Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Capitalist Democracy

So let us start with the capitalist democratic system, the system which cast a sort of injustice in the economic life, a dictatorship in the political, a stagnation in the intellectual life of the Church and whatever is related to it, preparing the reins of government and influence to a new ruling group which substituted its predecessors yet played their very social role only in a new manner.

Capitalist democracy has been based on a limitless belief in the individual, and that his per­sonal interests by themselves guarantee, naturally, the society's interest in different fields, and that the idea of government is but for the pro­tection of individuals and their personal interests; therefore, the government must not go beyond this objective in its activities and actual scopes.

Capitalist democracy may be summarized by declaring the four norms of freedom: political, econ­omic, intellectual and individual. Political freedom allows every individual's speech to be heard and opinion to be respected in determining the nation's general well-being, planning, construction and appointing the authorities for its protection. For the nation's general system and ruling organ are a matter directly linked to the life of each of its individuals, affectively touching one’s happiness or misery; so, it is natural, then, that each individual has the right to participate in and build both system and organ.

Had the social issue been as we said before, a matter of life or death, happiness or misery of the natives on whom general laws and regulations are enforced, it equally is natural not to let an individual or group, whatever the circumstances may be, take its responsibility as long as there is no individual whose purity of purpose and wisdom of mind rise above inclinations and mistakes.

Therefore, there has to be a complete equity in the political rights of all citizens, for they all are equal in bearing the results of the social issue and obeying the demands of constituting and executing authorities. On this basis stands the right of voting and the principle of general election which guarantee that the ruling organ, in all its authorities and offices, represents the majority of citizens.

Economic freedom hinges on belief in free economy on which the open door policy has been erected, determining to open all doors and prepare all fields before the citizen in the economic field. So, everyone has the right to ownership for the sake of both consumption and production. Such productive ownership, which renders the mass capital without a limit or restriction, is equally allowed for every­one. Each individual, then, possesses an absolute freedom to produce, in any norm or method, accu­mulate, increase and multiply wealth in the light of his own personal interests and benefits.

According to the allegation of some defenders of this “economic freedom”, the laws of political economy, which naturally are based on general principles, can guarantee the society's happiness and keep an economic equilibrium in it, and that the personal interest, which is the strong motive and real goal of the individual in his work and activ­ity, is the best to guarantee the general social interest, and that the competition which takes place in the free market is solely sufficient to create the spirit of justice and equity in different accords and con­tracts.

The natural laws of economy, for example, interfere in keeping the natural level of price in a manner which can almost be mechanical, for if the price rises above its fair natural limits, demand will decrease, according to the natural law which rules that “The rise of a price causes a decrease in de­mand”, and the decrease in demand causes in turn the lowering of the price, according to another natural law, and it does not leave price until it lowers it to its previous level, thereby removing exceptions. The personal interest always imposes on the individual to think of the way to increase and improve production, while decreasing its expense and cost.

This (according to the same theory) brings forth the society's interest at the same time when it is regarded as a private issue which also concerns the individual. Competition naturally demands restricting prices of goods and paying workers and labourers fair wages without injustice or inequity, for each seller or producer fears raising his prices or the lowering of the wages of his labourers because of the competition of other sellers and producers.

Intellectual freedom means that people must live free in their doctrines and beliefs according to their reasoning or whatever their liking and inclination inspire to them without obstacles from the authority. The government must not rob any indiv­idual of this freedom, nor must it forbid him from practising his right in it, the proclamation of his ideals and beliefs, and the defence of his viewpoints and reasoning. Personal freedom expresses: the emancipation of man in his behaviour from different kinds of press­ures and restrictions.

Therefore, he possesses his will and (the freedom to) improve it according to his personal desires, regardless of whatever happens as a result of applying such control over his personal conduct of consequences and results, unless they clash with the control of others over their own con­duct. The deadline at which the personal freedom of any individual stops is: others’ freedom. As long as the individual does not harm this latter freedom, there is no problem in conditioning his life in the manner which he/she likes, following different customs, tra­ditions, rituals and rites one finds to be palatable, for this is a private matter which is linked to his/her existence, whether pre­sent or future.

As long as he possesses such existence, he is capable of faring with it however he pleases. Religious freedom, according to the norm of capitalism it advocates, is but an expression of the individual freedom in its doctrinal aspect, and of the personal freedom in the practical aspect which is related to doctrines and conduct.

From this exposition we can reach this sum­mary: The wide intellectual line of such a system, as we hinted to it, is: Society's interests are linked to those of the individual: The individual is the basis on which the social system must be erected. A good government is the apparatus which is utilized for the service and benefit of the individual and the strong instrument to keep and protect his interests.

Such is the capitalist democracy in its basic principles for the sake of which several revolutions broke out and many peoples and nations strove to achieve under the leadership of leaders who, when describing such new system and counting its merits, describe paradise in its blessing and happiness and what it contains of aspiration, bliss, dignity and fortune, and on which several amendments were made, but such amendments never touched its heart's essence; rather, it stayed maintaining the most signi­ficant of its principles and bases.

Materialistic Trend in Capitalism

It is obvious that this social system is a purely materialistic one which mankind has followed separately from both his beginning and end, limited to the utilitarian aspect of his materialistic life, placing his assumptions thereupon. But this system, while being saturated with a domineering materialistic outlook, has never been based on a materialistic philosophy of life or a detailed study thereof. Life within the social atmosphere of this system has been separated from every relationship outside the materialistic and utilitarian limits, but there has been no complete philosophical comprehension prepared for the establishment of this system for the purpose of such separating operation1 .

I do not mean that the world did not contain schools for philosophical materialism and its adherents; rather, it contained popularity of the materialistic inclination as the result of the experimental mentality which was widespread since the beginning of the Industrial Revol­ution, and by the spirit of doubt and intellectual upheaval brought forth by the intellectual revolution which befell a group of notions used to be considered among the most clear and accurate facts2 and by the spirit of rebellion and anger against the alleged “religion” which was freezing the minds and intel­lects, flattering tyranny and iniquity, supporting the social corruption in every battle it waged against the weak and the oppressed.3

These three factors helped promote material­ism in the minds of many a Western mentality. All of this is true, but the materialistic system has never been based on a philosophical compre­hension of life, and this is its contradiction and incapacity, for the social aspect of life is linked to the reality of life: It is not crystallized in a correct form except when it is based on a central basis which explains life, its reality and limitations.

The materialistic system lacks such a basis, for it implies deception and cheating, speed and little consideration when the realistic aspect of life is frozen and the social issue is studied separately from it, although the continuation of the intellectual balance of a system is its restriction of attitude, from the beginning, to the reality of life which attitude provides society with the social ingredient: the mutual relationships among people and one’s method in understanding it and discovering its secrets and values...

Had mankind in this planet been the making of a man­aging and overwhelming Power that knows his secrets and obscurities, appearances and peculiarities, organ­izing and directing him., then he would have naturally surrendered, in his direction and life-condi­tioning, to such Creating Power, for that is wiser than him regarding his own affairs as being more knowledgeable about his reality, more righteous in faring and more moderate than he is...

Also, had this limited life been the beginning of a perpetual one that will stem out of it, taking its hue there from, with its balances depending on the extent of the first one's moderation and right­eousness., then it would have been natural to organize the present life, since it is the beginning of an immortal one based on both materialistic and non-materialistic principles.

Therefore, the issue of believing in God and in life to have sprung from Him is not a purely idealistic matter detached from life so it would be separated from life's spheres, for which special codes and laws would have to be legislated, while by passing that matter and separating it. Rather, it is a matter linked to the mind, the heart and life alto­gether.

The proof for its closer link to life than demo­cratic capitalism itself is that its idea is based on the belief that there has been neither individual nor a group of individuals whose infallibility of objective, intel­lectual inclination and discretion are of the degree which allows entrusting the social issue to it and to depend on it for the establishment of a righteous life of the nation.

This very basis has neither position nor meaning except when built on a purely materialistic philosophy which does not recognize the establishment of a system except by a limited human mind. The capitalist system is materialistic in all the sense the world implies; it either implies materialism, without daring to declare its link to it and dependence on it, or it may be ignorant of the extent of the natural link between the realistic matter of life and its social aspect. Therefore, it lacks the philos­ophy on which every social system has to lean. It simply is materialistic even though it has never been based on a materialistic philosophy with clear outlines.

Position of Ethics in Capitalism

The result of such materialism with whose spirit the system has been overwhelmed is that ethics have been left out of all calculations, without winning any existence in that system, or say their concepts and ideals have been altered, and the personal benefit has been declared as a super-most priority and all types of freedom are means towards achieving this priority. Resulting from that are all calamities and catastrophes, troubles and tribulations about which the modern world has complained (and will keep complaining).

Advocates of democratic capitalism may defend its attitude towards the individual and his personal interests by saying that the personal interest by itself brings forth the social interest, and the results achieved by ethics in their spiritual values are also achieved in the democratic capitalist society, not through “ethics” but through the special “motives” and their service: When man performs a social ser­vice, he, too, achieves a personal benefit, being part of the society for which he labours.

When he save someone's endangered life, he also earns a benefit for himself, for that person's life will serve the social body a portion of which service will be his own. Therefore, the personal motive and the utilitarian sense suffice to guarantee and ensure the social interests since they, when analyzed, amount to personal interests and individual benefits

Such an apology is closer to vast imagination than to reasoning. Imagine if the practical criterion in the life of every individual in the nation had been the achievement of his personal benefits and interests, to the widest possible range, and had the State been providing for the individual his freedom, sanctifying him without reservation or limitation..., then what would the position of social work have been in the dictionary of such an individual?

How can the link between the social interest and the individual one be sufficient to direct the individual towards the oc­cupations called forth by ethical codes, knowing that many such occupations do not bring him any benefit?

If it happens that they do contain some benefit to him, since he is a member of the com­munity, it often happens, too, that such minute benefit (which cannot be conceived except analyti­cally) would be counteracted by transient benefits or individual interests which find in freedom a guar­antee to their achievement, so much so that the individual would trample over all systems of ethics and spiritual conscience.

Tragedies of the Capitalist System

If we wish to discern the consequent series of social tragedies resulting from this system which does not stand on a studied philosophical base, this research's scope will only be too narrow for that; therefore, we would like to just allude to them thus: The first of such series is the minority ruling the majority, controlling its interests and essential affairs. Political freedom has meant that the establishment of systems and codes as well as their execu­tion is the right of the majority.

Let us suppose that the group which represents the majority of the na­tion holds the reins of government and legislation while having the democratic capitalist mentality, which is a mentality purely materialistic in its trend, inclinations and objectives, what will be the fate of the other groups?

Or, say, what can the minority expect in the shade of laws legislated for the benefit of the majority to protect its interests? Will it be strange, then, if the majority legislates laws in the light of its own interests, neglecting the minority's interests, following an unjust trend to achieve its desires that may harm others’ interests? Who will maintain this minority's existing entity and defend it against injustice, as long as the personal benefit is the concern of every individual, and as long as the majority does not know, in its social concept, any values for the spiritual and intellectual principles?

Naturally, sovereignty will stay under the system as it did before, and the symp­toms of monopoly and trespassing on the rights and interests of others will linger in the social at­mosphere of this system as it did in the old social systems The only difference is that degrading the human dignity used to be done by the individual to his nation; now in this system it comes from the majorities against the minorities, the first composing a huge number of humans.

This is not the whole story. The tragedy would then be simple, but the stage is set for more laughs than tears. The case worsens and becomes more severe when the economic issue results from this system later on; therefore, the economic freedom is decided in the fashion which we have described above, sanctioning all the ways and means of getting rich; no matter how outrageous or odd in method or manner, guaranteeing what it had advertised when the world was busy in a big industrial revolution and science was giving birth to the machine which over­turned the face of industry and wiped out manual industries and the like.

The coast was then clear for an outrageous wealth for the nation's minority. Opportunities enabled the latter to benefit from the modem means of production, provided by limit­less capitalist liberties with sufficient absurdities for their utilization and use to the furthermost limit, annihilating thereby many groups of the nation whose industries were wiped out by the machine that shook their livelihoods without finding a way to withstand the torrent, since the promoters of the modern industries were armed with “economic free­dom” and all other “sacred” liberties.

Thus does the field remain vacant except of that elite group of the promoters of industry and production, while the middle class is being reduced to the generally low level, and this crushed majority falling at the mercy of that elite group that does not think or calculate except according to the “democratic capi­talist” mode.

Naturally, then, it would not extend its kind and assisting aid to them in order to get them out of the pit and give them a share of its tremendous profits. Why should it, since its “ethical” criterion is benefit and pleasure, as long as the State guarantees absolute freedom in what­ever it does, so long as the democratic capitalist sys­tem is too narrow for the intellectual philosophy of life with all its related concepts?

The matter, therefore, has to be studied in the manner inspired by this system, which is: These important men take advantage of the majority's need for them and their living standards to oblige those who are capable of working in their occupations and factories for a limited time and for wages enough only to sus­tain them. This is the “logic” of pure utili­tarianism which they would naturally adopt, dividing the nation consequently to a group in the peak of wealth and a majority in a bottomless pit: Here, the nation's political right is crystallized in a new form.

As for equality with regard to the citizens' politi­cal rights, even though it is not wiped out of the system's record, it has survived this turmoil only as a shadow and pure ideology: When the economic freedom records the results which we exposed above, it will come to the conclusion of the deep division which we have explicated, taking control of the situation and holding the reins, conquering the political free­dom before it.

Because of its economic status in the society and capacity of using all means of propaganda, and because of its capacity of buying supporters and helpers, the capitalist group controls the reins of government in the nation, seizing power in order to use it for its own interests and to guard its objectives, and both legislative and social systems will be controlled by capi­tal, after it has already been supposed by the demo­cratic concepts to be the right of all the nation. Thus does democratic capitalism become in the end an authority monopolized by the minority, a means through which several individuals protect their own ex­istence at the expense of others, according to the utilitarian mentality inspired by the democratic capitalist “culture”.

Here we reach the worst series enacted by this system. Those people in whose hands the democratic capitalist system has placed all sorts of influence, providing them with every kind of power and poten­tial, will direct their attention, inspired by this sys­tem's mentality, towards the horizons and feel ­inspired by their interests and objectives-that they are in need of even new areas of influence for two reasons:

First: The abundance of production depends on the extent of abundance and availability of essen­tial materials; therefore, whosoever's share of such materials is larger, his producing capacities will be stronger and more plentiful. These materials are spread in God's vast lands. It is necessary to obtain them, then the lands which contain them have to be seized [by force if need be] for absorption and utilization.

Second: The strength of the producing speed and power, motivated by the anxiety for plenty of profit on one hand, and the low standard of living of many nations, due to the materialistic greed of the capitalist group and its competition with the public through its utilitarian means, on the other, make the public unable to purchase products and consume them. All of this makes the big producers in dire need of new markets to sell their surplus products. Finding such markets means thinking of seizing [colonizing] new lands.

Thus is the matter studied in a purely materialistic mentality. Naturally, such mentality, the system of which has never been based on spiritual or ethical principles and the social system of which admits nothing but filling this limited life with different sorts of pleasures and desires, finds in these two reasons a justification and a “logical” appetizer to transgress on peaceful countries, trespass on their dignity, con­trol their provisions and potential natural resources, utilizing their wealth for marketing its surplus products.

All of this is a “reasonable” and “permissible” matter, according to the “ideals” of individual inter­ests on whose bases both capitalist system and “free economy” stand; from here is the giant of materialism sets free to invade and wage wars, scuffling and tying, colonizing and exploiting in order to satisfy the mania of wills and whims. Look into the tragedies humanity has suffered because of such system which is materialistic in spirit, form, manner and aim, even though it has never been based on a certain philosophy in agreement with that spirit and form, in harmony with such manners and objectives, as we have pointed out above.

Judge for yourself the share of happiness and stability of a society based on the principles of this system and ideals, one which lacks self-denial and mutual trust, true compassion and love, and all the good spiritual trends, so much so that the indiv­idual lives in it feeling that he is responsible only for his own self, that he is in danger because of each and every interest of others that may clash with his own, as if he is living in a continuous struggle and race, unarmed except by his own powers, aiming thereby at none other than his own personal interest.

Notes

1. This experiment has won a great significance in the scien­tific field, having achieved an unexpected success in finding out many facts and unveiling surprising secrets which have enabled mankind to utilize those secrets and facts for a practical living. The success it has achieved has won it sanctity in the minds of common people, making these people depart from the abstract ideals and all facts which cannot be realized through the senses and experi­ments, so much so that the experimental sense has become, according to the doctrine of many experi­mentalists, the only basis for knowledge and science. We have explained in Falsafatuna (Our Philosophy) the fact that the experiment itself relies on the mental intellect, and that the main basis for all knowledge and science is the mind which realizes facts the senses cannot feel as it does concrete facts.

2. Among the prevalent beliefs which used to enjoy a high degree of clarity and simplicity, although based neither on an intellectually logical basis nor a philosophical proof, was the belief that earth was the centre of the world. When such beliefs crumbled down in the shade of accurate experiments, the common notion was shaken, and a wave of doubt overtook many intel­lects, causing thereby the resurrection of Greek sophis­try influenced by the doubting spirit just as it was influenced during the Greek period by the spirit of doubt which had resulted from the contradictions of philosophical creeds and the intensity of arguments among them.

3. The Church played a significant role in utilizing religion in a scandalizing manner, making its name nothing but a tool for the achievement of its own aims and objectives, strangulating scientific and social liberties, establishing the Inquisition Courts and granting them wide prerogatives to fare with people's fate, so much so that all of that resulted in people being fed-up with religion altogether and feeling disgusted with it: Crimes were being committed in its name, although in its pure reality and accurate essence it is not less than those grumbling critics in denouncing crimes and in the desire to uproot motives behinds these crimes. I have explained these notions and undertaken a de­tailed scientific study thereof in my book Iqtisaduna.

Socialism and Communism

In socialism, there are many creeds the most famous of which is the socialist creed, which is based on the Marxist theory, and argumentative materialism, which is a certain philosophy of life and a materialistic comprehension of it according to the dialectical method. Dialectical materialists have applied this dialectical materialism to history, sociol­ogy and economy. So, it has become a philosophical creed in world affairs, a method to study history and sociology, a creed in economy and a plan in politics. In other words, it formulates all of mankind into a particular structure as regarding his way of thinking, his attitude towards life and his practical method therein.

There is no doubt that the materialistic phil­osophy and the dialectical method have never been innovations or creations of the Marxist creed. The materialistic trend has lived within the philosophical field for thousands of years, once in the open and once hidden behind sophistication and absolute denial. Also, the dialectical method of reasoning is deeply rooted in the lines of human thinking. Its lines were perfected at the hands of Hegel, the well ­known idealistic philosopher. Karl Marx only adopted such “reasoning” and philosophy. He tried to apply it in all fields of life; so, he made two researches: One of them is his purely materialistic, in a dialectical method, interpretation of history. The other is his claim therein that he found out the contradictions within the capital and surplus value which the capitalist steals in his creed from the labourer1 .

On these “achievements” has he erected his belief in the necessity of abolishing the communist and socialist societies which he considered to be a step for mankind to completely apply communism. The social field in this philosophy is one of battling contradictions, and every social situation which prevails on such field is but a purely materialistic phenomenon which harmonizes with the other phenomena and materialistic climes and is affected by them. But he at the same time carries his own self-contradiction in the essence, and a battle of contra­dictions will then be waged within its context until all contradictions assemble to cause a change in that situation and prepare for another one.

Thus does the battle linger until all mankind form one single class, and the interests of every individual will be repre­sented in the interests of that unified class. At that moment will harmony prevail and peace become a reality, and all bad effects of the democratic capitalist system will be completely removed, for they resulted only from the existence of many classes within one society, and such multitude resulted from di­viding the society into a producer and a labourer. Therefore, such a division has to be stopped by abol­ishing (private) ownership. Here, communism differs from socialism in the main economic outlines, for the communist economy hinges on:

First: Abolishing private ownership and its complete eradication from the society, giving wealth to the public and placing it in the hands of the State since the latter is the legal representative of the so­ciety in managing and utilizing it for the common welfare. The communist belief in the necessity of this absolute nationalization is due to the natural reaction of the consequences of private ownership in the democratic capitalist system.

This nationaliz­ation has thus been justified: It is meant to abolish the capitalist class and unite the society into one class in order to put an end to that struggle and to forbid the individual from utilizing differ­ent means and methods to accumulate his wealth in order to satisfy his greed, motivated by his own selfish interest.

Second: Distribution of products according to individuals’ consumption need. It can be summed up thus: From everyone according to his capacity, and for everyone according to his need. This is so because every individual has natural needs without which he cannot live. So, he gives the so­ciety all of his endeavour so that the society may provide him with his living necessities and take care of his livelihood.

Third: An economic procedure planned by the State, in which it combines the society's need with production in its volume, diversity and limitation, so that the society will not be inflicted with the same line in the communist economy, that is, the abolish­ment of private ownership, has been substituted with a moderate solution: nationalization of heavy indus­tries, foreign and domestic trades, putting all of them under government monopoly; in other words, abolishing large mass capital by freeing the simple industries and trades, leaving them to the individuals.

The wide line of the communist economy collided with the reality of the human nature, to which we referred above, for the individuals started neglecting the performance of their duties and of being active in their jobs, running away from their social obliga­tions; the system is supposed to guarantee their livelihood and the fulfilment of their needs.

Also, it is supposed not to exert any further effort; there­fore, why should the individual exert himself and sweat as long as the result is already in his calculation, the result of both states of laziness and activity? Why should he rush to provide happiness for others, trading the convenience of others for his own sweat, tears, life and energy, since he does not believe in any principle in life except that of a purely materialistic nature?

Therefore, the advocates of such a creed were forced to freeze absolute nationalization. They were also forced to adjust the other line in the communist economy by allowing wages to vary in order to push the labourers to be active and perfect in their jobs, making the excuse that these variations are only temporary, and that they will disappear once the capitalist mentality is crushed and man is created anew.

For the latter purpose, they continuously create changes in their economic methods and socialist modes in order to follow the failure of an old method by trying a new one. They have not yet succeeded in getting rid of all basic cornerstones of the capitalist econ­omy. For example, the interest loans have not been totally abolished, although they are, in fact, the basis of social corruption in the capitalist economy.

All of this, however, does not mean that those advocates have had shortcomings, or that they have not been serious in their creed or unfaithful to their doctrine; rather, it means that they have clashed with reality while trying to put them to practice, finding their path full of obstacles and contradictions put forth by the human nature before the revol­utionary method of the “social reform” which they have been promising. Reality, then, forced them to go back on their word in the hope that a miracle would sooner or later take place.

As regarding the political aspect, communism, in its long run, aims in the end at erasing the “state” from the society when the miracle takes place and the “social mentality” prevails on all humans, so much so that all people will be thinking of nothing but of the materialistic social welfare. Before then, as long as the miracle has not taken place yet and people are not unified into one “class”, when the society is still divided to capitalist and proletariat forces, it is necessary that the government should be purely proletariat; so, it is a democratic rule within the circle of labour and also a dictatorship regarding the masses. They have reasoned thus: Proletariat dictatorship of government is necessary in all stages passed by mankind, using the individual mentality for the protection of the interests of the working class, strangulating capitalism and forbidding it from coming to the field again.

In fact, this creed, represented by Marxist social­ism then by Marxist communism, is distinguished from the democratic capitalist system in its reliance on a particular materialistic philosophy which adopts a particular concept of life to which all idealistic prin­ciples and values are not ascribed and which is analyzed in a certain sort of analysis which does not leave room for a Creator above the natural limits, nor to an anticipated compensation beyond the borders of this limited materialistic life. This con­trasts democratic capitalism, for although it is a ma­terialistic system, it has never been based on a precise philosophical foundation.

The accurate linkage between the realistic understanding of life and the social issue as accepted by materialistic communism versus democratic capitalism has neither believed in this theory, nor has it tried to explain it. Hence, the communist creed is worthy of a philosophical study and of a test through tackling the philosophy on which it has hinged and from which it has been derived.

Judging any system is dependent on the extent of the success of its philosophical concept in portraying and compre­hending life. It is easy to comprehend, when we cast the first glance at the simplified or “accomplished” communist system, that its general nature is the fusion of the individual into the society, making him a tool for the achievement of the general criteria which it enforces. It completely contradicts the free capital­ist system which puts the society at the service of the individual for the achievement of the latter's interests.

It seems that it has been predestined for the individual and social personalities, according to the precepts of both systems, to clash and to duel with each other. The individual personality has become victorious in one of them, the one based on the individual and his own personal benefits, inflict­ing the society thereby with economic catastrophes which have shaken its existence and mutilated life in all its sectors. The social personality has won in the other, which has come to correct the mistakes of the previous one, assisting the society and reducing the individual personality to dissolution and annihi­lation, inflicting the individuals with severe dilemmas which ruined their freedom, personal existence and natural rights of selecting and rationalizing.

Communism Criticized

Actually, although the communist system has treated several inflictions of free capitalism by abolishing private ownership, such a treatment has had some natural consequences which have made such a treatment very costly and the method to put it to use very exerting and cannot be used except when all other ways and methods fail. On the other hand, it is an incomplete treatment which does not guar­antee the eradication of social corruption, for it has not really been successful in its diagnosis of the ail­ment and the discovery of the point from which evil has set out to subjugate the world to the capitalist system, keeping that point maintaining its position in the social life of the communist creed. There­fore, mankind has not won a definite solution to his greatest problem, nor has he obtained the medicine to medicate his ailments and uproot his sickening symptoms.

As regarding the consequences of this treatment, they are, indeed, great: They can put an end to the freedom of individuals for the sake of substituting communist ownership for private ownership. The case is so because this tremendous social change contra­dicts the general human nature upto, at least, the pre­sent time, as its promoters admit, since materialistic man still thinks subjectively, calculating his interests through his own limited individualistic eyes.

Estab­lishing a new structure for the society in which the individuals dissolve completely, a structure which totally puts an end to personal motives, requires a strong power to hold the society's reins with iron hands, suppressing any resisting voice, strangulating any opposition, monopolizing all means of news media and the press, enforcing a belt around the nation nobody can by any means go beyond, and becoming habituated to charging and doubting, so that the rein of authority may not suddenly slip out of its hands.

This is natural in every system desired to be imposed on the nation before the mentality of such a system ripens in it and its spirit prevails. Yes, if materialistic man starts reasoning social­ly, realizing his interests in a social mentality, with his own personal feelings, desires and inclinations melting through his own self, then a system in which individ­uals “melt” can be established, leaving in the arena none but as huge “social” giant.

But the achievement of this in the materialistic man, who does not believe except in a limited life without knowing any meaning for it except materialistic pleasures, needs a miracle to create paradise on earth and to bring it down from hea­ven. The communists promise us such a paradise, wait­ing for that day when the factory changes the human nature, creating him anew with idealistic thoughts and deeds even if he does not believe the weight of an atom in ideal values or ethical principles. If such a miracle happens, then we will have a talk with them.

As for the time being, the position of the social structure which they desire calls for the confinement of individuals within the limits of this structure's idea and its guarantee for protection by the group that believes in it and using caution concerning it by sup­pressing the human nature and the psychological emotions, forbidding them by all possible means from setting themselves free.

Even when he wins a total assurance and a social guarantee of his livelihood and needs, for the social wealth provides him with all of these during the time of need, the individual who lives in the shade of a system like this will be better off if he can get such an assurance without losing the pleasure of breathing the fresh air of cultivated freedom rather than being forced to melt his personality in fire and drown him­self in the tumultuous social sea.

How can he have a desire for freedom, in any field, when he is deprived of freedom in livelihood, while sustaining his life is totally tied to a particular “committee”, although economic and sustain­ing freedom is the basis of all other norms of free­dom? The advocates answer this question by still asking: “What can man do with freedom and enjoyment of his right to criticize and publicize his opin­ions while moaning under a horrible social burden? What benefit can his discussion and opposition bring him when he needs accurate nutrition and guaranteed life more than opposition or the fuss freedom brings him?”

Those who ask such questions look only at capi­talist democracy as if it is the only social issue which competes with their own in the field; therefore, they underestimate the value of the individual dignity and its rights, for they see it as a menace to the general social torrent. But humanity has the right not to sacrifice any of its principles or privileges as long as it does not have to. It has but to choose either a dignity which is an ideal privilege of humanity, and a need which is its materialistic privilege, only if it lacks the system which can combine both aspects and succeed in solving both problems.

The man whose energy is being squeezed by others, without finding a good and comfortable life or a fair salary and an assurance during the time of need, is indeed one deprived of enjoying life, separated from a stable and quiet life. Also, a man threatened every moment, questioned about every movement, liable to be arrested without a trial and be imprisoned, banished or even killed for any reason, is indeed one who lives in fear and ter­ror; horror forbids him from enjoying the pleasures of this life.

The third man, the one whose life is comfort­able, feeling assured of preserving his dignity and safety, is indeed humanity's sweet dream. So, how can such a dream become a reality? When will it become an existing actuality? We have said above that the communist solution to the social problem is incomplete, in addition to its consequences to which we have also referred. For he, although human emotions and feelings breathe within him, is evoked by the general social pressure which caused some thinkers to resort to the new solution, but they did not put their hands on the causes of corruption so that they could eradicate it; rather, they eradicated something else; therefore, they were not successful in their medication.

The concept of private ownership is not the one responsible for the sins of absolute capitalism which shook the world and its felicity, so much so that it is not the one that forces millions of labourers to be idle for the sake of the investment of a new machine which put an end to their industry, as it happened at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, nor is it the one that forces the capitalist to destroy large quantities of his products in order to maintain their price and in preference of extravagance to satisfy the need of the poor thereby.

Nor is it the one that invites him to make his wealth a gaining capital multiplied through usury, absorbing the civilians' endeavour without production or toil. Nor is it the one that pushes him to buy all consumption goods from the market in order to monopolize them and raise their prices. Nor is it the one that forces him to open new markets, even when the freedom and rights of nations will be violated by them and their prestige and freedom weakened. All of these terrifying calamities have not re­sulted from private ownership; rather, they are the breed of the materialistic individual interest which has been made the criterion of life in the capitalist system and the absolute reason for all acts and deal­ings.

When a society is based on such an individual criterion which is self-advocate, nothing can be ex­pected from it except what has already befallen. It is from the nature of this criterion that all curses and calamities befall the entire human race, not from the principle of private ownership. If the criterion is changed, and a new cultivated objective for life is put forth, one that harmonizes with the human nature, only then will the real remedy of the greatest human problem become a reality.

Note

1. I have explained these theories and undertaken a detailed scientific study of them in my book Iqtisaduna.