READ PERVIOUS PART 2
After this, Karl Marx used Ricardo's theory of value in
Capitalism as a weapon to attack the concept of private property and Capitalism
as a whole. He said that the only source of value is the work spent in a
commodity's production, and that the Capitalist financier buys the energy of a
worker with a wage that does not exceed the limit necessary to keep him alive
and able to continue working. The financier then exploits the energy of the
worker by making him produce commodities, whose value greatly exceed that which
is paid to the worker. Karl Marx called the difference between what the worker
produces and what he is actually paid, the 'surplus value'. He determined that
this value represents what the landlords and the business people usurp from the
worker's rights, in the name of revenue, profit or rate of return on capital, a
matter that he did not acknowledge as valid.
Karl Marx was of the opinion that
the Socialist schools which came before him had envisioned the success of their
ideas to be dependent upon the inherent nature of the human being in his love
for justice and support for the oppressed. These schools used to adopt new methods
which they believed in, for their application upon society, and they presented
these ideas to the governors, business people, and the enlightened people,
urging them to implement their ideas. Karl Marx however, did not build his
school of thought on this idea nor did he follow this approach. He built his
school of thought on the basis of a philosophical doctrine known as the Theory
of Historical Evolution, which is referred to as the Dialectic Theory.
He conceived the establishment of the new system in society
through the functional operation of the economic laws, and as a result of the
law of evolution in society, without the intervention of a manager, a lawmaker,
or a reformer. Karl Marx called this type of Socialism 'Scientific Socialism',
to differentiate it from the Socialist methods that came before it and which
were called 'Utopian Socialism'. The Socialist theory of Karl Marx is
summarised as follows: The system of the society in any age is a result of the
economic situation. The transformations that affect this system all come as a
result of a class struggle to improve their material situation. History tells
us that this struggle ends with the victory of the class that is greater in
number and worse in condition, over the wealthier class that is fewer in
number. He called this the law of social evolution. It applies to the future as
well as the past. So, in previous ages this struggle existed between the
freemen and the slaves, then between the nobles and the subjects, then later on
between the nobles and the serfs (peasants), and between the leaders and chiefs
in the order of sects. This struggle always ended with the victory of the
oppressed class, which was greater in number, over the oppressor class, which
was smaller in number. But after its victory the oppressed class turned to
become a conservative oppressor class. Since the French revolution this
struggle existed between the middle class (Bourgeoisie) and the working class.
The first class became the masters of the economic projects, the owners of the
capital, and became conservative. Facing it was the working class that owned
nothing of the capital, but was much greater in number. Consequently, this
situation led to a conflict of interest between the two classes, the origin of
which was based on economic reasons.
The production fashion today does not conform to the system
of ownership. Production no longer remains individualistic i.e. being performed
by the person alone, as it was in past ages, but rather has become associative
i.e. conducted by individuals together. At the same time however, the system of
ownership has not changed. So individual ownership continues and is still the
basis of the system in current society. As a result of this the working class,
which participates in production, does not have a share in the ownership of the
capital, and remains under the mercy of the Capitalists (the owners of the
capital), who do not by themselves participate in production. The Capitalists
exploit the labour force, paying it only subsistence wages and the workers are
compelled to accept it since they have nothing but their efforts to sustain
themselves. The difference between the value of the product and the labour
wage, which Marx calls the surplus value, constitutes the profit which the Capitalist
monopolizes, while justice assumes it should be the share of the workers. So
the conflict would continue between these two classes until the system of
ownership conforms with the system of production i.e. when ownership becomes
Socialist or collective. This struggle will end with the victory of the working
class according to the law of evolution in society, since it is the oppressed
class and is greater in number.\
Regarding the manner in which the working class will
succeed, and the reasons for its success, this is based on the law of evolution
in society. The current system of economic life bears within itself the seeds
of the forthcoming community, and this current system will vanish due to the
effects of the economic laws to which it is subjected. There was a time when
the middle class conquered the nobles and played an important role in the
economic life, since it became the owner of the capital. However, as the
argument goes, its role has ended, and the time has come for it to relinquish
its position to the working class. What obliges it to do so is the law of
concentration and process of free competition. By the effect of the law of concentration the number of Capitalists
(owners of the capital) diminishes, and the number of the working class increases.
Through the effects of free competition, production surpasses every limit, and
the quantity of production exceeds that which the consumers of the working
class can buy with their low level of wage. This leads to a crisis causing some
of the owners to lose their capital and enter the labour market. As the system
progresses the intensity of crises increases, the gap between their occurrences
closes, and the number of Capitalists decreases gradually. Then it is not long
before a crisis greater than all the preceding crises occurs, of such major
proportions that it demolishes the pillars of the Capitalist economic system,
with the system of Socialism to be then established upon the Capitalist ruins.
Marx conceived the emergence of Communism to be the last stage in the
historical evolution, because it demolishes private property, and hence no more
reason exists for the conflict of the classes in society, due to the absence of
differences between them.
Karl Marx illustrated that the law of concentration was a
part of the Capitalist economy. In summary, there is a migration of work and
capital from some projects to others, so that some increase while others
decrease. All these are scenarios that show the occurrence of concentration in
production. If one investigated the number of projects in one branch of
industrial production, such as chocolate factories for example, one would find
that the number of projects had diminished gradually, over time, while the
average number of the production work force increased in every project. This is
evidence that concentration occurred in this branch of production, since the
greater sized production replaces the smaller production. So, if the number of
factories were for example, ten, they will in time become four or five large
factories, and the rest will disappear.
Marx's determination
of free competition meant the principle of the freedom to work, which means
that every person has the right to produce whatever he likes in the way he
likes. The economic crises, according to Marx, apply to every sudden
disturbance that affects the economic equilibrium. The specific crisis includes
all the kinds of crises that befall a particular
branch of production, due to the imbalance between production and consumption.
This incident occurs either due to overproduction or underproduction, or due to
over-consumption or under-consumption. As for the recurrent (periodic) major
crisis, it appears in the form of violent convulsions that shake the pillars of
the whole economic system, and becomes the point of separation between the
period of economic boom and the period of economic depression. The periods of
boom vary between three to five years in length, as do the periods of
depression. Recurrent, major crises have special characteristics that distinguish
them. These characteristics fall under three main qualities, which are:
Firstly, the quality of generalisation. This means that in
one country, the crisis hits all aspects of economic prosperity, or at least
most of them. This general crisis appears at first in one country where it
dominates, and then spreads to other leading industrial countries that were
linked together by some permanent relations. The second quality is that it is
recurrent. This means that the crisis occurs in repetitive and cyclical
periods. The period that separates between one crisis and another fluctuates
between seven and eleven years. Its occurrence is not over a fixed time
although it is recurrent. The third quality is that of excessive production,
such that the owners of the large projects face great difficulty in disposing
of their products, so the supply exceeds demand for many products leading to
the crisis. Karl Marx considered that these major crises force some people to
lose their capital, so the number of owners diminishes and the number of
workers increases. These occurrences are what will lead finally to the major
crisis in the society that demolishes the old system.
This is a summary of Socialism including Communism as one of
its forms. From this summary it appears that the Socialist schools of thought
including the Communists, strive to achieve real equality amongst the
individuals; equality in benefits, equality in the means of production, or
absolute equality. Any kind of such equality is impossible to achieve, and it
is nothing but a hypothetical assumption. It is impractical and therefore
impossible. This is because equality in itself is unreal, and thus impractical.
People by the very nature with which they were created vary in their physical
and mental capabilities, and they vary in the satisfaction of their needs. So
equality amongst them cannot be achieved. Even if one distributed equal shares
of commodities and services among the people by force, it would be impossible
for them to be equal in using this wealth in production or utilisation. And it
would be impossible for them to be equal in terms of the quantity they need to
satisfy their respective needs.
Therefore, equality between them is a
speculative and hypothetical concern. Moreover, equality by itself amongst
people, while they are different in strength/power, is considered far from the
justice that the Socialists claim they try to achieve. The disparity between
people in terms of ownership, and in the means of production, is inevitable and
quite normal. Every attempt at achieving equality is destined for failure as it
contradicts with the natural disparity existent amongst human beings. Regarding
the complete abolition of private property, this contradicts with man's nature,
because ownership is a manifestation of the survival instinct, which is
definitely existent in man. Being natural in him, a part of him, and a
manifestation of his natural energy, it is impossible to be eliminated since it
is
instinctive. Anything that is instinctive in man cannot be eliminated
from him as long as he is alive. Any attempt to abolish private property is
nothing but a suppression of the human beings natural instincts, and can only
lead to anxiety.
Therefore, it is natural to organise this instinct rather
than trying to eliminate it. With regard to the partial abolition of ownership,
it has to be studied. If what is meant by this is to put a ceiling on the magnitude
of commodities that can be owned, then this would be a limitation in quantity,
which is wrong, since it limits the activity of man, obstructs his efforts, and
reduces his production. By preventing people from owning, that which exceeds a
certain level, this effectively stops them at that limit, interrupting the individuals
from their activities, and thereby depriving the community from benefitting
from the activities of these individuals.
However, if ownership
of commodities and services were restricted to a certain manner without
restriction in the quantity owned, this would be acceptable, as it does not
obstruct the activity of man. This approach organises the ownership of property
among individuals, and encourages them to expend more effort and increase
activity.
If the partial abolition of ownership means that the individual
is prevented from owning certain properties, whilst other properties can be
owned without any limit over the quantity, this has to be examined. If the
beneficial nature of these properties cannot be enjoyed by the individual
alone, except by depriving the public of that property, then it is natural to
prevent the individual from owning that property individually; such as public
roads, town squares, rivers, seas, and the like. The restriction is decided by
the nature of the property. There is, therefore, nothing wrong in banning the individual
ownership of those properties that are of associative benefit, because this
ownership was determined by the nature of the property itself. If the nature of the property does not
require prohibition of individual ownership, further analysis should still be
conducted;
if the property can be included under the first type i.e.
properties whose individual ownership would deprive the community, such as
water and mineral resources, then there is nothing wrong in banning their
individual ownership. The issue that makes this type of property included under
the first type is that by its nature if it was owned individually it would
deprive the community ofit. However, if owning the property does not deprive the community
of it, then there should be no restriction on its ownership. To do so would
unfairly limit ownership for no reason. This would be like limiting the
ownership by quantity which will only result in restricting man's activities,
interrupting his efforts, reducing his production, and stopping him from work when
he reaches the set limit of ownership.
Origin From : The Economic System of Islam (Taqiyudin An Nabhani)
Next PART 4
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar