Fall Of Capitalism and Rise of Islam by Mohammad Malkawi

Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned49. Freedom of ownership resulted from the separation of church and state and the consequent development of the basic freedom(s) of man. Ayn Rand,1 author of The Fountainhead, describes this relationship between private property ownership and the separation of church and state: “When I say capitalism, I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated Laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church”50.

The other extreme opposite to capitalism is socialism/communism which only recognizes the public or state ownership. Communist philosophers, especially Marx, criticized the private ownership under capitalism and considered this type of ownership to be the root cause of all evils in a society. When socialism takes over a society, its first task will be the confiscation of the property of individuals and to transfer it to public property under the control of the state. The communists go all the way to deny the basic human need and aspiration for ownership; they claim that the striving of individuals to own things is a mere reflection of the bourgeois mentality and influence over the society.

The communist view of private ownership contradicts the natural behavior of humans. It is part of man’s nature to work and possess property in order to satisfy his needs; hence, it is only natural to strive for the possession of property. Satisfying man’s needs is an inevitable matter that cannot be denied or ignored. Any attempt to prevent man from possessing wealth would be contradictory to his nature; similarly, any attempt to restrict his possession to a certain quantity would also contradict his nature. It would, therefore, be unnatural to stand between man and his acquisition of wealth, or to stand between him and his efforts to achieve this acquisition. One obvious reason for the short-lived socialism is its conflict with the human natural strives for private ownership.

Possession and ownership is not a reflection of societal order as claimed by Marxists. Rather, it is a manifestation of the inner instinct of survival which exists within man, right at birth time. The society with all the ideas, concepts, orders, traditions, and values direct the possession quality into different directions. Agricultural societies direct the possession instinct to the ownership of land; hunting communities direct this instinct to the ownership of bows and arrows and other means of hunting; industrial societies direct the possession attribute of the instinct to own machines, factories, and other means of production. In all of these cases, the society does not create the love to own within individuals as proclaimed by Marxist theoreticians; rather it steers that love in one direction or another.

The problems associated with the private ownership as observed by many, particularly the communist philosophers, do not arise from the private possession per se, whether the possession of commodities or possession of means of production. The problem actually arises from considering private ownership to be the only form of ownership in the society49. Public or state ownership is not recognized in the core foundation of capitalism. Every time a need rises for the state to own property (such as land, banks, factories), a big debate takes place; on one end, purist capitalists (supporters of laissez-faire capitalism) detest such ownership. On the other end, pragmatists allow state ownership in response to crisis. The most current economic crisis led the US government to intervene and own large portions of banks, insurance companies, and auto industry.

The Capitalists’ denial of public or state property is based on their view of the society as discussed earlier. This view considers the society to be composed of individuals who are allowed to live, own, speak, and behave as freely as possible. Hence, the public property under this view is meaningless. The society, however, is not merely made of group of individuals. The society structure includes, besides the individuals, the relations and the systems that link the people together and provide the society its own distinct shape. This view of the society gives rise to two other distinct entities in the society: the public as a whole with the various types of links and relations and the state which maintains these relations and links through the law and order of the society. Each of these entities—the individual, the public, and the state—has its own characteristics, needs, interest, and behavior.

The individual has needs for food, drink, safety, shelter, health, rests, and others. He needs to acquire and possess the means to satisfy these needs. The interests of the individuals are best served by the individual property ownership. The public as a whole has needs for coherency, security, unity, and others. The public needs to acquire and possess the means to satisfy these needs; the public interests are best served through the public ownership of property. The state as a unit has needs for stability, security, order maintenance, protection, balance creation, and other needs. The state must acquire and possess the means to satisfy its needs. Therefore, the main problem with the capitalist view of ownership is that it recognizes only the private ownership of individuals. The communists made the same error, except that they approved only the public ownership and denied the private ownership; they allowed the state to own in its capacity as a representative of the public. In fact, the communists believe that the state has a temporary existence in the society; at advanced stages of communism, the state should dissolve, and the only property that remains is that of the public.

Problems occur when each entity in the society violates the property rights of the other entities. For example, when the property which belongs to individuals is confiscated by the public and state under the umbrella of nationalization, problems begin to surface: fraud, corruption, and lack of productivity. When the property which should be owned by the public is overtaken by individuals, the problems of fraud, poverty, and monopoly begin to surface. When the state property is overtaken by individuals, the state becomes dependent on the wealth of individuals and falls into debt; as a result, the political decisions of the state become more biased towards those who finance the state. This phenomenon leads to oppression, corruption, and a loss of law and order.

This argument leads to the main conclusion that private ownership is a valid concept in the society; however, this ownership is not absolutely free. Private ownership should be limited to the scope of private ownership which is limited and restricted by the scope of the public and the state ownership.

Nationalization of private property as well as privatization of public property are counterproductive and constitute an invasion to the rights of individuals and to the interest of the public. Nationalization leads to illegal restriction of private property and creates a myriad of problems, the least of which is corruption and diminished productivity. Privatization of public property, on the other hand, deprives the less fortunate in the society from securing their basic needs for food, health, education, and security.

The proper way of organizing the ownership is to define the scope of ownership for each entity: the individuals, the public, and the state. A clear borderline between the ownership of these entities should be well established. Note that the borderlines define the type of ownerships for each entity; the quantity of ownership within each scope is irrelevant and should not be restricted. It does not pay to transfer ownership between the three entities based on conditions and crisis. In fact, the transfer of private property ownership to public or state ownership under the pressure of crisis leads to the situation where the state and public become the owners of property that should be owned only by individuals, and the individuals become the owners of property that should be owned only by the public.

Perhaps the most important characteristic of the Islamic political economy is that it clearly defined the scopes of the three types of ownership. It further prohibited the transfer of one type of ownership into another no matter what the conditions are. The ownership under Islamic economics will be further discussed in the part 2 of this book.

In summary, capitalism and its political economy are built upon three main principles: relative scarcity, the benefit and exchange value, and the price mechanism, the price mechanism being the cornerstone of this foundation. These principles are wrapped within the main concept of “private property ownership” which in turn emits from the idea of the separation of church and state. These principles along with the basic idea of private ownership have serious flaws and defects as discussed in the preceding sections. Next, we will explore the impact of these flaws on the well-being of the society.