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

What Is Capitalism ?

Rate this topic


myouvial

Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/what-is-capitalism-definition/

 

What do you think about capitalism ? I found this website, would you please give the notion, opinion, refutation, comment, etc ? What is the missing point, the opposite point to the teaching of Nabi Muhammad SAW ? I am still reading this, so need a lot of ponder to give any of those above.

 

What is Capitalism?
 


 

For over a century, leftists have used the word “capitalism” as a type of curse word, the cause of all economic ills. “Oh, well that’s capitalism for you”, they’ll mutter when they read a story that involves anything economically negative. They see “capitalism” as a system where the rich wage war on the poor, or where corporations use the government to trample the rights of minorities and the defenseless.

Of course, they’re dead wrong. And sadly, because they misunderstand what capitalism is, their “solution” to the problem is essentially more of exactly what causes the problems in the first place — theft, the violation of rights, and people waging economic war on each other.

In the end, the only economic system that prevents unjust wars, the nanny state, and promotes liberty at all is the system of capitalism. It’s not just a good system — it’s the only moral system.

When we talk about “capitalism”, we mean something very different than what the socialists try to imply:

Capitalism is an economic and
political system
that is based on
protecting the
natural rights of life, liberty, and property. By extension, this means enforcing contracts and banning all fraud.

In such a system, the use of capital almost instantly arises. People will trade out of self-interest, and “money” makes trade infinitely easier. Because of the prevalence of capital, the label “capitalism” was born.

Capitalism does not include any violation of the rights of the rich or the poor. The bailouts weren’t capitalism. Obamacare isn’t capitalism. Agribusiness being paid to not grow crops isn’t capitalism. Oil subsidies aren’t capitalism. Anti-small-business regulations aren’t capitalism.

Those are part of a very different economic system — corporatism. That system — the system of corporatism — is where the government is used to give “special privileges” to corporations and the rich. This is absolutely not capitalism. It’s corruption, a violation of the rights of the people, and should be instantly ceased.

Where Socialists and Capitalists Should Agree:

Capitalism doesn’t allow for theft — whether it’s the rich robbing the poor or the poor robbing the rich. It doesn’t allow for corporations to be bailed out with tax money. It doesn’t allow for so-called “welfare” programs funded out of the pockets of the middle class and rich.

We capitalists hate corporatism just as much as the socialists. We hate theft by anybody — rich or poor. We hate corruption by anybody — rich or poor. We hate it when corporations use the government to manipulate the law to punish small business. We hate it when corporations are at the receiving end of laws that violate liberty, like the insurance companies which benefit from forced insurance under Obamacare.

Because of this, there are plenty of topics where capitalists and socialists and moderates should be on the same page: ending corporate subsidies, ending all bailouts, ending the Federal Reserve, ending fractional-reserve banking, ending legally enforced monopolies, as well as dozens of other topics.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Perfect capitalism will obviously never be perfectly achieved. There will always be something wrong — we’re talking about politics after all. But that doesn’t mean that the blame lies with capitalism — that means the blame lies with not having capitalism.

It’s vital that people understand what capitalism is, and understand that the problem with Wall Street isn’t economic liberty — it’s not that theft is banned. It’s that theft is going on — only for the rich and the businesses.

The solution to our economic ills isn’t to change who’s stealing from who. It’s to stop the theft for absolutely everybody. There’s only one way out of the economic insanity we’re in: to move toward the economic protection of life, liberty, and property — for absolutely everyone, rich and poor alike.

As Ayn Rand explained:

“Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may
initiate
 the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as
the agent
of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under 
objective control
.”

That’s it. That’s the definition of capitalism. If you agree with us that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to steal anymore than anyone else is allowed to steal, then make sure to sign up for our newsletter and click the “share” button below.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Do you support it?

Before deciding to support or not, why don't we make a surgery thinking about capitalism. Because this is a huge matter, life and death of one's soul and what we make in bathin (eg attitude, feeling), talking, writing, and doing/deed have to be based on something powerfully right and we have to answer our responsibility about what we do in this dunia in Akhirat, we will be asked for reckon by Allah SWT, Our Great Almighty Creator.

 

 

I have made another post related to this post to abolish capitalism :

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235018025-what-do-you-think-the-world-without-currency/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

  (salam)

 

Of course, they’re dead wrong. And sadly, because they misunderstand what capitalism is, their “solution” to the problem is essentially more of exactly what causes the problems in the first place — theft, the violation of rights, and people waging economic war on each other.

In the end, the only economic system that prevents unjust wars, the nanny state, and promotes liberty at all is the system of capitalism. It’s not just a good system — it’s the only moral system.

 

I stopped reading after this because I know there was no point. Capitalism is the plundering of resources from impoverished countries to benefit other countries. It consists of installing brutal dictators in order to have ones way in those impoverished nations. It also consists of having those impoverished nations dictators which you have installed bow down to you and buy everything from you, mainly miltary and arms. Also as previously mentioned, it promotes big coroprtations shipping job overseas they pay people pennies a day and people do child labor and other horrific stuff. Its not the solution. I have read enough on it to know. Distribution is in my opinion the solution. :)

 

(wasalam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

  (salam)

 

 

I stopped reading after this because I know there was no point. Capitalism is the plundering of resources from impoverished countries to benefit other countries. It consists of installing brutal dictators in order to have ones way in those impoverished nations. It also consists of having those impoverished nations dictators which you have installed bow down to you and buy everything from you, mainly miltary and arms. Also as previously mentioned, it promotes big coroprtations shipping job overseas they pay people pennies a day and people do child labor and other horrific stuff. Its not the solution. I have read enough on it to know. Distribution is in my opinion the solution. :)

 

(wasalam)

I wish you can make using logical reasoning a refutation article to strip, expose, (denude :wacko:) their fallacy notion so we or i can send it to that website, because misleading notion will make many people/human goes astray to doom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish you can make using logical reasoning a refutation article to strip, expose, (denude :wacko:) their fallacy notion so we or i can send it to that website, because misleading notion will make many people/human goes astray to doom.

(salam)

 

Excuse me, but I am Socrates and I used to be a big philosopher in my heyday. You can ask anyone in Greece and they'll tell you. I don't need to use any logical reasoning my Brother. I know what I am talking about. You just send my statement to that website and tell them that I Socrates said it. :)

 

(wasalam)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

 

Excuse me, but I am Socrates and I used to be a big philosopher in my heyday. You can ask anyone in Greece and they'll tell you. I don't need to use any logical reasoning my Brother. I know what I am talking about. You just send my statement to that website and tell them that I Socrates said it. :)

 

(wasalam)  

I am asking you to give logical reasoning/refutation/noting the fallacy of the article for them,i.e. the writer on those website, (not you :D ) to see what is capitalism according to you Little Socrates ;)  .

Edited by myouvial
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

This capitalism view about socialism.

 

http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/tragedy-of-marx/

 

The Simple Reason Socialism Always Fails
 


 

Modern sociology is essentially based on the teachings of Karl Marx. Few people mention the man with such reverence as a professor teaching how societies interact, evolve, and function. In a typical sociology classroom, the students and professor will learn about class warfare, economics, the survival of the fittest, as well as plenty of examples where the rich are “exploiting” the poor.

Karl Marx is considered the intellectual godfather of hundreds of thousands of professors, intellectuals, elitists, and anti-capitalists. He invented what’s known as the “Conflict Theory”, the notion that change occurs because of conflict between two groups of people. He was right about that, but he was hideously, deadly wrong about how he applied it.

Marx saw political conflict — people using resources and force to enslave other people — and he concluded that it wasn’t the use of force that was wrong, but the existence of capital. It’s a completely incoherent logical leap, and it had grave consequences for the rest of humanity.

 

 

Missing the Point With The Communist Manifesto

Karl Marx’s infamous “The Communist Manifesto” is the most important document he wrote, because it was the intellectual rallying cry of anti-capitalists everywhere.

It was the justification for confiscating trillions of dollars worth of property and then mismanaging it in the most incompetent economic planning the world has ever seen.

It was the justification for public executions of capitalists — people like myself, who own and use capital to produce even more.

Hundreds of millions of capitalists were murdered because of Marx’s philosophy. Families were wiped out, husbands were hanged, children made orphans, economies destroyed, and during the Cold War, the world itself almost met its fiery end due to the insane delusions of equality by the power-greedy communists.

In this document, Marx wrote the following:

“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!”

What laughable insanity. This man of a giant beard and a small mind referenced power as the reason the poor were “victims”, and yet his response wasn’t the downfall of the ruling classes — it was taking political inequality and unleashing it in a manner the world had never seen before.

tibet_execution_3-300x178.jpg

Consolidating power to the state doesn’t end inequality — consolidating power fosters inequality. Not all men are free to rule their neighbors, because that is outlawed under socialist dogma. Under socialism, a handful of men determine the rules, the economic planning, and the rations that the rest of the “workers” will receive.

The end-goal, socialists argue, is a society where power isn’t necessary. But to get there, they explain, we need to consolidate power in a socialist economy. A handful of men need to be given the power to decide what to do with everyone’s property, what ideas can be discussed, what lives can be ended, and what freedoms must be deleted for the sake of the eventual “common good”.

Learn the Lessons of History

Anyone who understands human nature sees the flaw here. Men abuse; absolute power tends to the abuse of power. But instead of people trying to manipulate others with money and resources through marketing, they created a society where negotiation began and ended with force — violence, prisons, executions, starvation.

The greatest source of inequality in the 20th century was socialism itself.

The greatest cause of poverty in the 20th century was socialism itself.

The greatest catalyst for exploitation in the 20th century was socialism itself.

They realized that the “ruling class” was wrecking havoc on society, and then concluded that it wasn’t the power — it was the money itself. The irony of such a misplaced philosophy and a self-defeating movement would be humorous if it hadn’t wrecked havoc with an evil the world had never seen before.

Let the ruling classes tremble? They tremble in excitement because they will be the ones who control your socialist empire.

Nothing to lose but your chains? Communism enslaves billions. Nothing to lose? Except your families to starvation, your friends to execution, your material well-being through rationing, and your freedom itself.

Working men of all countries? We have no time for angry and violent riots — we are carrying your world on our shoulders.

The Real Conflict is: Liberty Vs. Slavery

Marx was right about one thing: social movement occurs from perceived class conflict. The poor are progressively becoming more and more socialistic in America, not because the rich are harming them, but because they perceive the world as being owned, controlled, and regulated by a handful of the super rich — even though this is economically, historically, and politically inaccurate.

No one will ever argue that some of the rich do not abuse their wealth with regulations, bailouts, and subsidies — but the problem isn’t the existence of capital; the problem is political force itself.

For example, I am a capitalist. I take my wealth and multiply it through leverage, business projects, and other endeavors. I will not, however, use my money to manipulate the system in order to destroy other businesses. I will not take my money to manipulate the economy so I get an advantage over others.

Other companies, like Wal-Mart and Microsoft, almost always utilize their wealth to buy politicians in order to take down their competitors. This is not a flaw of capitalism — this is a flaw of corruption. It is not a flaw of freedom when someone abandons it — that is a definitional impossibility and a self-defeating concept.

The root of all social evil is unwarranted force — the violation of the rights of others. Murder, theft, rape, war — these are the things of evil. The free market doesn’t include any of these concepts. Once we understand this, all else follows, and we’ll soon come to realize that capitalism is the only moral economic system that protects and respects the rights of all men — regardless of their class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I think many, many things against the principles in Islam, but Muslim swims, breaths, accepts as truth, do nothing, about it and saying "If we want to be true Muslim, go to jungle, sea, mountain alone."   http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/principles-of-economics/

 

 

  The 10 Principles of Economics You Should Know
 

 

Economics is the study of human behavior — of how people interact to get what they want and whether what they want is possible for them to get. It’s a science in the sense that there are uniform laws guiding the field of economics — invisible forces at work that guide the market. But it’s not a science in many ways, because it involves peoples’ decisions, which are anything but scientifically predictable.

When approaching economics, it’s incredibly important to understand that the first step is to know what to look for — natural laws guiding human behavior, society’s production, individual trade, and wealth building itself. In other words, the study of economics is simply the study of economic principles and their application. That’s about it.

This, of course, just begs the question: what are the principles of economics? Below are list of 10 basic economic principles, inspired by great economists like Henry Hazlitt, Adam Smith, and Greg Mankiew.

The 10 Fundamental Principles of Economics:
  1. People respond to incentives.
  2. People face trade offs.
  3. Rational people think within the margin.
  4. Free trade is perceived mutual benefit.
  5. The invisible hand allows for indirect trade.
  6. Coercion magnifies market inefficiency.
  7. Capital magnifies market efficiency.
  8. Supply and demand magnify resource efficiency.
  9. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
  10. Desires are infinite; resources are finite.

I’ll go into detail with a short summary of how these economic principles work in economics. Of course, a longer explanation is necessary but is too much for a single article. I’ll continue to write longer explanations of each principle in the following weeks. If you’d like to read them, make sure to subscribe to our newsletter at the right or at the bottom of any page on this website.

The 10 Undeniable Principles of Economics Explained:
  • People respond to incentivesThis is an unavoidable concept found in human behavior. It’s just how people function. We respond to incentives. Incentives aren’t necessarily “selfish” in the traditional sense, but they all appeal to our values — whether conscious or subconscious. Examples would be accepting a job to make money, donating to charity to help the poor, going to church to learn about God — anything where we essentially do what we want. People respond to incentives.
  • People face trade offs. It’s impossible to get everything you want at the exact same time. It’s impossible for me to sleep all day and work all day. It’s impossible for me to grill a steak at home while also dine at Olive Garden. This means people face trade offs. We have to trade one thing for another thing — there’s no other option. This is why people often barter with others. People are willing to trade 7 years of college work for the ability to become a lawyer, lot’s of money for a house, and pretty much every other choice in life. People face trade offs.
  • Rational people think within the margin. Thinking within the margins means trying to get the best result. In other words, if you have the option of choosing a good car or a perfect car, the rational choice is the perfect car. All things being equal, the better option is better. Thinking within the margins is essentially believing in net benefits — focusing on the best thing possible. Rational people think within the margins.
  • Free trade is perceived mutual benefit. When people trade in a free market, it’s because they are both responding to peaceful incentives. For example, an employee trades time for money because they want money. An employer trades money for labor because they want the labor. Both sides are acting in a way that they think benefits them as much as peacefully possible. This is true for all trades. People buy stuff because they’re reacting to incentives. This is a critical concept, especially when we mix it with the above principle of rational people thinking within the margin. People act in a way they think benefits them.
  • The invisible hand allows for indirect trade. The invisible hand is the market force that does what no individual could do on his own. For example, no single country on earth has all of the resources and industry necessary for the creation of a single pencil. It takes a dozen companies and several countries working together through trade to make that pencil. Not all of those who contribute to the creation of the pencil will ever meet or even know of each other — that’s why it’s referred to as the miracle of the invisible hand. The market does more on it’s own than any individual can possibly do on his own because the invisible hand allows for indirect trade.
  • Coercion magnifies market inefficiency. The invisible hand operates through the free market. That is, through people acting in a way that benefits them. The people mining lead, for example, aren’t doing it because they’re thinking about your ability to use a pencil. They don’t even know where the lead they’re mining is going. They’re acting on the basis of the free market, and the free market’s invisible hand is taking care of the rest. Using coercion — that is, manipulating the incentives people respond to — focuses on less production and more exploitation. What this means is that instead of everyone focusing on how to peacefully produce and trade for as much as possible, it changes the rules so that it’s possible to just take or force others to give you what you want. This makes about as much sense as a farmer eating his milk cow. The more coercion in a market, the less efficient it is. For examples of this in action, just look at any socialized nation in the history of mankind. Coercion magnifies market inefficiency.
  • Capital magnifies market efficiency. Capital is the magic behind the invisible hand. It allows people who have never met to barter. Capitalism is essentially juiced up barter economy. A pig farmer is trading pigs for stuff at Wal Mart — he’s just using currency for the sake of making the bartering more efficient. The existence of capital means that you can produce one thing, earn money, and trade that money for something else entirely — without the person you’re trading with needing to accept what you’re producing. Capital is an ingenious method of allowing anyone to trade with anyone, as long as both are productive people who produce more than they consume. Capital magnifies market efficiency.
  • Supply and demand magnify resource efficiency. Market forces work so that if there’s a demand for something as well as a potential supply of it, the market will try to unleash the supply to meet the demand. This will eventually lead to market equilibrium where the demands are quenched as much as possible by the market. This is honestly just an end conclusion of the very first principle of economics — people respond to incentives. Making money filling market demands is an incentive that nearly everyone reacts to during their lives.
  • There’s no such thing as a free lunch. This is a simple concept. Nothing is free. All wealth must be earned. You can’t use black magic economics to create something out of nothing. Every bit of wealth has to be earned. Welfare gets the money from someone. Government spending takes money from somewhere. Even if one person benefits without paying for it, someone else has to pay for it. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
  • Desires are infinite. Resources are finite. We don’t live in a magical world where stuff is created from nothing. Everything that is produced is based on a complicated, long train of trade offs. The question isn’t whether we can judge each trade off individually — the question is how we determine to make those trade offs. People who support socialized medicine often completely miss this basic concept, and believe that capitalists just want the poor to die or stay sick. This is absurd. There are only so many doctors and nurses — the question is how to take what we have and disburse it in a manner that doesn’t cause rationing and inefficiency. That’s why socialized medicine always creates health slavery and rationing. It’s not “free”, because nothing is free.

Studying these principles of economics will give you a road-map for understanding economic events. You’ll see why most government economic plans fail, why capitalism always works, why socialism always fails, why peace always produces, and why war always destroys.

If you want to keep learning — if you want to become economically educated — get our free newsletter below and begin your journey to learning every week about free markets, property rights, and the art and science of economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Here is the story from my teacher :

There is a [Edited Out] who intend to kill the oppressive king who does many destruction to human being. He/it move through the river. Floating above the water, he/it goes to the king palace.

One day, he meet an eel. The eel asks the [Edited Out], “Where are you going ?” The [Edited Out] answers “I am going to kill this oppressive king”. So the eel asks to join and help him/it/the [Edited Out]. So, the [Edited Out] allows, and the eel accompanies him/it. They are together going to the palace.

Another day there is a hedgehog/porcupine. And the same scene happens until the three, the [Edited Out], the eel and the hedgehog, go together to the king palace to kill him/the oppressive king.

The day come when they see the king’s palace. They are planning and setting up the program to kill this oppressive king.

Leaping the detail of the plan, we see this scene :

The king is taking an apple to be devoured. He realize something wrong with the apple as it has bad smell and some [Edited Out] smears the apple. He gets very angry but nobody in his room. So he hurrily goes to washroom to clean his hand. Not realizing there is an eel in front of the washroom door, he slips down. His head goes down to the floor where there is a hedgehog waiting his face.

Then, you can expect what happen to the king, he was killed by the hedgehog, beginning the cause by the [Edited Out].

What is the moral of this story, eventhough my teacher never communicate the learning from the story. At the time he told the story, we, his students, always smile and laugh about this [Edited Out] goes to kill the king. I never know the moral of the story until now.

 So, maybe i assume i myself as a [Edited Out] (a [Edited Out] to human, as nobody like me) to kill the king. The king is capitalism.

So this [Edited Out] writing a post in shiachat to wait for an eel and hedgehog.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235018303-what-is-capitalism/

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235018025-what-do-you-think-the-world-without-currency/

 

Note : Those [Edited Out] cannot be seen as it is a backward of TIHS.

Edited by myouvial
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Veteran Member

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Havelaar

 

Indonesian novelist Pramoedya Ananta Toer argued that by triggering these educational reforms, Max Havelaar was in turn responsible for the nationalist movement that ended Dutch colonialism in Indonesia after 1945, and which was instrumental in the call for decolonization in Africa and elsewhere in the world. Thus, according to Pramoedya, Max Havelaar is "the book that killed colonialism".[1]

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/18/magazine/best-story-the-book-that-killed-colonialism.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I think many, many things against the principles in Islam, but Muslim swims, breaths, accepts as truth, do nothing, about it and saying "If we want to be true Muslim, go to jungle, sea, mountain alone."   http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/principles-of-economics/

 

 

  The 10 Principles of Economics You Should Know
 

 

Economics is the study of human behavior — of how people interact to get what they want and whether what they want is possible for them to get. It’s a science in the sense that there are uniform laws guiding the field of economics — invisible forces at work that guide the market. But it’s not a science in many ways, because it involves peoples’ decisions, which are anything but scientifically predictable.

When approaching economics, it’s incredibly important to understand that the first step is to know what to look for — natural laws guiding human behavior, society’s production, individual trade, and wealth building itself. In other words, the study of economics is simply the study of economic principles and their application. That’s about it.

This, of course, just begs the question: what are the principles of economics? Below are list of 10 basic economic principles, inspired by great economists like Henry Hazlitt, Adam Smith, and Greg Mankiew.

The 10 Fundamental Principles of Economics:
  1. People respond to incentives.
  2. People face trade offs.
  3. Rational people think within the margin.
  4. Free trade is perceived mutual benefit.
  5. The invisible hand allows for indirect trade.
  6. Coercion magnifies market inefficiency.
  7. Capital magnifies market efficiency.
  8. Supply and demand magnify resource efficiency.
  9. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
  10. Desires are infinite; resources are finite.

 

 

1. True, for most cases. Nothing magical about it.

 

2. True. Nothing magical this either.

 

3. False. The notion that people will always, or at most times, act rationally is myth they put forward. It's nice hearing - that we're all rational beings who work in self-interest. But the fact is that people's choices, opinions and perceptions can and are influenced to maximum degree. Just look at advertising. That should amount to market failure since large firms are the ones dictating our wants and that cannot be in our favour.

 

4. False. Free trade is what the developed economies came up with once they were developed. Before that, first world countries actively and justly intervened in domestic and international markets to protect their interests. And they happily went along with publicly owned firms without the cr@p about how they caused market failure.

 

5. The invisible hand doesn't always work. In fact it doesn't most of the times. Efficient allocation of resources never occurs. Externalities will always exist. 

 

6. Coercion is what they do to protect their interests.

 

7. May be.

 

8. BS.

 

9. What those big that are sponsoring the institute get tax breaks, despite the externalities they cause, they are in fact getting free lunches.

 

10. Control.

 

 

This is what they fill college economics textbooks with - the points you mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

^^^^^ people like you need to stop acting like you know what you are talking about.

People have incentives to act rationally in a free market, protectionist economic policies do not help the country,the invisible hand brought more people out of poverty and created the largest middle class in the history of the world in spite of government interference, point 9 donstrates your profound misunderstanding of capitalism and if you believe that free market capitalism is what they advocate for in western Universities then you have obviously never stepped foot in one.

But of course we need people like brained to tell us how to efficiently allocate our resources. He and other bureacrats know best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

^^^^^ people like you need to stop acting like you know what you are talking about.

People have incentives to act rationally in a free market, protectionist economic policies do not help the country,the invisible hand brought more people out of poverty and created the largest middle class in the history of the world in spite of government interference, point 9 donstrates your profound misunderstanding of capitalism and if you believe that free market capitalism is what they advocate for in western Universities then you have obviously never stepped foot in one.

But of course we need people like brained to tell us how to efficiently allocate our resources. He and other bureacrats know best.

 

I never said people don't act rationally, I said "...people's choices, opinions and perceptions can and are influenced to the maximum degree. Just look at advertising." Do have a look at it. People don't actually live on the margins and they don't actually have perfect information.

 

Protectionist policies don't help a country ? said who ? economists in developed countries. How wonderful. How and why is that they only realized all of this only when their countries had reached a certain level of industrialisation and their firms had developed to the extent that they were unarguably best in the world. Why did they have protectionist policies before that?

 

I cannot feel the invisible hand. Neither can the 21 000 who die every.bloody.single.day due to poverty. 

 

Have you ever opened a college-level economics textbook ? 

 

Your arguments in defense of the tyrannical system were utterly destroyed by MK in that inequality thread.

 

You should stop watching Youtube videos and open up real books. And close Fox News while you're at it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Veteran Member

Assalamu Alaikum wb,

 

If anyone here is interested in a good critique of capitalism, then Mohammed Baqir Al-Sadr (may his soul rest in peace) provided a good one in his book 'Our Philosophy'. 

 

I download it, but I can not open its pdf file. It needs password. What is the password ? How to read this book in pdf ? Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

AIUI capitalism is about the private (as opposed to state) ownership of various productive assets, such as factories, property and so on. I don't see anything inherently unIslamic or morally wrong in that.

 

Of course what matters is the price paid by those private owners when they acquired the assets, the rents they subsequently charge and the price at which they sell them. Each of those decisions can raise moral, ethical and religious questions.

 

For example, in many countries around the world the State used to own industries such as Telecoms. Since the 1980s the trend has been to privatise them i.e. make the system more capitalistic. Again nothing inherently wrong with that. The BIG problem IMHO has been to do with the price at which the assets have been sold and to whom. In various instances the process has been nothing short of theft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

AIUI capitalism is about the private (as opposed to state) ownership of various productive assets, such as factories, property and so on. I don't see anything inherently unIslamic or morally wrong in that.

 

Of course what matters is the price paid by those private owners when they acquired the assets, the rents they subsequently charge and the price at which they sell them. Each of those decisions can raise moral, ethical and religious questions.

 

For example, in many countries around the world the State used to own industries such as Telecoms. Since the 1980s the trend has been to privatise them i.e. make the system more capitalistic. Again nothing inherently wrong with that. The BIG problem IMHO has been to do with the price at which the assets have been sold and to whom. In various instances the process has been nothing short of theft.

Ultimately if all assets of any nation go privatised, then there might be no nations anymore. If the nation incomes come from only the taxes from private company, then there will be big tendency for corruption since the private company will only pay for its benefit. And government worker afraid to the private company of loosing job etc, bow/ruku', sujud to the development plan according to each private company. This might be called NEOCAPITALISM.

Edited by myouvial
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately if all assets of any nation go privatised, then there might be no nations anymore. If the nation incomes come from only the taxes from private company, then there will be big tendency for corruption since the private company will only pay for its benefit. And government worker afraid to the private company of loosing job etc, bow/ruku', sujud to the development plan according to each private company. This might be called NEOCAPITALISM.

 

(salam)

 

Can't the Nation use eminent domain and nationalize the private companies if they make paying their taxes leverage?  But then again, these Private companies account for majority of campaign contributions to elected candidates which in turn influences their policies.

 

(wasalam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

 

Can't the Nation use eminent domain and nationalize the private companies if they make paying their taxes leverage?

Ans :The nation consist of several entity in the nation structure. Their decisions depend on each entity leader and later approve or not by the Prime Minister or President or Legislative entity vote.

 

 

But then again, these Private companies account for majority of campaign contributions to elected candidates which in turn influences their policies.===>

 

Ans : Indeed. But mostly they grew up and fooled not to change the system for better humanity in accordance to Allah's intention to create human, i.e. khalifatullah, to maintain, control universe based on Al Qur'an and Ahlul Bayt as and their teaching.

 

(wasalam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

 

Can't the Nation use eminent domain and nationalize the private companies if they make paying their taxes leverage?  But then again, these Private companies account for majority of campaign contributions to elected candidates which in turn influences their policies.

 

(wasalam)

 

To protect public democracy from becoming a corporate democracy, Western countries need to reconsider their approach towards election campaign funding. They need to ban big corporate donations and stop corporations from acting like living entities with a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I think many, many things against the principles in Islam, but Muslim swims, breaths, accepts as truth, do nothing, about it and saying "If we want to be true Muslim, go to jungle, sea, mountain alone." 

 

 

Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

Allah's Apostle said, "There will come a time when the best property of a Muslim will be sheep which he will take to the tops of mountains and the places of rainfall so as to flee with his religion from the afflictions.

 

 

 

 

tibet_execution_3-300x178.jpg

 

 

Is that picture from Vietnam? Israel? Iraq?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

AIUI capitalism is about the private (as opposed to state) ownership of various productive assets, such as factories, property and so on. I don't see anything inherently unIslamic or morally wrong in that.

 

Of course what matters is the price paid by those private owners when they acquired the assets, the rents they subsequently charge and the price at which they sell them. Each of those decisions can raise moral, ethical and religious questions.

 

For example, in many countries around the world the State used to own industries such as Telecoms. Since the 1980s the trend has been to privatise them i.e. make the system more capitalistic. Again nothing inherently wrong with that. The BIG problem IMHO has been to do with the price at which the assets have been sold and to whom. In various instances the process has been nothing short of theft.

 

It doesn't have to be as opposed to state, it can be the commons or any other sort of democratic ownership.  Property rights are a unique set of rights, my right to freedom of thought or expression does not interfere with yours, my right to property however interferes with your right to that property.  It's within this context that any moral discussion as pertaining to private property or in fact capitalism can proceed.

 

Is capitalism a moral economic system or a morally sound way of organizing economic activity, even the most ardent supporters of capitalism have been highly sceptical of this.  The whole idea of commodifying and attaching a monetary value to everything we hold dear is morally questionable (personally, obscene), that rational pursuit of self interest leads to social welfare is also questionable.  Does capitalism drive economic growth as per widely accepted economic statistics?  Sure it does, does it also lead to corrosion of social values and physical harm through externalities totally unaccounted for? Sure it does, is it one of the most dynamic and fascinating economic systems in human history?  It obviously is.  Are a lot of these concerns systemic and inherent?  Yes they are.  The moral question does not arise when the prices are set, as a capitalist by definition will try to maximize gain at the expense of others (labour and disadvantaged property seekers), inherently so.

 

It functions in remarkable ways, crashes and reinvents itself but moral it is not.  We can surely find far more humane and democratic ways to organize our economic/social life, it obviously is no easy task, but then overcoming other inherently immoral economic institutions in the past was no walk in the park either (monarchy, slavery, feudalism etc). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

Is capitalism a moral economic system or a morally sound way of organizing economic activity, even the most ardent supporters of capitalism have been highly sceptical of this.  The whole idea of commodifying and attaching a monetary value to everything we hold dear is morally questionable (personally, obscene), that rational pursuit of self interest leads to social welfare is also questionable.  Does capitalism drive economic growth as per widely accepted economic statistics?  

 

Why should support for capitalism mean that we should attach a monetary value to everything? Societies can choose the extent to which a capitalistic system should play a role in their affairs.

 

And why should my right to property interfere with yours, as long as my property was honestly acquired?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

It doesn't have to be as opposed to state, it can be the commons or any other sort of democratic ownership.  Property rights are a unique set of rights, my right to freedom of thought or expression does not interfere with yours, my right to property however interferes with your right to that property.  It's within this context that any moral discussion as pertaining to private property or in fact capitalism can proceed.

 

Is capitalism a moral economic system or a morally sound way of organizing economic activity, even the most ardent supporters of capitalism have been highly sceptical of this.  The whole idea of commodifying and attaching a monetary value to everything we hold dear is morally questionable (personally, obscene), that rational pursuit of self interest leads to social welfare is also questionable.  Does capitalism drive economic growth as per widely accepted economic statistics?  Sure it does, does it also lead to corrosion of social values and physical harm through externalities totally unaccounted for? Sure it does, is it one of the most dynamic and fascinating economic systems in human history?  It obviously is.  Are a lot of these concerns systemic and inherent?  Yes they are.  The moral question does not arise when the prices are set, as a capitalist by definition will try to maximize gain at the expense of others (labour and disadvantaged property seekers), inherently so.

 

It functions in remarkable ways, crashes and reinvents itself but moral it is not.  We can surely find far more humane and democratic ways to organize our economic/social life, it obviously is no easy task, but then overcoming other inherently immoral economic institutions in the past was no walk in the park either (monarchy, slavery, feudalism etc). 

 

The great debate about the inherent immorality of unrestrained capitalism has been around sine the time of Marx (and even before that) but so far humanity has not been able to offer an equally dynamic and self-sustaining system of modern economics.The alternatives experimented with in the last century have failed. Rather than question the very basis of capitalist worldview, a better idea is to keep capitalism at watch through responsible regulation that seeks to protect the less well off (for that, as I said, corporate power to interfere with political decision making must be curtailed). The so called social democracies in some European countries are basically capitalist economies containing security valves geared towards public welfare, and I think they work well for the most part.

 

Note that capitalism is a very wide term denoting a whole lot of historical and contemporary theories and practices and doing away with the whole thing, esp rights to property, as inherently immoral will not solve problems of the poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

Rather than question the very basis of capitalist worldview, a better idea is to keep capitalism at watch through responsible regulation that seeks to protect the less well off (for that, as I said, corporate power to interfere with political decision making must be curtailed). 

 

That's basically it.

 

The achilles heel of capitalism is actually competition.

 

There is always the risk of a capitalistic society trending towards either organsational monopolies or indeed social/ethnic/religious groups acquiring resources at the perceived expense of other groups.

 

That is where regulation becomes important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Societies can choose the extent to which a capitalistic system should play a role in their affairs.

 

 

The holy Prophet (pbuh) said: "There are two things acquiring which only further increases the thirst for more of them in a person; Wealth and knowledge."

 

So there is no extent.

 

The human race being enough technologically advanced today it surprises me why we need representatives in senates when we can use our mobile phone to represent ourselves. And why oh why can't we think of something more human friendly than the old economic models?

 

Only the rich hate forms of socialism because then they would have to work like everyone else. Has anything good come out of capitalism through history? Rather there is something very wrong with the whole world. 13 families are controlling it. And that is because of capitalism. Can someone still advocate this pig fattening system while knowing that?

Edited by Darth Vader
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Why should support for capitalism mean that we should attach a monetary value to everything? Societies can choose the extent to which a capitalistic system should play a role in their affairs.

 

And why should my right to property interfere with yours, as long as my property was honestly acquired?

 

I was referring to a purely capitalist society.

 

As far as property rights are concerned, it isn't a question of honesty between two transacting parties at the exclusion of all others.  You have a finite piece of land, millions of inhabitants, how do you fairly determine who gets to own it?  First come basis? The highest bidder? Should that amount of property, of immense political, social and moral significance be even allowed to fall into select private hands?  All kinds of questions arise with all such properties of social/economic significance in a shared world of finite resources, I am not telling you what's right, just that these questions are serious and legitimate.

 

The great debate about the inherent immorality of unrestrained capitalism has been around sine the time of Marx (and even before that) but so far humanity has not been able to offer an equally dynamic and self-sustaining system of modern economics.The alternatives experimented with in the last century have failed. Rather than question the very basis of capitalist worldview, a better idea is to keep capitalism at watch through responsible regulation that seeks to protect the less well off (for that, as I said, corporate power to interfere with political decision making must be curtailed). The so called social democracies in some European countries are basically capitalist economies containing security valves geared towards public welfare, and I think they work well for the most part.

 

Note that capitalism is a very wide term denoting a whole lot of historical and contemporary theories and practices and doing away with the whole thing, esp rights to property, as inherently immoral will not solve problems of the poor.

 

Countless systems are offered, some have even been put into practice against overwhelming odds, seemingly sustainable ones, only to have been eventually crushed by severe concentrations of power, because quite simply, democracy and freedom are quite intolerable to those in power.

 

I am all for taming capitalism in the short run and always have preferred practical reforms over revolutionary endeavours, but it's increasingly so in the face of growing and potentially irreversible practices caused by unaccounted externalities which threaten the very fate of our species.

 

Capitalism thrives on mass exploitation of labour, and although working people through organized labour and politics have forced meaningful concessions in the form of better working conditions and democratic representation, band-aid solutions are temporary and inherent capitalist forces inevitably strike back.  Roosevelt, embarked on such a program, eventually big business found a way to crush unions, cut spending and use the political system to deregulate important markets.  The successful well-fare state model in Europe has had a brief moment under the sun, there are constant efforts by big business to reverse these trends, and rather recently they have been quite successful at it.

 

Almost everyone is aware of it's glaring shortcomings, we have to look at democratic alternatives to a capitalist management of the means of production, of course we have to re-evaluate and question the very moral/social foundation of our economics, and of course we aren't beyond or past such a stage, we probably never will be.  Economic systems, no matter how repressive, seemingly un-breakable and highly sustainable persisted on for centuries before they were dismantled, there is no reason why we should stop here.

Edited by Mutah_King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Assalamu Alaikum wb,

 

You're most welcome. 

 

Here is an article worth reading if you would like to further read into the subject iA. 

 

Please keep in your dua. 

Salam. May Allah SWT and Nabi Muhammad SAW and his all Ahlul Bayt as granted you big reward.

 

I just wondering if Iqtisaduna of Muhammad Baqr al Sadr is applied in Iran. My country, Indonesia, certainly still on the grip of capitalism. Do you know the answer ?

 

Is there a similar book, written by Islamic scholar, which is more recent than Iqtisaduna ? I.e. Application of Islamic economic ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Why should support for capitalism mean that we should attach a monetary value to everything? Societies can choose the extent to which a capitalistic system should play a role in their affairs.

And why should my right to property interfere with yours, as long as my property was honestly acquired?

Please stop thinking like this. You didnt earn anything. It was our king barack who took your tax money and built that pot hole ridden road that you use to get to your job, it was king barack who labored 16 hours/day for many years untill he was able to grow his business and make it successful enough to gift to you and it is by virtue of their God given sense of justice that King Barack and his buddies in government are best fit to allocate resources in the economy.

Submit to his will or you are a greedy capitalist pig who would trample on downtrotten and hungry orphans if king barack was not there to make sure you surrendered some crumbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I just wondering if Iqtisaduna of Muhammad Baqr al Sadr is applied in Iran.

 

No.

 

Is there a similar book, written by Islamic scholar, which is more recent than Iqtisaduna ? I.e. Application of Islamic economic ?

 

 

There has been a stream of books coming out of publishing houses but they are mostly about Islamic banking and finance, which seems to them a more workable option, and quite successful in the last couple of decades, than the all encompassing "Islamic economics".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

No.

 

 

 

There has been a stream of books coming out of publishing houses but they are mostly about Islamic banking and finance, which seems to them a more workable option, and quite successful in the last couple of decades, than the all encompassing "Islamic economics".

From the link above (i still study it):

 

Muhammad Baqir al Sadr specifies two reasons for the socioeconomic problems:

(1) the oppressive character of man, arising from his self‑love; and

(2) man's inefficiency in the utilization of economic resources.

 

Someday somebody solve this hindrance by :

 

a. Detailing more what is the oppressive character of man and how to solve, cure privately and generally by applying rule, giving teaching, ... (channeling human nature e.g. moral control)

b. Maximizing efficiency of process while minimizing the destruction impact, i.e. Process Optimization (this has computer programmed software). I studied process optimization with http://www.archive.che.lsu.edu/faculty/pike/

Edited by myouvial
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...