Fall Of Capitalism and Rise of Islam by Mohammad Malkawi

The original theory of capitalism calls for the increase in production and consequently the increase in the wealth of nations. It further claims that the increased production coupled with the dynamics of supply and demand and the price mechanism will guarantee the best distribution of the produced wealth to the members of the society. Production of wealth under capitalism has continuously risen over the past one hundred years, with few exceptions during world wars. In the meantime, the number of people who are classified as poor based on local national and international standards continued to be indifferent to the wealth growth. This phenomenon is a worldwide phenomenon which includes extremely rich nations such as the USA as well as extremely poor nations such as Haiti and the sub-Saharan Africa.

In a statement made by the heads of state and government at one of the World Food Summits of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), they expressed their deep concern over the persistence of hunger which constitutes a threat both to national societies and to the stability of the international community itself51. According to the statement, “it is intolerable that more than 800 million people throughout the world, and particularly in developing countries, do not have enough food to meet their basic nutritional needs.” The leaders confirm that food supplies have increased substantially, but poverty and hunger continue to persist. Despite their recognition that food supply has increased without reducing hunger, they insisted that the solution will be more of the same “increased food production.”.

In this declaration, the leaders of the world confirm the existence of a serious problem in poverty and hunger. In the meantime, they continue to declare that the solution is to increase the resources and products. They should have noted that the defect is not in the productivity of food; rather it is the mechanism of its distribution that fails to enable each and every person to have the proper access to food, commodities, and services. The mechanism of distribution of the resources remains unchanged. The end result will continue to be the same. The production of resources will increase the wealth of the already wealthy, but will not benefit those who need these resources the most.

In fact, the gross national or domestic product of individual nations as well as of the world at large has been on the rise for decades. Figure 3 shows the increase in GNP figures for the United States since 1929. Except for a short period of time, the GNP has always increased. After 1970, the GNP began to increase at exponential rates; this is the time when the United States departed away from the gold standard; more on this later. The current GNP in the United States exceeds fourteen trillion dollars.

The poverty numbers and rates in the United States are shown in figure 4. Note that the number of poor people continued to increase after 1970 despite the fact that the total wealth in the country was increasing at an exponential rate. The poverty rates continue to average around 12.5% despite the tremendous wealth increase (from $1 trillion in 1970 to $14.5 trillion in 2008).

Figure 5 contrasts the wealth increase in the United States with the poverty rates. Note how the wealth continues to increase while the number of poor people remains averaged around thirty million people. These figures pertain to the United States, the richest country in the world and the leader of capitalism.

The impact of capitalism on the world at large is more devastating. The poverty numbers and rates are disheartening. This fact is recognized by world leaders, world institutions and organizations such as the World Bank, the FAO, and others.

Poverty is said to exist when a person earns less money than he actually needs to fulfill his basic needs. This definition is consistent with the capitalist view of the price and its role in determining who would be able to satisfy his needs and who would not. A person who earns less money (price for his efforts or trade) than the price of the goods he needs to fulfill his needs is a poor one.

Hence, one way to measure poverty is to collect data on people who earn less than one, two, or more dollars per day. World Bank figures show that in 1981 there were 1.899 billion people whose income was less than $1 a day. This number was reduced to 1.374 billion in 2005. When the poverty line goes up to two, three, five, or ten dollars per day, the state of the world under capitalism becomes absolutely frightening.

Figure 6 presents poverty data for several poverty lines53. Note that except for the $1 data, the number of poor people continued to stay above 40% of the world population.

Figure 7 shows the reduction of poverty rates over the years (1981-2005). The largest reduction is in the number of people who earned less than $1 a day; the rate of people living under $1 a day was reduced by half over twenty-five years (50% to 25%). Very little improvement was observed for people who earned five or ten dollars a day. In 1981, 95% of the world population excluding the United States and Western Europe lived under $10 a day; twenty-five years later, this percentage was reduced only to 93%. Over the same period, prices and inflation have soared worldwide.

In other words, the 50% of those who used to earn $1 in 1981 and moved to the $2 bracket are not necessarily better off. The Bureau of Labor Statistics in the United States uses a calculating tool to compute the consumer price index (CPI) inflation rate54. Using this calculator, what $1 could buy in 1981 requires $2.15 in 2005. In other words, the people who lived under $1 in 1981 continue to be in the same poverty status in 2005 even though half of them now live on $2 a day. The consumer price index for the period 1947-2009 is shown in figure 8. Note how sharply the prices increased after 1972 (this is the time when the United States departed from the gold standard).

Peter Rosset, director of Institute for Food and Development Policy in California, clearly states that the food resources of the world are abundant rather than scarce83. In his book83 he declares that “the belief that world hunger can be solved by increasing food production is an unsubstantiated myth. The real problem is poverty.”

Perhaps the most devastating result of poverty is hunger. Quite often people refer to poverty simply in terms of people who earn less than a predetermined amount of money.

The becomes problem really serious when the poor actually remains unable to fill his stomach with the necessary food to sustain a decent life. Capitalism as a system does not address the issue of hunger. In fact, the principles of capitalism give rise to the possibility that individuals in a society will not be able to satisfy some of their needs; these needs could very well be the need for food, which is necessary to eliminate hunger. Capitalism speciously claims that there is not enough resources (in this case food) to feed each and every hungry stomach. In response to the phenomenon of hunger under capitalism, many institutions were created to fight hunger. The existence of such institutions within the societies of capitalism is a simple proof that capitalism as a system not only fails to resolve the epidemic problem of hunger, but in fact it causes this problem. Islam, on the other hand (as will be discussed later), calls for the elimination of hunger and makes this call a fundamental principle of Islam. Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said, “Allah and his Messenger will disown a community which allows one of its members to sleep hungry.

Despite the tremendous growth in the economy and the wealth of the United States, the Physician Task Force on Hunger in America (established in early 1984) concluded that hunger is a problem of epidemic proportions across the nation; it is getting worse, not better. They further concluded that present policies are not alleviating hunger in America56. This fact can be hardly accepted by many, as argued by Ardis Armstrong Young57. He raises the question “Why do Americans allow people to go hungry when they can grow enough food to feed the world and they waste more food than the hungry could eat?” Larry Brown, director of the National Center on Hunger and Poverty, summarized the hunger problem in the United States in his book Hunger in America: The Growing Epidemic58, where he writes:

We are the richest nation in the history of the world with millions of people going hungry and wondering where their next meal is coming from and we’re still unable to rid our society of this scourge.

The U.S. is not the only nation where people go hungry but it is the only wealthy industrial nation where such a high percentage of its population suffers from nutritional deprivation due to inadequate incomes. Nearly one in five children, in our nation, lives below the poverty level—we have more than enough food to end this problem—the real issue is not whether America can end hunger, the question is whether we have the leadership to do so.

The only issue with Brown’s conclusion is that he thinks that the resolution of hunger is a political issue, where political leaders can instill programs to deal with hunger. This illusion resulted from the fact that hunger was eliminated in the 1970s due to policies adopted in the early 1960s. When those policies were either changed or removed during the Reagan administration, hunger crawled back57. However, what should be noted is that there is an internal and intrinsic reason for poverty and hunger to exist because of the underlying economic principles. Administrative programs, policies, and regulations as well as charity organizations can reduce the scale of the problem, suppress it for some time, or hide it. However, these policies and programs do not eliminate the root cause of the problem; so once they are lifted or reduced, hunger immediately pumps up. When the Reagan administration cut seven billion dollars from the food stamp program in 1981, hunger related problems such as anemia, tuberculosis, poor growth, and osteoporosis crawled back immediately.

The way governments in capitalist states deal with the problem of hunger is similar to someone who detects a gas leak in a house and goes to find a nice and good filter to clean up and filter out the gas from the air instead of finding the leak source and fixing it altogether. The moment the filter is removed or fails to do its job properly, the gas immediately fills the house! Using the same analogy, the policies and regulations are used to filter out hunger and feed the hungry. The cause of hunger remains dormant in the basic principles of the economic system: food is relatively scarce. Price dictates the output of the production, determines the amount of consumption, and decides who could or could not eat. It is no surprise then that one of the definitions found for hunger in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1971 is “the want or scarcity of food in a country.”

If hunger is a problem with epidemic proportions in the United States, the richest country in the world, then what proportions does hunger have in Haiti, Bangladesh, Kenya, and the rest of the developing and underdeveloped world? The statistics on world hunger are shocking, startling, and terrifying. The magnitude of the problem is signified when we know that the wasted resources and food in the world are more than sufficient to feed the hungry. Time and again, it is clear that the mechanism of distribution that is failing; it is not the insufficiency of the resources.

According to published data and statistics on hunger by World Bank and other organizations, one person every other second dies out of hunger and malnutrition, 85% of these are children. In the Asian, African, and Latin American countries, well over 1.3 billion people are still living in what the World Bank has called absolute poverty (below $1 a day)53, which results in various types of illnesses, malnutrition, and potential death. In a statement made by the secretary general of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon to the Millennium Development Goals report 200959, he says,

We have been moving too slowly to meet our goals. And today, we face a global economic crisis whose full repercussions have yet to be felt.

At the very least, it will throw us off course in a number of key areas, particularly in the developing countries. At worst, it could prevent us from keeping our promises, plunging millions more into poverty and posing a risk of social and political unrest.

The report further states that “major advances in the fight against extreme poverty from 1990 to 2005 are likely to have stalled. In 2009, an estimated 55 to 100 million more people will be living in extreme poverty.”.

Hunger in the developing world continues to prevail. Since 1990, more than 170 million children under five years have vanished due to poverty, hunger, undernutrition, and related diseases. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) expects that more than one billion people will remain under extreme poverty and hunger conditions by 2015.

Sub-Saharan Africa experiences the worst of such conditions, where 30% of its population faces the danger of hunger, undernutrition and potential death on a daily basis. According to the World Health Organization60, more than fifty thousand people die every day from poverty-related causes. The children are the largest segment hit by hunger with thirty thousand deaths daily according to UNICEF report61.

Hunger deprives people, especially children, from receiving the necessary nutrition for growth. The impact of hunger on large populations is visible on the percentage of children under age five who are underweight. Thirty-one percent of children under five (that is, one out of every three children) in Asia, Africa, and Latin America were underweight in 1990. The status of children has not improved a lot since then; in 2007 more than 26% of the children in this region were still underweight and this rate is expected to rise even more due to the current financial crisis.

Footprints of poverty and hunger are visible in many aspects of the human life. Of particular significance is the maternal and neonatal (newborn babies less than twenty-eight days old) death rates shown in figure 9. The World Health Organization estimates more than five hundred thousand women die every year in the process of delivering children. The largest number of deaths occur in the sub-Saharan Africa (50% of the total), where the poverty rate is highest in the world.

The disparity between the well-being of mothers in industrial world and the developing world speaks for an out-of-balance distribution of resources. In Niger, for example, the country with the highest risk of maternal death, 1 out of 7 births will result in the death of the mother compared to 1 out of 47,600 in a country like Ireland.

By the same token, neonatal mortality (probability of newborn dying within twenty-eight days of birth) is expected to be very high due to extreme poverty and hunger. WHO estimates that around 3.7 million babies died after birth in 2004. Figure 10 illustrates the wide disparity between the poor and the rich worlds. Forty out of every 1,000 newborn babies die in the low-income regions compared to only 3 out of 1,000 in the industrial world.

Besides the direct impact on the life of women who give birth to children and the newborn babies, poverty and hunger impede the progress of nations by inhibiting education. Extreme poverty obstructs learning through poor nutrition, bad health, lack of books, insufficient lighting and places to do homework and parental poor education. Poverty increases the rate of dropout of schools. Lack of education constitutes an obstacle which prevents the acquisition of the necessary means for improving life quality.

This leads to a cycle which proves to be too difficult to break: poverty impedes education, while lack of education sustains poverty. Extremely poor people have lesser chance of getting proper education, which is necessary to compete for jobs with more educated people; without proper employment, it is almost impossible to get out of the poverty plunge. Under the dominance of capitalism, the poor segments of the population are the least educated; and those with the least education are the poorest. Poverty and hunger affect the cognitive ability of children in schools. UNESCO reports show that underweight and stunted children due to poor nutrition cannot concentrate in school and are likely to drop out61.

Current policies under the dominance of the system of capitalism have failed to break this cycle. Over the last few decades, the poor continued to lag behind in education, and the poverty rates continued to persist. Seventy-seven million children of primary school age in the developing world were not in school in 2007, 57% of them were girls61. Nearly a billion people entered the twenty-first century unable to read a book or sign their names.

The UNESCO Education for All (EFA) Global Monitoring Report61 shows that “young children in greatest need, who also stand to gain the most, are unlikely to have access to education improvement programs.” Coverage remains very low in most of the developing world and few programs exist for children under age three. The main barrier for education is poverty and hunger.

Figures (11-14) show education indicators in 125 countries based on UNESCO report61. All of the indicators show that the poorest countries lag behind in adult literacy, net enrolment ratios, and survival rate of students to grade 5; as a result, the education development indicator (EDI) for one-third of the nations of the world is below 80%, with countries like Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Guinea, and Mozambique having lower than 60% education index. The literacy rate in Chad and Niger is less than 30% of the total population. Given the strong correlation between poverty and education, it is very difficult to see an improvement in the well-being of Figures (11-14) show education indicators in 125 countries based on UNESCO report. All of the indicators show that the poorest countries lag behind in adult literacy, net enrolment ratios, and survival rate of students to grade 5; as a result, the education development indicator (EDI) for one-third of the nations of the world is below 80%, with countries like Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Guinea, and Mozambique having lower than 60% education index. The literacy rate in Chad and Niger is less than 30% of the total population. Given the strong correlation between poverty and education, it is very difficult to see an improvement in the well-being of the life of people in these African nations unless a serious change occurs in the method and style of wealth distribution in the world.

In the United States, the largest and richest cpitalist country, illiteracy continues to be as high as 14%, that is, one out of seven people lack the basic skills for reading. Statistics show that the highest dropout rate from schools has been with the poorest communities in the United States, the Hispanic and black population. The ratio of dropouts between white, black, and Hispanics remained the same over the last thirty-five years, with Hispanics averaging 3.6 times more than whites, and the blacks are 1.5 times more than white dropouts (figure 15). This is further signified by the fact that 75% of the people receiving welfare aids in the United States cannot read.