The existence, stability, and balanced functionality of all systems rely on five fundamental laws. In other words, a relationship exists between the equilibrium of a system and the operation of these principles.

1. The Law of Tendency Towards Annihilation (Mortality)

The first law of thermodynamics illustrates the conservation of energy and work within closed systems. In other words, according to this law, energy remains constant and eternal, merely transforming from one form to another. This principle suggests that the energy input into a closed system is returned as heat, work, or other energy forms, expressed as:

Δ𝑢=𝑞+𝑤Δu=q+w

If we accept this principle, it would seemingly refute the tendency towards system mortality. However, the second law of thermodynamics, discovered and confirmed after the first, asserts that continuous energy exchange between heat and cold will ultimately lead to the universe’s end.

Constructing a cyclic engine that solely transfers heat from a cold to a hot reservoir is impossible. According to the Kelvin-Planck statement, it is unfeasible to create a device operating cyclically that interacts with only one thermal reservoir. No heat engine can function without losing heat at

𝑄𝐶.

Similarly, Clausius argued that a refrigerator cannot transfer all the energy absorbed from a cold source back to a heat source without energy loss during the process.

All systems adhere to the second and third laws of thermodynamics. Consequently, the energy input into a system always exceeds the energy output (work) it provides. According to the third law, when a system’s energy approaches its minimum, its entropy decreases to a negligible level, implying that the system loses flexibility and adaptability, reaching maximum internal disorder and eventually disintegrating.

All systems—whether natural, social, economic, mechanical, physical, organic, or nuclear—are mortal and tend towards annihilation. If the essential conditions for a system’s existence are not met, it collapses or malfunctions. Systems are formed by orderly, coordinated, and purposeful interactions between materials, humans, energy, and ideas. Their mortality does not stem from the perishability of their components but from the structure governing their internal connections.

A system can continue functioning even if some components fail. For example, the death of individuals does not destroy a social system; cultural and social structures persist. Conversely, individuals may witness the collapse of a social system during their lifetime. A system cannot form or function if the lawful connections between its components are absent, even if all parts are intact. For instance, a revolution disrupts the values of an existing social order, dismantling the old system and paving the way for a new one with novel values.

This principle applies to all systems. For example, a vehicle doesn’t fail when a part malfunctions; a mechanic replaces the defective part to restore function. Failure to address these issues leads to systemic collapse. Thus, while the mortality of components is inevitable, system mortality arises independently from its parts, due to the disruption of its cohesive and lawful structure.

An organic system, such as the human body, is highly resilient at birth but loses its adaptive abilities with age. Eventually, it can no longer withstand imbalances or illnesses, leading to its demise.

Therefore, the structure of all systems is temporary and results from coordinated, lawful interactions among their components. When these interactions weaken or break, the system succumbs to aging and collapse. If systems were immune to mortality, they would lack the dynamism and transformative potential needed for stability and adaptation. In essence, systems persist only as long as they can resist the forces of mortality (third law of thermodynamics).

The concept of immortality may be inferred (relatively) from the first law of thermodynamics regarding energy and matter. However, once matter forms a system—an organized, lawful relationship—mortality becomes more apparent. This applies to any structure, from atoms to galaxies. Movement, force, and energy result from the tension between the forces of mortality and stability inherent in systems, akin to winds generated by thermal differences in nature or the convective currents in heated water molecules.

Enormous nuclear forces within atoms derive from their structured but perishable nature. The system must continuously generate energy to sustain its organized motion. Similarly, the vast energy from the movement of stars and galaxies stems from their inherent mortality. A momentary cessation of this orderly motion would lead to their destruction, releasing immense energy.

In social systems, class conflict drives production and innovation. Slave owners, landlords, capitalists, and bureaucrats mobilize labor forces to keep societal production in motion. This conflict fosters transformation, invention, and progress. When the forces of societal mortality surpass stability and security, the system collapses, and a new society emerges, initiating a fresh cycle of conflict and growth.

If we were to imagine, hypothetically, a society without conflict, it would be a static, inert, and lifeless entity—something that contradicts its very existence. Historical experience, even in communist societies, has shown that conflict always exists, albeit in different forms. Without conflict, a society cannot exist. Societies reach a point of collapse and extinction when the growing external class conflicts surpass the diminishing internal class conflicts, paving the way for a new society to emerge. In the newly formed society, external class conflict initially diminishes, while internal conflict is at its peak. Over time, internal conflict gradually decreases, while external conflict grows stronger. When the external conflict reaches its climax, another collapse occurs, and a new cycle of life begins. This is an inherent law of social systems.

The lifespan of a social system can be extended through social planning and by reducing external conflicts, as is done to some extent in many advanced capitalist societies, similar to how doctors extend human life. However, the law of mortality is inevitable, and every system ultimately reaches its endpoint and perishes. This holds true whether the lifespan is as short as a single-celled organism or a mosquito, or as long as the billions of years of a galaxy’s existence. Every system has a starting point and an endpoint; its death is certain.

Thus, society follows a cyclical and rotational movement—a historical dialectic, as Marx described. However, Marx’s error was in assuming that conflict would cease once a classless society was achieved. In reality, society continues its systemic, organized motion, accompanied by a form of social evolution. A communal system dissolves and is replaced by a class system, which in turn collapses, eventually leading back to a communal system. This cycle continues until the end of the Earth’s lifespan. Therefore, when we speak of the death of a system, we are not referring to the demise of its individual components but to the disintegration of the structured, lawful relationships between them that create an organized and functional system.

When a social system collapses, such as during a revolution, it may experience prolonged disorder and chaos. Internal class conflicts may penetrate even the family unit, leading to widespread societal turmoil. Over time, however, internal chaos diminishes, and external conflict grows until the social system achieves a relative balance and stability. This equilibrium lasts until external conflict again becomes powerful enough to unify internal forces, triggering another revolution. This cyclical process is a fundamental law of society. By understanding these governing laws, humans can influence and regulate societal development through social planning, thereby extending the system’s lifespan. This principle also applies to the natural world.

Observations suggest that the universe originated from a primordial atom, expanding for 7 to 10 billion years or, according to another theory, 13 to 18 billion years, at the speed of light. In 1933, Georges Lemaître proposed that the universe began from a single primordial atom containing all the matter that would later form the universe. At a specific moment, this atom fragmented, scattering matter in all directions, akin to nuclear fission.

Lemaître’s hypothesis was fundamentally correct but incorrect in many details. Modern science has shown that the universe never existed as a solid sphere as he proposed and did not fragment in the manner he described. Nevertheless, Lemaître is considered the father of the Big Bang theory. He concluded that if the universe is expanding, it must have once been in a condensed state.

Einstein’s equation

  demonstrates that matter and energy are equivalent and can be directly compared. In this equation,

c is the speed of light. Thus, energy is not inherent in matter but results from the organized, lawful interactions within a system. This energy can, in turn, drive the matter from which it originated, forming a cyclical, self-sustaining system—similar to how a dynamo generates electricity to power a vehicle’s fan, which in turn helps generate more electricity.

Therefore, it is the system—the structured, lawful interaction between components—that is mortal, not energy or matter. Energy and matter themselves are products of systems created through lawful material interactions. Since these interactions are temporary and mortal, all systems in the universe are likewise temporary and mortal.

The universe’s matter has been expanding at the speed of light for billions of years, giving it immense magnitude. According to scientific theories, this expansion will eventually slow down, and a contraction phase will begin. This process represents not a transformation of matter’s essence but a change in the systems that compose it.

Fundamental efforts to determine whether the universe is open or closed depend on discovering how quickly its expansion is decelerating.

In 1930, astronomers identified two types of stars, designated Population I and II. Population II stars appeared much redder and, through spectral analysis, were found to lack heavy metals seen in Population I stars. Today, we know that Population II stars are very old, while Population I stars are relatively young.

When astronomers observe galaxy movements, some emit red light, indicating contraction, while others emit blue light, signifying expansion.

Therefore, we might conclude that the universe cannot suddenly return to a condensed state, becoming fully contracted into a dense mass similar to its initial point of origin. For this scenario to occur, the universe would have to be considered a closed system, eventually contracting completely into a highly compact mass of matter.

However, the lifespans of stars and galaxies are not uniform, meaning they do not expand or contract simultaneously. Even now, some stars or galaxies might be forming or fading away, just as we can observe the death of many stars when we look at the starry desert sky.

The universe is at least 8 to 13 billion years old. During this time, billions of stars have been born, and billions have died and vanished. When a star or galaxy reaches its point of death, it is not the death of the matter or the energy it contains, but the demise of the system that linked those materials together in a structured, lawful motion.

If we view the universe this way, we see it as a closed and mortal system. It begins from a dense, contracted mass, expands over billions of years at the speed of light, and eventually contracts again into a dense mass. Conversely, if we consider the universe in terms of matter and energy without accounting for the structured interactions between them, we could describe it as open and eternal. This is because matter and energy are everlasting; only their forms change according to the governing structures. Systems are subject to the law of mortality, not matter and energy. The materials form the elements of the system, and energy is a product of their functioning.

In the universe, we encounter many systems—both natural and artificial—that exist as long as they have structured, coordinated relationships. Once those structures disintegrate, the systems perish, although the energy resulting from their functions remains. This structure applies at every level, from individual atoms to entire galaxies and the creation system. Thus, the universe contains an infinite variety of social, economic, physical, chemical, nuclear, botanical, and cosmic systems that emerge or vanish based on human or natural needs. These systems persist as long as there are cohesive, lawful, and coordinated relationships among their components; otherwise, they disintegrate.

If we consider society as a collection of groups, organizations, and social classes with logical, rational, and coordinated relationships resulting in specific functions, then society is a mortal system. However, if we view it merely as a collection of individuals capable of forming limitless structural relationships, we face an open system. Social structures form based on their class systems, intensifying class conflicts until they reach a breaking point and collapse. In other words, when social revolutions disrupt this structure, society disintegrates. Although this disintegration represents the breakdown of an open system, the process does not halt. Humans must establish new, organized, and systematic relationships based on new principles and laws to achieve new functions, leading to the birth of a new society. Consequently, society follows a cyclical pattern of structured and continuous movement, resembling the universe as an open system.

If we view society simply as a collection of people, disregarding its social structure, it cannot be considered mortal—similar to the universe’s matter. There will always be a human collective of some form unless environmental conditions on Earth no longer support life. In that case, it is natural and environmental factors that perish, not human societies. Human societies vanish only if the conditions for life disappear. However, society is not a formless collection of individuals. It is the structured, lawful, rational, goal-oriented, and coordinated interactions among people that constitute society, not just a group of individuals lacking social and cultural structures. Otherwise, we would be dealing with a mere herd of people, not a society.

Therefore, society is defined by organized and structured lawful social relationships, not by unstructured individuals. By this definition, society is always a mortal and perishable system.

2. The Law of Equilibrium Creation (Resistance to Annihilation)

The second fundamental law governing systems is the law of equilibrium creation. To overcome the first law—mortality and perishability—any system must generate a force or energy stronger than the force of disintegration to restore balance, stability, and continuity. In other words, the law of mortality (first law) is in direct opposition to the law of equilibrium creation (second law).

This concept parallels Hegel’s dialectical theory of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. When a system forms (is born), its equilibrium-generating force is at its peak, inherent in the system’s structured nature (thesis). The more complex, lawful, and robust the relationships between a system’s components, the stronger its equilibrium-creating force. Conversely, at a system’s inception, its mortality force is weak and negligible. Over time, the equilibrium force diminishes while the mortality force strengthens (antithesis). As long as the system maintains equilibrium, the tension between these forces drives movement, transformation, and evolution (synthesis). This structured motion continues until the equilibrium force weakens, and the mortality force surpasses it, leading to the system’s demise. This death is the final synthesis, resulting from the conflict between mortality and equilibrium, where mortality ultimately prevails.

Throughout its lifespan, an organic system faces various disorders, causing functional disruptions. For example, when a person becomes ill, the body must restore its equilibrium to survive. Systems function correctly as long as they maintain balance; when they lose it, functional disorder ensues. Systems that fail to regain equilibrium collapse and perish. Therefore, two types of equilibrium creation must always exist in a system:

Internal Equilibrium Creation: The system’s primary automatic mechanism for maintaining balance. For instance, when a foreign agent invades the human body, white blood cells work to eliminate it, restoring health. If the foreign agent is too strong, and the system’s internal defenses fail, the system—or the affected tissue—dies.

External Equilibrium Creation: This supplements internal mechanisms. For example, doctors prescribe medication to strengthen the body’s equilibrium-restoring capacity. However, if the body’s immune system fails (as with AIDS), even minor illnesses can destroy it. Without internal equilibrium, external support is insufficient.

A mechanic cannot design a car without incorporating an internal system for maintaining equilibrium. For example, a car cannot function without a radiator, fan, and cooling system. If the temperature rises, the driver cannot simply turn off the car or cool it mechanically. A system that solely relies on external balance will never function properly and, even if it does, it will not last long.

Similarly, a society cannot function healthily and sustainably without an internal system of equilibrium. For instance, if authorities only intervene when class conflicts have escalated, firstly, the constant identification of such conflicts is impossible, and no individual or organization can manage it. Secondly, by the time they investigate and become aware of disruptions in the balance, it may already be too late. Therefore, they attempt to secure the society against rising class tensions by creating extensive welfare organizations, public education systems, public housing agencies, pension systems, unemployment insurance, and so on. However, this is only effective as long as these organizations themselves do not fall into corruption, imbalance, or dysfunction, as this would lead the entire society into dissolution and shorten its life. Thus, if an internal system of equilibrium does not exist, external balance will never be sufficient.

Although each breath a person takes sustains life, it simultaneously reduces their lifespan. This reflects the ongoing tension between equilibrium-creation and mortality within any system. The balance between these two forces—one pushing toward preservation and the other toward dissolution—determines the fate of the system. A system is always at risk of non-existence, as it inherently tends toward dissolution, but constant equilibrium-creation prevents it.

Equilibrium-creation is continuously active to prevent the system’s dissolution. A system may have a lifespan of a day, an hour, or even billions of years, depending on the strength of its internal balance and the lawful interactions between its components. For example, a galaxy or a cluster of galaxies can exist for billions of years.

A manager should similarly organize the system of their organization to ensure both internal and external equilibrium.

For a social system to maintain internal equilibrium, the relationships between its material and human components must be lawful, coherent, and aligned with the organization’s goals and functional expectations. If such lawful connections are absent, the actions of individuals and other elements within the organization will not complement each other, and their behaviors may even be contradictory or disconnected. In a system that does not promote equilibrium, internal communications are lawless and may sometimes be contrary to the organization’s objectives. In such an organization, no clear criteria are established to regulate internal behaviors, and thus, the organization will not react effectively to the introduction of an inefficient or incongruous element. This is because the necessary equilibrium indicators to assess the action of such an element are missing. The organization should be structured so that the introduction of an inefficient element disrupts its internal equilibrium, and the communication network between components must be sufficiently regulated to quickly transfer any imbalance to the higher echelons of the organization (i.e., the self-regulatory role, which we will discuss later).

An organization will promote equilibrium when:

The communications between its various parts are clear, precise, and fully aligned with both short-term and long-term organizational goals. In other words, the roles of individuals in relation to each other and to the organization should not be vague or ambiguous. Job descriptions for all staff should be clear, and the behavior and accountability of subordinates toward superiors, and vice versa, should be well-defined. In organizations lacking internal equilibrium, they cannot resist or take effective actions against disruptive and crisis-inducing factors. Thus, a corrupt or inefficient element can easily enter such organizations without facing any structural resistance to negative entropy or rejection.

These organizations are often more reliant on individual whims, desires, and coercion. In such organizations, the individual plays a prominent role, and the organization conforms more to the diverse and variable individual performances. In contrast, in organizations with powerful equilibrium-creation, the individual does not play a central role but must always adhere to organizational norms and behaviors. In other words, in places where proper and advanced organization is in place, organizational coercion prevails, whereas where the organization is absent, individual or, at best, individual dictatorship, governs to maintain order. Therefore, the more advanced a society and its organizations are, the less prominent the role of the individual becomes, and the broader the role of the organization is. As we have shown, the functional role of the organization cannot be compared to the individual role—it’s infinite in comparison to a drop of water.

In organizations founded on system-based principles, individual actions complement one another. However, in disorganized organizations, individuals confront each other. As a result, class conflicts within such organizations are more intense, and internal connections are weak. In such organizations, teamwork is less effective because individuals tend to negate each other and are positioned in opposition. In these organizations, relationships replace regulations, and expertise loses its rightful place. In a strong and cohesive organization, an individual cannot be the cause of unexpected changes within the system; instead, it is the structure and the organizational transformations that lead to significant improvements in productivity and the movement of the organization.

Information within the organization should flow continuously, smoothly, and fluidly, and the equilibrium indicators should be clear, reliable, and well-known.

Monitoring and performance measurement systems should be continuously active in all dimensions of the organization. All components of the organization, both material and human, should be assessed and evaluated based on clear equilibrium indicators.

Equilibrium Indicators Numerous indicators can play a role in the equilibrium state of a system. According to the principle of continuity and the infinite connections between open systems, millions of equilibrium indicators can be identified within a global system. For example, in an economic system, the equilibrium indicator might be the balance between savings and investment (J.M. Keynes, 1946). However, when we look at a part of this system—say, the supply and demand system—equilibrium occurs when supply equals demand. In a monetary system, equilibrium is achieved when the money supply equals the value added from total production (national output), as any imbalance between these two would lead to inflation or recession. In other words, when the money supply exceeds national production, inflation occurs, and when it is lower, a recession and market stagnation arise.

In the human body’s organic system, there are multiple indicators to assess equilibrium. For example, a body temperature of 37°C plays a critical role in maintaining the equilibrium of the entire system. This system is composed of sub-systems like the circulatory system, where the equilibrium indicator is the heart rate. In the nervous system, equilibrium is achieved when there is balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems. If the nervous system is disrupted by an emotional or stress-inducing factor, adrenaline and cortisol hormones are released. The heart rate increases, and the sympathetic system becomes active, preparing for defense. Conversely, once the stressful factor is eliminated, the parasympathetic system becomes active to restore normal heart rate and return the body’s systems to a balanced state.

Thus, the secretion of two hormones in the brain could serve as indicators of equilibrium in the human nervous system. In other words, human willpower is as much under the control of intellectual faculties and social thoughts as it is influenced by hormonal secretions and external factors entering the body (such as alcohol, drugs, or nutrition that can affect the equilibrium of the nervous system and hormone secretion). Intellectual and social thoughts are acquired through increased knowledge, experience, and scientific-social study, while hormone secretions are largely influenced by external stimuli and consumables. However, the choice of consumables that affect mental and intellectual faculties may, in turn, be subject to the second factors—human will and desire.

The equilibrium indicator in a social system is the degree of external class conflict. When external class conflict increases to the point where it leads to unity between two hostile classes, the social equilibrium is disrupted, and the society becomes ripe for revolution. Class conflict can be measured using the class ratio, which is the income of the poorest 10% of the population compared to the wealthiest 10%. The closer this ratio is to one, the lower the external conflict, and, consequently, the greater the social equilibrium and justice.

The Gini coefficient is another indicator that can be used to measure the equilibrium of a social system. Unlike the class ratio, the closer the Gini coefficient is to zero, the more it indicates justice, while the closer it is to one, the more it indicates injustice. A Gini coefficient of zero reflects complete justice, and a coefficient of one represents complete injustice (Todaro, Michael), which is the opposite of the class ratio.

One of the indicators of equilibrium in a political system is the level of trust that people have in the political authorities and those responsible for the political system. Since in a class-based society there is usually a bipolar structure composed of two opposing classes, the term “people” here refers to those who are not part of the ruling class or its affiliates. In such a society, even if class conflict is high, the political system may still maintain equilibrium if the people trust the ruling authorities. Marx also emphasized class consciousness as a tool for social movements and revolutions. In his view, class conflict alone is not enough to spark social movements; class consciousness is also necessary.

In the educational system of society, one of the key indicators of equilibrium is the efficiency and responsiveness of the human workforce to the needs dictated by the tools of production. For example, during the feudal era, informal education by parents in rural households could meet the production needs determined by simple tools of production. Similarly, traditional religious schools met the educational needs of society in urban areas during that period.

However, as society progresses and gains access to new tools, the educational system faces new challenges. In such societies, traditional forms of education, such as religious schools, are no longer sufficient to meet the technical and specialized needs of modern society, such as computer hardware and software, or other advanced production tools.

The natural ecosystem itself is a complex system with numerous interconnected subsystems, and each of them, even down to individual components, can have its own equilibrium indicator. For example, the amount of water, temperature, or nutrients required for a seed or sapling to maintain its balance in nature and grow, the role of the ozone layer in sustaining the ecosystem, the tidal forces of the moon, and the sun’s role in providing warmth—all these are essential indicators for the stability, survival, growth, and transformation of the vast natural system.

For instance, in the Earth’s natural ecosystem, the condition for life, transformation, and evolution is water. However, this life-sustaining element will only remain in equilibrium when the amount of water entering the ecosystem equals or exceeds the amount of water extracted by society for its use. When a region’s population grows excessively and water use becomes irrational or wasteful—such as when private ownership of water leads individuals to dig numerous wells on their land—it results in the depletion of surface and underground water sources.

Thus, one of the key equilibrium indicators in the natural ecosystem is the balance between the water input into the system and the water output taken by society within a specific territorial boundary. This leads us to the concept of sustainable development. However, sustainable development faces tough competition from individual economic interests in a capitalist economic system. As long as these individual interests hold power, public benefits, even if announced with great force, will inevitably be sidelined, unless new economic structures are defined for society. Alternatively, the society must be organized in such a way that it can enforce the preservation of equilibrium indicators through legal means.

For years, humanity has been aware of the deterioration of the ozone layer, and slogans against the use of greenhouse gases have been raised. But to what extent have these demands helped rebuild the ozone layer or halted its degradation? Similarly, there have been warnings about the potential destruction of the Earth through nuclear bombs or environmental degradation. Yet, how much has humanity truly abandoned the arms race or stopped environmental destruction? Why? Because in the capitalist economy, the driving force behind human action is economic profit, not rational or prudent thought.

In a capitalist economic system where private interests determine human actions, the realization of such theories or slogans can only be hoped for if we can establish a powerful self-regulating system that imposes behavior contrary to individual interests on society. However, this remains a challenging issue within the theory of sustainable development, as humanity today recognizes the irrationality of its economic behaviors.

This is the inherent contradiction of the capitalist system—the conflict between individual and collective interests. In such a society, human actions are not determined by rationality or logic, but by the constraints of the system.

Therefore, Organizationalism, which aims at societal equilibrium, seeks to resolve this conflict by creating equilibrium within the social system. It attempts to solve this problem within the capitalist system by establishing a self-regulating system. The idea is not to impose behavior through force, pressure, or persuasion (as the actions of individuals in such a system are determined by the pressures of the capitalist system). Instead, by discovering the laws governing social behavior and using these laws to change behavior, a self-regulating system is created to compel individuals to adopt rational, sustainable behaviors without coercion, pressure, or authoritarian tactics.

Marx identified another contradiction within the capitalist system: despite its collective mode of production, capitalism fosters an individualistic ideology and behavior. He also pointed to the alienation of workers from the goods they produce as another conflict within capitalism. While Marx believed that the only solution to these contradictions was workers’ revolutions—calling for workers of the world to unite, since they have nothing to lose but their chains—the Organizationalist perspective does not support the dismantling or destruction of structures that have become outdated or structurally conflicted. Such an approach, they argue, is not a logical or rational solution.

When aging systems completely disintegrate and collapse, unfortunately, the emerging leadership in the post-revolutionary society may struggle for many years to organize and stabilize the new social and economic systems. This is especially true when the new ruling class is uneducated and lacks the necessary understanding. In such cases, the society may face years, if not centuries, of disorder, chaos, poverty, misery, and a dramatic decline in production, alongside the breakdown of all social and economic infrastructure. The new ruling class may resort to terror, repression, and dictatorship to maintain the status quo, preventing the society from achieving stability or creating systems that adequately reflect the changing times.

While the bourgeois revolution also faced structural chaos in its early years, it was able to eventually achieve a relative equilibrium due to the bourgeoisie’s higher level of civilization and education, especially in comparison to other social classes. As a result, the bourgeois class was able to establish scientific, technical, social, and organizational achievements over time.

However, the prosperity and stability of capitalism did not last long, and by the late nineteenth century, the capitalists found themselves facing enormous social crises, poverty among the working class, and the rise of Marx’s theories. It was at this time that Marx proclaimed: “Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!”

In contrast to these contradictions and social crises in capitalist systems, only those countries that successfully carried out reforms to reduce class conflict were able to avoid structural collapse.

Organizationalism’s solution lies in the continuous restoration of balance to social systems before they reach critical points of conflict and explosion. Understanding the mechanisms and laws governing a social system makes it irrational to ignore them in favor of waiting for a crisis. By understanding the social laws, we can predict the future course of society and create balancing systems to restore equilibrium in response to known and predicted conflicts.

For instance, today, as we understand the role of class conflict in the collapse of capitalism, it would be foolish not to create a powerful and flawless system of social security and welfare. Creating organizations that only serve as ineffective caricatures of such systems is not enough. Fortunately, governments do not need significant sacrifices or investments to establish these balancing systems. Many of these organizations can be structured through feedback mechanisms within the capitalist system itself, such as the creation of social security through a percentage of workers’ wages. If a powerful system of self-regulation is in place, like in some countries, the system will avoid corruption and deviation, ensuring it does not become a problem itself.

This same system-based approach can be applied to solving housing, education, and even nutrition problems, ensuring that all members of society can access basic needs. As we have argued, the problem in third-world countries is not the lack of resources but the weakness of organization based on lawful systems.

The goal of Organizationalist sociology is the continuous discovery of social laws and the use of these laws to restore social equilibrium. The objective here is not to destroy existing structures or create entirely new systems but to establish complementary systems that can restore balance before they face severe crises or inevitable explosions.

We do not advocate for the dismantling of previous structures, as this will not solve any problems but will lead to widespread disorder and chaos beyond imagination. However, as noted earlier, Organizationalism acknowledges the eventual impermanence of all systems. This is an inherent law in all systems: eternity and immortality belong only to the divine. Social systems are no exception, and capitalism, like systems of slavery, feudalism, or modern communism, will eventually collapse.

Nevertheless, it is unwise for social and economic planners to question the entire history of system-building at the first sign of crisis and contradiction. Instead of restoring balance through the laws governing these systems, they might call for a revolution and dismantle the system entirely—much like a doctor who, instead of treating a sick child, dismisses treatment on the grounds that the child will die eventually.

If we fail to pay attention to the balance indicators of systems, the systems that, according to their former laws, are heading toward destruction will inevitably lose their equilibrium and collapse. Therefore, system-builders must always be mindful of balance indicators.

A doctor is inevitably concerned with the balance indicators of the human body—such as the normal body temperature of 37°C, the pulse rate of 60 to 100 beats per minute, and blood indicators like cholesterol and glucose levels. Deviations from these indicators can have life-threatening consequences. Similarly, a health caregiver cannot restore balance to the human nervous system or other subsystems without measuring indicators like fat, glucose, vitamins, water, and hemoglobin levels. These are the various balance indicators of the human body. For instance, if the vitamin D level is too low or too high, bone health will be compromised, leading to osteoporosis. The same applies to other imbalance-related health issues, all of which serve as measures of overall health.

The government cannot remain indifferent to the disruption of equilibrium indicators within society and the national economy. For a conscious government, factors such as inflation rates, unemployment, consumer spending habits, the inclination to produce among producers, public trust in the ruling authority, infant mortality rates, life expectancy, and so on must not be neglected or dismissed. These are indicators that can serve as criteria for the success or failure of a government within an economic and social system. Therefore, since the variables affecting social systems are numerous, the indicators for measuring balance within these systems and their subsystems can also be numerous and varied.

Indicators are the criteria used to measure the balance of systems. Every researcher and official must pay attention to the changes in these variables in order to prevent any deviation or disorder within social structures. This is similar to a physician who has access to laboratory test results, X-ray images, electrocardiograms, and other health indicators of their patient.

Thus, if in an economic system, the liquidity is not proportional to the production capacity of society, we must expect a crisis of inflation. This is inevitable. Or, if the level of investment does not align with the community’s savings and banks, instead of using the people’s savings for investment and production, offer loans to importers, or, for example, savers hide their savings under their pillows due to economic insecurity, while investors, instead of engaging in entrepreneurship and investment, turn to purchasing foreign currencies, we should expect economic stagnation, unemployment, and the disintegration of the economic system. In such a society, the rates of addiction, crime, corruption, and other social issues will undoubtedly rise dramatically.

If a social system experiences significant inter-class conflict, this conflict reduces intra-class differences and leads to unity and cohesion among the classes. Ultimately, the society approaches the structural disintegration of the ruling system, and the outcome of these social interactions will be chaos, rebellion, and revolution. Therefore, those in power must heed this law and, instead of suppressing or preventing the formation of self-regulating organizations, such as political parties, they should open the social safety valves, making reforms that can reduce inter-class conflict and prevent the destruction of society, chaos, and disorder.

Therefore, the balance indicator in the social system of society is the class ratio. When the class ratio of society moves away from the ideal indicator, which is complete justice, and approaches zero (indicating complete injustice), or conversely, when the Gini coefficient, another indicator of social balance, moves away from zero and approaches one, society will be on the brink of rebellion and turmoil. In such a case, the ruling social system will suffer from disarray, dissolution, and disorder resulting from the imbalance within society. If governments are aware of sociological principles, they will pull the safety valves to reduce inter-class conflict and implement reforms. For instance, they might provide greater employment opportunities, higher welfare, better public health, education, and especially housing for the poor and middle classes, thus reducing class differences significantly.

Just as a president can be monitored and evaluated through indicators such as unemployment, inflation, liquidity, external debt, public welfare levels, and so on, the management of a production organization can be evaluated using indicators such as profit, income, costs, employee satisfaction, consumer satisfaction, and others. However, these monitoring systems must be continuous and ongoing. Whenever the system faces the risk of imbalance, alarms must be raised.

3. The Law of Changeability and Evolution (Entropy)

The third law governing systems is the principle of changeability and evolution, or entropy. All systems are subject to the law of transformation, and this is a general principle. However, evolution is specific to social and organic systems. For example, a mechanical system cannot be evolutionary unless a creator or innovator seeks to improve it, which is a change in the mechanical system, not evolution. Ms. Narges Nezhat, in an article titled “Entropy, Negative Entropy, and Information,” which has been widely studied and referenced, defines entropy as disorder, disturbance, and chaos, and associates information with order.

 “Here, entropy refers to the lack of information available to an observer about the system under study, and maximum entropy corresponds to maximum ignorance. In other words, entropy, in its most common interpretation, measures not only the disorder or lack of organization in a physical system but also the reduction in the observer’s information about the subject being observed.” (N. Nezhat, p. 65)

Entropy refers to the system’s compliance with the law of changeability. While it is true that any change in the system may disrupt its order, stability, and equilibrium in the short term, leading to a state of imbalance in the system which was previously formed and accustomed to a particular condition, entropy does not mean disorder. Just as information cannot inherently imply order, the system will not tolerate disorder and will return to an appropriate level of order through internal and external balancing forces.

It is evident that if the system is unable to establish the necessary order for its survival—signifying its equilibrium and relative stability—over the long term, its potential for extinction will lead to its collapse. If we pay attention to the word “entropy,” which is a Latin term, we arrive at the same conclusion. The term originates from the French “Entre-” or the English “enter,” which means entering. In other words, entropy refers to the system entering a new stage of evolution and emphasizes the principle of flexibility and acceptance of change within the system.

The system adheres to the law of transformation, meaning that no change can occur without the formation or assistance of systems. We can never achieve transformation, change, or evolution in a social system, change in the mode of production, or transformation in social relations and cultural values without the formation and help of social systems. Similarly, no change, transformation, or evolution in economic, physical, mechanical, chemical, nuclear, electronic, or even software systems can occur without the initial creation of their respective systems. For example, the transformation of an economic system such as capitalism is only possible if the system already exists or at least if its theoretical form with specific variables is formed within a computational system. In other words, no change can occur in a disorganized, chaotic system without structure—it is not only impossible, but unimaginable. Change requires movement, and movement requires the intake of material and energy, which comes from the cohesive and organized structure of the components, i.e., the system. Disorganized components of a car, or tissues in a living body that lack any legal relationship, are incapable of either movement or evolutionary change. How can one expect movement, transformation, or evolution from a dead and ineffective entity?

The Relationship between Entropy and the Structures Governing Systems

Some people believe that the lack of dynamism in production in third-world countries is due to the absence of necessary tools. However, some oil-rich third-world countries have turned into storage depots or swamps for tools and goods from industrialized nations, yet these tools have never led to their development. Others attribute underdevelopment to the lack of specialized human resources in society. While universities in these countries invest in training specialized personnel, they may even cultivate the best talents. However, these individuals are often rejected and forced to leave, or they end up working in activities unrelated to their fields of study. This occurs because the weak and sick economic systems in these countries are incapable of absorbing such forces. Consequently, these professionals either migrate abroad or are employed in jobs unrelated to their academic qualifications. Therefore, if there is no active organization to absorb skilled and efficient personnel, the system will not be organized for development, transformation, and change. Instead of attracting skilled and efficient workers, it will push them away.

For instance, our universities train agricultural engineers every year, but when we look at the structure of our agriculture, we see that more than 80% of it depends on independent farmers working on land ranging from one to five hectares with their families. This reveals the inefficiency of the agricultural system in absorbing specialized personnel. It is evident that the structure of this traditional mode of production can never attract such specialists. A farmer with only a few hectares of land cannot hire an agricultural engineer, a pest control expert, or a rural planner. Our educational system has likely trained them for office jobs in ministries, but since the capacity of such ministries to absorb these experts is weak, these professionals often end up in unrelated fields. Therefore, if we want our agricultural system to attract agricultural engineers, pest control specialists, civil engineers, geologists, and others, we must transform its structure to match these professionals. In other words, unless we change the structure of our production system, it is impossible for this system to attract foreign expertise and undergo transformation. A traditional system can only absorb illiterate villagers. But even when they become literate, for example by completing a fifth-grade education, the system is still incapable of absorbing them. A literate villager may say, “I’ve learned to read and write, but now you want me to sit under a cow and milk it?” This becomes impossible.

Thus, the underdevelopment of the third world is not caused by a lack of tools, specialized manpower, or insufficient resources like water and land. It is more due to the absence or weakness of organization and the failure to develop modern production structures.

Systems undergo transformations, and these transformations can create imbalances in the short term. This is why dynamism exists within a system. A system must continuously adapt, leading to changes, transformation, and evolution. Therefore, a system transforms, evolves, grows, and expands, but it must undergo balanced and coordinated growth. If a system grows in an uncoordinated and disproportionate manner, it will lose its equilibrium. In other words, the balance of any system is disrupted by unbalanced growth. For example, if one leg of a person grows to 80 cm, while the other remains at 40 cm, it will disrupt the individual’s ability to move. Similarly, in a social system, if the tools of production are altered through imports, but the organization and culture of society do not change accordingly, the society will experience imbalance and disorder. This leads to a phenomenon called cultural lag, which we previously discussed.

As mentioned, cultural lag often causes disruption in a society’s social system, which may impair its functions and lead to instability.

Therefore, transformation and change—or the capacity for change, which is the level of entropy within a system—are closely related to the structure governing that system. For example, in a feudal system, it is impossible to observe or expect capitalist transformations and changes, and vice versa.

Perspectives of Sociologists on Societal Evolution

The vast majority of sociologists have endorsed the concepts of transformation, change, and the lawful evolution of societies throughout history. However, they may have paid less attention to the intrinsic factors of transformation within systems, such as their entropic forces. Here, we briefly present the views of some prominent sociologists regarding societal evolution and its adherence to the laws of transformation. To avoid lengthy discussions and maintain alignment with the structure of the book Organizationalism, detailed analysis and commentary are omitted, focusing instead on concise descriptions.

1. Karl Marx (1818–1883)

Marx introduced the concept of historical dialectics, suggesting that human societies progress through distinct stages: primitive communalism, slavery, feudalism, and capitalism, ultimately reaching a new form of industrial communal ownership. This final stage resembles an advanced form of the initial communal society. According to Marx, societal evolution ceases after reaching the communist or industrially collective stage, characterized by centralized planning. However, according to system laws, cessation does not occur. Societies continue their lawful motion, driven by the principle of entropy in system theory, akin to the first law of thermodynamics, which posits that energy perpetuates indefinitely. Complete cessation would equate to total societal demise. When a social system reaches the point of entropy-driven dissolution (the breakdown of systematic connections among its components), a new society, characterized by novel social connections, emerges simultaneously. Thus, societal movement cannot halt after reaching a communist or industrially collective society.

2. Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406)

Ibn Khaldun described societal evolution and transformation in a distinct manner, emphasizing cyclical patterns in societal movements. He proposed that societies ascend and decline due to the rise and fall of group solidarity (asabiyyah). In contemporary times, with the advent of democratic governance and self-regulating political systems in advanced societies, the takeover by a group driven by higher solidarity, akin to tribal power, is virtually inconceivable. Nonetheless, Ibn Khaldun recognized the lawful motion and transformations in societies, alluding to the principle of entropy within social systems (as elaborated in his Muqaddimah).

3. Auguste Comte (1798–1857)

Comte attributed societal transformation to the evolution of collective awareness and intellect, structuring his theory around three key principles:

Understanding a society requires knowledge of its historical human relations.

The driving force behind a nation’s transformation lies in the advancement of its collective awareness.

Human behavior at any time and place can be understood through biological characteristics.

Comte posited that collective consciousness evolves through three stages:

Theological Stage: Linked to military societies, where power is justified through metaphysical forces, reflecting a fatalistic worldview.

Metaphysical Stage: Associated with legislative societies, where phenomena are explained through abstract thinking and reasoning.

Positive Stage: Pertains to industrial societies, where phenomena are explained through observation, rationality, and empirical relationships.

Each stage, according to Comte, fosters the development of specific sciences. For instance, understanding the mechanisms of social conflict during certain historical periods has contributed to societal advancement. In essence, the evolution of scientific knowledge reflects the law of societal transformation.

4. Ferdinand Tönnies (1855–1936)

Tönnies defined social transformation based on social psychology, suggesting that human desires manifest in two forms: organic and rational. Rational desires regulate some behaviors through reason, creating internal conflicts evident not only in individual behavior but also within social groups and classes. Organic-based social relations form the foundational structures of societies, characterized by shared tools, kinship, and common sentiments. In contrast, rational-based social relations generate diverse societal forms. Thus, social systems are grounded in individual interests. The history of Western societies from the Middle Ages to the 20th century illustrates a transition from primitive social organizations to structured social bodies.

5. Herbert Spencer (1820–1903)

Spencer’s theory of societal evolution draws heavily from the biological theories of Lamarck and Darwin. It posits that all organisms evolve from simple, homogeneous stages to complex, heterogeneous structures. Specific organs appear repeatedly, while simultaneously, societies exhibit negative entropy and self-adaptation to ensure survival. This evolutionary process involves an inevitable trend towards complexity and heterogeneity, internal disequilibrium (negative entropy), and eventual adaptation—a cycle of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis representing the struggle for survival within organic and social systems.

Spencer viewed society as a living organism that adheres to the laws governing other living entities. Societies tend to evolve from simple structures to complex, heterogeneous systems. In simpler societies, distinct, specialized groups with unique functions do not exist. For example, in early societies, the family unit performed educational, economic, political, and religious functions. As societies grow more complex, these functions become differentiated, with specialized institutions assuming distinct roles. Intermediate stages also exist; for instance, military structures within industrial societies. In early social systems, interactions are rigidly defined and obligatory, whereas in industrial systems, even group cooperation is voluntary and driven by production motives.

6. Émile Durkheim (1858-1917)

In his evolutionary theory, Durkheim examines the progression and transformation of societies from simple, primitive forms to complex structures. According to Durkheim, social stratification is influenced by the degree of social complexity, reflecting a transition from elementary stages to more sophisticated levels. Social life, in his view, begins with nomadic and primitive existence and evolves into the multifaceted, intricate industrial society we know today. Durkheim outlines this progression through the following stages:

 

 

 

A. Primitive Nomadic Stage

This stage represents a simple, isolated community where individuals live atomistically. The dominance, power dynamics, and governance of such societies resemble the behavior of animal communities in the wild. When nomadism integrates into a larger social structure, it gives rise to tribes.

B. Tribe

The tribe forms a fundamental social unit composed of interconnected families. Historically, the family predates the tribe, with tribes emerging from distinct social units. Tribes generally consist of people claiming a common ancestor, often symbolized by a totem (an animal or plant). This common ancestry, though sometimes abstract or mythical, forms the foundation of the tribe’s identity.

C. Simple Multi-Segmental Society

These societies exhibit broader diversity, formed by the coalescence of different tribes and communities.

D. Composite Multi-Segmental Societies

These societies are composed of neighboring tribes and communities, exhibiting a more advanced level of organization. An example is the confederations of Native American tribes in North America.

E. Double-Composite Multi-Segmental Societies

These societies result from the expansion and integration of composite multi-segmental societies, such as the city-states of ancient Greece and Rome.

Durkheim categorizes societies based on their degree of complexity and visible indicators of social development and evolution (J.C. Lugan, p. 75).

Conclusion

Sociologists focusing on macro-level social theories—such as Comte, Spencer, Durkheim, Marx, Malinowski, and others—believe in the transformative nature of social systems. Biological evolutionists have significantly influenced structural-functional sociologists. Concepts of adaptation and differentiation in Parsons’ work reflect this connection.

A key question arises: Can systems analysis be rooted in conflict sociology?

Marxist sociologists, particularly those examining social conflict, often critique systems analysis, arguing that it primarily reflects functionalist and empirical perspectives. However, they also recognize the importance of analyzing society as a cohesive system. It is essential to acknowledge that science cannot provide an absolute explanation for all aspects of a phenomenon; relativity remains a fundamental principle in the sciences.

Societal Change Capacity

The dynamism and adaptability of any social system depend on its classification. When comparing societies to evaluate their common features, we reveal their differences and mechanisms of change over time. Sociology, through comparative evaluation, assesses the developmental level of various societies. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, evolutionary thinking in the humanities was heavily influenced by biological evolution, particularly Darwinian theory.

Post-World War II, some sociologists, especially Talcott Parsons, introduced the concept of neo-evolutionary theory.

The nature and scope of societal transformations vary depending on the society’s structure and organization. The capacity for change is an intrinsic potential within social systems. For instance, placing a stone resembling an egg in an incubator will not produce a chick because it lacks the inherent capacity for transformation.

When individuals consciously alter the relationships within a system, achieving new functions, it does not indicate entropy within that system. Instead, the previous lawful relationships are disrupted, creating a new system. Entropy signifies the inherent transformative capacity within any structured system, which can be either positive (leading to development) or negative (leading to decay and death). Organic or social systems exhibit a much higher transformative capacity than mechanical or artificial systems. For example, uranium’s transformative potential surpasses that of a common stone. Thus, the transformative capacity is relative and depends on the type of system.

This relativity is even more evident in social contexts. For example, advanced capitalist societies have a higher transformative capacity than developing or underdeveloped capitalist societies. Similarly, a village has less transformative potential than a city, and a feudal society far less than a capitalist one. As societies progress, their entropy strengthens while negative entropy weakens.

The transformative capacity of socio-cultural systems can lead them toward a state differing from their current condition. Positive transformative power reflects a system’s flexibility, allowing it to find alternatives to adapt more effectively to external environments. In contrast, negative transformability results in societal disruption and instability, preventing adaptation to new conditions and threatening the system’s existence. Such negative changes, leading to decay and collapse, are more prevalent in mechanical and artificial systems.

Therefore, entropy capacity—the inherent potential for transformation in social systems—is essential for their development. A selection mechanism often governs this capacity, with class struggles, power dynamics, and collective behaviors shaping change within socio-cultural systems.

4. The Law of Negative Entropy

The fourth law governing system dynamics is the law of negative entropy. This law refers to the tendency of systems to preserve their current state. In other words, systems tend to resist change and maintain a state of relative stability that they have adapted to over time. When a system undergoes a change, for whatever reason, it disrupts the existing order, disturbing the equilibrium. To restore balance, the system responds by counteracting the change. This response is governed by the principle of negative entropy, which exists to varying degrees in all systems.

The stronger the negative entropy of a system, the lower its capacity for change. A traditional rural society, for example, exhibits a strong negative entropy, making it highly resistant to change. The introduction of a small tool or an unconventional behavior can completely disrupt the balance of a traditional social system, leading to chaos. In contrast, a more advanced society, with a robust entropy and, consequently, weak negative entropy, is more adaptable and accepts new tools and changes in behavior with ease. It can quickly adjust to new phenomena with minimal energy expenditure, overcoming the cultural lag caused by the emergence of a new event and reaching a new equilibrium. As a result, changes in parts of the social system can lead to movement, transformation, and the evolution of the whole system.

The four laws governing systems, as we have discussed, reflect a set of contradictions. These include the contradiction between mortality and equilibrium creation, and the contradiction between entropy and negative entropy. It is these contradictions that generate functional energies, leading to movement, transformation, and evolution within systems. Movement and evolution arise from contradiction. For example, molecular displacement in a liquid will not occur unless there is a contradiction between the warm molecules that rise to the surface and the cold molecules that sink due to their greater weight. This contradiction results in displacement, turmoil, or even an explosion. Similarly, air movement, or wind, cannot occur without the contradiction between warm and cold air fronts. Thus, contradiction leads to movement, while consensus leads to stagnation. Class-based contradictions in society lead to movement, transformation, and the evolution of society. Therefore, the ruling class, which typically seeks stability and the preservation of the status quo, often acts as a force of negative entropy, preventing or resisting movements that could destabilize the system, even resorting to suppression or anti-revolutionary actions in times of crisis.

Conversely, those who are aware of this inevitable societal mechanism and understand its laws, often through social planning, seek to prevent class-based contradictions from escalating to the point where they threaten the social system with an explosion. Social reforms in capitalist countries today serve this purpose—by implementing timely reforms, they reduce class contradictions, restoring stability or limiting instability in society.

As we mentioned earlier, entropy signifies the process of entering a new stage, indicating that a system has flexibility and the capacity for transformation. Without this flexibility, inevitable changes occurring in one of the system’s components or subsystems could threaten the system’s existence, potentially leading to its total destruction or functional disruption.

Cultural lag is an unavoidable phenomenon in any social system. Cultural lag occurs when a change in one cultural element is not accompanied by the necessary, corresponding changes in other components and elements of the culture. Cultural lag leads to dysfunction, instability, and crises within the system, resulting in structural decay. However, cultural lag is also a necessary condition for the transformation and evolution of social systems. It acts as a thesis in the process of social development and evolution. The society, or more specifically its political leaders (governments, elders, etc.), take an anti-thesis position, resisting the change. Ultimately, through the conflict between the thesis and anti-thesis, a synthesis emerges that leads to the transformation and evolution of society.

The question then arises: why does this mechanism not function effectively in the Third World, where, despite severe cultural lag in all aspects, societies often remain stagnant for long periods or change slowly? This question can also be framed as: why do some societies with cultural lag undergo rapid transformation, while others change slowly and gradually? Although the answer might seem repetitive, it is crucial to emphasize that the more advanced a society is, the stronger its entropy (capacity for transformation) becomes, leading to a stronger ability to accept change. On the other hand, the more traditional and underdeveloped a society is, the stronger its negative entropy, making it highly resistant to change.

Third-world societies have much stronger negative entropy compared to developed societies. As a result, they generally have weaker capacity for innovation and creativity. Even if a material or intellectual change is introduced from other countries, if the negative entropy is strong enough to trigger resistance, the prevailing disorganization in the social system, along with the absolute power of the ruling class, causes the change to be quickly neutralized, leading the society into greater stagnation.

Negative entropy is a mechanism present in all systems. No system can tolerate the entry of foreign elements into itself, as these elements do not conform to the system’s established processes. Therefore, not only will the system resist such elements, but it will actively expel them. The strength of this defensive force depends on the degree of negative entropy in the system. The human body, for example, cannot accept foreign organs. When a person undergoes an organ transplant, the white blood cells immediately attempt to reject the foreign organ. However, doctors familiar with the body’s mechanisms know that if the system can tolerate the foreign organ for some time, the body will eventually adapt and integrate the foreign element. This is why doctors prescribe cortisone to suppress the immune system temporarily, allowing the body to adjust to the new organ.

Similarly, an economic system cannot accept elements that do not align with its structure, even if they are powerful and optimized. As discussed in the previous chapter, in a traditional rural society, a rural woman is an active and efficient labor force. She works in the fields, takes care of livestock, and participates in local industries. However, when this illiterate rural woman becomes educated or gains higher education, she becomes incompatible with the rural social system, and neither she nor the village can accept her. The system will ultimately reject her. The law of negative entropy dictates that individuals and components must align with the system in order for the system to function. Otherwise, the system’s negative entropy will reject them.

As we pointed out in the previous chapter, entropy must align with the governing structures in systems. For change to not trigger negative entropy, it must not be abrupt or disproportionate to the system’s structure. For instance, the creation of organizations, human forces, or cultural campaigns that are radically at odds with the social structure can cause significant problems, even leading to social disasters or the waste of material and human resources. For example, in the urban economies of Third World societies, if universities train the best industrial workers but the society remains traditional and unwelcoming to them, despite significant investment in these programs, the society will fail to integrate these trained individuals, who may end up working for foreign organizations, engaging in unrelated activities, or even participating in illicit trades like currency speculation or dealing in foreign goods.

5. The Mechanisms of Self-Regulation

The existence of self-regulation mechanisms in social systems is of far greater importance than in natural and artificial systems. This is because when a man-made system encounters disorder, we are faced with the breakdown of a device. While this may lead to social losses, such as an airplane malfunctioning in mid-air and taking the lives of innocent people, the damage in such cases is generally immediate and contained. However, when a social system faces structural flaws or issues, the consequences extend beyond the loss of a few lives or the failure of a machine. Instead, we are dealing with poverty, misfortune, injustice, addiction, unemployment, and the death of not just one generation, but many successive generations. The cost of lacking a self-regulation mechanism in a social system is far greater and more profound than in natural or artificial systems.

While social systems are also created by humans, what sets them apart from artificial systems is that they are not composed of material tools and devices. Instead, they are the result of rational, legal, and coordinated relationships between individuals. In contrast, artificial systems emerge from the rational, coordinated interaction of materials (whether nuclear or non-nuclear), connected by mechanical, electronic, or virtual means. Social systems, whether economic or political, arise from rational, logical, and legal interactions between people.

6. The Law of Self-Regulation

The fifth law governing systems is the law of self-regulation. In other words, the existence of a system depends on its self-regulatory power. Without the dominance of such a law, systems cannot survive for long.

Every system, whether artificial or natural, requires a mechanism that signals deviations from its natural, normal, predicted, or correct path and activates an alarm system. If a system lacks such a mechanism, corruption, decay, and deviation from its natural course will overtake it, leading to its collapse and destruction.

In natural systems, this mechanism is ideally integrated. In artificial systems, human beings, through trial and error or scientific study, have realized the necessity of such a mechanism. If they fail to implement it, the lifespan of these systems will be very short. For example, consider a simple water heater. It consists of a heat source and a water source. If the builder neglects to install a thermostat, the device may function for a while, but once the temperature exceeds the normal threshold, it will eventually explode because there is no mechanism to regulate its temperature.

Similarly, in cars, we see mechanisms such as temperature control dials, automatic fans, and radiators to ensure that the temperature of these devices remains within acceptable limits. These fans and radiators are part of balancing systems, which relate to the second law of systems and help restore equilibrium, thereby ensuring the system’s survival. The thermostat controlling the temperature, however, is part of the self-regulation mechanism of the device.

In natural systems, self-regulation is efficiently integrated. Specialists may draw inspiration from these systems to create self-regulatory mechanisms in man-made devices. For example, in the human body, there is a highly intricate network of nerves that transmits every bodily action to the brain. When an area of the body becomes infected, the associated nerve immediately signals the brain through pain. Although pain is unpleasant, it is one of the most vital protective mechanisms, helping preserve the body’s health. This self-regulation system, present in all living organisms, ensures that the body can identify the most appropriate means of restoring health.

 

Self-Regulation Mechanisms in Social Systems

The presence of self-regulation mechanisms in social systems is even more crucial than in natural or artificial systems. The reason for this is that the failure of a human-made system may lead to the breakdown of a machine, and while this may result in social consequences, the damage is contained. However, when a social system faces structural issues, we are not just confronted with the loss of a few lives or the failure of a device. We are dealing with widespread societal issues such as poverty, injustice, addiction, unemployment, and the death of multiple generations.

The costs of failing to have self-regulatory mechanisms in social systems are far greater and more profound than in natural or artificial systems. Social systems are human-made, but unlike artificial systems—formed from material tools—social systems are the result of rational, coordinated relationships between individuals.

Institutions or Organizations Responsible for Self-Regulation in Social Systems

As we mentioned earlier, all systems must have self-regulatory mechanisms; otherwise, the system will quickly disintegrate and collapse. According to the first law of systems, all systems are subject to the law of entropy, which leads to disorder and a tendency toward dissolution. The second law of thermodynamics in the universe also affirms this, stating that no matter how powerful, cohesive, or self-regulating a system is, it will lose energy over time. The energy lost will always slightly exceed the energy gained through its functioning, ultimately leading to the system’s end.

The life cycle of a human being exemplifies this phenomenon, where the rate of decline in an aging person is much faster than in a younger one. As humans age, the energy lost outweighs the energy gained, accelerating physical decline.

Therefore, the role of system designers, planners, and creators—such as doctors, inventors, and anyone involved in maintaining systems—is not to make the system immortal, but to provide conditions that allow the system to function properly for as long as possible, maximizing its potential life span within the limits of available technology.

A capitalist system, like any other system—whether slavery, feudalism, or communism—cannot last forever. What humans can do is create a system that maximizes equilibrium, entropy, and self-regulation, allowing it to function effectively for centuries with minimal disturbances and optimal energy efficiency.

If we sever the nerve network within a living organism, such as a human being, the natural and organic system of the body may continue to function for some time. However, when microbes and viruses attack this organ, no alarm will sound, and the living being will show no reaction. In such circumstances, when the infection spreads throughout the system, it disables the system, ultimately leading to its destruction and decay. This follows systemic laws, and there is no escape from them. Similarly, the nervous system within a social system can also be severed. For example, one might impose a single-party rule in a country, ban freedom of speech and opinion, shut down free newspapers, and control the media and radio/television. The result would be a kind of “nerveless” social system, and just like all systems, it may survive for a while without its self-regulating mechanism. But once corruption engulfs the system, there is no other fate but death, dissolution, and decay. In other words, the lifespan of a system that could last for centuries is reduced to just a few decades, and the system disintegrates.

For instance, the single-party regime and imperial censorship in Iran lasted less than four years after the country became a single-party state. Similarly, the Khmer Rouge’s single-party rule in Cambodia lasted about a decade. Even during this time, the regime executed one-third of the population, or two million out of six million people, to maintain its power. Yet, the result was the short life of a society that failed to establish a self-regulating system. Even the former Soviet Union, despite Marx’s prediction that societies without a working class would be free from conflict, could not sustain its totalitarian system of power, economic, military, and informational control for more than seven decades. Our contemporary history is full of such examples, and if we were to recount the history of these countries, even a hundred tons of paper might not be enough to capture the suffering and misfortune endured by nations under the boots of these dictators.

Dictators could have saved their countries from destruction and decay by creating self-regulating systems with a bit of foresight.

As previously mentioned, another principle governing systems is the infinite connectivity of systems, meaning all social systems are open. Each system consists of several subsystems, which can each be studied as independent systems. A social system, for instance, is made up of five subsystems: economy, family, politics, education, and culture. Each of these can be studied as an independent system. (Of course, all the characteristics and laws of systems also apply to these.) For example, a society’s economic system consists of several subsystems: production, distribution, and consumption. The production system itself is based on a specific production method, and in today’s free-market economies, the capitalist system prevails.

Thus, in a capitalist system, a self-regulation mechanism must also be established, or the system’s lifespan will be relatively short. In capitalist systems, trade unions play a key role in this self-regulation. Individual freedom is allowed in capitalist systems. People are free to maximize their profits, which, as Adam Smith suggests, is guided by invisible hands that eventually return the maximum profit to society. However, the capitalist system allows workers to form unions to protect their rights. Whenever an employer crosses the line, fails to pay workers’ rights, or exploits them to maximize profit, the union can call a strike. All workers stop working until the employer and the union, representing the workers, sit at the negotiation table to reach an agreement. During the strike, the employer is legally obligated to pay workers’ wages and benefits in full.

This mechanism is part of a self-regulating system in a capitalist society. It ensures that employers cannot exploit workers for more profit. However, it is important to note that outside of this self-regulation system, no worker has the right to abandon their work on the grounds of mistreatment. The employer always has the right to take action against an employee who is undisciplined, insubordinate, or who violates organizational values. No union can defend an undisciplined worker who, for instance, misses work or disregards organizational values.

The government, as an administrative and executive system, must also function as a system, and therefore, its structure must adhere to the principles and laws governing all systems. In other words, the government cannot exist as a powerful, uncontested system in society without being accountable for its actions. There must be a self-regulation mechanism in place that operates efficiently. In the case of the government, this self-regulation mechanism includes the legislature, as well as the inspection systems it creates to oversee the ministries and executive organizations. Additionally, political parties, trade unions, and even the people can participate in this mechanism. They can hold the government accountable by writing articles, expressing opinions in newspapers and magazines, and making statements in the media, whether online or offline. They serve as a means for ensuring that the government operates in a responsible and accountable manner.

With this in mind, can we uncritically praise capitalism and declare it the best mode of production? Is there no gap between theory and practice?

No, first of all, we must not forget the first law: all systems are perishable. Whenever the contradictions within a system, which are the drivers of its movement and transformation, escalate and turn into uncontrollable crises, the system’s inevitable death will occur. Secondly, there is always the possibility of a profound gap between theory and practice. Whether those in power in a country can demonstrate flexibility and, using the principles mentioned, revitalize their governing system and create a powerful, self-regulating political and social system, depends on their capacity for planning and organization. Many dictators, especially in Third World countries, cling to power until the very end and are never able to adapt or apply self-regulation principles within their societies. Applying the right principles in system-building might reduce their individual power, but it extends the life of the economic-social system and maximizes the community’s productive and economic potential.

Necessary Principles for the Functioning of a Self-Regulating System in the Governing Institutions of a Country

In the governmental system, several principles are essential for the proper functioning of a self-regulating system.

1. First Principle: Separation of Powers

The first principle, which is often enshrined in the constitutions of many countries but is less emphasized in many Third World countries, is the principle of the separation of powers.

This principle divides the tasks of the three branches of government and forbids any interference of one branch in the affairs or decisions of the others. For example, the government cannot interfere in the judicial system, nor vice versa. In other words, the government, despite its executive power, cannot and should not influence or dictate the rulings of the judiciary. If this happens, and if any individual, whether in a governmental or non-governmental position, issues orders for the judiciary, it creates a dictatorial system where no self-regulating mechanisms are present to oversee and control it.

This principle allows the judiciary to summon and interrogate even the highest-ranking officials, such as the president or prime minister, if they are involved in unlawful actions. Similarly, neither the judiciary nor the executive can legislate, nor can they create laws based on their preferences, opinions, or needs. Conversely, members of parliament cannot interfere with judicial rulings or engage in the government’s executive affairs.

2. Second Principle: Freedom of Expression

A social system can only be self-regulating if the principle of freedom of expression is upheld. If people, especially experts in social and economic affairs, are not able to freely express their opinions through mass media without fear, the entire self-regulating system of society becomes ineffective. This situation is similar to a human body in which the entire nervous system, responsible for transmitting signals about dysfunctions in various body parts, is severed or disabled. No inspection, judicial, or law enforcement agency, which is supposed to deal with corruption, can function without the presence of freedom of expression and a strong self-regulating system. In societies where this principle is not respected and where people cannot freely express their opinions, opportunities for slander, lies, and rumors arise, which are very dangerous for society and can have irreparable consequences.

On the other hand, when freedom of expression is upheld, media professionals, especially journalists and press organizations, can easily access transparent and reliable information. Through research and investigation, they can distinguish between truth and falsehood, eliminating inaccurate and misleading information to provide accurate and trustworthy data. In a society where individuals are fearful of expressing their opinions, or are forced to conceal their true views, the ground for hypocrisy, lies, and deceit is laid, which fosters corruption and duplicity in society.

When people are free to express their opinions, it opens up space for debate, discussion, and critique, contributing to the generation of new ideas. The clash of different ideas results in a synthesis of opinions, and this constant process of synthesis fosters growth and development in society.

3. Third Principle: Freedom of the Press and Elimination of Censorship

The third principle, which is closely related to the second, is the freedom of the press. A social system can only be self-regulating when the press is free to operate. However, the media must also be responsible for their writings and be answerable to critics and opposing views. But accepting this responsibility should not result in censorship or a climate of fear so oppressive that self-censorship becomes the norm.

It is only in a free press environment that government officials and other decision-makers feel that there is an invisible system overseeing their actions and behavior.

In societies where absolute power is concentrated in the hands of an individual or a small group, with no organ or institution capable of critiquing or scrutinizing their actions, corruption and decay will quickly take root.

Therefore, while the media, especially the press, cannot by themselves be the self-regulating mechanism for society, they can play this role only when the necessary principles for democratic functioning, especially freedom of expression, a free press, and the absence of censorship, are in place.

4. Fourth Principle: Plurality of Divergent Political Parties

As previously mentioned, the principle of multiple, divergent political parties is another essential condition for the emergence of a self-regulating system in civilized societies. Political parties are tools and instruments of the self-regulating system, but these tools are only effective when there is a plurality of divergent parties. These parties, through competition, continual debates, and non-violent, peaceful struggles for power, prevent any party from abusing its power.

On the other hand, if the government allows only aligned or “loyal” parties to operate, a monopoly or trust of power emerges, effectively disabling the self-regulating system.

5. Fifth Principle: Separation of Organization from Politics

This principle pertains to organizations and the management sector of countries. It implies that the organization and division of labor in organizations should not be dependent on political party affiliations. In democratic countries where multiple political parties are active, elections are held periodically, and a party wins the political campaign to form the government and take charge of state administration. However, if the ruling party, upon its success, appoints its own affiliates to government organizations while dismissing non-affiliates, this leads to social disorder, insecurity, and job instability, and it effectively disrupts the entire self-regulating system within the community.

In organizations, individuals acquire social roles, and when they become part of various organizations, they function like the network of nerves in the human body, thus facilitating social communication and the fluid movement of information within society. If the ruling party, after each election, creates a homogeneous and exclusive environment by displacing and replacing individuals, the self-regulating system of society ceases to function. Therefore, according to this principle, no manager has the right, upon being elected, to expel members of opposing parties from within their organizations. Disregarding this principle not only undermines the self-regulating system but also promotes hypocrisy and deceit in society, leading individuals to conceal their true beliefs, opinions, and selves.

This principle, in fact, strengthens the self-regulation of public offices and government organizations and prevents officials from dismissing non-affiliates in favor of their own party members in a free-market economy. The self-regulatory mechanism typically thrives on diversity and multiplicity of individuals and ideas. If all employees in an organization share the same ideology and continuously validate one another’s views, then any form of oversight, investigation, or critique becomes redundant and meaningless.

6. Sixth Principle: Non-monopolization of Mass Media

Today, the mass media, especially radio and television, in any society represents an incredibly powerful system that can create, generate, and propagate any thought, opinion, or action within society through its planned and intense media campaigns. While in a free society, it may seem that every individual is free to make decisions and act according to their will, the reality is that even a free individual is still subject to influences. Social norms and social pressures often compel individuals to conform to what is imposed, directly or indirectly. Individuals are continually influenced by the events that surround them, and the mass media, particularly state-controlled television and radio, plays a significant role in shaping their perspectives. The influence of this vast media apparatus is so profound that advanced capitalist countries have recognized that if this immense power is in the hands of the ruling government, the ruling party will always remain in power. In other words, the government can use media propaganda and even manipulate news and information to persuade the public that the ruling party is the best, ensuring that the party consistently wins the majority of votes in every election.

This realization led to calls for the independence of the national radio and television systems from the state. Some of these countries, which valued societal self-regulation as a prerequisite for the continued progress of society, partially implemented this principle. However, as capitalist systems advanced and media power expanded, this media system no longer remained a government monopoly, and today, any investor, political party, or organization can establish and operate a private television network. Consequently, this principle has evolved into the idea of diversity and privatization of mass media.

That being said, with the rapid expansion of these media outlets and the proliferation of virtual communication networks, we must acknowledge that the world today is facing a major social crisis. The unchecked power of these media platforms has reached such an extent that unless society, aided by family and educational institutions, teaches children the proper way to utilize these tools, the harms of their misuse will far outweigh the benefits. Instead of imposing bans, pressure, and rejection from the state, which only fosters resistance and conflict, society should focus on guiding children through family and educational systems. It is only in this way that we can rescue society from the chaos of uncontrolled media, both real and virtual.

If these two institutions—the family and education—can teach children the difference between right and wrong, and equip them with the ability to distinguish good from bad, most individuals will use these tools properly, and the path for societal progress will be cleared. Of course, as in any society, we must expect that some individuals will choose the wrong path, and this is part of human nature. As Durkheim suggested, anomie is an inherent part of society’s behavior, and it cannot be avoided. However, by educating and guiding our children, we can steer them away from deviant behavior. Instead of imposing the correct path, we should nurture them to choose it for themselves.

Thus, the mass media, including radio and television, with its vast research capabilities, can uncover and reflect societal corruption within any individual, group, organization, or institution. It can also create spaces for debate, discussion, and dialogue that facilitate the discovery of corruption and deficiencies, and transmit these findings to the public. If the media is not subjected to individual or governmental control, the potential for misinformation, censorship, and the distortion of truth is minimized, ensuring that media serves its purpose as a powerful tool for unveiling facts and addressing societal corruption.