The partial abolition of ownership in Socialism is a limitation
of ownership by quantity, rather than by the ways and means of ownership. It
prevents ownership of some properties, which by their nature and by the nature
of their origin should be individually owned. Socialism either limits ownership
in magnitude, such as limiting ownership of land up to a certain area, or it
limits ownership of certain properties such as the means of production.
Individuals could own many of these properties, by their nature. Ownership
restrictions of this type of property restricts activity whether the
restriction was pre-specified by the law, such as preventing inheritance,
ownership of mines, railways, or factories; or if it were left to the State to decide,
on a case by case basis, to prevent possession wherever public interest
requires it to do so. All this is restriction of the activity of individuals,
for individuals can own these properties by their very nature.
The organisation of production and
distribution through people cannot (and should not) be achieved by inciting disturbances
and anxiety amongst people, or by inciting hatred between them. This can only
lead to anarchy, rather than organisation. Furthermore, the organisation of
production in the community cannot be achieved naturally by making the working class
feel the oppression of business people, since the business people could be
smart and ingenious enough to satisfy the needs of the labour force, as is the
case with the factory workers in the United States. So the working class does
not feel the oppression in terms of having the fruits of their efforts
exploited. In this way the evolution that would better organise production and distribution would not occur.
This
organisation should come through proper laws and solutions that are built on a
definite basis that deals with the real nature of the problems. Socialism relies
on organising the production and distribution, whether by inciting tension and
disturbances amongst the working class, or by the natural law of evolution in
society, or through manmade (Wadh'iya) legislation and canons that do not
emanate from a definite basis or creed. Therefore this organisation is false
from its basis.
This outlines the fallacies of Socialism. With regard specifically
to the Socialism of Karl Marx, its fallacy appears in Three aspects:
Firstly:
His view on the theory of value is erroneous and disagrees
with reality. The view, stating that the only source for the value of the
commodity is the work spent in its production, disagrees with reality since the
spent work is only one but not the only source of its value. There are other
elements, besides the work, that enter in the value of the commodity. There is
the raw material upon which the
work was carried out or the demand for the benefit of the commodity as well.
The raw material could contain a benefit that exceeds the work spent in its
procurement such as in hunting for example. The benefit of the commodity could
have no demand in the market, and be forbidden for export, such as wine for
Muslims. So putting work as the only source of value is incorrect, and does not
conform to the reality of the commodity as it is.
Secondly:
His view states that the social order existing at any
time is a product of the economic situation, and that the various
transformations which befall this system are all due to one reason, which is
the struggle of the classes for the objective of improving their material
situation. This opinion is erroneous, baseless, and built upon a doubtful and
hypothetical assumption. The reason for its error and disagreement with reality
is obvious from historical events and the current situation. We see that the transformation
of Russia into Socialism did not occur due to a materialistic evolution, or due
to a class struggle that led to the change of the system. Rather, a group took
over through a bloody revolution, and started to apply its thoughts upon the people,
and changed the system. The same happened in Socialist China. The application
of Socialism in East Germany rather than West Germany, and Eastern Europe
rather than Western Europe did not occur as a result of any class struggle.
Rather it occurred through the conquering of these countries by a Socialist
State that imposed its system upon the conquered nations. The same occurred
with the Capitalist states, with the Islamic State, and with any other system.
Furthermore, the countries that this law predicted would change their system
through class struggle, namely Germany, England, and the United States, are all
Capitalist countries where the owners of capital and workers are many. They
were not Czarist Russia or China, which were agricultural rather than
industrial, and where the number of owners of capital and workers were much
fewer in comparison to the West. Despite the overwhelming presence of the two classes
in Western Europe and the United states, they were not converted to Socialism,
and they all still apply Capitalism till this day. The presence of these two
classes (i.e. Capital owners and workers) did not have any effect on their
system. This alone is enough to refute this theory from its basis.
The third aspect of error in Karl Marx's theory appears in what
he said about the law of social evolution, that the system of economic life is
destined for extinction by the effect of the economic laws which control it,
and that the middle class which won the battle against the class of the nobles
i.e. the owners of the capital will ultimately evacuate their place for the
labour class, due to the law of concentration. The theory of Karl Marx concerning
concentration of production, on which he builds the increase in the number of
the workers and the decrease in the number of the owners of capital, is false.
This theory is false because there is a limit which concentration of production
cannot overstep. So it arrives at a certain limit and stops and thus will no
longer be a catalyst in the evolution imagined by Marx. Moreover, concentration
of production does not exist at all in one of the main branches of production,
namely agriculture. How then can the law of evolution occur in society? Besides,
Karl Marx asserts that concentration of production is followed by concentration
of wealth (resources), which results in a reduction in the number of
financiers, and an increase in the number of workers, who own nothing. This
view is erroneous, since the concentration of production could result in an
increase in the number of capital owners, and could result in the working class
becoming capital holders. The major projects, which are conducted by the large
Corporations, usually have shareholders from the working class, which is an
example that refutes this theory. Moreover, many of the working class in the
factories has high salaries, such as engineers, chemists and managers, thus being
able to save a great part of their salaries, and becoming investors themselves,
without the need to establish independent projects. Therefore, what Karl Marx
propounded about workers and evolution does not apply to them.
This is but a brief examination of the principles upon which
the Capitalist and Socialist from which the Communist economic systems came is
established. From this examination the fallacies present in these principles
are apparent. This is on the one hand; on the other hand, both systems are
contradictory to the Islamic method in addressing the problems and contradictory
to Islam itself.
As to their contradiction to the Islamic method of solving the
problems, one finds that the islamic method in solving the economic problem is the very same method
Islam uses in solving any of the other human problems. The common approach of
Islam is to study the reality of the economic problem, understand it, and then
deduce a solution for the problem from the Shari'ah texts after studying these
texts, and to ensure that they apply to that particular problem. This is different
from the Capitalist and Socialist method. In Capitalism, the situation that
resulted from the problems, is used as a source for the solutions (pragmatism).
In Socialism the solutions are taken from hypothetical assumptions that are imagined
to be existent in the problem, and the solutions are put according to these
assumptions. Each of these two methods is different to the method of Islam, so
it is not allowed for a Muslim to adopt them.
The contradiction of the Capitalist and Socialist, including
the Communist, economies to Islam is that Islam adopts its solutions as divine
rules ( Ahkam Shar'iyyah) derived from the legislative sources while the
Capitalist and Socialist economic solutions are not divine rules, but are from
a system of Kufr. Judging on things according to them means ruling with other than
what Allah has revealed, which is not allowed for any Muslim to adopt in any
way. Their adoption is an open sin (Fisq) if their adopter does not believe in
them. But if he believed that they are the proper rules and that Islamic rules
do not suit the modern age and do not offer solutions to the current economic
problems, then this is kufr, may Allah (SWT) protect us from it.
Origin from : The Economic System Of Islam (Taqiyudin An Nabhani)
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar