Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bakir last won the day on July 27 2019

Bakir had the most liked content!

About Bakir

  • Rank
    Level 6 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

17,993 profile views
  1. Thing with this debate is that you missunderstood the word Humanism all this time. When I speak about humanism, I'm not referring to the Arabic word Insaniyah, nor English word humane/humanitarian. I'm referring to Humanism, which is a very defined and specific philosophical position deeply developed during the last century. It's not my understanding of humanism. Humanism is a specific known and very debated philosophical position. It is up to you to understand it, not up to me to explain myself, as this is in no way a personal interpretation of Humanism. I'm speaking of Humanism based in acad
  2. If you want to be reductionist of my arguments, so be it. I won't lose my time on that. To think Capitalism is just trade (or some sort of protoliberalism) and Communism is the abolition of private property is enough reason for me not to continue replying to your posts. Because it's being consciously ignorant, proud about it, and annoying those willing to have a reasonable thoughtful ethical debate on economics. Period. I do believe that from an ethical, moral and religious standpoint, it's a duty for any so called believer to be conscious about the consequences of the topics he's discuss
  3. The way the world is currently structured, and the way society has been educated, justify Capitalism as something we need and seems natural. But neither Capitalism is natural, nor the causes of this false perception is. In which way is it natural that the idea of "ownership" (which is based in a social agreement and nothing natural) of the means of production justifies that the major part of benefit obtained through it is not for the worker, but for the owner. All of this is also added to the fact that the worker isn't owner of his own work, and barely can decide on it. On top of that, th
  4. Even Zakat itself is a tax that discourages hoarding, as it applies to accumulated wealth. I believe this is the best approach nowaday in our situation. Some flexibility in economical approaches to bring what is best to society. Approaches that may be able to take into account ecology, justice and proper refistribution of wealth as well as a human understanding of labour.
  5. There are workers cooperatives, which is an example I gave before of what it may also mean socializing means of production. Not everything is about a state. In worker cooperatives, profit and incentive does also exist, but political mentality and decision making is very different, and approach to labour is more empathetic with workers (as they are also owners).
  6. Because it reaches a point where it's ridiculous. Feel free to sense the odour of class warfare, because it is indeed real. Treating people like Jeff Bezos as equal human beings and respecting their rights is worse than treating a criminal or a pedophile as someone equal to an innocent person. The 1% is not equal. These people are perfectly aware of the injustices of the world. They could end hunger. They could even put an end to wars. Yet they shamelessly don't care, they just care about their money (just look at the behaviour of Elon Musk towards Bolivia's political crisis). There is a
  7. I don't know if you guys have been inside any syndicate, and are aware of what happens in your respective sectors. I do. I'm priviliged enough to work with colleagues in my own worker cooperative, with no bosses nor hierarchy. It's all democratic. But I do my privilege check, and reflect on the situations of others, for which I desire the same (and better) conditions and rights I have. By the way, worker cooperatives are also an example of autonomy and syndicalism, and go with the idea that notme was explaning about libertarian socialism. It's something that at least, in my sector, is gaining
  8. What about wage slavery? Come on...
  9. No, but neither there is a prohibition of creating an additional system. Tax percentages should be proportional to wealth earned. Zakat is easily bypassed because it is a static global tax that doesn't attend to the wealth you make, but the wealth you accumulate.
  10. Well, the thing of marxism doesn't stop at private-public (govt) property. The extreme reductionism I tend to read on Marxism gets on my nerves, tbh xD. When in Marxism we speak about socializing the means of production, we don't speak about making them property of the government specifically, though this is the common interpretation. It also means making it property of the group of workers that use these means of production. Most of us are probably professionaly active. Yet most of us may not be the owners of our work, we just get a wage for offering our services and using the means of p
  11. It's important to make a distinction between private property (such as the house you live in, your food, clothes, and the car you ride), and the means of production, especially those required for basic needs: - Medical equipment (this crisis has made the world especially conscious about this) - Food industry (fields and equipment) - Gas and energy - Water - Telecommunications These are just a few examples where the lack of govt control and the existence of monopolies can easily lead to extremely terrible working conditions. Another services that can be danger
  12. A common error in criticism towards marxism is precisely doing wrong comparations to socialist states, and to consider his own definition of socialist state as if it was something good or ideal for him (when clearly it's not). The communist manifesto is not enough if one doesn't read proper marxist interpretations of the original text in specific topics. Otherwise, we may end up with a not very sophisticate critique.
  13. Still reading the thread, but I must say this is an excellent approach on how Islam was experienced and what apostasy meant. Another reason for the need of revision.
  14. First of all, thanks for your post. I think it correctly summarizes many interesting points that are worthy of discussion. This is going to be a long post, but hopefully it is of benefit. Regarding your first and quoted point, indeed, we agree. We both see the same problem. I obviously recognize the benefits of religion. Not just Islam. Socially speaking, religions united society in effective ways. Judaism made the poor good, and the rich bad, the weak and sick good, and the powerful bad. Islam united the Arab tribes. Religions have always been very effective. My point is that within orth
  15. There are two essential differences between a belief system of a specific religion and humanism, usually: 1: the amount of followers. 2: the accepted divine origin of the belief system, which inevitably needs you to believe at certain point, without proper reasoning to back up such beliefs (outside the religious paradigm). Thus, like maths, it only works when you accepted certain axioms. These two points are just not enough, because the same flaws you point at Humanism can be found in Religion, except that for the latter, revision and change is way more difficult to take place.
  • Create New...