Introduction

Just as the Marxian economics comprises the science and the doctrine, in the same way the capitalist economics also consists of these two elements. It has a scientific aspect wherein capitalism tries to explain the course of economic life and its events in an objective way, based on observations and analyses. There is also part of it, the doctrinal component, which the proponents of capitalism propagate and call for implementation.

These two sides of capitalism have become mixed up in many discussions and views. This is despite the fact that they are two distinct aspects - each one having its peculiar nature, basis and measures. Consequently, if we try to give one of the two aspects the distinctive character of the other – either regarding the scientific laws as pure doctrine or attributing scientific features to the doctrine - we would certainly commit a great mistake, as we shall soon see.

Despite this similarity between capitalist and Marxian economics (in being composed of two aspects, scientific and doctrinal), there is a significant difference. The relationship between the science of capitalist economics and the capitalist economic doctrine differs substantially from that between the scientific side and the doctrinal aspect of Marxian economics. That is in respect of the difference between historical materialism on the one hand, and socialism and communism on the other. It is this difference that will make our approach in discussing capitalism different from that in discussing Marxian economics, as would become clear in the course of this chapter.

In the following pages, we will discuss the main themes of capitalist economics. Then, we will deal with the relationship between the doctrines of the capitalist economics and its science. Finally we will study capitalism in light of its doctrinal notions it is built on.

Doctrinal Capitalism - The Main Framework

The capitalist economic doctrine is based on three main elements, constituting its peculiar organic entity, distinguishing it from other doctrines. These elements are as described below:

The first is the adherence to the principle of private ownership in an unrestricted form. The general rule in the Marxist doctrine is that the principle of collective ownership prevails except in an exceptional case. The position is entirely the opposite under the capitalist doctrine. In capitalism, the rule is that private ownership prevails, extending to all areas and different aspects of wealth. This could not be violated except under exceptional circumstances, which necessitate the nationalization of an industry or placing the assets under the ownership of the State. As long as the overall results do not demonstrate the necessity for nationalization of any enterprise, private ownership remains the general rule in force.

On this basis, capitalism believes in the freedom of ownership and allows private ownership to prevail over all means of production such as land, machines, buildings, mines and other forms of capital assets. The laws in the capitalist society guarantee private ownership and its continuity for the asset owners.

The second element of the capitalist doctrine is the freedom for every individual to deploy his assets and use his abilities as he likes, and to develop his wealth with various means and methods he can. For instance, if he owns an agriculture land, he is entitled to exploit it himself for any use he chooses. He also has the right to lease it out to a third person on terms he deems appropriate. Similarly he also has the right to leave it idle.

This capitalist freedom granted by the capitalist economic doctrine to the owner aims at making the individual the sole operative in the economic movement as no one else is more aware of the real benefits to him than he himself. Nor is anyone else more competent to gain the benefits. He can only be in that position if he is provided the freedom in the manner he deploys and organize the assets, only as long as he is spared from any intervention from any direction – by the state or any other parties. In this way, therefore, everyone has a sufficient opportunity to choose the method of utilizing his assets, the profession he adopts and the methods that he might apply to realize the largest possible amount of wealth.

The third element is freedom in consumption in the same way as freedom is grated in use of assets. Thus every individual enjoys the freedom to spend his money and wealth, as he likes, to satisfy his desires and meet his needs. He is free to choose whatever goods he likes for consumption and he could not be restricted by the state - which at times prohibits the consumption of certain commodities based on considerations relating to public interests, such as the consumption of a drug.

These are the main signposts of the capitalist doctrine, which could be summed up in three types of freedom – the freedom to own, the freedom to use and the freedom to consume. At first glance, there appears to be a glaring inconsistency between the capitalist doctrine and the Marxist doctrine. The latter upholds collective ownership as the main principle instead of individual ownership. It also abolishes the capitalist freedoms based on private ownership, replacing them with state control over all the resources in the economic system.

It is generally said that the contrast between the two doctrines - capitalism and Marxism – in terms of their features, reflects the difference in the way they view the individual and the society. It is such because the capitalist doctrine is an individual-centered doctrine, which sanctifies personal desires and regards the individual as the pivot. It is incumbent on the doctrine to work for and to safeguard the interests of the individuals.

The Marxist doctrine is one that is society-centered, which rejects personal desires and individual esteem. It dissolves the individual entities into the society and adopts the society as a pivot for him. For this purpose, it does not recognize individual freedoms. Instead, the doctrine ignores them for the sake of the fundamental entity and works in the collective interest of the society as a whole.

As a matter of fact, both doctrines rest on an individual-centered view and both are built on personal desires and esteem. Capitalism emphasizes respect for the interest of the privileged individual by ensuring him freedom of use (of his resources) and freedom to carry out economic activities in various fields - unmindful of the injustice and the neglect that may result from the freedom allowed for that individual - as long as others are in principle provided the same freedom.

While capitalism provides comprehensively for the fulfillment of the personal desires of the privileged ones and promotes their propensity, the Marxian economics turns to other individuals who are not fortunate enough to have those opportunities. Its doctrinal call, therefore, revolves around fueling their personal desires and their self-esteem and work at fulfilling those. It tries to endorse these desires with different methods - regarding it as the force harnessed by history for its development - until it is able to employ them in a revolutionary way.

It explains to its audience that the others steal their efforts and wealth and therefore it was not possible for them to conform to this (system of) plunder in any way, as it constituted a blatant aggression against their personal being. Thus we find that the Marxist doctrine relies on the same premise, as that adopted by capitalism. Both doctrines actually embrace the fulfillment of personal desires and endorse them. They only differ in the types and groups individuals whose personal desires and esteem that correspond to the respective doctrines.

A doctrine that really deserves to be described as a society-centered doctrine is one that is driven by other than the personal esteem and desires. It is one that cultivates in each individual a deep consciousness about the responsibility towards the society and its interests and makes it incumbent on him to forego part of the fruits of his efforts and his private wealth for the sake of the society and others. He does not do that because he had stolen their properties and because of their resulting revolt against him to regain their rights, but because he feels that this is part of his duty and that it is an expression of the values he believes in.

Indeed a society-centered doctrine is that which safeguards the rights of the under-privileged and their wellbeing not by inciting them such that their desires and dignity prevail, instead by nurturing goodness and noble values to bloom in everyone’s mind. In future discussions we will see what that doctrine is.

Doctrinal Capitalism Is Not A Product Of Scientific Laws

When the science of economics was at an early stage, the giants of classical economics voiced the need for this science and laid its first foundation. During that period, two notions pervaded the thinking on economics.

First, that economic life proceeds in an environment with scarce resources. Scarcity dominates all economic units of the society, as much as other various aspects of existence, all in accordance with their respective natural capacities. The responsibility of the science vis-à-vis these forces, which govern the economic life, is to discover general laws and the fundamental rules that can appropriately describe different economic phenomena and events.

Second, those natural laws - which the science of economics must discover - constitute a guarantee for human happiness if they are enforced in a liberal atmosphere and when all the members of the society are enabled to enjoy the capitalist-style economic freedom. It comprises freedom in ownership, freedom in asset usage and freedom in consumption (spending).

The first notion laid the seed of the science of capitalist economics while the second one laid its ‘doctrinal seed’. But the two notions or the seeds are so closely linked that economic thinkers at that time thought that restricting freedom of the individuals and intervention - by the state - in the economic affairs meant placing barriers on the natural laws, which would have ensured affluence for humanity as the solution for all its problems.

Consequently, any attempt to curb any of the capitalistic freedoms is regarded a crime against the ideal natural laws. This belief led them to saying that those good laws themselves impose the capitalist doctrine and make it essential for the society to guarantee the capitalistic freedoms.

But this sort of thinking now, to a great extent, appears absurd and childish because a revolt against a natural scientific law does not mean that a crime had been committed against that law. Instead, it shows the flaw of the law itself, disqualifying it from being regarded as scientific and objective. True natural laws never fail under the given conditions and circumstances. Only the conditions and circumstances change. It is, therefore, a mistake to regard the capitalist freedoms as an expression of natural laws and to consider their violation as a crime against nature.

Thus the natural laws of economics should operate uninterrupted, in all conditions irrespective of the degree of the freedom enjoyed by individuals on the aspects of right of ownership, usage of assets and consumption of goods. Yes, sometimes it does happen that the effect of these laws differs, in accordance with the difference in the conditions and circumstances under which they operate, in the same way the laws of physics differ in their effects and results with the difference in conditions and circumstances.

It is therefore essential to study the capitalistic freedoms. But, this is not because we agree with the proponents of capitalism, who views these freedoms as natural laws, as if they bear a scientific character. They should instead be studied as regard to how far they provide happiness and dignity to man and contribute values and ideals to the society, which are the basis embraced by the proponents of the capitalism in the study of its doctrinal aspect.

Considering this, we can understand the essential difference - to which we had hinted in the beginning of this chapter - between the Marxian economics and capitalism. The relationship between the scientific and doctrinal aspects of the Marxian economics differs fundamentally from that linking the scientific and doctrinal aspects of the capitalist economics.

The doctrinal aspect of the Marxian economics - which is represented in the forms of socialism and communism - is regarded as a necessary outcome of the laws of historical materialism, which constitutes an expression of history's natural laws, from the viewpoint of Marxism. So if historical materialism was right in the matter of explanation of history, it proved (demonstrated) the doctrinal aspect of Marxian economics. Consequently the study of the scientific aspect of the Marxian economics is considered as a basis for the study of the doctrinal aspect thereof. It is also an essential condition for judging in favour of the Marxian doctrine, or against it. It is not possible for a doctrinal researcher to critically review socialism and communism independent of its scientific basis, which is historical materialism.

As for the doctrinal capitalism, it is not the result of the science of economics established by the capitalists. Nor is its destiny linked with the success of the scientific aspect of capitalism in describing the objective reality. The doctrinal capitalism relies on a certain value system and practical thoughts, which are regarded as the exclusive criteria for judging the capitalist doctrine. While we ourselves believe in an economic doctrine distinct from capitalism and the Marxian economics, our attitude towards Marxian economics is different from our attitude vis-à-vis capitalism. In respect of the Marxian economics, we are face to face with a doctrine whose proponents think that it revolves around the laws of the science of history (historical materialism).

It is, therefore, necessary for any critical review of this doctrine to incorporate an examination of the so-called scientific laws. That is why we presented historical materialism, describing its meanings and stages, as a prelude to pass a judgment on the Marxian doctrine itself.

Our attitude is different towards the doctrinal capitalism, in respect of the capitalist-style freedoms. We are confronted with a doctrine that does not derive its existence from any scientific law, such that a discussion and scrutiny of those laws are not necessary for its study. We are actually dealing with a doctrine that is derived from certain moral and practical outlook.

Therefore, we will not discuss the scientific aspect of capitalism except to the extent that to clarify that the doctrinal aspect is not an essential result thereof, nor does it bear a scientific character. Then we will study the capitalist doctrine in light of practical ideas and the value system on which it is based. Since all the discussions contained in this book have doctrinal character, there is no room for scientific aspects except so far as the doctrinal attitude demands.

Although the study of the capitalist doctrine on this basis depends also on some scientific discussion, the role of the scientific discussion in this study completely differs from that in the study of the Marxian doctrine. It is such because the scientific discussion of the laws of historical materialism alone could pronounce the final verdict on doctrinal Marxism, as mentioned previously. As for the scientific discussion in examining doctrinal capitalism, it does not constitute the highest authority to make a judgment on it, as it does not have a legitimate scientific character.

The help of scientific discussion is sought only to form a complete idea about the empirical results generated by capitalism in the social dimension, and the trends of the regulatory development in the capitalist economies. That will enable judgment of the outcomes and the trends resulting from the application of the doctrine against the value system and practical concepts the researcher subscribes to.

Therefore, the role of scientific discussions in the study of the capitalist doctrine is to give a complete picture about the reality of the capitalist society so that we could judge that picture with specific practical standards. Its role is not to present evidence on the necessity of the capitalist doctrine or its flaws. Consequently, how often would the researcher - on this basis put forth by us - commit mistakes if he accepts the capitalist doctrine from the proponents of capitalism as being a scientific reality or as part of the science of political economy, without separating the science from its doctrinal aspects?

For instance, when they assert that the provision of the capitalist freedoms means wellbeing and happiness for all, he would think that this opinion is scientific or is based on a scientific principle (just) like the economic law of demand and supply, which states that ‘when supply increases, the price decreases’. This law is a scientific explanation of the movement of price as found (prevailing) in the market.

As for the previous verdict on the capitalistic freedoms, it is doctrinal in nature. Its proponents proclaim its virtue in their doctrinal capacity, deriving it from the moral and practical values and ideology they believe in. Therefore the correctness of this idea or other scientific laws does not mean that this doctrinal verdict was correct. This verdict depends but on the correctness of the values and ideas upon which it was based.

The So-Called Scientific Laws In The Capitalist Economics Are Actually Of Doctrinal Nature

As we have seen earlier, the capitalist doctrine has no scientific character and does not derive its legitimacy and existence from the scientific laws in economics. Here we want to reach a deeper point in the analysis of the relationship between the doctrinal aspect and the scientific aspect of capitalism, to see how the capitalist doctrine restricts the scientific laws in the capitalist economics and affects them so far as their direction and path are concerned.

This means that the scientific laws in the capitalist economics are scientific laws in the framework of a particular doctrine, and not general laws that might be applicable to every society or place, and at all times like the natural laws of physics and chemistry. Many of those laws are only regarded as the objective realities in the social conditions governed by capitalism in all dimensions. Consequently they are not applicable to a society that is not run by capitalism and in which its ideas do not prevail. To clarify this, we must throw some light on the nature of the economic laws taught by capitalist economics so that we may know how and to what extent it is possible to acknowledge their scientific character.

Scientific laws in economics are divided into two groups:

First, natural laws which owe their necessity to nature itself rather than human will, such as the general law of scarcity which stipulates that: every production which depends on land and raw material as its input is limited according to the limited amount of land and its raw materials. It is similar with the law of production, which states that increase in production is proportionate to the increase in a factor of production until it reaches a point where the incremental returns is subject to the law of diminishing returns whereby the yield starts diminishing (given that the other factors of productions are held constant).

These laws are not different, in their nature and the objective aspect, from other laws of the universe that are discovered in natural sciences and therefore they bear no doctrinal character. Nor are they dependent on a particular social or ideological circumstance. And the results do not vary even over an extended range of time and space, as long as the nature the production process remains the same.

Second, the group of scientific laws on political economy comprise laws on man’s economic life and are connected with the will of the individual himself, because economic life is one of the phenomena of general human life, in which his will plays a significant role in various aspects.

For instance, the law of supply and demand - which states that when demand for a commodity increases while it is not possible to increase the quantity to meet the increased demand, the price of the commodity is bound to rise - is not an objective law operating independent of the understanding of man. It is unlike the laws in physics, astronomy and the natural laws of production that we refer to in the first group.

The law of supply and demand only represents the phenomena of man's conscious life. It clarifies that in the case defined by the law just mentioned, the buyer would come forward to purchase the commodity at a price higher than that in the case of the supply and demand being equal. The seller would not in that case, sell it but at the higher price.

The intervention of human will in the course of economic life does not mean the separation of economic life from the purview of scientific laws. It also does not mean that it is impossible to scientifically assess these aspects of economic life, as believed by some thinkers, when political economy was newly born. They believed that scientific laws - being incumbent and essential - were incompatible with the nature of freedom reflected in human will. Therefore, if human life were subjected to strict scientific laws, it would be inconsistent with the freedom enjoyed by man in his life. When subjected to these laws, he would become a rigid tool working mechanically, in accordance with natural laws that governs the course of his economic life.

This belief is based on an incorrect meaning of human freedom. It is also based on an incorrect perception and understanding of the permanent relationship between freedom and will on the one side, and those laws on the other. The existence of natural laws in connection with man's economic life does not mean that man loses his freedom and will. They are merely laws with respect to human will, describing how man uses his freedom in the economic space. Thus these laws cannot possibly be regarded as nullification of the man’s free will.

These economic laws actually differ from scientific laws in other aspects of existence, on one point. That is, these laws - in view of their relationship with the will of man - are influenced by all the factors that affect human consciousness and also by all factors, which interfere with man’s, will and his inclinations. Obviously, the man’s will that these laws deal with, is determined and conditioned by his perceptions as well as the mainstream thoughts – the religion or the value system that is prevalent in the society and by the form of legislations regulating his behavior.

It is these factors that influence the man’s will and practical attitude and when these factors change, man's inclination and will also change. Consequently, it would appear that general scientific laws vary in describing the course of economic life. Therefore, at many times it is not possible to present a general law - to the whole human community - about the economic life with different ideologies, doctrines, religions and value systems.

The capitalist economists studied the capitalist society, in light of which they have formulated laws of political economy. It is not scientifically reasonable to expect that human will - in the course of his economic life - always be progressive and be dynamic in every society, as it is in the capitalist society, as different societies embrace different ideologies, doctrines and value systems. But it is necessary to take these frameworks as established concepts in the space of scientific discussion. It is only natural that we should then discover results of the discussion of the laws holding well in the context of the respective frameworks.

As an example, we mention the main rule in light of which many classical economic laws have been formulated. This is that rule which takes out from the socially perceptible man — an economic man who believes in having his personal interests as his main objective in all the economic activities. The economists have presumed since the very beginning that everyone's practical inclination in his economic activities is always driven by his specific material interest. They then began to discover the scientific laws that prevail in such a society. This presumption is valid in the case of the European capitalist society with its ideological and spiritual character, value system and common practices.

But it is just as possible that a basic change may take place in the economic laws of the society's life simply with the variation of this basis, in another society with different rules of behavior, ideology and value system. This is not a presumption of our own but it is a fact, which we will discuss. Societies differ from one another in respect of factors that determine their pattern of behaviour and value system.

Let us take for example the capitalist society, and another that Islam had called for and had historically brought into existence. A human society had existed under the rule of Islam comprising a real community of people whose general rules of behaviour, observable standards and value systems differed totally from those of the capitalist society. Islam, being a unique way of life, does not deal with economic issues scientifically. Yet it greatly influences these activities and their social paths. It is such because it deals with the pivot of these activities - that is man - with his notions about life, his needs and desires, and shapes him with its peculiar character in line with its ideological and spiritual framework.

Despite the brief period that (the genuine) Islamic system was enacted, it produced the most brilliant results history had ever witnessed, and demonstrated the possibility of man rising to horizons which members of the capitalist society - immersed in the material needs and its connotations - could not even look at. The information that history gives us about this Islamic experiment and its brilliance shed light on the potentials for goodness that is latent in human beings, and reveals the strength of Islam's mission whereby it could mobilize these potentials and harness them for the higher human goals.

The history of this golden experiment tells us that once a group of poor people came to the holy Prophet and said, “O Messenger of Allah! The rich have excelled us in earning rewards (of Almighty Allah) as they perform prayers and observe fasting as we do, but they also give in charity (from) their extra wealth (while we cannot afford)." Therefore the Prophet replied: "Has not God enabled you to give alms? Verily for every tasbih (praising Allah) and every takbir (glorifying Allah) you would be given reward of charity. Similarly the act of your calling others to do good and forbidding them from evil deeds would amount to charity on your part."

These Muslims who had complained to the Prophet did not seek wealth so they could have the power or enjoyment or satisfaction of their own personal desires. What pained them was (their thought) that the rich people should surpass them spiritually (by way having more opportunity) for righteousness and doing good deeds to others and participation in public welfare works for the society. This reflects the meaning of wealth and the nature of a Muslim, under the shadow of a genuine Islamic governance of human society.

The commercial deals and leases that prevailed in the Islamic society have been described by Shatibi as extracted below:

“You would find them taking very little profit or rent so much so that the other party got more out of the deals than they themselves. They cared for the wellbeing and benefit of the other people more than what was normally due, such that it appeared as though they were agents of others rather than their own. They regarded (the normal amounts of rent), although permissible (legal), as if it were a fraud against others”.

Narrating the cooperation and reciprocal responsibility that existed in the Islamic society, Muhammad ibn Ziyad says:
"Sometimes it so happened that someone among them had a guest, while the vessel of another was on the fire for cooking some foodstuff. So the host would take away the vessel to serve the food to his guest. When the owner of the vessel found it missing he would ask as to who had taken the vessel and when told by the man, whose guest had arrived, that they had taken it for their guest, he (the owner of the vessel) would remark, ‘May Allah bless you therein’ ".

Thus we realize the effective favorable role Islam had in changing the course of an individual’s economic life and its natural laws by bringing about a change in his personality and by creating for him new spiritual and ideological conditions. Similarly, we know how fallacious it is to subject a society having these characteristics and ingredients, to the same laws that govern a capitalist society replete with personal pride and materialist views.

We can also take, for example, the laws about income distribution and those of demand and supply. The laws about the distribution of income under the capitalist economy, as explained by Ricardo and other classical magnates are such that it was required to reserve part of the income as wage of the worker to be determined in accordance with the cost of food that might be sufficient for nourishment of the worker and maintenance of his abilities. The rest (of the income) is then divided profit and rent.

The capitalist economics has concluded from this that there was a rigid law for the wages. The wages do not vary irrespective of whether there was increase or decrease in the real value the worker received as the result of changes in the cost of food. This rigid law could be summed up like this: When the wages of the workers register an increase for any reason, their living condition improves resulting in family expansions. The resulting growth in population leads to increase in the supply of labour, causing decline in wages to the natural limit. But when the situation is the opposite, the wages falls down to the natural level, and this leads to widespread misery and disease in the ranks of the workers. Consequently their population shrinks leading to lower supply of labour and pushing wages up.

The classical economists present it to us as a scientific description of the reality and as being a natural law of the economic life. As a matter of fact, this does not apply except within special limits and in those capitalist societies in which a social security system1 is not found, and in which pricing of goods is left entirely to the market forces. But in a society adopting the principle of collective responsibility for a respectable level of living for all individuals - like the Muslim society, or in a society in which does not depend on market forces alone such as the socialist society, these laws do not operate the way they do in a capitalist society.

It thus becomes clear that the general scientific framework of the capitalist economics has a special doctrinal character, unlike the absolute scientific laws.

A Study Of Doctrinal Capitalism With Regards To Its Ideology And Fundamental Values

The key ingredients of the capitalist doctrine that we have reviewed previously indicate that its cornerstone is the freedom of man in the economic space in its various aspects such as ownership, usage of resources and consumption of goods. Thus, freedom - with its different forms - is the basis on which all the rights and doctrinal values proclaimed by capitalism are built. Indeed, even the scientific laws of capitalist economy themselves are also a description of the rigid objective reality in the framework of this freedom as we have seen.

Since the idea of freedom is the essence and the fundamental component of capitalism, it is necessary for us - while studying the capitalist doctrine - to examine and analyze this notion and to study its ideological origin as well as the ideas and values it was based on. The first question that comes up for discussion is, why it is necessary that the society be established on the basis of economic freedom and how man's rights developed therein. Doctrinal capitalism places significant emphasis o the idea of freedom, and resists any simplistic definition.

To answer this question, we must know that in the capitalist thinking, freedom is usually linked to a number of notions and values from which it derives its central position in the doctrine and its character as a necessity for man and his society. At one time it was linked with the ideology that believes in the alignment of the interest of the individual - which is likely to issue forth from his personal desires - with that of the society, which derive from all individuals as a collective entity.

It was argued that when the interest of the individual and that of the society are aligned, the social doctrine seeking the assurance of social interest would only need to allow freedom to the individual. This in turn opens the way for his personal actions in pursuit of his personal interests, which would also facilitate the accomplishment of the society’s collective interest. On the basis of this ideology, freedom is therefore an instrument to serve the collective interests and ensure benefit and wellbeing demanded by the society. Being such a key instrument, it thus deserves to be at the centre of the doctrine.

At another time, freedom was linked with the ideology on economic growth. It revolves around the view holding that economic freedom is the best motivational force for the productive capacities and is the most potent means to unleash all the capabilities and potentials, and to harness them for the aggregate economic output and consequently to enhance the collective wealth in the country. This in reality originates from the first ideology as it expresses one of the aspects of collective interest, which is to facilitate collective economic output that could materialize through the individual economic freedom.

There is a third notion the meaning of the capitalist freedom is linked with. This is the ideology having a purely moral character to express, which the proponents of capitalism usually use vague expressions that are not entirely clear. They reiterate that the freedom, in a general way, is a fundamental human right and a practical expression of human dignity and of man's consciousness. Therefore it is not merely a means for social wellbeing or economic growth, but is also a means of materializing man's humanity and his proper natural existence.

It is clear that the doctrinal value of economic freedom - on the basis of the first two notions - is an objective one, ensuring the results to which it leads in life. But on the basis of the third notion, freedom in general – with economic freedom being one of its elements - has its own value dictated by man's consciousness of his dignity and humanity.

These are the thoughts capitalism usually employs as the means to justify its understanding of freedom and the necessity of regarding freedom as the foundation in the social planning its proponents are calling for. To them, freedom is a means to achieve collective interests and is a source of growth of the economy and the total wealth. Freedom is also the fundamental expression of human dignity and man's right in life.

Having presented the ideological basis of economic freedom, we must now study and evaluate the principle.

A. Freedom Is A Means For The Realization Of Public Interests

This notion is based on the belief that personal desires are always aligned with the collective interests and public wellbeing, whenever freedom is provided to all the individuals in his daily life. It is argued that since man in a free society pursues his personal interests, in the long run this leads to the elevation of collective interests of the society.

In view of this, the economists who embrace capitalism were initially led to believe that to ensure the society's well-being and interests it was not necessary to inculcate moral and ethical values among the people. It was thought that even he who does not know something about morality would act in accordance with his own interest, whenever freedom is ensured to him. This interest goes side by side with the interests of the society, even though the individual is actually driven by his personal desires and interests.

In this way it was possible for the society to dispense with the benefits rendered by moral and ethical values and fulfill its interests through the capitalist approach, which provides freedom to every individual and enables him to assess his attitude in light of his personal interests, which are ultimately in agreement with public interests. It is for this reason that the freedom proclaimed by capitalism was bereft of all the moral and spiritual framework and values because there should be freedom even in appraising these values.

It does not mean that those values do not exist in a capitalist society. It only means that capitalism does not recognize the necessity of these values to ensure the society's interest and holds that it is possible to dispense with them by providing freedom to the individuals. The people were free to adhere to or reject these values. In the context of the argument, the proponents of capitalism say that economic freedom opens the space for unrestricted competition in different areas of economic activities. The owner of the business enterprise - under the shadow of this open competition prevailing in the economic life - always consider lest any other enterprise should perform better and thereby eliminates his.

Therefore, his own interest drives him to improve his enterprise and increase its competence so that he is able to compete with other enterprises and remains involved in the furnace of perpetual competition. One of the important means that are adopted to achieve that end is to bring about technical improvements in his business activities. This means that the owner of an enterprise in a free capitalist society always remains attracted to every idea or new improvement in his business efficiency or anything that could enable him to produce at lower costs.

Having introduced the improvement, he soon finds other enterprises having caught up with his, whereupon he once again starts searching for some other new idea so that he may retain the superiority of his enterprise over the others. Anyone who remains behind in this race will be forced to exit the business. Thus open competition under the capitalist system constitutes a sword that hangs over the heads of the business units - annihilating the weak, neglectful and the sluggish ones and ensuring the survival of the fittest. Obviously, such competition leads to the promotion of the collective interest because it provides an incentive to perpetually benefit from scientific and technical discoveries and to meet human needs at the lowest possible costs.

That being the state of affairs, there is no need to burden the owner of the enterprise with a certain moral education to train him in ethical values or to pour admonition and advices into his ears in order that he may satisfy human needs at the least possible costs and enhance the quality of his products. His personal interest will necessarily drive him to do that, so long as he lives in a free society pervaded by competition. Similarly, there is no need to preach so that he contribute good benevolent deeds and be concerned with the interests of the society, as his personal interest would drive him to naturally do so, being a part of the society.

Such talk about the alignment between the society’s collective interests and the personal desires of individuals in a capitalistic system has today become a laughing stock. Societies adopting capitalism has complained of distresses and calamities with little parallel in the history, in terms of the obvious divergence between collective and personal interests and oppression, recklessness and greed resulting from the colossal vacuum caused by the society’s neglect of moral and ethical teachings.

We can very easily discern - through the pervading history of capitalism - the crimes of this principle of capitalist freedom. It has thrown away all spiritual and moral restrictions, and it had caused harmful consequences on the economic life. The capitalist principle of freedom has also affected the spiritual contentment of the society, and the relations between the capitalist and other societies.

As the result of this, the proponents of capitalism themselves have started to consider the necessity of capitalism undergoing reforms and setting regulations. They are trying to work out improvements and refinements, with the view to removing the adverse consequences or concealing them. Thus capitalism, in its pure doctrinal form, has become more of a historical doctrine than one that has a real existence.

As for the course of economic life of the capitalist society, the absolute capitalist freedom therein is merely a weapon in the hands of the privileged group facilitating their accumulation of wealth on the destruction of others. As long as people are in possession of different amounts of intellectual and physical talents and natural opportunities, they must adopt different ways to benefit from the complete economic freedom provided to them by the capitalist doctrine. They would also necessarily differ in the degree in which they benefit therefrom.

This inevitable gap between the strong and the weak leads to the freedom becoming a legitimate expression of the right of the strong in everything, while it means nothing to the underprivileged. The capitalist freedom does not recognize restrictions of whatever forms. The underprivileged group would thus lose every assurance for their existence and dignity in the struggle of life. They would remain at the mercy of the victors in the ‘economic competition’, who know no bounds over their freedoms in respect of ethical and moral values. They take into account nothing but their own interests.

As the result of this capitalist freedom, human dignity was diminished so much that man himself became a commodity subject to the laws of supply and demand, and human life became dependent on these laws and consequently dependent on the Iron Law of Wages. So when the supply of human labour capacity increased and when part of the labour supply brought onto the stage of the capitalist production registered an increase, the wage rates would fall.

Because the capitalist would regard it a good opportunity to derive benefits for himself from the misery of others, he would let the wages of the workers fall to even a level below the cost of a decent standard of life - at which they cannot meet some of their needs and which could send a colossal number of them into the streets suffering or starving only because he (the capitalist) enjoyed an unlimited freedom.

There was no harm for the workers (so to say) to perish and die of starvation as long as the capitalist economy gave them a ray of hope and an aperture of light. But what is that hope generated in their minds? It is the hope that their number would become less as the result of increasing misery and disease. Yes, by God, this is the hope that the Iron Law of Wages holds out to the workers, (implicitly) saying to them: "Wait a bit until starvation and misery make a large number of you fall (die) so that your number decreases whereby demand (for labour) would exceed supply, resulting in the rise of your wages and the consequent improvement in your condition".

This is the hypothetical alignment between individual desires and the society’s collective interests, under the capitalist-style freedom, which the proponents of capitalism themselves are compelled to revise. They now embrace the idea of restricting the freedom based on certain values and goals to ensure the society’s collective well-being.

When the capitalist-style freedom and its consequences in a capitalist society yield such outcome in the economic life of its people, the spark of that unrestrained freedom adversely affects the spiritual state of the nation. The sense of virtue by being good to others disappears completely and the tendency towards selfishness and greed dominating the struggle for existence pervades in the society instead of the spirit of cooperation and solidarity.

What do you think of a person who lives in conformity with the meaning of the absolute capitalist freedom when ethical values and social situations demands from him some sacrifice of his personal interests, and when even his personal interests sometimes prompt him to carry out acts that would result in realization of society’s collective interests, which are in line with his own interest too? Although this might lead to the same result desired by ethical and moral values from the objective point of view, it does not lead to the realization of the personal aspect of those values nor does it make a man a human being in respect of his sentiments, feelings, desires and motivations.

Morality does not merely have objective values. It also has personal values, which is no less important than their objective value in perfecting human life and spreading (generating) the spirit of happiness and personal well-being. We will shortly discuss, in the next chapter, the question of personal desires and their relationship with the society’s collective interest, in more detail.

Let us now leave the effects of the capitalist freedom on the inner contentment of the capitalist society and suppose that personal desires themselves guarantee the realization of the collective interests of the society, as assumed by the capitalist myth. But is it possible that this imaginary idea also apply to the interests of different societies, that specific interests of the capitalist society are consistent other human societies? If the capitalist society believed in the capitalist freedom, cut off from all the spiritual and moral frameworks, then what prevents it from exploiting all other human groups to its advantage and subjugate them to serve its own goals?

It is the historical reality of capitalism that may answer this question. Humanity has indeed suffered horribly at the hands of capitalist societies, as the result of its moral emptiness, spiritual vacuum and its peculiar way of life. These sufferings would remain a blot on the face of the history of the modern materialist civilization and a proof that the economic freedom unrestrained by moral boundaries constitutes one of the most destructive weapons of man. It was the result of this freedom, for instance, that there has been a mad race among the European countries to subjugate peaceful nations and to exploit them towards the service of the capitalists.

The history of Africa alone constitutes a page of that intense race whereby the African continent was subjected to a storm of misery. A number of European states - Britain, France and Holland and some others - imported a colossal number of innocent residents of Africa, sold them in the slave market and presented them for sacrifice on the altar of capitalist lords. The traders of these countries used to burn African villages so that their residents were terrified into fleeing their hearths and homes whereupon the traders got control of them and drove them to merchant ships that transported them to the countries of the masters.

They continued committing these horrible deeds until the nineteenth century during which Britain launched a large-scale campaign against it and was able to conclude international agreements condemning the trading in slaves. But this endeavour itself bore the capitalistic character and did not come forth out of the belief in moral and spiritual values. Historical facts proved this.

Britain, which did so much to ban the slave trading practice, replaced it with an implicit slavery by sending its large fleet to African coasts to supervise (control) the banned trade with a view to putting an end thereto. Yes, by God, the British claimed that they had done that to end slave trading. But that instead paved the way for the occupation of large areas on the western coasts (of Africa). The enslavement of Africans began to operate in the continent itself under the colonial rule in place of the trade markets of Europe!

After all this, can we say that the capitalist freedom is a wonder mechanism working spontaneously - without any need for moral and spiritual consideration - to transform the struggle of the individuals for their personal profits into an instrument that will guarantee public interests and social well-being?

B. Freedom Results In Growth Of Production

This is the second notion on which capitalist freedom is built on, as we have seen before. But it is based on a mistake in understanding the results of the capitalistic freedom, and another mistake in measuring the value of the economic output.

Business enterprises in the capitalist society are not only small units entering the competition with equal degree of competence and potentials, such that they are capable of real competition. This factor is essential to ensure perfect competition, which will result in operational efficiency and growth in output. Instead, business enterprises in the capitalist society are of different sizes, and their respective levels of competence vary widely. Furthermore, the business units are capable of merger among themselves.

The capitalist freedom in such a situation enables an open competition, initially. But it competition soon becomes so fierce that the stronger enterprises crush others and begin to gradually dominate the market. Eventually all forms benefits to the society – from competition - evaporate and disappear, with the diminishing competition. Thus perfect competition, which promotes economic efficiency, does not accompany the capitalist freedom for long. It soon makes room for monopoly as long as the capitalist freedom prevails in the economic environment.

The other fundamental flaw of the notion lies in measuring the value of the production output as we mentioned earlier. Let us assume that the capitalist freedom leads to abundant production and growth, both quantitatively as well as qualitatively. Let us further assume that perfect competition would continue under the capitalist system resulting in efficient production with the least possible cost.

Yet, this still does not prove that capitalism is capable of ensuring the well-being of the society. It only demonstrates that the society under the capitalist system is capable of improving production efficiency and realizing the largest possible quantity of the goods and the services. But the capitalist doctrine is also supposed to ensure social well-being under its system.

This is merely a capability, which if employed in an appropriate way would ensure welfare and happiness for the society. But it could also lead to the opposite outcome. In capitalism, the mechanism that determines the form in which the society’s collective production capacity is enhanced is the same as that employed in the distribution of the economic output among the members of the society. Unfortunately, the real collective well-being of the society does not depend so much on the quantity of the aggregate production by the whole society, instead it is more on how this total output gets distributed among the individuals.

The capitalist doctrine is extremely incapable of distribution that assures the well-being of the society and happiness of all because in the matter of distribution, doctrinal capitalism relies on the price mechanism. This means that he who cannot afford the price of a product has no right for it. This mechanism disqualifies anyone who is unable to pay the price, on the ground that he is unable to contribute to the production of the goods and services, or because of lack of opportunities for the contribution, or because a stronger competing buyer has blocked all opportunities for him.

That is why in capitalist societies, unemployment among workers constitutes a severe human tragedy. When a capitalist (employer) dispenses with the services of a worker, for any reason, the latter does not find the price (level of wage) whereby he could procure his needs and necessities of life. He is thus obliged to lead a life of misery and starvation because the distribution (of goods and services) is based on the price mechanism. As long as he does not procure something in the market, he has no share in the wealth produced by the society, however colossal it may be.

Therefore, the exaggeration of the capability of the capitalist doctrine and its effectiveness in respect of the growth of economic output is very misleading. It is a cover to mask its dark aspects in recklessly passing death sentence and disqualifying anyone who does not have the key - which is the financial resources - to have a share in the output generated by the economy.

In light of this it is not possible for us from moral and practical aspects to regard economic growth alone as a justification. There are other means to facilitate economic growth. Abundance of total goods and services, as we have seen, does not necessarily mean collective well-being of the society and its members.

C. Freedom Is The Real Expression Of Human Dignity

The only remaining pillar in support of capitalist freedom is the third notion about freedom. It judges freedom at the personal level and adds an original spiritual and moral value as being the basic manifestation of the dignity and self-realization, without which life becomes meaningless.

We must first of all point out that there are two forms of freedom, natural freedom and social freedom. Natural freedom is that which is bestowed by nature itself while social freedom is that granted by the social system or that which the society guarantees to its members. Each type of freedom has a characteristic of its own. Therefore, when we study the meanings in which capitalism understands freedom, we must differentiate between these two types of freedom lest we would mistake one for the other.

Natural freedom is an essential element in the makeup of man and it embraces a basic phenomenon that is common to all living beings with varying degrees in accordance to their vitality. That is why man has the largest share of this freedom among all living beings. Therefore, the greater the ‘life’ is in a living being, the greater is the amount of freedom it enjoys.

In order to realize the essence of this natural freedom, we start with observation of how non-living beings follow their course. Nature determines fixed directions for such beings and lays down the way (behaviour) of each one of them, from which it cannot deviate. For instance, nature has prescribed a particular course for a piece of rock, in accordance with the general laws of existence. Thus we cannot expect it to move unless we apply a force to it. Once we set it in motion we cannot expect it to move in any direction, except the path we have pushed it to initially move in. Similarly we cannot imagine it to retreat in order to avoid a collision with a wall. It is bereft of all forms of proactive control and capability of being conditioned into new pattern, and therefore it had no share of natural freedom.

As for a living being, its response towards the environment and the surrounding conditions is not passive or compulsive, that is only in a rigid pattern from which it could not deviate. It does possess an ability to condition itself and is capable of developing a new pattern of response in case the usual one is incompatible with its circumstances.

The proactive capability alone demonstrates the natural freedom in view of the fact that nature had placed before the living being numerous choices so it could adopt - in all circumstances - one which is most suitable for its particular environments. The plants, which are regarded to belong to the lowest category among the living beings, possess that ability or freedom at a low level. Some plants are conditioned to change their direction when they approach an obstruction that might prevent them from proceeding in that particular direction.

Looking at the animal kingdom, the second group among living beings, we find that they possess that ability and freedom on a larger scale and at a higher level. Nature has placed before them numerous choices from which they could always adopt that which suit their desires and inclinations the best.

Thus while we find that a piece of rock cannot change its direction at all when we throw it, and that plants cannot deviate from its direction except in a limited way, the situation is different with that of a animal. It is capable of taking different directions always. Thus the scope given by nature to an animal for its essential activities is greater in respect of choices as compared with those allowed to a plant.

The natural freedom reaches its climax in man because the range of actions granted to him by nature is the broadest of all. While the natural instincts and desires in an animal constitute the ultimate boundaries for the range in which it acts - such that it is not free except within the limits of these instincts and desires - the situation is different in respect of the range of actions of man. A man has been constituted, spiritually and biologically in a peculiar way, such that he can possibly control or restrain these desires. Thus he is free to act either according to these desires, or contrary thereto.

This natural freedom enjoyed by man is rightly regarded one of the essential elements of humanity, as it constitutes an expression of its essential ability. Therefore mankind without this freedom would become a word with no meaning. Obviously, the freedom taken in this sense does not fall in the purview of doctrinal discussion and it has no doctrinal character because it is a boon bestowed by God and it is not a gift of any particular doctrine so that it could be studied on a doctrinal basis.

As for the freedom which carries doctrinal character and distinguishes the capitalist doctrine and which occupies the main position in its makeup, it is the social freedom. That is the freedom that an individual obtains from the society. This is the freedom that relates to his social existence and falls within the scope of the doctrinal and social studies.

If we were able to clearly distinguish between the natural and social freedoms, we could realize the folly involved in ascribing the attributes of natural freedom to social freedom, and in asserting that the freedom provided by the capitalist doctrine constitutes the essential component of humanity and an essential element in its being. This assertion results from a failure to distinguish between natural freedom - an essential constituent of the human existence - and social freedom, which is a social issue. We must study the claim that this social freedom is capable of building a happy society and also its compatibility with the moral values we believe in.

Having set aside the natural freedom from the scope of doctrinal discussion and getting acquainted with the features of each type of freedom, let us now consider an abundance of social freedom so that we may study the viewpoint of the capitalist doctrine. In analyzing the meaning of social freedom, we must find its real essence and its apparent form, as these are two different sides. The first is the real substance of the freedom or the essential freedom, as we will express it hereafter. The second is the apparent aspect of the freedom that may be called formal freedom.

As for the essential social freedom, it refers the authority which one obtains from the society to perform a particular action. This means that the society provides to the individual all the means and conditions needed for him to do that. So if the society assures you access to particular product at a certain price, and makes available the product in abundance in the market and does not let anyone have the right of monopoly over the purchase of the product, you are then free to purchase the product because socially you could fulfill conditions for purchasing of that product.

But if the society does not enable you to afford the price of the product, and does not ensure supply of the product in the market or allows another person the monopoly over the purchase of that product, then in such a case, in reality you do not the essential freedom or the real ability to purchase the product.

As for the formal freedom, it does not require all that. But in reality, the act becomes impossible such as in the case of purchasing a product by one who could not afford its price. In spite of that, he is deemed to have the social freedom in the formal sense even though this formal freedom may not have any real essence. The formal freedom to purchase does not mean the actual capacity to purchase. It only means - in its social sense - that the society allows one, within the scope of his possibilities and opportunities determined by his position in the course of competition with others, to adopt any method that enables him to purchase that commodity.

Thus an ordinary man is free, formally, to purchase a pen - in the same way as he is free to purchase a capitalist business enterprise worth hundreds of million, so long as the social system lets him do any work and adopt any method towards purchasing that huge enterprise or that insignificant pen. As for the scarcity of the opportunities and conditions enabling him to purchase the company or absence of these opportunities in the course of the ultimate competition - and those opportunities not being provided by the society - all this is not inconsistent with the formal freedom in its apparent framework.

But formal freedom is not entirely hollow like this as it sometimes has a positive meaning. For instance, a businessman who began as a successful trader may not be able to acquire a big enterprise. But as long as he enjoys the formal freedom socially, he is able of carrying out different types of business in order that he might obtain the ability to acquire a larger company sooner or later.

On this basis the formal freedom to acquire and own the company would have a positive meaning because although it does not in reality provide him the company, yet it allows him to explore his talents and make efforts with the goal of successfully acquiring the ownership of that company. The part that he actually misses under the system with this formal freedom is the society's guarantee to him to acquire the company or to afford its price. Such assurance - which constitutes the meaning of the essential freedom - is not provided to the individuals by formal freedom.

Therefore, formal freedom, socially, is not always empty. It does constitute a tool to inspire an individual to gather his potentials, ability and strength and mobilize him so he could reach higher levels, even without the system providing him any guarantee of success. In light of this, we realize that although formal freedom does not mean practical ability, yet it is an essential condition to have this ability.

Thus in the case of the businessman mentioned above, he would not be able to dream of owning the big capitalist enterprise and consequently would not practically own it after continued struggle, had he not enjoyed the formal freedom and had the society not let him try his chances and the opportunities in the course of competition. In this way the formal freedom would be an effective means and an essential condition to secure the essential freedom and the real ability to acquire the company, while the freedom of individuals to own the company remained merely formal and nominal - with not a bit of reality.

The capitalist doctrine adopts the social formal freedom, believing that the formal freedom embodies the meaning of freedom entirely. As for the ‘essential freedom', as described by us in the foregoing pages, it actually means - according to the capitalist doctrine - the capability to benefit from the freedom and not that it is the freedom itself.

That is why it does not concern itself with providing the individual with the capability and granting him the essential freedom. It simply leaves him with the opportunities and potentials he happens to have, considering it adequate just to provide the formal freedom that allows him to undertake different types of economic activities to achieve his goals, and protect him from any restrictions in any field of life placed by the social authority.

Therefore, capitalism adopts a negative attitude vis-à-vis the essential freedom and a positive one towards the formal freedom. It does not bother providing the essential freedom, but only the formal freedom to the individuals. In the opinion of the proponents of capitalism, there are a number of justifications for that negative attitude towards the essential freedom, which are summed up in these two points:

First, the power of any social doctrine, whatever it may be, is inadequate in providing essential freedom to everyone and in ensuring enough capabilities to achieve all his goals. Many people are bereft of the superior talents and competence, which are deemed essential for the achievement of their ambitions. Obviously a doctrine cannot possibly turn a mentally challenged person into a genius.

Similarly there are many objectives, and their achievement cannot be guaranteed for everyone. For example, it is not reasonable that every individual becomes the president of a country and similarly it is not possible for all individuals to be assured of the capability to hold the post of president. What is reasonable is to open the way for every individual to enter political or economic struggles and attempt with his talents. He may thereafter succeed and reach the top. He may also give in midway or retreat in failure. In any case he would himself be finally responsible for his destiny in the struggle and the extent to which he succeeds or fails.

The second justification presented by the proponents of capitalism for the lack of essential freedom is that if an individual is granted this freedom by offering sufficient guarantees for the success in any of his endeavours, it would greatly weaken his sense of responsibility and extinguish the sparks of freedom in him, which drives him to be vibrant and lends him greater consciousness and vigilance. If the doctrine ensures success for him, he would not need to rely on himself and exploit his potentials and talents. He would have done these only if the doctrine had not provided him the essential freedom and the necessary guarantees.

Both these justifications are to a certain extent correct, but not in the form given by the proponents of capitalism whereby it totally rejects the idea of the essential freedom and the assurance. To guarantee the achievement of a goal that a person has in his economic endevours is an empty dream and impossible dream, which no social system is expected to deliver. But it is an achievable ideal to provide basic essential freedom in economic matters, and give sufficient guarantees for a certain standard of living - regardless of the person's opportunities and conditions. Providing essential freedom and guarantees for a basic standard of living will also not lead to freezing of talents and growth potentials in man. Under such system, the higher levels are still subject to open competition, as these require individual efforts and development of self-reliance in them.

Therefore, in respect of its negative attitude towards the essential freedom and the social security capitalism cannot use the excuse that providing such an assurance is impossible, or claim that such an assurance paralyses human enthusiasm and dynamism, as long as the doctrine could provide a reasonable level of assurance. Beyond this level, it is fine for the system to opens the economic space for competition as that promotes and improves capabilities.

As a matter of fact, the negative attitude of capitalism towards the notion of social security and towards essential freedom was the inevitable outcome of its positive attitude towards formal freedom. Having adopted formal freedom and building its viewpoint thereon, it was necessary for capitalism to reject the idea of social guarantee and adopt its negative attitude towards the essential freedom, as the two are inconsistent with each other. It is not possible to provide essential freedom in a society that embraces the principle of formal freedom, and is anxious to provide it to all the individuals in different economic space.

With the liberty an entrepreneur has to employ or reject a worker and the freedom the wealthy enjoy in spending their wealth to suit their own interests - as established by the principle of the formal freedom, it is not feasible to adopt the policy that guarantees jobs to workers or guarantees a decent living to those who are unable to work. Provision of such guarantees is not possible without limiting those freedoms that are enjoyed by the proprietors and the rich.

It is either the entrepreneurs or the rich are allowed to act as they desire and are given the formal freedom so that it becomes impossible to provide guarantees of work for a decent living, or guarantees of work and decent living are provided so that entrepreneurs or the rich are not allowed to act according to their free will. This would mean violation of the principle of formal freedom, which stands for the necessity of allowing everyone the freedom to act in the economic space, as he desired. Since capitalism believed in this principle, it was obliged to reject the idea of social guarantees and essential freedom, with a view to ensuring formal freedom to all the individuals, equally.

While the capitalist society adopted formal freedom, setting aside essential freedom and the idea of social assurance, the socialist society adopted the opposite attitude. The Marxist socialism ended the formal freedom by establishing an autocratic system, wielding absolute state authority in the country. It claimed that it had compensated for the formal freedom by providing essential freedom, which is by providing the citizens guarantees of work and decent life.

Each of the two doctrines has thus adopted one aspect of freedom and ignored the other. This polarized inconsistency between formal and essential freedoms, or between the form and essence, has not been resolved except in Islam. The Islamic view is that the society needs both types of freedom. Consequently it provides the society with essential freedom by ensuring a reasonable degree of guarantee for all the individuals of the society – a dignified life and the basic needs – restricting formal freedom within the limits of this assurance.

At the same time it did not let this assurance be an excuse for doing away with formal freedom thereby wasting the individual’s own personal motivation and capabilities. Instead it opened the way and granted to everyone - beyond the borders of the social assurance - such freedoms as were consonant with his understanding of existence and life.

Thus man is provided guarantees to a certain degree and within special limits, and is freed outside these boundaries. In this way, the formal and essential freedoms are blended together in the Islamic thinking. There had never been any consideration over how to realize the splendid blending of the two, outside the shadow of Islam. Efforts were started only during the last century to establish the principle of assurance and to reconcile between this principle and freedom, after the experiment of capitalist freedom failed bitterly. In any case, capitalism has sacrificed the idea of social guarantees and essential freedom for the sake of formal freedom.

Here we arrive at the central point in our study to ask as to what are those values on which formal freedom is based on in the capitalist doctrine, and which have allowed capitalism to sacrifice the essence of freedom and its guarantees in exchange. We must here set aside all the efforts aimed at justifying formal freedom using social objective like describing it as being a means to maximize total economic output or to increase social well-being. We have already studied these justifications, which did not withstand scrutiny and examination.

We are now concerned with the endeavour by the defenders of capitalism in explaining the value of freedom itself. It may be stated in this regard that freedom is part of man's being and if he is deprived of his freedom, he loses his dignity and his human character, by which he becomes distinct from other animals. This flimsy expression does not reflect a scientific analysis of the value of freedom and is only attractive to one who is content with hollow arguments.

Man's humanness is distinguished from the rest of the world by natural freedom, a natural ‘being’, not by social freedom, as being a social ‘being’. Thus it is the natural freedom, which is regarded as something belonging to man's being and not the social freedom that is bestowed or denied to him, depending on the social doctrine being practised.

It is sometimes said that freedom - in its social meaning - is an expression of an original desire in man and of one of his essential needs. Thus being gifted with natural freedom, man feels personally inclined to be free in his behaviors and relations with others in the society he lives in, just as he is free by nature. For a social doctrine to be realistic one compatible with the human nature with which it deals, it should recognize the original tendencies in man and ensure their fulfillment.

Therefore, a doctrine cannot possibly suppress this natural inclination (towards freedom) in man. This, some extent, is correct. But, on the other hand, we say that it is the duty of a social doctrine that wants to build its edifice on solid foundations in human being to recognize different natural inclinations in man as well as his various essential needs, and to work for an alignment between the two. In order that it may be a realistic human doctrine, it is not acceptable for it to recognize one of those natural inclinations and guarantee them to the greatest extent, and at the same time sacrifice the others (guarantees for his essential needs).

For instance, although freedom is a natural inclination in a man - because by nature he rejects compulsion, coercion and pressures - he also has essential needs and other desires. Therefore his fundamental needs include some measure of tranquility and peace of mind in his life, since anxiety stresses him just as he is perturbed by pressure and compulsion. So when the security that society could provide him in his life is lacking, he is deprived of one of his essential needs, which is the fulfillment of his natural inclinations to feel secure and assured. Similarly, if he loses his freedom entirely and the social system dictates its will on him by force, he is deprived of another of his essential needs that is his need for freedom to act according to his own thoughts.

Therefore, if the doctrine is well-founded and realistic, it must bring about wise and fine balance between man's natural need for freedom and his natural need for some measure of security and assurance with regard to all his other natural needs. If these are ignored and be sacrificed for just a single natural need - so that it may be satisfied to the greatest possible extent, as has been done by the capitalist doctrine in terms of providing freedom - it would be a breach this simplest doctrinal duty.

Finally, although the attitude of capitalism towards freedom and social guarantees is wrong, it is completely in consonance with the general framework of capitalist thinking. Social guarantees revolve around the notion of regulation and enforcement, while capitalism finds no justification for this curb and limitation on the basis of its worldview and its perception of man.

Regulations and enforcement are justified by historical need, as held by Marxism in light of historical materialism. It is of the view that the dictatorship of the proletariat - which implements the policy of restricting the freedoms in the Socialist society - sprang from the inevitable necessity of the laws of history. But capitalism does not believe in historical materialism with continuity peculiar to Marxism.

Regulation and enforcement is justified on the belief in a higher authority having the right to organize humanity, to direct it in life and to lay defined guarantees for the freedoms of individuals. These are quite similar to what a religion preaches, as it views that man has a prudent Creator who has the right to set the structure of his social existence and define the way he must follow in life. This is something which capitalism cannot recognize given its fundamental philosophy that advocates the separation of religion from the affairs in real life, and alienating religion from all the general social aspects.

Regulation and enforcement is sometimes justified by its being a force emerging from within man and imposed on him by his mind (conscience), which enjoins on him moral values and definite boundaries in regard to his behaviour towards others, and about his attitude towards the society. But the conscience, in the sense it is employed by capitalism in its value system, is merely an internal reflection of the practices or customs or any other external limitation imposed on an individual. Thus conscience, on final analysis means external force and it does not emerge from man’s inner depths.

With that, capitalism is ultimately unable to explain the forces against freedom, by way of historical need, religion or conscience. Its attitude towards freedom is connected with its ideological roots and its fundamental understanding of the existence man, history, religion and morals. It is on this basis that capitalism has formulated its political understanding about the state and various social authorities.

Thus it sees no justification for the intervention by these authorities in the freedom of individuals, except to the extent necessary for maintaining them and safeguarding them against anarchy and conflicts because it is the extent consented by the individuals themselves. Intervention beyond these limits has no justification from the point of view of historical inevitability, religion or values and morals.

It is therefore only appropriate that capitalism should desist from its ideological persistence by its insistence on freedom in the economic affairs and its rejection of the authority to manage regulations and provide guarantees.

The above are the concepts of capitalism in its broad track that leads to its primary ideological premises, and it is this aspect of their views that we must critically and thoroughly examine.

• 1. A system whereby the state provides basic monetary benefits to its citizens in the event they lose jobs or the ability to do productive work. [Note of Al-Islam.org].