The economic meltdown, the financial crisis, the government takeover of privately owned enterprise, and the implosion of the virtual economy render the entire politico-economic model of free enterprise and rugged individualism a broken one. There is almost unanimous agreement that a fundamental change to the current politico-economic model is urgently needed. This change appeared in the media in various forms and slogans. One of these slogans was borrowed from Obama’s words, “remaking America,” which was repeated in the front pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, and many more127.

This tone has revoked the belief that capitalism in its purest free market form was the ultimate and highest point of historic economic evolution, a belief which climaxed as the Soviet brand of socialism collapsed in 1991. Francis Fukayama, who advocated the notion of free market superiority in his book End of History and the Last Man,33 revoked that belief in 2008 when he wrote, “The Fall of America, Inc.” The article which appeared in the Newsweek edition on October 4, 2008, declared that the current version of capitalism has failed; in Fukayama’s words, “a certain vision of capitalism has collapsed.” A new vision is required.

“A New Form of capitalism Can Remake Broken Country” is the title of another article which appeared in the Independent Daily newspaper on January 22, 2009,127. The article suggests a new evolution of capitalism that could serve as model for broader collaboration between government and private enterprise.

The names that have been suggested for a new form of capitalism show how the image of capitalism has been tarnished in the eyes of the public. One of the publications128 presents the following alternative names for new forms of capitalism: “Bubble Capitalism,” “Ponzi Capitalism,” “Crony Capitalism,” and “Geonomic James Arthur Ray, New York Times best-selling author, wrote “A New Form of Capitalism: Dealing with the Cause Versus the Effect,” which appeared in the HuffPost Social News129. In this article, James Arthur argues that socialism and/or communism cannot be a viable alternative to capitalism because socialism itself has failed. He concludes, saying, “I submit capitalism is the only viable option. Yet a new type of capitalism must be adopted, a type that I call Conscious Capitalism.” Conscious capitalism addressed the moral factor behind the failure of current free market capitalism.

In the Davos Annual Meeting 2008, Bill Gates addressed the need for a new form of capitalism, which he called “Creative Capitalism”130. Bill Gates stated that the world today needs more “system innovation than technology innovation.” Creative capitalism, according to Bill Gates, should harness the productivity generated by the pursue of self-interest, while at the same time it benefits the ones who do not have access to the profit. In essence, Bill Gates calls for a mechanism for wealth distribution other than the price mechanism and the forces of the market.

Richard M. Ebeling, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, argues that there is no such thing as “capitalism.” Rather there are different types of capitalism from which governments and societies may choose131. According to Ebeling, the socialist or fascist brands of capitalism are dismissed only because of the linguistic and ideological connotation associated with these words.

The real issue here is not how to rename capitalism. If this was the issue, a world contest could be organized with a nice prize to choose from a wide range of names or to come up with a totally new name. To list a few of the names that have been tossed around in one or another publications, here is a short list: Liberal Capitalism, Social Capitalism, Fascist Capitalism, National Capitalism, Creative Capitalism, Collective Capitalism, Competing Capitalism, Conscious Capitalism, Bubble Capitalism, Ponzi Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Geonomic Capitalism, and What-Have-You capitalism.

The discussions on the brand of capitalism, the future of capitalism, the renaming of capitalism, the evolution of capitalism, and the failure of capitalism reveal three major fundamental factors which must be taken into consideration when considering a restructuring of the economic system. The first and foremost has to do with the moral aspect of the system. It is almost unanimously agreed across the board that the collapse of the free market politico-economic model was preceded by a collapse of the moral structure that supports it. Recognizing this factor, James Arthur proposed what he called the “Conscious Capitalism.” The new system, no matter Capitalism.”.

what name it bears, must incorporate a moral model. The moral model must be tightly coupled with and inseparable from the system. The moral model cannot be an option, or an extra added value; it has to be an integral part of the system.

The second factor has to do with wealth distribution such that the least privileged and the poorest in a society may have the chance to benefit from the large sums of profits generated by the power of self-interest pursuit. It is simply unacceptable to live in a world with accumulative wealth exceeding $100 trillion and 20% of its population (more than one billion) lives under $1 a day. The new system, no matter what name it bears, must incorporate a distribution mechanism which recognizes the fact that the produced wealth may not reach a segment of the population for all types of reasons. The distribution mechanism must be an integral part of the system and not an option that can be added or removed by politicians based on local or world conditions. The distribution mechanism must be explicit to the extent that the judicial system and political system can enforce it with the power of law.

The third factor has to do with the need for state and public ownership to coexist with private ownership. This necessity has been recognized by scores of economists and politicians and had been known as Keynesian brand of capitalism (in reference to John Maynard Keynes of Great Britain). Keynes argued that the government must intervene to stabilize the market. This necessity has been further asserted through the most recent practices in the United States and score of other European countries, where governments moved to acquire the ownerships of banks, insurance companies, auto industries, and others.

But state ownership cannot be applied on a need only basis and under the slogan of “too big to fail.” State ownership should be more fundamentally defined; it should be an integral part of the system which defines the scope of private ownership, the state ownership, and the public common ownership. Who owns what should not be left to the political and economic conditions to dictate. It should not be left until crisis hit home and then force politicians to decide on which property to own and which property to dissolve. “Too big to fail” is too vague of a principle to apply.

The US government moved to own a significant portion of General Motors, Chrysler, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Bear Stearns using the principle of “too big to fail.” Now the government has an overwhelming power of deciding what cars will be produced and what mortgages will be available for home buyers. Would the government move to own part of Wal-Mart if it ever experiences hardship and be deemed as too big to fail? And the government would decide on what type of clothes the people would wear? This is how the Soviet Union operated during the socialist era. It is true that state property should be part of the economic system, but it should be well defined based on integral principals of the system. It cannot be an option or an added value to the system. State and public property should be protected by law in the same manner private property is protected. Private property should never be transferred into state or public property; by the same token, state and public property should never be subject for privatization. The limits and boundaries of each must be clearly defined by the system and not left for the conditions and politicians to set these limits.

These three factors: the moral model, the wealth distribution mechanism, and the property ownership boundary limits, are the essence of the crisis within capitalism. The solution to this crisis is not simply a renaming of capitalism. Neither can a solution be obtained by augmenting the system with some modifications. When the three factors are integrated into the system, the fundamentals of capitalism would have changed in a manner that the future generations would not recognize capitalism at all. Fundamental changes to the principals of a system are not a matter of evolution.

When the socialists finally realized that there were major defects within socialism, they decided to move on; they replaced the system altogether. There was no sense in mending it, adding new features, or evolving it into a capitalist socialism, liberal socialism, modern socialism, national socialism, conscious socialism, creative socialism, or what-have-you socialism. The perestroika of Gorbachev abolished socialism altogether. The alternative for the Russians at the time was capitalism. They moved to capitalism with full force.

What is the alternative to capitalism today? Of course socialism is not an option. Socialism failed after it has been tested for more than seventy years. In the next part of this book, I argue that Islam provides a viable alternative. It provides a system that integrates a well-defined property ownership with clear distinction between private, state, and public; it incorporates a wealth distribution mechanism which eliminates poverty while it boosts productivity and wealth generation, and it provides a sound and practical moral model.

My argument in this book is that Islam provides a comprehensive view of the politico-economic model. It addresses the basic principles upon which any economic system must stand. It systematically details the concept of property ownership; it systematic ally addresses the wealth distribution such that wealth does not flow in the direction of the rich only; .

it provides a moral foundation which systematically calls for the removal of greed and selfishness from the process of production and consumption.

The presentation of the Islamic model in this book is meant to broaden the discussion and analysis of economic systems from the current dual character (capitalism and socialism) to a tri-character (capitalism, socialism, and Islam). My objective is not to persuade the reader with the details of the Islamic system. The main objective, however, is to conclude that yet there is one more system in the world capable of organizing the affairs of people, managing the financial and economic transactions, and conducting the relations between people. This system is the Islamic system. After introducing this system in the next part (part 2), I will then move to part 3 to address the ever-burning question to the non-Muslim reader: is Islam a threat to the world community or a benefit?