Here is my problem. I am familiar from my college physics with the Gibbs distribution and it simply models the probability of a system being in a state X when the energy as a function of the state is at E(X).
Why should wealth distribution (in any society) follow this thermodynamic model? Is it simply an "artifact" of how we have constructed society? Surely it is not an "intended" artifact, but simply a mathematical side effect. But why should the model work in the first place for any given society? Is this a stupid question, or an epistemological mistake on my part to even ask the question.
But what if this kind of "wealth distribution" can be found in many complex societies -- i.e. societies without our current variants of market systems -- say Rome circa first century BCE or Athens in 500 BCE or Renaissance Florence? If it could be shown that the Gibbs distribution can be applied to wealth distribution in these very different societies (a big "if") what would that say about the structure of complex societies?
Moving to less complex societies: What if there was some other measure of "wealth" in hunter-gatherer societies without money -- some token for "prestige" for instance -- and what if the same thermodynamic model could be applied to this token for prestige. What wold this "prestige" distribution say about human nature, if anything at all? Or what would it say about the Gibbs distribution.
Or what if somehow the Gibbs distribution or some other thermodynamic model could be applied to chimpanzees and bonobos or to the distribution of ant colonies and we came up with similar answers?
Maybe we would then be able to conclude that complex societies only "work" if they somehow imitate thermodynamic models? In other words if there is not some kind of thermodynamic model that can be shown to "regulate" a complex society, that society will break down and disappear.
Here is a general premise I have assumed, perhaps mistakenly: In Marx one can use the term "mode of production" as a particular kind of concept referring to a process that has thermodynamic qualities. (I have also thought this about what we call "dialectics" in general. )
I doubt I have said come up with original questions or an original problematic, so if anyone knows of people who have written about these topics I would appreciate it if you point the way.
Jerry
On 4/24/07, Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
>
> [WS:] I do not have any general hostility toward it, since I am not sure
> what the argument is. The only logical conclusion that seems to follow is
> that different income distributions can be mathematically modeled. In other
> words, the argument seems to state the obvious by using obscure jargon.
> This does not strike me as particularly enlightening, useful or even
> innovative - just a bunch of nerds showing off how smart they are. Big
> fucking deal.
>
> If however, they want to argue that this distribution is "natural" as the
> title seems to suggest - they would need to explain that humans and material
> particles are pretty much the same in terms of their interaction with the
> environment - something that sounds like utter bullshit that only a hack
> propagandist or someone with acute autism can maintain.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>