Refutation of the Capitalist Western Thought by Hizb Ut Tahrir

Economists in the West see that human needs are fulfilled by two things such as: goods and services. Goods are the means of satiation, being sensed things that are tangible such as bread, vehicles, telephone and others. Services are also within the means of satiation, but are sensed things that are intangible, such as legal advice, car repair, cleaning work and others. What makes the goods and services means of satiation is their utility (benefit), whether this utility is achieved partially or completely, directly or indirectly. In the Western view, if this benefit is available in anything, this makes the thing suitable for satiation. Since in capitalist economic terms, need means desire, anything that is beneficial economically falls within all that is desired, whether the thing is essential or not, regardless of some people considering it as beneficial, whilst others consider it as harmful. It is economically beneficial as long as it is desired by anyone.

In his essay, “On Liberty, A Few Words on Non- Intervention,” John Stuart Mill asserted, “both the cheapness and the good quality of commodities are most effectually provided for by leaving the producers and sellers perfectly free,” even whilst considering the harm of alcohol, opium and poisons upon the buyer. “Alcohol and opium are commodities just like food and clothing according to the economic concept...” as the Dutch central banker, Jelle Zijlstra, said in his book, Introduction to Economics.

Thus, the Western capitalist economy looks into the means of satiation, goods and services, with the dominant consideration that they satiate the needs, without looking into any other considerations. Thus wine is seen as having an economic value as it satiates the needs of individuals. Prostitution is seen as having an economic value by considering it as service that satiates the needs of individuals. In his book, Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill said, “Virtue, according to the utilitarian conception, is a good of this description. There was no original desire of it, or motive to it, save its conduciveness to pleasure, and especially to protection from pain.” Jelle Zijlstra said in his book, Introduction to Economics, “Thus, the economy does not judge the needs or define them from a moral perspective for instance, such that they can be accepted or rejected because it is the work of ethical science. Also it does not judge the things in terms of their harm to the health because it is the work of medicine. Instead, the economy asks only whether there is a need that is to be satiated or there is a possibility of satiating the things.” This means that the capitalist economy is not concerned about how society should be like. Instead, it is only concerned with economic material in terms of it being a need and beneficial, economically, in origin and then how to ensure its provision. It measures everything according to its economic benefit.

This is the view of capitalist economists on needs and benefits. The view is not as such how society should be. This view indicates that a man of the capitalist economy looks at man as a purely materialistic person devoid of spiritual inclinations, moral thoughts and moral goals. He does not care about the moral spirit of the society and the spiritual elevation that should be prevalent amongst the society. He is not concerned with any of this. Instead, he is purely concerned with the materials that would purely satiate his material cravings alone. So he will not cheat whilst he profits in his trade. However, if he gets profit only by cheating, then cheating will be legal. He will not feed the poor in response to the command of Allah (swt) to give charity. Instead, he will feed the poor only to stop them stealing from him. The one who views man according to this view, who evaluates economic life on the basis of this view, is in fact the most dangerous person for societies and peoples. That is because he will alter human society into a jungle, where the strong devour the weak.

This is on the one hand. On the other hand, wealth and efforts, which they call goods and services, are sought by individuals, to benefit them; their exchange by people creates relationships between them, according to which society is formed. Thus one must look into what society is, with its relationships, in general and in detail, when looking at the wealth and needs. Accordingly, paying attention to the material economy in terms of satiating the needs and satisfying the desires, without attention to what is necessary for a society to be, it is the separation of the material economy from relationships. It is the subjugation of man to the material economy, instead of subjugating the economy to him, by organizing his relationships with it. This is unnatural and invalid. Accordingly, it is not permissible for us to consider materials as beneficial, just because there is someone who wants them, whether they are in fact harmful or not, whether they negatively affect the relationships of the people or not or whether or not they are permissible or prohibited according to the view of people in the society. Instead, things should be considered beneficial only when they are in fact beneficial to man, with a view of what is obliged for a society.