Marx cast his theory in philosophical, historical, general and universal terms, and had found followers in every country who consider his as fixed and universal. Societies and governments have been established on the basis of his ideas. It is therefore important to devote as much attention as possible to his ideas and study them in this volume so that the concepts upon which Marx’s theories are built and other theories are derived from them are explained fully.

Marx's genius was that he was able to classify the scattered ideas and thoughts of the classical socialists and complete them with his own theories based on the principles of the contradiction of historical materialism (dialectics)1, and place the entire natural, economic, social, scientific, and religious issues and changes on this foundation.

In summary, Marx's natural and historical dialectic is that nature and its phenomena are continuously in a state of motion and evolution. The interpretation and description of any phenomenon is related to the totality of events and transformations that have occurred in the past and the hidden contradictions - continuously evolving and transforming - that will lead to a collectivist order.

Therefore, just as the will and human intellect do not affect the natural order, but rather subject to it, they are subject to the social order as well. It is not human thought, will, and action that bring about circumstances and conditions; instead, it is automatic and autonomous economic situations that shape thought, ideas, and the environment. The economic infrastructure consists of the means and the forces of production which began with human hand and body, then encompassed rocks and woods, and later advanced to bows and arrows, the axe, the ploughshare, steam power, electricity etc.

On this base, economic and social changes, beginning with early communes, feudalism, and bourgeois capitalism advanced toward socialism and eventually communism. The intellectual, political, legal, and religious institutions, it is argued, are reflections of the depth of such revolution. The forces of production and the productive classes and the contradictions between them are the dynamic forces of history.

In the womb of every stage of production contradiction is formed, and once it has reached maturity it negates the previous stage, and along with it there is a shift in the structure of ownership and its enablers.

Marx and his followers consider this material and historical interpretation to be the only true and main source of events and consider any doubt and hesitation regarding this interpretation as doubting the real causes. They regard any other theory and interpretation as ‘imaginary’, and ‘unrealistic’. And this ‘cudgel of heresy and calling one a fool’, is preferred over any theory that opposes theirs.

In all their books and interpretative essays - on every page and line - the evidence for this ‘modern-century cudgel of heresy’ can be observed. Intellectual vanity and prejudice can be observed among laymen as well as scholars of every faith, principle, and ideal. Each group is accustomed to and fond of its own ideas while considering his opponents' ideas ‘erroneous’ and ‘fantastical’ and considers only the produce of their own intellect as ‘beautiful’, ‘refined’ and ‘realistic’.

Nevertheless, if the arch-followers of the Marxist theories would allow me - and do not immediately condemn me with their ‘cudgel of heresy’ and charges of ‘visionary’, ‘idealist’, and
‘unrealist’ - I will provide my critical comments, and if I am mistaken in my understanding and criticism, I look for their guidance. My intention is to examine the economic and social issues of Marxism, and if reference is made to its general philosophical issues, it will only be parenthetical to its economic and philosophical discussion.

What make agreement with Marx so easy is that his is economic and social principles and laws are supported by historical facts and not based on hypothetical and subjective premises. Therefore, if these laws and principles arc verified in their historical aspects, their effects, requirements and components will also be verified with respect to the past, present and future. But if their validity is not proven, or their invalidity is proven, then the main structure and the branches would be shaken or destroyed. In that case, one must change the methodology of reasoning in order to find the causes of historical and economic events and a system that would conform to the determinable reality.

What is certain and generally agreed upon is that every occurrence or event is based on a cause or causes; the differences of opinion originate in a search for truths and circumstances surrounding a cause or causes. Marxism, as was pointed out, considers matter as the cause of historical events just like natural events. From this aspect, since humans are also a part of nature and history, physically they consist of matter, and intellectually and ideologically they are the result of historical dialectics.

The question that arises here is that according to the law of causality, what causes the movement of history and all of its components? Marx’s answer is: it is the means of production, which have become the source of class conflict and movement in history. Contradictions and antagonisms within existing classes gradually grow until abruptly they burst the upper crust and destroy it.

From Marx’s viewpoint this constitutes the cause of causes, and is a by-product of historical and social change. Man has no influence or voice in this powerful and inevitable process in spite of the fact that this occurrence is not accidental. If this is Marxism, the first issue that arises and comes to occupy everyone's mind - particularly those who shirk responsibility - is precisely the removal of responsibility from man's shoulders and submission to historical determinism. Otherwise, the question still remaining is that according to the principle of causality what it the reason for the appearance of the means of production and the emergence of contradictions?

The Marxists respond: acquisition of the means of production has been the initial cause, which had created capitalism and built the class structure. It is this that brings about contradictory movements and will lead to the explosion. This combination of contradiction and change, they maintain, proceeds forward until the means of production are returned to the hands of the forces of production in a more complete form and signals the beginning or socialist society or socialism itself.

Therefore, before the existence of the means of production there was stagnation. But how have the means of production got into the possession of the people and for were the reasons for that? Did that happen by itself, or did they acquire the means of production? Necessarily, human experience and intellect have been a factor.

Let us examine these propositions. Diversification and historical evolution – from the Marxian point of view - are the effects of these initial causes: the emergence of the means of production, confiscation and misappropriation by a particular class and denying access to the means of production and their benefits to the producing class.

'These causes, take together, lead to conflicts among classes and history’s motion begins. Therefore, if theses causes had not taken place and conflicts had not arisen, the process of history would have been halted. Ultimately, when workers and wage earners become owners of the means of production and socialism is completely established and class conflict ceases to exist, history's motion and hence evolution must also come to a halt. We expect a clear answer from those Marxist scholars who observe world events.

Since the proponents of the theory of historical materialism consider thought and a reflection of the economic and historical moods and manifestations, they cannot possibly believe in an absolute truth. How could they then consider their theory to be absolute, eternal and everlasting? Since there is no convincing and clear answer to this question, one must - by resorting to the very same Marxian principles that state that every subjective phenomenon is a reflection of its time and economic stage - announce that Marxian theories and those of his followers are also a reflection and a by-product of a particular economic stage and social system and cannot be everlasting, eternal and absolute.

As was pointed out earlier, from the middle of the eighteenth-century industrial changes began to appear in Europe, and at the beginning of the nineteenth century changes in the economic and social conditions were so rapid that they moved faster than policy makers and the thinkers. This situation - which in comparison to the length of man's mysterious, eternal and everlasting history can be considered only fraction of a second - presents a limited gauge to judge and evaluate changes.

Marx prescribed this inadequate gauge in the form of a law governing changes in social affairs, which is universal and eternal. How could these limited prescriptions and principles pass as universal laws of existence and change from the dawn of man’s existence, when no one can claim to have a definite knowledge of man’s life before the recorded history of mankind? If we have to find polished stones, spears and wood from within the dark and ambiguous depths of history to understand the past and use these as a gauge to measure changes, then what should be conjectured and what courses ought to be found about events in the infinite future?

It is not necessary to go back in history or jump into the infinite future; nineteenth century to the present is before our eyes and we can see how fully these predictions have become a reality. In countries such as England, Germany, and France, as the forces of production advanced, they moved further away from the explosive socialist and communist revolution. The origin of the Russian revolution was neither a perfection of the means of production nor a result of internal economic conflict or revolution of opposing classes. It occurred in an environment of tyranny and repression by the ruling elite and amidst a war by the military forces.

It was after the Russian Revolution that the Industrial Revolution took place in Russia. If the Industrial Revolution had taken place before the October revolution, the Russian Revolution would not have occurred.

Marxian View Of Religion

The Marxist point of view is that economic and social conditions are the sources of phenomena in life and that no other theory is true. Therefore, a Marxist always attempts to discover or justify relationships between economic conditions and ideas, the society and religion.

By and large, materialists have justified the reasons for the emergence of religious beliefs among nations - from the dawn of history and in any form - as part of human weakness and ignorance before the force of nature and its mysteries. According to this interpretation, as long as man is weak and ignorant, he will hold such beliefs. If we take into consideration the magnitude of the scientist’s ability for discovery of the secrets of nature on man's part, and weigh it against his helplessness before death, disease, and natural calamities, we must have enough sense to perceive the insignificance of that discovered so far against the unknowns. We must confess to man's egotism, weakness and ignorance.

And if the reason for the emergence and durability of religious beliefs is merely man's helplessness and weakness, then everyone must forever believe in religion. Since true scholars are also intelligent people and realize their insignificance and weakness before the mysteries of the universe, they must have even firmer religious faith.

This reasoning, whether it is true or otherwise, has nothing to do with economic issues. Marxism resorts to a different justification and says: religion is a phenomenon that had emerged from the minds and the environments of the poor and those who have suffered, in order to provide them with consolation against their miseries. It acts as a breathing valve for the deprived and gives hope to the hopeless.

According to this justification the phenomenon of religion had emerged from among the deprived, the dejected, and the suffering classes in the society. Is this justification supported by historical facts? History clearly shows that religious beliefs have always been present among all classes, and that adherents of religions have never belonged to only a specific class. Many kings, capitalists, and rulers have followed the prophets and some have given their wealth, power, and even their lives for the sake of religion.

Was there no religious belief in the early collectivist societies prior to the appearance of class conflicts? Since Marxism has realized that its justification is not supported by historical, it has resorted to another explanation and justification. It argues that religion is a phenomenon related to capitalism and is supported by the ruling class and the guardians of capitalism as a shield for sheltering themselves while stupefying the minds of the deprived, satisfying the poor and providing opium to the toilers that keep them happy, satisfied, content, and submissive until they have forgotten their rights. They would be thus be in the hope for spiritual rewards and rely on fate and would yield to any miserable form of existence.

It cannot be denied that religions have on occasions diverged from the principles that were initially proclaimed by the prophets. More often than not religion became an instrument of oppression, injustice, and repression. But can this be attributed to the righteous principles of religion itself? An oppressor would resort to anything - money, weapons, and manpower - and propaganda means to such as books, publications, artistic talents, and poetry in order to enhance his oppressive power.

Religion, too, is one such instrument. If we consider all these phenomena as a manifestation of the capitalist class and its rulers and guardians, then religion ought to be considered as another such phenomenon. The history of religious movement and the accounts of the lives of the prophets are undeniable testimony that those who called for justice rebelled against oppressive rulers and kings.

They were supporters of the deprived, the oppressed, and the outcasts. The first to respond to the call of the prophets of God were deprived and outcasts. It was they who wholeheartedly accepted the call of the prophets and defended it by generously giving of their blood and wealth. With their pure hearts and minds, they nourished the innate calls of the prophets to worship God and carried the banner of freedom to the four corners of the world. Little evidence can be seen in the history of religion that those who initially accepted the calls of the prophets came from among ruling elites, the capitalists or kings. Indeed, this latter class was in the forefront of opposition while the followers of the prophets were suffering from persecution and murder at their hands.

Were the first enemies of Abraham, Moses and Jesus not Nimrod, Pharaoh, the wealthy Jews, and the Roman emperors? Did not the hostilities against the call of Islam come from the wealthy, the usurer, and the aristocracy of the Quraysh? Were not the rulers of the east and west who - after the first period of the Islamic movement - brought their forces against the expansion of Islam, resulting in bloody wars? Did not the followers of Christ and his apostles and the first groups of Muslims come from among the class of the poor? These are undeniable facts of history.

The Marxian justification of the phenomena of religion arc neither supported by recorded history nor do they rest on historical and social facts and human nature. More than anything else, the primary source of human faith - correct or otherwise - is the instinctive search to understand the causes and reasons for events, an escape from mortality and a sentiment of responsibility. In this instinct all men are similar. It is within the realm of acquired knowledge - thinking and reasoning - that differences and divergence of thoughts occur.

The initial calls by the prophets were based upon this instinctive perception and stimulation. Diversification and evolution of religion bear no relationship with economic changes. The claim that religion at first was local and tribal, and then was used by emperors to expand their domain worldwide, is not borne out by the prophetic texts and historical facts. The Qur'anic verses and the explicit call of Islam are clear testimonies that from the very same isolated environment of Arabia, the message of Islam was universal.

Philosophy And Science

In Marxism, philosophy and science - like other facets of life - are the product and consequence of infrastructure and changes in the means of production. This is Marxism in a nutshell. In order to justify this, Marxists have provided reasons and evidence based on their restricted outlook. Their reasoning is based on a principle that man - like other creatures - is a creation from the natural elements is totally subject to these and the environment; he possesses no free will or independent thought.

Based on this view there are no specific boundaries or characteristics of man as distinguished from those of other creatures and no inclusive and exclusive definition exists to separate him from his environment and society2. Only the principles of dialectics, motion, and instability govern natural beings as well as the universe and man, and blends them together.

One cannot deny, however, that man has a mysterious physical and spiritual composition with mental ability and the capacity of voluntary actions, unlike other creatures. Nature - with all its spectacles and creature - is governed by specific and particular laws and systems, and does not diverge from them. It is only man who, after undergoing various stages of evolution, faces a vast an unlimited opportunity for voluntary changes and mental transformations. It is only man who can describe and conceive the notion of time and change in nature. If man is removed from nature, nothing except nature and natural creatures with their slow and limited evolution will be left.

Being enmeshed in perpetual physical change and constant internal reactions, man becomes aware of the voluntary and ‘elevating’ progress of his intellect. Besides providing for his basic necessities, his intellect awakens in him an aim or goal in life. This sense appears in the simple perception of an absolute and powerful force, God, and then is directed toward self and sensuous and practical relations and responsibilities. Man coordinates his movements and actions in accordance with these responsibilities, which are the same as goals specified by himself.

At this stage, conscience - which is a reflection of actions and goals in a progressive intellect - will take root within him. He will find himself with the freedom of thought and will. At this stage man finds himself responsible in relations to others. Through this realization he can coordinate his thoughts and actions, display innovative actions and use them to achieve his goals.

As his understanding, knowledge and experience improve, his goals become more pronounced. Therefore, while man is influenced by the environment, he is at the same time the master and shaper of fate. History is nothing but human consciousness, innovations, and development. To think of man as a passive and simple ‘instrument’ is to disregard and undermine his potential and stature. Disregarding man's ability is tantamount to denying the obvious, documented history of man's initiatives, constructiveness and transformations.

The origin of philosophy is a search for the reasons and relationships of beings and to discern goals and objectives. Proclivity for beauty and love for art stems from the intrinsic and free human intellect, which are the same in any situation and environment. The methods of reasoning and synthesis of arguments have been classified in various forms and have given rise to theoretical and applied philosophy.

The reason that these arguments are not bound by a particular line and place is that similar theories and ideas have occurred at different times and places. Metaphysical theories as well as materialist theories have existed at different times and in different countries, each having produced followers equipped with methods of achieving their ideals.

For example, the theory of evolution and change, and the foundation of Marxian general philosophy had been a subject of discussion since ancient times. Several famous minds participated in such discussion such as Heraclitus and Anaximander in the 5th century B.C., the Muslim sage, Sadr ud-Din Shirazi, in the seventeenth century, and most of the western thinkers before the Industrial Revolution.

In spite of the industrial progress in western countries, metaphysics was more firmly rooted there while the followers of materialism were fewer in number, while in certain countries like France and Italy – both latecomers to the Industrial Revolution - the followers of materialist philosophy were numerous. The claim by Marxism that metaphysics is the philosophy of the ruling classes and technologically backward countries is not substantiated by historical facts.

Some arch followers of Marx's doctrines maintain that since metaphysics is not founded on absolute truth, it requires the social systems to be absolute and unchanging; therefore, the supporters of metaphysics are also supporters of the status quo. Many ancient and modern metaphysical philosophers like Socrates and Plato were the driving force behind changes and were opposed to autocracy and absolute ownership, whereas more often the materialist philosophers like Heraclitus and Hobbes in the modern period supported aristocracy, autocracy, and absolute ownership.

The source and stimulus for the advent of science - meaning physical and empirical science that result in the discovery of the secrets of nature and lead to new investigations - is due largely to a quest for the basic needs of livelihood. However, more often inner desires for discovering the unknown and understanding natural causes have also contributed or served as the main cause of the advent of science. If, like a Marxist, we consider economic conditions to be the only cause for the advent of the empirical and applied sciences we must overlook the spiritual causes and historical facts, and we must close our minds with an imaginary lid, reflection of a limited perception.

If we were to consider change in the means of production and economic circumstances as the sole cause of the advent of scientific theories and technological inventions, then in an attempt to make them conform to changes in economic conditions and in the means of production we will be faced with an inadequate explanation, which will not help us reach a definite and absolute truth. We observe that there have existed, and still exist, nations with similar economic and social conditions, but with different degrees of scientific progress.

Why should we consider scientific theories and inventions as the source of industrial change when there is clear historical evidence to the contrary? Thousands of years ago the Chinese and the Greeks had theories and made discoveries about the mysteries of nature which proved to be accurate after many centuries, and some results were obtained from them. For example, the discovery of magnesium and printing by the Chinese; the use of water power by the Greeks: the theories of chemistry (alchemy), laws of optics, the reflection and refraction of light, and many other mathematical, astronomical, and medical and anatomical observations by Muslim scientists: all are undeniable contributions which occurred before the Industrial Revolution.

What did Galileo’s and Kepler’s theories on the movement of the earth around the sun have to do with the changes in means of production? The reality is that sensory elements, talents, life's basic necessities, defence against illnesses, death and wars; all of these clearly are the sources of phenomena, and one cannot pass a correct and convincing judgment by looking only from a narrow perspective. Indeed, if scientific theories are merely the outcomes of economic changes and social conditions, how could Marxian theories be absolute and permanent?

Classes

In the Marxist theory, the means of production constitute the foundation of class structure. This implies that the society is divided into two distinct classes - the rulers and the ruled. This is considered the basis of the society, and other manifestations of life are its components. Once a group manages to acquire control of the means of production - which are the only factors, stimuli, and sources of power - that group becomes the privileged and absolute ruling class; other people are ruled and exploited. This is the only reason for the formation and perpetuation of governments. It is this principle in primitive and ultimate collectivist societies that ceases to operate.

Such a claim can be proven in societies in which the social destinies and conditions are governed by a type of capitalism, which is dependent on the means of production. However, if we express doubts concerning the exclusive impact of the means of production in shaping societies, their destinies and structures, then it should be up to those who claim otherwise to provide convincing reasons to prove their claim.

If we say that seeking superiority and obtaining power and authority over other people originate from human nature and that history clearly demonstrates that many nomadic tribes - which did not possess means of production) attacked and conquered cities - with the means of production, but lacking the will power - and established powerful and long-lasting governments, or that groups with faith and principles became dominant rulers, then one should either think of history as illusory or express doubts about the authenticity of the Marxian theory.

Is it not possible for a government to be the results of needs, to set up limits and regulations and to be the enforcer of laws? Isn’t it also possible that a government came into being as a result of
certain factors such as beliefs, nationalism, and a desire to protect a certain national identity? It cannot be denied that economic conditions have profoundly affected the establishment and transformations of governments, but historical and spiritual analysis reveals that they are not the only causes.

Social problems are not like natural or mathematical problems to be subsumed under a single formula or ‘law’. If at some period in time and in some corners of the world, certain governments emerged based on the means of production and proceeded to move along with changes in the means of production, can their experiences be taken as a general rule (in the same way as mathematical problems) and be projected as far back as the beginning of history or be applied to societies at the far end of history?

The fact of the matter is that the reasons for the emergence of various classes and governments are as varied as the factors and reasons for historical and spiritual mysteries. One should never consider the impact of military power and individual power - in shaping social conditions and in setting up governments - to be less important than economic reasons. If a regime were founded according to economic factors alone, then today's arms and military race for the destruction of other governments would be a futile act.

The Early [Primitive] Collectivism

Marxism expresses decisive opinions regarding the early collectivist social order. One of the reasons for this ‘decisive' and ‘indubitable’ theory - derived from history's past and ambiguous depths - is based on the study of the living conditions of savage and semi-savage tribes, which still remain scattered around the world. These tribes share food and shelter. Studies of their way of living have not yet determined whether the members of the tribe are equal among themselves with respect to ownership and distribution. Even assuming perfect deduction, how could that be a yardstick to measure life over the past thousands of years and moreover, why have these tribes not been subject to the laws of change and transformation?

Another Marxist justification regarding the communal form of life in the early societies is that since the means of production were restricted to natural tools, and food and shelter were also inadequate, anything that was obtained was necessarily shared by all members of the tribe. But an opposite conclusion can also be formed from this line of reasoning: since the means of production such as rock and wood were free and equally accessible by everyone (unlike food and shelter) and no one privately possessed them, given the differences in physical ability and skill, anyone could keep for himself and his family that which he acquired.

Given this possibility, since food and shelter were divided equally among members of the tribe, that could not have been attributed to anything else but to the purity of hearts, which had not been contaminated with greed and covetousness. It is said that the remaining savage tribes around the world - such as those in North America - divide food among themselves and attend to their sick and more often than not they dispense with their own food and shelter for the sake of the sick. Perhaps the reason for early collectivism was due to shared ownership and human kindness.

Slavery-Based Society

(According to Marxism) at this stage of history the means of production in collectivist societies advanced to a point where production exceeded family and tribal needs. With an increase in production and the means to produce them within the limited capacity of the community, either progress and change in the means of production had to be brought to a halt or other forms of human potential had to be generated to proceed at the same rate as the progress in the means of production. Since the means of production do not remain stagnant, other forces must necessarily begin to function.

At this stage slavery begins. Prior to the era of slavery, prisoners of war were killed to avoid cost and the burden of holding them, but after slavery became established wars became a device, like other means to enslave the conquered. If a tribe was incapable of attacking other tribes, it took slaves from among its own members. This, it is maintained, was the first contradiction of history that began to form in the womb of early collectivist society. It is that some people - by acquiring control over the means of production - found political and social power and became the masters. The class that was deprived of all the means became slaves.

The first question that comes to mind in relation to the above explanation is: what was the reason that some people found the opportunity and the privilege of bringing the means of production into their control whereas others could not? Moreover, if the only reason for taking slaves was to use their labour for production, why were then other types of readily available workers e.g. wage earners and servants not utilized even though they were inexpensive to use and less cumbersome to maintain and above all, posed less danger of entering into alliance against their masters?

If we claim that the most important reason or the only reason for having obtained and monopolised the means of production had been the spiritual and physical superiority of a group and tat slavery too arose out of the domineering and privilege-seeking disposition of certain groups, then there would not be any room left for doubts about the origins of slavery. For this reason, we can still observe that despite all changes in the means of production and after the passage of thousands of years since the emergence of slavery, the taking of captives and making them slaves has been perpetuated in various forms3.

The Feudal Society

According to Marxism the heavy burden of production fell on the shoulders of the slaves. As consumption and expenditures by the slaves and the masters increased, the pressure brought upon the slaves also increased, and consequently cooperation and unity among slaves grew until the contradiction between masters and slaves reached a point where it weakened the class of owners and masters.

The debilitated masters were no longer able to manage and maintain production and the means of production using slaves. The masters were compelled to divide the land they possessed among slaves and to set them free so they could easily and without trouble recoup the fruit of the labour of the peasant/slave, leaving some for them. For this reason, slavery evolved automatically toward feudalism and finally disappeared.

In the Marxist interpretation, revolution and rebellion by slaves - in the final stage of the conflict between them and the masters - did not occur. Therefore, one must either abandon the Marxist principle of revolutionary change or show the point at which a revolutionary change takes place, because such a justification is no more than saying that the masters and owners of the means of production set the slaves free peacefully and divided up the land among themselves. Moreover, history does not demonstrate that - in all economic and social transformations - feudalism came after slavery.

There are many historical examples where, following the conquest and the establishment of despotic regimes; feudalism emerged even though slavery had not previously existed in that society. On the other hand, we see that in feudal societies slavery remained even after rebellions by slaves. In the history of nations, slaves have rebelled because of oppression and feeling of contempt for their masters and in order to free themselves and to abolish slavery.

This has nothing to do with changes in the means of production. The more we study past history the more we see the absence of relation between the means of production and social changes. Except for those in specific circumstances and in certain countries, social changes have occurred without a concomitant transformation of the means of production. The shortcoming of the Marxist explanation is that it neglects factors in human nature and other non-economic conditions.

Transition Toward Capitalism

Marxism justifies transition toward capitalism from feudalism as follows: feudalism constantly augments its power by capturing land and taking control over the advanced means of production. As more capital, land, and the means of production and output become concentrated through ownership and possession, pressure increases on those peasants who are productive. The origin of concentration of capital and financial power, it is maintained, must not be attributed to the intellect or wise decisions on the part of the feudal class, rather it comes from the deprived and wage earners, from ownership of the means of production.

By depriving the producers and wage earners of ownership the means of production, the gap between them and the owners widens. In this manner the conditions for a change from feudalism capitalism are formed. In the final phase of this transformation, the owners - resorting to encroachment and confiscation - would seize the means of production from the producing class. The foundation and essence of capitalism lies here.

Thievery, confiscation and plundering by the capitalists are not limited to their own country. Capitalism also laid hands on the land and resources of foreign countries by way of invasion, plunders and colonial wars. This, then, has been a brief look at the section of Marx’s Das Kapital dealing with the origins of capitalism.

Engels, however, does not accept the above explanation of the rise of capitalism. He argues that any other interpretation of capitalism beyond that which is strictly based on internal economic factors - such as encroachments, plunders, and conquests - is incorrect and diverges from the facts.

We may choose not to accept this theory as if it were a revelation and instead consider it on the basis of logic and historical facts. There are ambiguous issues and cases within this theory that ought to be pointed out. This theory is based on contradictions, transition and stages. The dialectic of the contradictions between two classes must lead to a reality. Logic and historical facts do not demonstrate that there has been contradiction between feudalism and the bourgeoisie; it is possible for both to be compatible without obstructing one another.

There have been many significant landowners - and there still are – who have been major capitalists and who have spent their capital to obtain land ownership. We see no necessity for them to have obtained their wealth from land ownership. Is it not possible to achieve capitalism trough trade or small industry as a way of setting oneself and others free from the encroachment by the feudal lords?

In view of the facts of economic history, conflict cannot in general be found between these two classes to enable one to draw a firm and absolute and universal conclusion that historical dialectics have brought forth such a ‘negation’ and ‘affirmation’. If these changes and transformation are the material effects of historical materialism and evolution in the means of production, there would be no place left for such behavior as calumny, usurpation, plundering, and thievery.

If, according to this theory, human behavior and conduct - both good and evil - do not have a reality but are merely the results of economic phenomena, then plundering and thievery would not be inadmissible and wrong in specific historical conditions. In the transformation from feudalism to capitalism, as propounded by the Marxist theory, we see no examples except in the economic history of England.

In the beginning of the emergence of industrialization in England, due to the expansion of textile factories, the market for British export of wool expanded and most farmers began herding sheep to raise wool. And pastures expanded farmlands diminished. It was under these conditions that feudalism gradually gave way to capitalism.

Similar industrial transformation and movement towards capitalism took place in other countries following the British example, and nowhere was it accompanied by class conflict and revolution. Among the eastern countries we observe the history of Japan's industrial changes. Once the Japanese had realized the need for the struggle against Western colonialists, they divided the land and properties with the help and guidance of the large landowners and government assistance and then began to promote and develop industries.

The Measure Of Value (Price)

The classical economists - those who lived before Marx – as well as his contemporaries had studied the concept of value. But Marx paid a special attention to this concept and had a special interest in. He also had strong opinions regarding the determination of the measure of value. In his view, once the value is determined and its misconception removed, then the right of workers and the boundaries of the capitalist encroachments and the conflict between them will be explained, and the guidelines of the workers' revolution will be drawn.

Following Ricardo, Marx considers the amount of stored-up labour to be the basis for exchange of commodity. Ricardo took into consideration other factors such as competition and supply and demand in the determination of the value of the commodity, but Marx rejected these. He stated that only in special circumstances did other factors enter into the analysis of value. Marx asserts that the value of a commodity - upon entering the market for exchange - is exposed to variations according to different factors and social environment, and its profitability and "use value" are no longer the only variable factors.

At this point the buyer and the seller, each in possession of a commodity to trade face each other, and various factors and motives cause the quantity and price of each commodity to move up or down like the pans of scale. If the market is that of a perfect competition with free flow of supply and demand – without any monopolistic restrictions – the variations in price and quantity will be swift and unbounded. If such elements did not exist and the exchangeable commodities existed in sufficient consumable quantities, the value would revert back to the basic regulator, which is the quantity of stored-up labour.

Marx did not discuss the value of land and other raw materials, and be did not consider them as having exchange values. Prior to Marx, the collectivists attached the value to land and raw materials but they used to say that since these were nature’s endowments, they did not acquire exchange value until human labour was added to them. But from Marx's viewpoint land has no value whatsoever and in an environment of monopoly and encroachment, lands that are valuable fall under the domain of the monopolists and temporarily become valuable properties.

Ambiguous points remain in Marx's theory concerning the concept and usage of ‘use value' and ‘exchange value’, because the former is determined in accordance with needs, and public needs are not uniform in different circumstances as much as an individual's needs are not uniform in different circumstances. Many natural objects possess use value and ‘need value’ and even a ‘necessity value’, yet they do not have any exchange value such as air and light. There are other objects that have no use value but possess ultimate exchange value such as a diamond.

To bridge the differences between use value and exchange value, some classical scholars have suggested the concept of scarcity and have based value on scarcity and profit. This new addition, however, does not eliminate the difficulty, for it is obvious that not every scarce and useful object possesses a use value. In any case, the recognition of use value and its relation to exchange value has always puzzled economic scholars; it is a tangled skein of yarn whose lead could not be found. Nevertheless, this does not affect the practical functioning and foundation of a just economy.

With regard to exchange value, if the amount of labour performed is to be the only measure of value, we must take into account the amount of time spent, as the quantity of labour is a function of the amount of time used. In addition to the element of time, should not we also take into account other factors such as intelligence, intrinsic talents and acquired skills as determinants of value? If we do not take these important factors into consideration, then the work of an intelligent artist or a skilled technician must be valued the same as that of an unskilled, dull and non-specialist worker.

Moreover, doesn’t the material - on which labour is performed – also contribute to the value of the finished goods? Otherwise, the value of a task performed on a piece of wood, metal or precious stone would have been the same as with that done on a material that is plentiful and worthless. Furthermore, there is the issue about the quantity of capital consumed in the work process – the tools, the means of production and the machinery.

How would one correctly measure the contributions of these devices in the process of determining the value of labour value? These are some of the fundamental difficulties associated with this theory. In following this theory, if we ignore other factors such as supply and demand, surplus, shortage and life's accruements - and think of them as non-essentials and unreal - and consider only the value of labour performed as the only essential factor, we will run into the above-mentioned problems.

From this point of view the common denominator between the remnant of a rug and an automobile in the exchange process is not the material or the physical appearance of the two commodities, for they obviously have nothing in common. The common denominator must be something else. It is argued here that it is the amount of labour that has gone into the manufacturing of these two commodities – whose value remains unchanged despite the transformations – that is the average of all fluctuations

To demonstrate this: is the amount of labour stored in a commodity ever taken into consideration in the process of exchange? Should a bunch of unripe apples and delicious pears or a bale of good quality cotton, or a bushel of barley of inferior quality - each carrying an equal amount of human labour - have equal values in exchange? Or, if more work was done to produce the poor-quality commodity, should it then be worth more than the good quality product?

On the contrary, would it be possible to ignore the effect of that amount of income, product quality and supply and demand in every economic situation? If we assume that the measure of value is determined by the amount of stored labour in a commodity, it would amount to nothing more than an esoteric theory, not substantiated by facts. Assuming that value is derived exclusively from labour, then what sort of a yardstick should one use to measure the various kinds of labour that differ with respect to beauty, elegance and technique? Would the division of labour into ‘concrete’ and ‘abstract’ and the recognition of the former as the foundation of value while measuring the latter – the technical and delicate labour - offer a solution to the difficulties, and would it provide an answer to the unknowns?

How could talent, art, and technical skill - which are manifestations of the human inner self and mental ability - be measured by the same gauge as concrete labour, which is only the product of physical organs? Yet, despite all these ambiguities and difficulties, Marxism should be excused because his point is focused on the very same industrial and oppressive capitalist - dreadful capitalist - environment in which labour and labourers are not respected. To lift this curtain of darkness and show the detestable and oppressive face of the capitalists, Marx studied and emphasized the value of labour in his voluminous Das Kapital. But his view is not realistic and does not allow for the development of a stable economic order.

Capitalism And Evolution

In Marxism, the value of labour constitutes the line of demarcation and the source of the conflict between capitalism and labour economics (socialism-communism). It is argued that if the value of labour commensurate with the legitimate rights and wages of the workers, capitalism would cease to exist because the origin of capitalism is illegitimate or "surplus" profit. Therefore, capitalism is nothing more than a usurpation and thievery.

In this theory the capital spent to establish a factory is called the constant capital and that used to pay the workers' wages is called the variable capital. The sum of these two is the total capital, which is utilized to set up a factory and begin production4. Based on this principle, the value of a commodity is equal to the sum of material consumed, fuel spent, and depreciation associated with the operation of the factory. Hence, the value of a commodity is equal to the new labour added to the labour already performed5.

What the capitalist reaps is the ‘surplus' profit that is added to this value in the exchange market because the capitalist's goal is only to make a profit, not to increase the level of output or the wellbeing of the workers and the public). A practical solution for capitalist to obtain higher profit is to exploit workers by increasing working hours and reducing wages. Since these are subject to certain limitations and the capitalist seeks to maximize his profit, he must increase production.

As a result, the capitalist of this expansion and improvement - involving increase in constant capital – output rises while the surplus value necessarily diminishes as a result of competition in the market. To continue to compete in the market, the capitalist must continue expanding production and reduce expenditure and wages so that a cheaper commodity can be offered to the consumers. In this competitive struggle, the weak or negligent competitors are gradually eliminated and the means of production is further concentrated in fewer hands with monopolistic power.

According to what was said above, competition and monopoly are exclusive methods capitalism uses to seek profit. The instinct for making more profit and compete with others becomes the basis for large monopolies and corporations. It leads to the eventual elimination of smaller and weaker competitors and paves the way for more competition among the giant corporations.

With the expansion of giant corporations and monopolies the conflict between workers and capitalists also increases. This conflict arises from the capitalists’ attempt to maximize profit or surplus value and reduction of wages. In the capitalist system, if profits decline or vanish, production will be halted and the capitalist will gradually perish with all that he owns.

An increase in working hours and a reduction in wages - and consequently increased profits – are the only way that existence and sustainability of capitalism be assured. In the final state of the conflict between workers and capitalists, the former will unite and carry out strikes in order to obtain justice and higher wages, which will weaken the capitalists’ base until a revolution destroys the whole system.

Once the base has been destroyed. Its main structure – the laws, rules and regulations – will also get destroyed. To ensure workers’ rights, the laws would have to be changed and the government would have to represent the workers. In summary, profit seeking, competition, technical progress, unemployment of the masses and a constant decline in wages bring about a revolution leading to the emergence of the workers’ government and public ownership of the means of production.

The salient characteristics of a proletarian government are:

1) Elimination of all classes.
2) Dictatorship of the proletariat to carry out its historical mission.
3) Nationalization of the means of production.
4) Distribution in accordance with the maxim ‘from each according to his ability and to each according to his work’.

By paying attention to what was said above, one sees that the foundation of this projected system rests on the labour theory of value. If this principle is rigid and unalterable, its consequences could be accepted to some extent. For example, the value derived exclusively from labour must be indisputable. Workers must recognize labour value as their legal and inalienable right and the profits must constantly rise and wages decline in accordance to this labour theory of value until they revolt because of the unbearable pressure. As soon as all these conditions are satisfied, the revolution and government of the proletariat will emerge and remain intact.

In the labour theory of value, no allowance is given to the measure of value derived from works of artistic, scientific or technical nature, even though there is virtually an unlimited variety of such works. This is to say that the value of works of scientific, research, literary and managerial nature have not been accounted for even though in a given industrial activity one cannot attach a lesser value to the management - of factory and workers, production and distribution activities – than say, the simpler task of fastening bolts and nuts.

Management, production, and distribution decisions need to be so precise that an error of judgment may halt production. If the owner of the means of production draws benefit from the activity to the extent worthy of a knowledgeable and capable manager or comparable to that performed by the “workers’ government”, can he still be referred to as a ‘usurper’ and a ‘thief’? If equal quantity of work is performed on two distinct materials – for example on copper and on gold - should they both receive the same exchange value, lest the labour theory of value might be altered? But if they are different in value, who should then earn the surplus? If one were to allow for the value of the labour previously used in mining metal, would that solve the problem?

If we consider the source of conflict between workers and capitalists to stem from that value which rightfully belongs to the workers, then the workers must first be made aware of their rights, because for as long as the truth is not understood by them, it will not influence them. If this perceived right is the source of conflict, it must first be made clear to the rightful owner in spite of the complications and problems associated with it before it leads to unrest and agitation (as is suggested by Marx's main theory). It is only after the professional worker - who had been excluded from participation in government and politics - understood his rights that he can enter the struggle to secure those rights.

Besides, this theory of conflict is restricted to industrial activities. Furthermore, to which class do those with enormous incomes - like owners of buildings and lands, merchants, doctors or company executives - belong? Will they too join the workers? Will those who depend on their talent, intelligence, ability, and business for livelihood be eliminated after the collectivist revolution?

Even if we ignore these points and consider values being stored labour and upon the premise that workers have received their legitimate rights, doesn't progress in industrial capabilities and the increase in the population of workers necessarily reduce the amount of work available? Isn’t this the time that deprived workers - who have not been paid their true wages - begin to rebel? Therefore, class differences and conflicts cannot be regarded as a function of the labour theory of value.

Whether we accept this theory or not, and whether or not workers obtain their legitimate rights, the difference and conflict between the two classes will continue to exist as in the case of buyers and sellers or landlords and tenants. When each side seeks his own interest, no attention will be paid to the real value of the commodity, or the property, and the amount of stored labour particularly when the commodity in question is an artistic work.

The fact is that conflicts and rebellions arc merely the outcomes of monopoly, distress and unbearable dispossession to which the producing class is subjected. The capitalist will increase the working hours as much as he possibly can to reap more profit and will lay off workers in huge numbers as technological progress takes place. The hungry and unemployed masses and those in danger of losing their jobs will unite.

Since they do not depend upon the capitalist laws and government for protection, they will resort to their own solidarity and strength until they have secured power. This obvious situation has no bearing on the labour theory of value or the surplus value. For this reason, in those industrial countries where certain laws governing labour activities have been enacted and certain rights and privileges have been given to workers, such remedies have kept the workers satisfied and stupefied and no revolution has taken place yet. With industrial progress, workers’ conditions have apparently improved.

Transcending Domestic Boundaries And Colonization Of Other Nations

According to this view - as explained in the previous section - since competition, concentration6 and the rise of large corporations lead to more profit by the capitalists (instead of meeting the needs or promoting public wellbeing) they continuously search for foreign markets to sell their excess products to make more profit. To gain access to resources and raw materials of other countries, the capitalists bring these countries and the inhabitants under their own control and increasingly subjugate the native population of the colonized countries by means of surrogate governments.

From this interpretation, it would follow that if a country did not have large capitalists and corporations and excess production, irrespective of how powerful it may be, it would not exceed the limits if its authority and transgress upon another country. Or, if such a country annexes areas beyond its own national boundaries and subdues another nation, then that should not be considered as ‘colonization’. But, in fact, thousands of years prior to the industrial transformation and mass production, colonization and exploitation of the weak and subdued nations had been customary.

This prevailing human tradition originates not in economic theories and the love for money but is an instinct for seeking privileges by a type of human who lacks virtue, a sentiment of mercy, and kindness. Those who possess such unregulated natures - be they individuals or the states - will always think of subduing, subjugating, and gaining possession of others and their properties, within or beyond one’s borders. This inhuman conduct uses a suitable weapon and shows appropriate teeth and claws, according to the surrounding circumstances.

In the ancient times weapons and military power were deployed to crush and kill, burn, destroy and plunder. Today aggressive capitalist government relying on military power to help the large corporations to thrust their teeth and claws into the bodies of weak nations while hiding their colonialist faces behind the guise of ‘development and progress’. The more their prey moves and struggles to free itself the deeper the claws and teeth of these devouring animals penetrate into the victim's body until the last drop of their life-giving blood has been sucked away and their corpses left behind.

The only function and duty of these governments are to safeguard the large corporate interests. Human rights and support of the masses extended only to the point of ensuring the stability of the government. They resemble the owner of a gambling house whose cut increases as the gamblers increase in number and the game gets more intense. They must maintain an equipped army and allow for a large military budget. They must take away the dignity, unity, and progress achieved by the colonized countries by all possible means through the proxy regimes.

The workers and toilers of the colonized countries are kept seemingly well off. This is done not out of respect for their identity but because the revenues are so enormous that the colonialists must want to feel at ease and assured. For the colonialists, colonization is the essence of life and survival, because their continued existence - like that of parasites - depends on the colonies. Independence of each former colony makes the colonialist realize that his life-giving arteries are being cut and that he faces death. If a war should break out, it would totally disrupt the position attained by colonialists. Degeneration, ethical decadence, and prostitution among the ruled subjects are some of the factors exploited by colonialist and capitalist governments.

The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat

A workers’ revolution, according to the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is not a shallow or single faceted revolution and must become deeply entrenched, extensive, and permanent. Total control over the formulation of laws, rules, and regulations must be part of workers' rights. Such a government must not merely remove capitalism from society, but it must also eradicate its roots from the souls of capitalists, lest it gets rejuvenated in some other place.

For this reason, prior to the acquisition of the means of production and capital by the workers, the state must exercise vigilant control over the populace and their thoughts. Such control and vigilance would not be possible without the establishment of a police force to penetrate families and even the government's own bureaucracy. An omnipotent and vigilant dictatorship is a requisite to such a revolution.

But according to this theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is also transitory. It is a corridor and a twilight zone that a society would have to pass through from socialism to reach communism. Meanwhile the means of production and capital would have fallen into the hands of the government. The virtues and vestiges of the class society would have all but disappeared. Once this government has fulfilled its historical mission it too will disappear.

In the journey from dictatorship of the proletariat to a just communist society, there seem to be many difficulties and obstacles that halt one’s progress. It can even retard the journey. Let us not forget that such a government is established on the basis of the labour theory of value. In other words, the government is bound by its duty to return the property - confiscated initially by the capitalists - to their rightful owners, the workers, even though in such an unprecedented dictatorship the workers themselves have no right to determine the ownership and the distribution of property. The right to confiscate and distribute belongs to their representative government.

The absolute owner is the government itself. Such a government, which has supposedly been formed from the workers and wage earners, would necessarily be a privileged class, although the hopes and expectations of the deprived were precisely to eliminate the privileged class! In this revolution, human sentiments and ethics are not factors. It is a revolution brought about and caused by the progress in the means of production.

Would such revolution be able to uproot the desire for ownership or for seeking more wealth or property from the minds of the masses? Or is it because the revolutionaries who have taken over the government possess peculiar inner qualities that destroy their desire for more wealth and privilege? Assuming that such a government is capable of distributing commodities on the basis of the amount of labour performed, is able to determine value, despite the enormous difficulties associated with the task - some of which were discussed above - and implement the slogan ‘from each according to ability and to each according to work’, would it not still be possible for privilege and class structure to reappear in a different form?

Elimination Of Classes And The Rise Of Justice

According to this theory, as the period of dictatorship of the proletariat follows its course, the entire sources of wealth and means of production become owned by the state, and private ownership - the cause of class conflict - is abolished. Once the government has accomplished its historical mission and production is brought to a level that meets actual needs, and equitable distribution has been accomplished, there is no longer a need for this type of government and it will automatically be eliminated.

The management of production and distribution will fall into the hands of the society and the people. The socialist slogan, ‘from each according to his ability and to each according to work’ will now be replaced with the ultimate communist motto ‘from each according to his ability and to each according to his need’. Consequently, all resources become like air and light, and monopoly and dispossession cease to exist. This is the final point in the journey of humans and this is the promised paradise where changes in the means of production and the forces of history come to rest after having passed through conflicts and transitions of socialism.

And this is the foundation of life and the source of justice that man reaches after having journeyed through the deep darkness. Oh, what a delightful hope and pleasant dream! What creative powers lie in the changes and progress in the means of production, class conflict, and the establishment of proletariat government! These, in addition to purifying classes and the system of ownership, also sever the roots of greed, covetousness, and self-interest from the souls of mankind and generate a new kind of human nature that is unburdened by differences, oppression, and self-interest! There is no envy towards nature’s creatures, and nature's fruits are within the reach of everyone!

Indeed, if class struggle and industrial transformation cause a ray of hope about this promising future to shine on man it may provide hope. But what can be understood from this theory is that the government which itself is a by-product of continual class conflict will ultimately be destroyed because the main reason for its creation - class conflict - has already ceased. This justification itself is against the Marxian principle that class conflict is the source or all transformation, because if the ultimate destination of the government is to be achieved by a revolution it must be brought about by conflicting classes.

But according to this theory, class conflict no longer exists. A gradual and automatic elimination of class conflict, too, does not agree with this principle of economic and class conflict, namely, that it is a permanent driving force history whose destruction culminates in the stagnation of history. Above all, a dictatorship of the proletariat - whose government is righteous and controls every aspect of the society in accordance with its own historical ideology - cannot bring about cessation of the class conflict. The proletarian government possesses unprecedented privileges, because in addition to the acquisition of the means of production and resources, it as a rule comes to possess military advantages and the right to the tradition of revolution and to leadership.

Such privileges far exceed privileges associated with ownership, and history has demonstrated that the elimination of financial privileges and a gradual and automatic elimination of government that has the responsibility for nationalization of resources, equitable distribution of wealth, etc. is doubtful, if not impossible. Unless, of course, during economic transformation attitudinal and spiritual changes also take place and the instinct for wealth accumulation and privilege seeking are uprooted or brought under control and are subordinated to justice.

But from the Marxist viewpoint, only ‘economic factors’ cause transformation and natural spiritual factors are not important. Nonetheless, public wellbeing and trust have not yet been achieved on the basis of economic factors and class conflict, and if a change from one condition to another can bring about happiness, it is only relative and limited to a particular class. Regarding the future, no signs of public wellbeing are visible.

The Freedom Under Unrestrained Capitalism And Its Pitfalls

At the beginning of the industrial transformation and before that, following the advent of the classical schools of thought, the discussion of most economic scholars centered around freedom of private ownership, production, distribution of goods, and profit making. As pointed out above, the origin of the ‘freedom’ was thought to be innate and natural, and most scholars conceded that it would change in accordance with economic changes and social conditions.

The scholars did maintain that the principle of freedom must be preserved; laws had to be devised on this very same principle to ensure individual and social happiness. Any law that restricted such freedom would be considered to be in violation of individual rights and contrary to natural order, and hence would be a crime. Furthermore, they thought that since man was created free and nature's resources were placed freely at his disposal, any person ought to be able to use them in accordance with his talent and ability. If a policy required that certain restrictions be applied, it would only be in exceptional circumstances and temporary.

Afterwards it was proven that this general theory, when applied to the context of social relations, was inadequate and impractical. Absolute ‘natural freedom’ became necessarily restricted in social contracts because innate and natural freedom in a social environment would lead to chaos and deprive someone else of freedom. To justify individual freedom or to maintain human dignity and generosity, the classical economic scholars found it necessary to establish laws, to restrict that 'absolute freedom' and referred to them as ‘natural’.

It is obvious that the goal of economic laws based on capitalistic principles is to enhance wealth, production, and profit. The ‘laws’ of supply and demand, workers insurance, and ways to increase output all based on this goal. From this aspect, capitalistic principles - unlike those of socialism - could not be accepted as “scientific principles”. The origins of capitalist laws and regulations are the same economic means and methods prevalent in different societies founded on private ownership and for the purpose of enhancing wealth and common profit.

The meaning of "freedom" in this context is the freedom of an individual to acquire personal wealth. The principles of capitalism, except in a few cases - such as the laws of supply and demand - as some people thought - lack general and scientific laws which are universally applicable. Therefore, any discussion, study or reasoning to prove their validity from legal, political, and ethical aspects is unwarranted. By studying and scrutinizing the methods prevalent in capitalist societies, it appears that because freedom and regulations in capitalistic systems are superficial and irresponsible, they become a means of depriving the majority of freedom. Although capitalistic laws and regulations clear the way for opportunities and talents and provide everyone with access to production and profit, they necessarily create the opportunity for a select group of classes to obtain power and exploit public capital and the means of production.

Those who possess fewer human talents and less ability to cope with the prevailing difficulties are forcibly and necessarily pushed aside and their freedom reduced to near zero. This is so because in a capitalist environment and in a climate of freedom without responsibility, the path to rule and to obtain unlimited power is open to those who enjoy many privileges without social responsibility toward those who lack talent and opportunity. No matter how precise and convincing the principles, theories and regulations of capitalism are, they are still within the confines of the spirit of capitalism, which bind and limit human intellectual and physical abilities towards the service of capitalists.

Capital grows, while few efforts are made in utilizing production and wealth to serve humanity. The establishment of organizations under the pleas of ‘charity’ etc., or at times restricting the monopoly power of corporations and increasing wages are measures designed to exploit human power and enhance wealth. These charitable contributions and the aid rendered by those who worship wealth and capital resemble milk that the milker rubs on the cow's udder to induce the animal to give more milk, or is similar to the handful of water one first pours into the hand pump in order to extract water from the well.

If some capitalist economists like John Maynard Keynes have rejected or prohibited monopoly, hoarding or usury, it is not for the sake of preventing the encroachment on the rights of consumers or the needy, but because such practices, in Keynes’ opinion, lead to a decline in the level of production and spending by the consumers, which ultimately lead to decline of the capitalist’s profits. And if a theory is advanced regarding wage increases for workers, it is really for the purpose of increasing labour productivity and, consequently the purchasing power.

The proponents of the capitalist system and its related schools of thought and legal branches justify their ideas and goals and try to free themselves of the accusations by saying that economic freedom under capitalism enables everyone to improve his life. In this, the capitalists attempt to enhance wealth as well as its distribution among the public, promising poverty will be eliminated and good moral character and spiritual growth will be attained. Some go even further than this, and say that ethics and individual virtues develop under the umbrella of economic freedom - even though an absolute and unrestrained capitalist system cannot have any other goal except exploitation and colonization of others.

The truth of the matter is, in a capitalist system laws and rules must be established and enforced in the interest and towards the maintenance of capitalism. The necessary pre-conditions are competition, struggle for survival in the market place, the abandonment of spiritual values, and the destruction of financial opportunities of the weak. Many producers7 do not draw benefit from the results of their activities in such an environment and the output from their works ultimately benefits the capitalists.

In such an environment, ethics, scientific progress and virtues are all subordinated to profit, and in many cases such attitude is a weapon in the hands of those who are powerful. In this system, humans are only involuntary tools in the hands of the capitalists. The general laws of supply and demand prevail and more production for the benefit of capitalists is encouraged. The physical and spiritual strength of workers and peasants are exploited to the maximum possible, and once they have become useless and unproductive, they are discarded like rotten goods and old furniture.

In such a system, it can be observed that ethics, human generosity, spirit of cooperation and mutual assistance are closer to myth than reality. By always attempting to enhance and maximize their wealth, their human qualities are destroyed and their human senses are blinded and deafened. A human being – his values and virtues – is assessed and exploited for the sake of providing capital for the various classes. The value of everything is measured in terms of quantity and increases in production.

Outside of centres of capitalism one can clearly observe millions of exploited and ‘chained’ people in various countries, under the colonial governments. History is full of millions of dead refugees and ruined cities to satisfy the greed of the capitalists. The crimes of those greedy capitalists are among most notorious and painful in history. Since social security and ethical responsibility are lacking in capitalistic societies, the benefit and comfort of a small group and relative deprivation of the majority – lacking the purchasing power – are a certainty. No matter how carefully the laws are passed in a capitalist environment, they cannot limit the extent of individual ownership or enhance the social security. And there are no limits imposed by religion and conscience.

The proponents of a free (and irresponsible) system consider freedom as the factor for growth in production and wealth, although this ‘freedom' is not like that which allows talents and social right co flourish, or a system where everyone would permanently benefit from one's talent. Why? Because the production environment and the use of natural resources are limited and therefore, opportunities and the means of advancement are available only to a small group, which in turn, deprives others of their freedom and prevents their talents from flourishing and developing.

A rise in production can lead to public wellbeing only if distribution is equitable and purchasing power is available equally to everyone. But capitalism is not as concerned with welfare as it is with making a profit.

Although in this system the economy is based on individual freedom and self-interest, and individual freedom and self-interest are respected, the freedom ultimately is so restrictive that it approaches zero, nearly reaching the point where capitalists and industrialists can do whatever they please with the workers and exploit human labour in any way they choose. They raise or lower wages and working hours as they wish, and hire or fire any individual or group they choose and they feel no responsibility toward the workers' families.

In this respect, capitalism is no different from Marxism, which totally subordinates the individual and his interest to that of the society. Just as Marxism regards the desires or the rights of the working class to be legitimate - and paves the way for ownership and possession of capital and the means of production by a government that is the representative of the working class - capitalism too opens the way to a specific class that cannot but be a profit-worshipping and capital-worshipping class. Although capitalism and Marxism have seemingly confronted each other, as far as each provides for the interest and freedom of a specific group or a class - at the expense of other individuals - they are ultimately the same.

A righteous and just society is one in which public responsibility and security - within the overall structure, design and regulatory framework of the society - are observed in the interests of everyone, and one in which individual interests are in harmony with those of the society. This goal cannot be achieved unless a sense of responsibility is awakened in everyone, and everyone is willing to forgo personal interest for the sake of collective well-being.

It must be noted that the society and its constituents neither belong exclusively to the capitalists and the owners of the means of production, nor to the workers and wage earners. Workers’ rights too are not restricted to wages alone. Freedom of work, expression of talents, and control over one's own destiny are no less important than having the right to determine wages or making it living. Communism claims that it is taking steps along this path!

Freedom And The Ways Of Providing It

During the latter part of the Middle Ages, when social theories began co emerge concomitantly with industry, the word ‘freedom’ gained the attention of the social scientists and law-makers. Opinions revolved around the meaning of the word ‘freedom’ and its limits, but as yet no comprehensive and complete definition has been provided. Definitions are relative and in accordance with the designs and conditions of the society. Many social scientists of recent centuries and lawmakers think that to give or take freedom is within a government’s jurisdiction, which it can bestow or take away from anyone (or any nation) it sees fit.

It is certain that since a human being is distinguished by wisdom and a free will, he has been created to be free in thought and action in every respect. Initially, this freedom and free will are exercised instinctively, for self-interest and survival. After a man has taken a wife and formed a family, his freedom becomes restricted in accordance with the new obligations, which he has elected to perform. As society advances and specialization and division (of labour) appear natural and intrinsic, freedom will be once again curtailed.

The believers in a free (laissez faire) economy have paid their attention only to a dubious economic freedom, and to man as a producer of capital. Although human nature is composed of various faculties and desires, acquiring wealth is only one way of satisfying some of these desires. The innate drive for discovering the unknown and searching for the causes of events, seeking superiority, respect and honour, personal independence, expression of power, personal identity, respect and a sense of responsibility and duty constitute a much larger part of man's being.

Each one of these carnal desires is permissible only to the point where their expression does not encroach upon the desires of other people. Natural and man-made laws and rules in their true meaning should rest upon these innate principles and conform to individual desires and social stature. Such laws and regulations are impossible unless they originate from an all-embracing source, which dictates all duties and responsibilities, placing their implications on faith and conscience.

On the other hand, an individual's efforts are automatically directed toward personal interests and pleasures and his centre of thought and action is himself. This self-conceit, egotism and self-centeredness of the individual conflict with the right and interests of others. To establish a healthy and lively society, there is no other alternative but to discipline and build harmonious individuals who are attached to the community at large.

Individuals - who while enjoying personal freedom - are willing to direct their attention to the society, away from their own self-centeredness, with loftiness of purpose, social consciousness and philanthropy, develop a firm belief in the principles and laws which have ensured their individual wellbeing within the context of society's interest. In this case, when personal interests clash with those of the society, one forgoes one's own interests in order that the interest of the people remains secure and the road towards growth and happiness is available to everyone.

The government in such a society must represent the entire nation and apply laws benefitting and serving everyone. Such a government cannot be despotic and be representative of a particular class while opposing other groups and classes. Class differences are a result of a particular way of thinking or a particular form of government. What has not been taken into consideration in Marxism and capitalism is precisely this all-encompassing form, which a government must have in order to represent everyone in the society and show respect to individual dignity and strive to enhance public aspirations and wellbeing.

Both these systems would want the government to exist for the benefit of a particular class – treating people as if they were instruments of production and wealth. Under such considerations individual independence is necessarily restricted; the intellect, understanding and reasoning are employed to accumulate more wealth; and the value of work, actions, human generosity and virtues lose their true meanings. The government is constantly engaged in taking sides with one class while suppressing another. Under the pretense of the ‘freedom of ownership’ or ‘diffusion of wealth’ it gives a free hand to one class while repressing others.

The Human [Moral] Value Of Actions

Growth and movement are two of the most obvious manifestations of accomplishments in the life of creatures. As life becomes more perfect its movement and growth take on varied and mysterious forms. Since a human is a complete and perfect example of life, he is capable of thought and voluntary physical movements in addition to instinctive action and involuntary growth; he is not confined to a single or suspended state. From the moment he comes in contact with the outside world through his external senses, the initial perceptions awaken his mind and intellect, and this act does not cease till the end of his life. Actions prompted by mental activities are manifold and boundless.

If human activities were not bound and constrained by outside elements and conditions, they would not be similar in any situation and environment because they originate in human intellect, wandering imagination, talent, feelings, spirituality, physical reflections and environment. It is the industrialized environment that transforms humans into rigid parts of a machine. Man, after having grasped a simple and vague notion of his own being by contact with the world outside and the reflections that stimulate his mind and conscience, acquires a secondary (dual) identity.

Afterwards his efforts are directed toward consolidating, strengthening, and expressing this identity, realized in action by which man attempts constantly to convey his own intellect, understanding, talent, and discoveries to the minds of others or reflect them in the resources of nature. On the ultimate aim for creation of man, The Qur'an has stated the following truths:

Blessed is He in Whose hand is the Sovereignty, and He is able to do all things. (67:1).

Who hath created death and life that He may try you which of you is best in conduct; and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving (67:2).

Lo! We have made all that is on the earth as an ornament thereof that we may try them: which of them is be; in conduct (18:7).

Surely (as for) those who believe and do good works - Lo! We do not waste the reward of one does a good work (18:30).

Those whose effort goeth astray in the life of the world, and yet they reckon that they do good work8 (18:104).

As for him who giveth and is dutiful (towards Allah, (92:5).

and believeth in goodness: (92:6).

Surely We will ease his way unto the state of ease.9 (92:7).

Another source of human effort, action, innovation, and initiative is man's unruly habit of seeking power which makes him want to place himself above others and conquer nature's powerful forces and attempt to discover the effects and characteristics of the elements and the universe and to shape them in order to express his imagination and to utilize nature for his own benefit.

“And He caught Adam all the names,” (11:31).

The verse explains man's ability to portray and influence nature. It is the secret of man's superiority over other creatures.

In accordance with the natural elements and environmental conditions a human being strives toward innovation, initiative and good will. Initially, the financial rewards of work are subordinate to the above purpose. Such acts and outcomes, before they can be evaluated in material terms, contain human values. The writings of great scientists, the ideas of intellectuals, and the discoveries and the works of artists cannot be evaluated by any monetary gauge.

Regardless of how widely these books and works are made available to the public, it would not diminish their human values. The worth of anything that would enhance its human value is above that of everything else. How could the ideas of great personalities and their discoveries be measured in material terms, knowing that they gave up all material pleasures and rewards, and more often their lives, for what they believed in or discovered?

The human value of innovation and initiative is not inconsistent with material and financial benefits and its origins, but the initial cause and motivation are responsible for satisfying the needs and ensuing financial return. The first source of movement of thought and talent are the natural instincts that lead to the procurement of food and other necessities attracting profit and avoiding losses. On this aspect man is like other animals. During the course of his evolution from simple primitive existence to a civilized society his needs multiplied, pushing his mind in the direction of innovation and inventions.

Early man nourished himself on wild plants and vegetables and the meat of undomesticated animals. Then, to get more food and clothing man began to tame animals. After he had settled in a particular location, he felt a need for land in order to grow foods and build shelters. Accordingly his mind functioned to create and manufacture tools for tilling and harvesting, and shelter and defence. As his needs became more diverse his innovative and mental talents and gifts were further enhanced.

Although need and profit are the initial stimuli for awakening the mind, they are not permanent. These are most important until the mind begins to function on its own; once that happened and the mental faculties begin to flourish, man no longer needs an external stimulus. From then on the urge to express identity and seek power and triumph are the most potent stimuli10. The environment of the social and economic relations provides the initial conditions for the development of thought and flowering of talents.

The level of achievements and successes of the various civilizations are nothing but the outcome of the achievement of thought, expansion of talents and the opening of inner resources. What continue to remain for all eternity - following the disappearance of superficial social and material aspects of civilization - are the mental and artistic attributes, because these cannot be measured in material terms or in terms of the amount of time, work and power which have been utilized in their production11. These are not restricted to the people who have lived in a particular place at a particular time. Their values cannot be termed anything but pure human values.

The True Values: Essentials And Enhancements [Kamali]

Anything that is fit for human use and benefit possesses a true value12. The need for something that possesses a true value can be either essential or elevating. Examples of essential needs are those that are required for sustenance and survival, such as air, water, food, light, clothing and shelter. Anything from which human beings draw material, spiritual, and social comfort and benefit possesses elevating or enhancement value.

Since human accomplishment (kamal) in terms of various forces and achievements is not -quantitatively and qualitatively - limited, human needs are also unlimited and diverse. For this reason some creatures in nature and man-made goods possess little or no value at a particular time or place, whereas the same things may possess true value in other places and times. Thus, true value, essential or enhancement, is not absolute; rather it is dependent upon and relative to human existence and human desires. Food and fruits pleasant and fit for human consumption are for the sake of man's taste and special nature.

A carpet, a beautiful painting, heart-ravishing sounds, sweet odours, natural, scientific and artistic works, and instruments of entertainment all have come to acquire value because of the relations they bear to the human soul and senses. If man and his desires were taken away, everything would lose its value.

The more real value an object possesses, the more plentiful and graciously available it is to man and the less it is subject to human monopoly. Air is more essential than anything else for living organisms because no living creature can survive without it for more than a few seconds. If air becomes scarce wouldn’t it be worth enough for the capitalists to give every thing they have in exchange for some of it to breathe? Air, having such a high degree of real value, is available everywhere and affects everyone's life. In its natural form, air is not limited. Also, without water living things could not survive beyond a little longer than they are without air. These life-giving substances are available in the atmosphere, on the sides of the mountains, and in the depths of the earth.

A substantial portion of the task of providing water is performed by nature’s own ‘workers’ and forces. These unpaid ‘workers’ and ‘labourers’ blow the wind and prepare the clouds, driving them in every direction and compressing them at certain heights. They preserve water in the depths of the earth and mountains and when temperatures drop to the right level, they burst open the rocks and allow the life-giving water to flow towards those in need. In addition to air, natural ‘food’ produced by the earth is within the reach of everyone.

Because these primary resources of life arc plentiful and to obtain them human hands arc not needed - only in exceptional cases - they lack material and exchange value. Such values appear only when they become scarce or involve human labour or come under the possession of a few.

Exchange Value

There are two fundamental conditions, which make naturally available commodities and manufactured products desirable. First is real value (either essential or enhancement). Second is scarcity. Once these two conditions are met, a person needing the commodity would attempt to obtain it in any way possible. Since the establishment of societies, the legal and customary means of obtaining a commodity has been transaction and exchange.

The exchange value of a commodity is determined on the basis of the right of ownership and the degree of desirability. The latter is determined by need followed by the availability of the commodity. The exchange value of a commodity is subject fluctuations. The variations are either ‘normal’, for instance when desired commodity is in excess of or is insufficient compared to the normal supply. The fluctuations are ‘abnormal’ or artificial when there is profiteering taking place, whereby some would hoard the commodity and increase the demand artificially and cut back the supply using certain means at their disposal.

Taking this into account and from observations, it is evident that ownership right depends on the quantity of labour. The value of labour, in turn, is a function of the degree of desirability that the commodity generates. If the relative quantity of labour performed in manufacturing that commodity has been excessive and the commodity has not been as desirable as was initially assumed, the consumer cannot be penalized by having to pay for the excessive amount of labour and vice versa.

What can be said is that usually one of the factors that determine the degree of desirability is the quantity of labour performed. But it is not just any type of labour. Only that part of labour, which reflects the individual talent of the artisan and the artist, can be considered the basis of desirability and value. If the labour does not reflect the engineer’s talent in design, the artistry of a painter or his technique not only would be worthless, but also harmful. Without mental and intellectual involvement, even if a worker spends hours using construction materials or metals, and combines metals together he has only wasted the material and labour.

The person who really creates value is the one with skill and know-how and not the unthinking worker. Capital, labour, and raw materials, irrespective of how valuable they may be are merely devices for the embodiment and portrayal of craftsmanship and artistry. It is this aspect of stored labour that makes the raw material desirable and exchangeable. The more the content of understanding, intellect and talent, the higher is the material value of labour. It is the duty of the society and the government to enhance the value of human attributes and talents parallel with satisfying public needs and to respect thoughts, ideas, and talents to allow spiritual attributes to flourish.

If, instead of encouraging and stimulating these attributes, attention o is directed to the value of labour and increase in production, the result is that humans are transformed into instruments and tools, bolt and nuts of a machine. Human labour, which ought to emanate from intellect, understanding and freedom comprising human or true value, is evaluated in accordance with the amount of stored labour. The last drop of human thought, talent, and strength is used in production that in itself is nothing but the destruction of the value of labour. On the other hand, if one does not take into account the value of raw materials and the difference between the value (not ownership) of one metal or ore and another, it would amount to ignoring obvious facts that have already been mentioned.

How can we believe that the values of gold bullion and a piece or iron are equal based on the equal amount of stored labour?

Summary

To evaluate the real or exchange value of individual commodities solely on the basis of the amount of embedded labour or work performed on them is acceptable neither from a theoretical and intellectual point of view, nor from the viewpoint of reality. Considering the discussion of value presented here and the discussions and criticisms that have been advanced by researchers regarding this theory, the defence or the acceptance of the labour theory of value in a dry and limited fashion stems completely from prejudice and acquiescence.

In this regard it is rather surprising that Marx, despite his inquisitiveness and unique character, and those before him who shared his opinion have insisted on the validity of this theory and have endeavored to prove it by various justifications, economic reasoning, and formulas. Marx's position is not so surprising, and the answer to the question of why he and others supported this theory becomes clearer when one considers the conditions in the Occident during Marx's time, particularly in those countries where Marx lived and witnessed these conditions closely.

As indicated earlier, prior to and at the beginning of the industrial transformation, the views and general methods that prevailed in Europe were based on unrestricted and unlimited freedom of ownership. This free market capitalism in Europe had been accepted as natural (or the Divine) order. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, ominous consequences of this freedom were visible mainly around cities and villages and had not yet penetrated the hearts of the cities and the villages: the resulting pains and discomfort were not felt significantly. After the unforeseen and sudden occurrence of the Industrial Revolution, the deprived and the indigents gathered in factories and in central part of the cities.

The free-market capitalism put more and more stress on these indigents. After the emergence of modern industries, the stress and discomfort exerted upon the working class was not the kind that would have been exerted upon a special class in a society. The gathering of people of this class in the industrial centres of production and in the cities resulted in their becoming a central nervous system for the entire society such that its pains, sufferings, conditions, and happiness affected other classes and all aspects of the society. Therefore, plans, general theories, reforms, and hypothetical remedies could not have cured such pains and general calamity.

Human sentiments and thoughts could no longer be effective against the constantly blazing flames of greed of the capitalists. Also, the government and its laws protected the capitalists. Against these forces there were no laws or principles that could protect and secure the rights of the helpless. Under such circumstances therefore, no other recourse was left to this class but to unite and rise and destroy the existing conditions13.

Marx, with total awareness of the conditions existing during his time and with his inherent genius, understood well the roots of the oppressive order of that time and correctly identified the afflicted and their ready-to-be-aroused nerves. The study of the concept of value and Marx’s explanation of the labour theory of value and his attempt to make workers aware of their position, value, and honor was the only means to unite, assemble and make the oppressed realize their rights. Through such motivation and understanding, the workers could rise and tear off the chains of oppressive rules and regulations.

Indeed, to understand and to perceive the right that has been trampled upon is the sole motive for demanding that right, whether by those who have been enslaved or those who seek justice and possess enlightened conscience and who may not belong to the oppressed and deprived class. History shows many prophets, reformers, and great thinkers were born into wealth and the aristocratic classes, yet rose to rescue the oppressed and the deprived classes so the oppressed could demand their rights.

Ironically, the oppressed classes often were content with their existing life and even defended their oppressors and the transgressors. Once the oppressors were defeated and had to yield to the people's rights, the same indigent people followed the leaders who had made them aware of their right and justice. These facts provide testimony that class deprivation and historical conditions, in whatever form they exist, are not the sole reasons for transformation. Based on a general theory which rests on dialectics and historical necessity, Marx and those who shared his views, tried - and are still trying – to provide a theory of value and, through extensive education and propaganda, provoke class consciousness and solidarity among workers and other deprived people so as to make them aware or their lost rights.

It was this awakening of worker's consciousness that mobilized them in the industrial environment and weakened the strong foundation or the previous social order. To save the oppressed people, those who possessed conscience began to be active along with the workers and other deprived people. The elements of change and revolution that Marx and his peers had devised emerged in Russia and reached their peak in 1917 in the midst of blood and fire.

After the revolutionaries were victorious and once relative calm was restored, Marxism was tested. Until the end of World War II people of the world were not as aware as they should have been about what was going on behind the Iron Curtain. After the end of the war and the subsequent Soviet contact with the rest or the world, past developments and activities in the Soviet Union became clearer. Now the advantages and benefits as well as the shortcomings and detriments of these theories have become a subject for public scrutiny.

Soviet leaders are discussing the mistakes and divergences committed by past leaders and the errors in these theories. What is certain is that although the labour value - which forms the foundation of Marx's theory - enhances the value of workers as measured by the amount of work they perform, in practice it reduces the human value of work over a longer period of time. Although the Russian Revolution shook the world, eliminated some classes, and freed some human beings from oppression, it created a new class in the midst of the revolution, which enjoys unlimited legal privileges and has taken control of the destiny and the affairs of the rest of the people14.

Lenin himself confessed that his party was the start of the dominance of a new class. However, he believed that the existence of this class was an exception. Many communist leaders - whose names need not be mentioned here - confess that the principles of capitalism and the ensuing transgression have not been eradicated totally despite all the foresight and measures they have taken; thus privileged classes have continued to survive in different forms.

After the rise and rapid divergence of needs and growth of communication among the world population, the thoughts, views, and efforts of reform-minded individuals have been directed at finding ways and principles that would design and secure new social structures consistent with the general situation, existing traditions, customs, and specific conditions in each nation so that the lost human values and the usurped rights and freedom are restored and secured. Moreover, the new principles would eliminate prejudices regarding economic and social principles, and harmful slogans would lose their meaning and be replaced by wide-reaching thoughts and ideas and by slogans for peace and coexistence.

As the world population gets closer to each other, the faith in general relations, cooperation, and economic principles of wider applicability would take further root, and people would begin to realize the futility of restrictive economic principles which were once thought to be constant and eternal. The protective walls which once surrounded past theories und the integrity of their proponents are crumbling one by one. It is becoming constantly clear now to everyone that public pains and grief do not merely stem from ill-matched economic systems with more than merely economic impact. In fact, the imbalance in the situation is due to other deviations and distortions. Economic power is one form of power, and its significance and beneficial impact on human societies go far beyond such concepts as ‘negation’, ‘destruction’, ‘proof’ and ‘regeneration’.

• 1. ‘Dilectics’ is an ancient term. The Greek philosophers had divided the discussion and argumentation related to this into two parts – dialectics and oration. Heraclitus, who was a philosopher in the later part of the sixth century B.C. expressed the idea of a change thus: “Upon those who step into the same rivers, different and ever different waters flow down.” That is, just as it is impossible to enter the waters of the same river twice, the world too, with all its beings, time, and space, is in a constant state of motion with a moment of rest. Nothing can be considered as absolutely existing or non-existing, he maintained. Therefore, the real contradiction does not lie within beings. Contradiction is only nominal matter and dialectics rests upon relative contradictions.

  Socrates, one of the famous philosophers of the early fifth century B.C., believed in fixed truths and realities and used a distinct method in his argument. He regarded the source of intellect, moral and social degradation to be the double ignorance of those who prided their knowledge in science and arts. Therefore, by resorting to skepticism and proof, and contradiction in arguments he persuaded the other person to realize his ignorance i.e. transformed his double ignorance into simple ignorance. Then, from interstices of primary and simple perceptions, Socrates was able to reveal the correct meaning and truths from within the mind of the person. He believed that the discovery of truth was among man’s first nature but this ability had been covered by man’s preoccupation with the senses, confused imagination, pride and double ignorance. Because he used this method to reveal the truth, he referred to himself as a ‘gadfly’ of the Athenian society. His method came to be known as Socrates dialectics.

  Plato also followed the path of his master, Socrates. Believing in metaphysical truth and accepting the concept of “archetypal idea”, Plato followed progressive dialectics in his arguments and philosophical discussions.

  Although the notion of absolute form is not directly from Socrates, Plato attributes it to him in The Republic. Aristotle instituted and popularized the method of logical reasoning, which is based on logical certainty (axioms, observations, conjecture, experiments, repetition, and natural phenomena).

  The method of reasoning and logic of the Greek philosophers constituted the intellectual essence and basis for scientists and researchers for many centuries until the era of Western scientific and intellectual transformation. Among the first to innovate a special method of reaching logical certainty was the French mathematician Rene’ Descartes (1596 – 1650). To guide the intellect to the truth he utilized the method of skepticism: “I think, therefore I am…”.

  Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) adopted the method of skepticism and that is outlined in his critique of pure and practical reason. He relied upon the principle of contradiction and contract and kept pure thinking away from mixing with things that would reflect on the senses.

  George Hegel (1770 – 1804) followed the views of Heraclitus in his philosophical methods and considered all beings in a state of motion and change. In methods of reasoning and other matters he followed Kant. He believed that man first begins with perception and reasoning. The prevalent logic is comprehensible by everyone but intellectual reasoning is broader and superior in which opposing poles do not come together and integration of contradictory things is impossible. By understanding the two opposite concepts, the mind discovers the truth. The absolute truth and will, similar to light and darkness, have existence neither in the mind nor in the physical world. It is the intellect that is capable of wresting sense out of contradiction between existence and non-existence, light and darkness. This, according to Hegel, is the subjective truth and at the same time the objective reality of living things. Thus, using deductive reasoning one can conclude that whatever the intellect comprehends is the truth. Therefore, the collection of contradictions shapes the truth about things. Using the same method, it is possible to arrive at higher meanings of elementary notions such as existence versus non-existence, light versus darkness.

  Hegel claims that he has been able to free logical reasoning from contradiction and contrast and has based existence, evolution, and change on contrast. This is, he maintains, because to believe in absolute existence or non-existence implies stagnation, which is contradictory to the constantly changing and dynamic nature of beings; within each being there exists its own antithesis.

  Marx has followed the Hegelian method of dialectics, contrast and motion, but contrary to Hegel, Marx believes that human consciousness is a reflection of realities. He says that causal relationships are based on gradual material changes that lead to qualitative changes. This is the very same dynamic change that exists within the nature of beings. It is similar to the gradual increase or decrease in temperature, which suddenly reaches the critical point bringing about qualitative change.

• 2. From this aspect, the theory resembles that of the unreal views of Gnosticism.
• 3. Slavery means to curtail a person’s freedom and make him the property of someone else. Just as different arrangements apply to ownership of objects, ownership of humans too has different faces. Man’s possession of his own body and labour, for example, is different from ownership of land, structures and tools. Although man owns his own body he has no right to commit suicide or sell himself.

  In summary, the right of possession is a form or ownership. Therefore, slavery which is defined as the curtailment of a person’s freedom or the confiscation of the product of his labour differs from other forms of ownership. A father or husband who interferes in the affairs of his wife and children by curtailing their freedom is a form of owner. This is also true of masters with respect to their servants, rulers and their subjects, and the captors and their detainees.

  This type of ownership and possession has existed among nations and tribes in various degrees. The greater is the capability of maintaining ownership and exploiting others, the greater are the chances that those who lack mental ability and physical strength will be subjugated. With the expansion of agriculture and other activities, (the opportunity) to plunder others and take possession of humans transcended the family and tribal boundaries. Once others were taken captive and brought into subservience, and if they were found to be worthy of domestic or military use, they would be kept, otherwise sold or killed.

  Slavery, the curtailment of human freedom, occured in various degrees depending on the power and authority of the masters, aristocrats and landlords. It ranged from depriving someone of his own crops, torture and beatings, curtailing a person’s right to a wife and children, to buying and selling, even killing and burning. This restriction of freedom did not result only from war and imprisonment. More often, the poor had to sell their wives and children in order to lessen the burden of supporting them. In some countries, the rulers and aristocrats would bring people into their possession under the pretext that they had violated the law.

  The natural reasons for slavery in history are repression, greed, privileges which had existed in limited forms among the tribes. With the advent of civilization and societies, various rules governing slavery were devised in accordance with the local conditions and ruling systems. The limits and rules governing slavery varied over time and from one place to another. Even today one can witness slavery in various forms, without its explicit label. Slavery can be seen among nations who claim to have the most advanced civilization.

• 4. The ratio of the constant capital to the variable capital is referred to as Organic Composition of Capital, or the OCC.
• 5. This refers to the labour embedded in the building, machinery and tools of production [Note by Al-Islam].
• 6. It is likely that the author was referring to concentration of wealth [Note by Al-Islam].
• 7. The author is most likely using this term referring to the production workers [Note of Al-Islam].
• 8. These verses and those that pertain to the creation of the heavens, the earth, life, death and everything that exists on earth, proclaim the betterment of life’s condition and progress to be the ultimate aim in creation.
• 9. These verses further demonstrate that an easy and rapid progress toward a better life is the result of God’s benevolence and man’s piety and submission (to the will of God). Imam Ali, peace be upon him, has also emphasised this point: “The worth of each man depends on the art and skill that he has attained” (Nahjul Balaghah, Saying 81, p 280).
• 10. It is similar to the initial phase of a fetus whose movement and growth is dependent on the mother’s womb, then it becomes independent. Or, a satellite whose mechanical power and strength is effective only to the point of the earth’s gravitational field. Once it has broken away from the earth’s gravity and gone out of the orbit, it becomes independent of its initial dynamic power.
• 11. i.e they transcend the boundaries of needs and profit.
• 12. This value is more than the exchange value and is less than the human value.
• 13. The following are views of the late Indian Prime Minister and a great man of the east, Jawaharlal Nehru regarding Marxism, taken from an interview conducted by Mr. Karanjia:

  Karanjia: I would like you to submit the Marxist analysis to the Indian situation as also other objective conditions, to which you have made references before.

  Nehru: I was coming to that. In considering what may be called the economic or social philosophy, one learns, of course, a great deal from past experience; and I have always considered the Marxist analysis of the past very scientific and very illuminating. I do not agree with everything Marx says, but broadly I have found it useful and rational. Nevertheless, the fact must be remembered that Marxism was the outcome of the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in England, the early beginnings when conditions were rather peculiar and very special, conditions which have not been elsewhere in the world and quite naturally so. Marx was influenced by the abnormal and, I should say, abominable conditions which prevailed in the first flush of industrialization when there was nothing like a democratic structure of the state and changes had to be made violently for the simple reason they could not be made constitutionally or democratically. Hence his doctrine of revolutionary violence.

  Now when we face the problem of production, change etc, death with by Marx, today, we have to think of them in the context of our own times, our own country and our peculiar circumstances and objective conditions. We cannot go back to the conditions in the early nineteenth-century England, in which Marx functioned. It is our conditions that prevail and fashion our thought. The Marxist solutions follow a brilliant line. They may have been right and proper for the times and the problems have brought them into being, but you cannot remove them from their historical context and apply them to a century where different conditions prevail. That is one argument against dogmatic insistence on the Marxist solutions.

  Secondly, the Marxist analysis of many things, historical forces and the like, was in vacuo a correct analysis. Let me explain what I mean. If you do not think of other forces coming into the picture, the direction of the Marxian economics, which says that given such and such conditions, this or that will happen, or should happen, is logically correct. But the trouble is that Marx does not take into account other forces that might come into play in the future. That, of course, was not the faults of Marx. He saw the conditions as they were during his period and used them as the premises for his conclusions. Then other forces came in. The most important of them was political democracy, which made possible peaceful changes. Remember that in Marx’s time, there was no political democracy, even in the so-called democratic countries, where the land-owning class was in the government. Now, the mere fact of the vote coming in, even though it does not solve the problems, does make and has made vital differences. When everybody has a vote, it becomes a power exercising certain pull, certain effective pressure, in the direction of social change to an extent that Marx could not have conceived, simply because the picture was not before him.

  Then other and further democratic factors came into the picture, like trade union bodies, workers’ organizations, peasant organizations – all exercising powerful pressures upon the wealthy ruling class in favour of what might be called the beginnings of economic democracy. The result was that the Marxist fear in the context of the Industrial Revolution, that there would be greater and greater concentration of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands, extending and widening poverty, did not really occur. These pressures – partly democratic, partly trade union and others that followed – had a powerful impact in limiting both. I do not dispute the fact that the economic tendency which Marx foresaw did happen, but it was limited and inhibited all the time by these objective conditions.

  There were new types of organizations growing in the political background, which was changing continuously and radically, on one side, accelerating the urge for social justice and the will for social change. On the other, the world was being revolutionized by really big and tremendous technological developments, of which nobody in the nineteenth century – Marx or any other thinker – could have had any awareness of. [R. K. Keranjia, The Mind of Mr. Nehru (London: George Allen & Unwin LTD. 1960), pp 27 -30].

• 14. In any case, predictions and promises that were expressed about this child of the revolution have turned out to be something else. Two dominant and powerful classes – the bureaucracy and the military – have emerged in the communist countries. If we consider the emergence of these two classes as necessary for the revolution and their continuous existence, they should be expected to disappear gradually. But as time progresses, their true faces appear and their foundation becomes stronger. In confronting the bureaucracy and the military classes, the capitalist and working classes (the proletariat) have lost their class identity and no longer play a decisive and effective role in the struggle for social change. In communist countries, finding the solution and the power to confront the two newly emerging classes are among the most difficult issues. In summary, what has occurred was not foreseen and that which was foreseen has not occurred.