Poisonous Economics
26-02-2008
The fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, coupled with the demise of the Soviet Union
is seen as the symbolic end of communism as an ideology that challenged the
capitalist order led by the West through the era of the cold war. Imam Khomeini
refereed to this demise in its early phase, in the letter to Gorbachev, stating
that communism belongs to the museum of political history of the world. The
demise of communism was not difficult to predict as it works against the essence
of human nature; - absolute prohibition of private enterprise is like celibacy.
Basic human instinct of acquiring wealth or seeking to procreate cannot be
suppressed permanently in any society. Therefore, the victory of capitalism was
inevitable as it permits human (instincts) nature to flourish whilst communism
seeks to suppress it.
So, is the capitalist economic model ideal?
Of course, unlike communism the human instincts cannot be suppressed but equally
it should not be allowed to function with very little restraint as is the case
with Capitalism. Indeed, it is human nature to acquire wealth to meet the needs
of food, clothing and shelter, but a culture that teaches profit maximisation
also cultivates greed and exploitation. There is a clear distinction between
making profit to secure ones material needs and maximising profit, looking for a
constant increase of profit regardless of its impact on others. This mindset is
rooted in one of the fundamental axioms of the capitalist economic system, which
is the definition of scarcity: material resources are scarce in relationship to
the infinite human desires. However, human desires may be infinite but human
capacity is not. We may wish for infinite amount of wealth but we can only
consume so much. An individual can only wear one pair of shoes even though he
may have abundant pair of shoes. Why teach them to constantly acquire wealth,
consequentially depriving others, when an individual can only consume a limited
amount of wealth? This is poisonous!
Internally the capitalist class will exploit the masses, and unequal
distribution of wealth is a feature of capitalist societies, as they the rich
gets richer and the poor gets poorer. Many would argue that communism was a
reaction to the ‘fruits’ of capitalism, naturally it calls for a fairer
distribution of wealth. Externally, capitalist nations take far more ruthless
measures to secure economic resources. The track record of capitalism speaks for
itself; we find almost in every decade leading capitalist states are engaged in
some sort of genocide, seeking to secure its economic interests which it cloaks
under some lofty values like spreading trade, science; in recent times it has
been the spreading freedom and democracy. Only a fool would believe that
Capitalist nations are benevolent states in the business of liberating people
from dictatorship, it only works for profit.
The Free Market doctrine of Capitalism is based on demand and supply and has no
room for moral or any other considerations. Accordingly anything can be supplied
as long as there is a demand for it. Thus, the business of child molestation,
prostitution, drugs can be economic products if there is a demand for it and
people should be free to supply such things. Free human beings kidnapped from
Africa by Capitalist pirates and forced into brutal slavery, genocide committed
in Latin America for the lucrative gold, drugs were pushed by Queen Victoria to
the Chinese population, now the carnage for oil in Iraq, the list of examples is
endless. Money does make the world go round but it also makes the world bleed!
The Free Market model does not accommodate the basic truth that society is not
homogeneous. People exist with various capabilities, not everyone can compete
and survive. The model is based on the motto of survival of the fittest where
the elimination of the weaker members is inevitable. I wonder if such economic
models gave impetus to the nasty philosophy of endorsing the right of some
master human race or vice versa.
In defence of capitalism, people may cite the generosity of wealthy individuals
and companies in the way of donations. But donation is of little use when they
have acquired billions by depriving so many in the first place. What good is
giving aid to Africa by raising money through pop concerts or some other form of
entertainment when it is being bled through the loans and extortionate interest
rates known as compound interest, which is interest on interest? Then came the
ludicrous trickle down theory, for wealth has to be created by a few which would
trickle down to the masses. This is in fact a lie, if the existing wealth is
distributed fairly that would solve much of the economic problem. It is no
surprise the emphasis in capitalism is always with wealth creation but not
distribution. Why should only the few have the privilege to create the wealth
and the masses to accept what trickles down from them. This is nothing but an
attempt to justify the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few, wealth
can be generated by many and contributing towards a better distribution.
So what is the alternative as we live in a capitalist dominated world devoid
of the communist alternative?
We know we need an economic system that allows human instincts to flourish but
not to function without any restraints, a system that does not view the
allocation of economic resources in isolation of all other values.
That system can be offered by Islam.
It is for this reason that the capitalist world fears Islam as it does threaten
its economic interests. This threat is not because it seeks to be a competitor
but provide an alternative that it is fairer, a system that does not seek to
exploit but engage in real trade. This is not a slogan but it can be seen in its
values.
This
subject of the Islamic Economic system is too vast to be captured in one single
article and will be elaborated on in subsequent articles.
By Yamin Zakaria
Submitted by a Mujahid