No announcement yet.

Refuting the Capitalist Economic Thought

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Refuting the Capitalist Economic Thought

    Refuting the Capitalist Economic Thought

    With much emphasis currently from the Western media on economic growth, and how beneficial their globalisation policies have been it is necessary for us to explain the true nature of the capitalist economic system, to enable the Muslims to see clearly through the lies presented to justify the colonialist policies.
    Capitalist Economics

    The capitalist economist looks upon the means of satisfaction, that is, the goods and services, from the viewpoint that they satisfy a need, irrespective of any other consideration. Thus he looks upon the needs and the benefits as they are, not as they should be. So he looks at the benefit considering that it satisfies a need, without taking any thing else into consideration. So he looks at the wine in its capacity of having an economic value because it satisfies the needs of some people, and he perceives the wine maker as a person who provides a service, considering this service as having an economic value, because it satisfies the need of some individuals.

    This is the nature of needs in Capitalism, and the nature of the means of satisfying these needs. So the economist does not care about what the society should be, but cares about the economic material resources (economic goods), since it satisfies a need. Therefore, the function of the economist is to supply the goods and services, i.e. providing the means of satisfying man's needs, irrespective of any other consideration. Therefore, the economist studies optimizing the means of satisfaction. Since the goods and services, which are the means of satisfaction, are limited, they are not sufficient to meet man's needs, because these needs in their view are unlimited and constantly growing. Therefore, there are basic needs which man as a human being must satisfy, and there are needs which increase in number as man proceeds to a higher level of urbanization. These needs multiply and increase and they all need to be satisfied completely, a situation which cannot be fulfilled no matter how much the goods and services increase. From here the basis of the economic problem emerged, which is an overabundance of needs and the shortage of the means of their satisfaction, i.e. the lack of goods and services to completely satisfy all of man's needs.

    >From this perspective the society faces the economic problem, which is the relative shortage of the goods and services. The inevitable result of this shortage is that some needs are either partially satisfied or not satisfied at all. Since this is the situation, it is necessary that the members of society agree on rules that decide which needs have to be satisfied and which needs are to be deprived. In other words, it is necessary to set rules that decide the manner of distributing the limited resources amongst the unlimited needs. So the problem in their view is in the needs and resources, that is, optimizing the resources to satisfy the needs, and not satisfying the needs of every individual. Therefore, it is necessary that the rules which are laid down, be rules which guarantee the achievement of the highest possible level of production, so as to achieve the highest supply of resources, i.e. to supply the goods and services to the nation as a whole, but not necessarily to each individual. Therefore, the problem of distributing the goods and services is closely connected to the problem of production, and the objective of economic studies and research is to increase the goods and services which are consumed by the society. It is not surprising therefore, that the study of the factors which affect the size of the national production (GDP and GNP) takes precedence over all economic studies because the study of increasing the national production is the study to solve the problem of scarcity, since they believe that poverty and deprivation cannot be solved except by increasing production. Therefore, solving the economic problem which is faced by the society is only met by increasing production.

    The Capitalists claim that the economic problem which faces the society is the scarcity of goods and services. They also claim that the steadily increasing needs, and the inability to satisfy all of them, i.e. the insufficiency of goods and services to satisfy all of man's needs completely, is the basis of the economic problem. This view is erroneous and contradicts with reality. This is because the needs which must be met are the basic needs of the individual as a man (food, shelter, clothing), and not the secondary or luxurious needs, although they are striven for. The basic needs of man are limited, and the funds and the efforts which they call the goods and services existent in the world are certainly sufficient to satisfy man's basic needs it is possible to satisfy all the basic needs of mankind completely. So there is no problem in the basic needs, besides considering it the economic problem that faces society. The economic problem is truly the distribution of these resources and efforts for every individual to satisfy all basic needs completely, and only then helping them to strive for satisfaction of their luxurious needs.

    With reference to the steadily increasing needs, it is not a subject related to increasing basic needs, because the basic needs of man as a human being, do not increase, while what increase and renew are his luxurious needs. The increase in needs which occurs due to the progress of man in his urbanized life is related to the luxurious rather than the basic needs. Man works to satisfy the luxurious needs, but their non-satisfaction does not cause a problem what does cause a problem is the non-satisfaction of the basic needs. Besides all of this, the question of increasing luxurious needs is a question which is related to people who live in a certain country and not to every individual of that country. This question is solved through the natural urge of man to satisfy his needs. This urge, resulting from the increase of the luxurious needs, pushes man to work toward their satisfaction, either by expending the resources of his country, working in other countries, or through expansion and annexation with other countries. This is different from the issue of completely satisfying the basic needs of each and every individual in society. This is because the problem of distributing the wealth to each and every individual in order to satisfy their basic needs, and enabling every individual to satisfy his luxurious needs, is a problem related to the viewpoint in life, which is particular to a certain nation carrying a particular ideology. This is contrary to the question of increasing national income through increasing production, which is related to the situation particular countries, could be achieved through utilizing the resources of the country, emigration, expansion, or annexation of other countries . This matter of increasing wealth depends on the practicality of the solution, and is not related with a particular viewpoint, and not related to a particular nation or a particular ideology.

    The economic principles which have to be put are the principles which guarantee the distribution of the countries internal and external wealth to each and every individual of the nation, so that they secure the complete satisfaction of all basic needs for each individual, and then enable every individual to seek satisfaction of his luxurious needs. But, raising the level of production requires scientific research, and its discussion in the economic system does not solve the economic problem, which is the complete satisfaction of the needs of each and every individual. An increase in the level of production leads to a rise in the level of the wealth of the country and does not necessarily lead to the complete satisfaction of all the basic needs of each and every individual. The country could be rich in its natural resources, as in the case of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, but the basic needs of most of their citizenry are not satisfied completely. Therefore the increase of production, by itself, does not solve the basic problem which must be treated first and foremost, i.e. the complete satisfaction of the basic needs of each and every individual, and then enabling them to satisfy their luxurious needs. Thereupon, the poverty and deprivation required to be treated is the nonsatisfaction of the basic needs of man as a human being (food, shelter and clothing), not the increasing luxurious needs resulting from urban progress. And the problem to be treated is poverty and deprivation of individual members of the society, not the poverty and deprivation of the country measured as a whole. The poverty and deprivation by this meaning (for every individual) is not treated by increasing the national production, but it is treated by the manner in which the wealth is distributed to the individuals in society enabling complete satisfaction of basic needs, and then enabling the individuals to satisfy luxurious needs.

    A great anomaly of the Capitalism is its consideration of price as the only regulator for distributing wealth amongst the members of society. They say that the price is the only constraint which makes the person stop his possession and consumption at the limit which is comparable to his income, and it is the price which makes the consumption of every individual restricted to what his revenues allow. Accordingly, through the rise in price of some goods and a drop in the price of others, and in the availability of money with some people and its non-availability with others, the price regulates

    the distribution of wealth amongst the consumers. Thus, the share for every individual from the wealth of the country is not equal to his basic needs, but is equal to the value of the services which he contributed to in producing goods and services, i.e. equal to what he owns of land or capital, or equal to what he carried out in work.

    By this principle, which makes the price the regulator of distribution, Capitalism has effectively decided that man does not deserve life unless he is capable to contribute in producing goods and services. The person who is incapable of contributing, because he was born disabled or with a physical disability, does not deserve life, because he does not deserve to take from the wealth of the country that with which he satisfies his needs. Also the person who is more capable to contribute in production because he was born strong in body or in mind, and consequently has greater possessions, deserves greater consumption than he needs or desires, solely relative to the resources he possesses. Also the one whose tendencies to the material gains are stronger, will exceed the others in possessing wealth. Whereas, the one whose spiritual inclinations and whose adherence to moral merits are stronger, will have less than the others in possessions or wealth, because of his observance of the spiritual or moral constraints, which control him during the earning of wealth.

    This approach excludes the spiritual and ethical element from life and makes it a life built upon a materialistic struggle to gain the means of satisfying materialistic needs. This is what eventually occurs in the countries which adopt Capitalism, and in the countries which apply it. The domination of Capitalist monopolies has appeared in the countries adopting the Capitalism, with the producers exercising control over the consumers. A small group of people, i.e. the owners of large oil, automotive, and heavy industry corporations, have come to dominate consumers, reigning over them by imposing certain prices for the goods they produce. This has led to certain attempts to patch up the economic system. So they gave the state (government) the right to intervene in fixing the price (price control), in special circumstances to protect the national economy, to protect consumers, and to reduce the consumption of some goods, and to limit the authority of the monopolies. They also included in the regulation of production some public projects directed by the government. These measures contradict the basis of their economic system, which is economic freedom, and they are only applied in specific circumstances. Moreover, many Capitalists do not adopt this interventionist approach (Conservatives) and they scorn it, contending that the price mechanism alone is sufficient to achieve harmony between the interest of the producers and the interest of the consumers, without the need for any governmental interference. These patches which are recommended by the supporters of intervention (Liberals), only occur in certain circumstances and conditions, and even in these circumstances, the distribution of wealth among the individuals does not achieve the complete satisfaction of all basic needs for each and every individuals.

    The poor distribution of goods and services, which resulted from the concept of freedom of ownership and from the concept of making the price the only system for distributing wealth, will continue to dominate every society that applies Capitalism. With regard to the American society, in the 1950s a large amount of Americans had enough, from the wealth of the country, to satisfy most of their basic needs completely, and to even satisfy some of their luxurious needs this resulted from the immense wealth of that country which has reached a level by which there is an opportunity for every individual to satisfy all of his basic needs and some of his luxurious needs. However, this is not due to making the share of the individual equal to the value of the services he contributed in production. Yet, putting the price mechanism as the constraint for distribution has made the Capitalist monopolies in the West look abroad to other countries for new markets, from which to get raw materials and to sell their products. What the world suffers from in terms of colonization, regions of influence and economic invasion, is only a result of these monopolies and making the price a tool in the distribution of wealth. Thus the wealth (resources) of the world are compiled on this basis to be put in the hands of the Capitalist monopolies. All this is due to the false rules and principles established by Capitalism.

    Some examples of capitalist foreign economic policy

    1- Free trade: The theory of free trade states that trade transactions between countries should be conducted without any restrictions, customs duties or any obstacle to imports. This school of thought champions the abolishment of the state's control. The state would no longer be obliged to control imports and exports, because the equilibrium between imports and exports would be achieved by the natural forces. Therefore the equilibrium would occur naturally and automatically.

    This theory contradicts Islam, because foreign trade is the relationship between the state and other states, peoples and nations. These reactions are all controlled by the state it would be the state who would organise and directly supervise such relations, whether these were reactions between individuals, or economic or trade relations. Therefore, it would be totally wrong to apply the free trade theory, for the Islamic state would initiate the export ban of certain commodities while permitting others. She would also undertake the issue of the belligerent traders and the dhimmi, though she would only supervise her citizens in their foreign trading just like she would do in their local trading.

    2- Protectionism:

    The protectionism theory states that a state could interfere in order to achieve an equilibrium in the foreign trade. The reason behind protectionism is to influence the balance of trade and deal with the deficit, because the random balancing between exports and imports would not be able to achieve any equilibrium, nor would it be able to redress any deficit. Therefore, protectionism would be necessary, and that is why custom duties as well as exports and imports restrictions would be imposed.

    This theory as it stands is limited, because it restricts the state's powers to merely interfering in order to either achieve a foreign balance of trade, or to make up the deficit. This would be wrong, because the Islamic state would interfere in order to treat the other states with reciprocity, to provide the country's needs and to generate monetary gains. Her interference would also be targeted towards generating hard currencies and most importantly, to campaign for Islam. Therefore, it would be wrong to restrict the interference of the state in order to achieve an equilibrium in the exchange and to make up a deficit, the purpose of her interference would be for political, economic and commercial aims, and for carrying the Islamic Message.

    do u really think i'm gona read dat

    but one thing yaar can u help me with my eco paper

    [This message has been edited by nick (edited October 07, 2000).]