond that limit, he/she must involve others who are also productive, and hopefully create a synergy, in which the output of their combined productivity is greater than the sum of the parts, and they can all share in the fruits of their production and have together. All are benefited, their productivity (work or useful energy) grows, and with it increases the “material standard of living” of those involved. As long as they remain productive, and continue to increase productivity, they will remain a source of economic energy, an economic “hot spot,” so to speak.
If, however, socialist policy is in place, this growth cannot take place. In these circumstances, as soon as the haves have grown beyond a certain threshold (as defined by the socialists, of course), the fruits of their productivity are no longer their reward, but are removed from them and become the reward of those who are not producing on their own, i.e. those in economic freeze. The socialist belief (so they say) is that by “spreading the wealth around,” those who are in economic freeze will thaw and become productive and begin to create their own warmth. This may be true in some cases, but only on the smallest of scales. The new-found what that the have-nots have been given may provide means for them to acquire goods that they would not have had if left to their own ambitions (or lack thereof), and that infusion of capital into the market may provide some small measure of warmth; but as with the ice melting in a glass in a warm room, the cold of the ice does emanate outwards from the glass, but only for a matter of moments and centimeters–an imperceptible amount in a room even as small as a few square feet.
Economic entropy increases.
Heat is removed from its place of origin and infused into the cold regions, slightly warming the cold and cooling the hot until the entire system is “equal” (the proclaimed but fraudulent goal of socialism). Never mind that the system which was once hot and dynamic and growing is now stagnant, useless and at best, lukewarm…and gradually cooling.
This won’t matter to the socialist governors who were the originators of this decay to begin with, because they will now be at the top of the social food chain as they reap the fruits of what they have sown, extracting increasingly more in “administrative fees” (i.e. taxes) for distributing the wealth of an ever decreasing productivity base.
This is the socialist agenda, and this is the inevitable result. It matters little if the socialist is truly motivated by power-greed, laziness, or is simply misled by hyper-emotional blindness, the end is the same. The only difference being that the lazy and misled ultimately end up under the thumb of the power-greedy that they voted for. The division between the haves and have-nots is still intact, only now its insurmountable–a formidable wall of concrete and barbed wire. Some might call it an Iron Curtain.
One need only study the socialist societies of the past to see that the result is always the same. There has never been a socialist regime in any form that has endured. They have either stagnated and died, been overthrown by revolution, or degenerated into fascism, totalitarianism and ultimately, destruction. In point of fact, they are all on this same continuum, only differing in the measure of their decay, which as we now know, even in economics, has a name:
Entropy.
References
Sowell, Thomas. (2007). Basic Economics: A common sense guide to the economy (third edition). New York:Basic Books
Comments
2 Responses to “Socialism: The Engine of Economic Entropy”
Leave a Reply
[...] has no right or rule in this domain and when it tries to interfere, it makes of itself a thief, stealing that which belongs to one and giving to another based on its own definitions and determinations. It effectively places itself above God, not in the [...]
[...] secret works that are all designed to set man unequal to man. They are programs and systems that cannot be sustained, and yet the infrastructure that imposes these systems on society is so deeply rooted and engrained [...]