Power, possession, and needs, on the one hand, and the usefulness of things, on the other, have brought forth the relations of, and the desire for, ownership. This term ‘relations’ means that ownership constitutes the authority over the right to possess things which living creatures have obtained. The principle of ownership, intrinsically and as a natural fact, pre-exists ownership as an extrinsic and legal matter. Ownership as a source of legal rules and regulations is a later development from which has grown economic, social, and political ideologies. Thus, before considering the legal and extrinsic aspects of ownership, one should observe the desire for and the right of ownership among animals as among human beings.

Ownership: The Human Nature And The Animal Instinct

An object (a box or a toy) given to or obtained by a child is considered the property of the child. If one attempts to take it away by force, the child will defend the right of ownership and by crying and groaning, will seek assistance from others to retain that right. This sense of defending one’s possessions can also be observed among animals. An animal that builds a nest or hunts for food will consider both to be its possessions, and will treat any intruder as an aggressor and will defend itself with the power of reliance on its rights.

Other animals also aid one another in defense of rights. Take crows, for example, how fiercely and with what commotion they defend their nests and resist when confronted with a crowd of latecomers who want to take away their nests and how they are supported by other crows. The females of some species of birds, which build their nests alone, consider their right to the nest above that of their mates; once the chicks are hatched and have learned to fly, and their needs fulfilled, the females drive the males from the nests. However, if both mates help build the nest they live together to the end.

Ant holes and beehives are the properties of the respective species, and often they use them to store food and other needs with confidence and defend their properties against the aggressors. Therefore, the reasons for and evidence of the instinctive nature of the principle of ownership among animals seem, more or less, obvious.

Ownership among primitive people - as among animals - is limited to, and in accordance with the level and duration of use. Animals and primitive people limit their ownership rights to just a few things, and once their needs are met, they will abandon them. Primitive men considered hunting tools, fire making kits, caves, and shelters part of their property and when basic needs had been satisfied, they abandoned these properties and did not object to their use by others.

Their descendants, who are a representation of man’s primitive way of living, behaved in this fashion and considered much of their belongings to be collectively owned. Nevertheless, primitive men respected private ownership and considered it as part of his existence, just as a person considers himself the owner of the organs of his body, and cherishes the wealth he has acquired, traded, or inherited as part of himself.

For this reason, primitive men - irrespective of legal rules and regulations - declared the right of ownership over a bush, a piece of rock, a tree, or a branch by tying a piece of rag or a string around them or by cutting special marks into the trunks of trees. Others respected his rights and did not violate them.

This basic principle of ownership, which has an established origin, has - in accordance with situations and conditions - taken different qualitative and quantitative forms throughout history. For instance, among some tribes and clans movable and immovable objects belong to everyone, whereas among others, ownership was restricted to the land. In some cases, things belonged to the whole tribe, in others the ownership belonged to a clan or a family, and yet in others it belonged to individuals.

An investigation of the types of ownership and their different characteristics belongs to the subject of the history of ownership. The general purpose of this book is to argue how ownership - as a result of improvements in the means of production and increase in wealth and the number of consumers as well as progress in civilization - has become as source of social imbalance and disequilibrium and class wars, and deprived man of comfort and tranquility. Can a definite and permanent solution to this problem be found?

Although the evolution of ownership and its progress in matters related to economics have facilitated – in some respect – man’s life and influenced his intellectual evolution, yet in some other respect this same evolution has become one of the ever-growing problems in his life. Men of ideas and reformers have constantly expressed theories and ideas for the solution of this problem. None has thus far proved to be the ultimate solution. A great many people maintain that these problems are among those that are impossible to resolve and will remain so permanently.

The root of the problem begins from the moment man turn his will and attention to his instincts and fulfillment of his desires, and is not content with satisfying basic necessities. Since he was created to be independent and free, he tries to expand his domain as much as possible. As wealth and the desire for ownership have gained importance through the course of history, and as the means of production improved, man's attention to them also increased and this desire has become so important that it has undermined the spiritual, moral, and political values.

As mentioned earlier, in a simple primitive society the desire for ownership was limited to objects that were useful for their similarly simple way of life. That is, ownership was simple and limited both qualitatively and qualitatively. One owned a shelter, a tree, and a piece of rock or wood to the extent that he could utilize them. As he moved away from that location and abandoned these objects others took over their possession of them.

After individual and family life was transformed into tribal and community life, the significance of possession and ownership grew until it reached the phase of production, distribution and consumption, and consequently wealth accumulation. From this point onward ownership went beyond the boundaries of fulfilling basic needs and took deeper root in man's nature. From here emerged morally damaging traits - greed, envy, rivalry, and animosity.

The Beginning Of The Division Of Labour, Distribution, Barter, Money, And Capitalism

At the beginning of this era, production was carried out to the extent that distribution of products and consumption by individuals and tribe - which had gathered to satisfy their needs collectively - warranted. Parallel to the growth in needs, division of labour emerged in production. With improvements in the means of production, division of tabor, and increase in productivity, the era of exchange or trade arrived. Through barter trades, needs were better and more easily met. Every group or individual, according to its particular function, produced goods and exchanged any surplus with goods produced by others to meet the rest of its needs.

Those with physical strength and innovative ability produced more and their natural instinct for the love of property and the accumulation of wealth grew. They hoarded the surplus left from initial barer exchange and after their basic needs were fulfilled, they used the surplus to acquire other goods. In this period, since buying and selling was in the form of barter exchange and commodities were susceptible to deterioration and wastage, concentration of wealth differences in standards of living were not appreciable. As societies expanded, and needs and markets grew, it became increasingly difficult to determine and agree on the exact values of the commodities traded. To facilitate trade and to agree upon and determine value, money was used. It represented, at first, a standard unit of value and a medium of exchange.

At this stage buyers and sellers were indistinguishable and it no longer became necessary for the owners of capital and money to supply the market with their commodities when the public needs warranted it. Instead, they stored their commodities for as long a period as the commodities did not perish in order to sell them at a higher price. The money obtained in this fashion could be kept in strongboxes and used only when needed and only in amounts required.

Often there were producers who could not exchange their goods at the right time and for the appropriate values because the capitalists determined the value of goods for their profit. The capitalists bought commodities at lower prices in order to hoard, and when the opportunity arose sold them at a higher price to consumers or the original producers and collected even more money.

Gradually the producing and working class - their physical capacity, labour and belongings all fell under the control of the moneyed and wealthy and they became their servants and slaves. Once this occurred, the capitalists took possession of the land as well as natural resources. This process continued to a point where money - which at the beginning was created only to set the standard of value and facilitate trade - became more valuable than the commodities and became more than just a means of exchange.

As a result of this process usury became widespread and money itself became a source of power. Therefore, a class having access to money was also able to control human and natural resources and eventually governments. The natural order of the society – spiritually and morally – also underwent a fundamental change. Human talents and virtues stopped growing and the sense of cooperation and benevolence withered.

The instinct for survival – inherited from the animal world - now reappeared in wars and manifested itself in man's cruelties. Unity and social harmony were replaced by class differences, antagonism, and division. The poor and the deprived lined up against landlords and owners of wealth and their serfs who already had the government under their control. In such situation, if a solution had not been found, talents would have been used to promote animosity and vengeance. Peace and security would have forsaken everyone and would have been replaced with anxiety. A period of decline and the destruction of the society would have occurred.

The Emergence Of Theories And Laws

In any community where the system of ownership and economic conditions are in disequilibrium and the danger of destruction and disorder appears, usually men of perception and constructive ideas begin seeking a remedy by devising new laws. Such men attempt to rouse humanitarian sentiments and direct the attention of those who possess money and wealth to their social responsibilities. Men of goodwill propose theories and advanced ideas towards the attainment of a just and desirable society in order to prevent the collapse and destruction of the society. But since these attempts are not reinforced by faith, religious beliefs and human spirituality, their impact if any is at best transitory. Such remedies do not restrain man's desire to accumulate wealth.

Many thinkers are not persuaded to recognize that the socioeconomic conditions are the result of actions of individuals and classes in society. Moreover, many thinkers do not recognize that actions and behavior are manifestations of human morality and innate qualities and that outward appearance cannot be considered removed from conscience and the inner self. However, it must be recognized that any theory or law, which does not rely upon the inner self and morality lacks stability and permanence and will not be practised, as it ought to.

Is it not true that any new theory, law, or alteration in the system of ownership must be brought about by some authority? But if authority does not emanate from faith and spirituality, no change can occur, as the executors of these laws and theories will be the very same human beings who love wealth.

For this reason, in eastern countries, thanks to various religions and reformers, faith, social responsibility, and human affection have penetrated and grown deeper roots. Although in the ancient times these countries had no extensive written secular codes and religious laws governing financial and economic affairs (and where, more often than not, vast differences in standards of living prevailed), they have been confronted with fewer crises and class disorders.

Consequently, they have had little by way of economic and social theories and hypotheses. Jewish tribes, with all their love of wealth, had settled in urban areas and as long as religious laws and preaching ruled amongst them and they lived under the guidance of the prophets of Israel, they were not afflicted with class differences.

In Iran, as soon as the religious leaders collabourated with those in power and transgressed upon the rights and property of the people, thereby weakening the foundation of faith, class differences intensified and amid this situation individuals like Manes and Mazdak revolted in the defence of the rights of the deprived classes.

In ancient Greece and Rome, before the emergence of Christianity, class differences had escalated and severe crises had occurred. Amid these crises responsible men and eloquent speakers emerged who were in empathy with the deprived classes and preached among them. By means of poetry and sermons they compared the lifestyle of the aristocracy and the wealthy with those of the poor and deprived, and persuaded the lower classes to organize. But those reformers did not possess codes of law and social plans which would have provided justice and ensured the rights of the deprived people.

As a result, before they could even assume power they were eliminated; they were able to wrest power into their hands for a brief period of time but eventually yielded to the wealthy. Once the governments - which were representatives of the aristocrats and the wealthy - sensed danger, they adopted such tactics as false promise of reforms or enacting laws that temporarily provided some hope to the discontented. But as soon as the danger of rebellion – reduced by the employment of such preventive measures – subsided, the economic situation went back to what it was before.

Although ancient Greece was a center of civilization and science, it did not have a specific religion or universal beliefs and principles governing and binding all classes. Their beliefs were based on and bound up with vague imaginations of their previous tribal existence. After the Greeks settled and formed societies, the landowning and aristocratic classes which had become wealthy by means of trade and. maritime transportation emerged as rulers.

Before these rulers stood the deprived, the serfs, and the workers who constantly opposed and engaged in wars against the ruling class. This internal strife and opposition, along with external wars that they constantly faced exposed the Greek society to destruction and collapse. This situation became a source of inspiration to scholars and men of ideas to express opinions and devise theories and laws in order to establish justice and bring about unity.

Conceptualization And Hypotheses Of An Ideal State

A few of these philosophers and farsighted, reform-minded persons realized that neither ordinary government nor the laws of that time guaranteed social justice and secured public rights. They thought the way to achieve a just and harmonious society was to design a society and implant such an image and ideals that it would gradually gain acceptance and followers. Perhaps in some
corners of the globe, the plan could become a reality and its mental image would evolve to become a physical reality.

The first and most famous of these idealized societies is Plato's. Having become extremely angered by the oppression and cruelty of the ruling class - and the social and economic injustices of Greek society, which had sent an innocent man like Socrates to his death and seeing people suffer and under stress - Plato employed his power of intellect and unparalleled mind to design a just and harmonious society. In The Republic, Plato had drawn with precision and powerful arguments the means of realizing such a government; in this work he considers the establishment and maintenance of such an ideal state to be related exclusively to a proper and careful training of the rulers.

He first divides persons possessing various aptitudes into three classes: (1) farmers and craftsmen (2) auxiliaries, and (3) rulers. He considers specialization of labour and division of classes in accordance with various aptitudes of the people to be the base and the foundation of the ideal state.

Plato then proceeds to describe the spiritual, physical, and ethical training of those who from their childhood possess an aptitude to rule and govern others. In his opinion, once these individuals successfully pass tests at every academic and scientific level, the right to govern belongs to them. They must assume the affairs of the government These individuals must be housed in a special location inside the country to live in tents or in military barracks and must not own property, houses or estate beyond the barest essentials. The simple houses must not have closets and storage space: ration and salaries which they would receive from the people must be enough for each year's needs with nothing extra. They should be aware that their souls are a precious treasury of divine gold and silver which are incorruptible and unchanging and that they are able to do without earthly gold and silver by which they would be susceptible to corruption.

These potential rulers must not keep such objects under their roofs and they must not carry anything made of gold or silver, and they must refrain from eating and drinking from gold or silver dishes so that they will be able to safeguard perfectly reserves of carnal soul, the social order and the prescriptions of law. To obtain property and collect gold and silver are dangerous for all classes in such society, particularly rulers who if they accumulate gold and silver, will turn into farmers and bankers instead of rulers. The fire of hatred and greed might flare up among themselves and between them and the people. They would live constantly in fear about the security of their properties and gradually begin to covet the property of the peasants and the masses.

Consequently, instead of acting like watchdogs they would be transformed into bloodthirsty wolves! Such rulers must watch over other classes so that the accumulation of wealth by some does not impoverish others, and that the hoarding of land, gold, and silver does not create disputes and rifts in the ideal state.

This is a brief look at Plato's theory with regard to ownership in the ideal state. We should note that Plato himself admitted that the theory is absolutely impractical. At the end of his book, in response to a question asked by one of his students as to whether or not the plan was practical, he replied that if such a plan could not be implemented on earth, then it had to be the only form of a just government in heaven.

Once Plato had realized that the plan of The Republic was impractical and, moreover, that it was incomprehensible to the public, he wrote another book entitled The Law in which he described the concept of the ideal government in a manner easier for public comprehension and more suitable for practice, and provided a detailed legislative form. In The Law, Plato considered limited ownership for the rulers permissible.

Aristotle was more concerned with the practical realities and regarded Plato's theory as impractical and inadmissible, because Plato had restricted the role of classes and individuals in the ideal state and, hence, he had ignored their happiness and freedom. Aristotle claimed that if classes and individuals in a society were not free in their work and efforts and in expressing their talents, they would not be as interested in life as they ought to be and public happiness and welfare could not be safeguarded.

Aristotle considers the country as an extended family and regards each family to be the foundation of the country. The same relations that are common among family members and between them and the head of the household must also prevail among the various classes of people and the government. According to Aristotle, wealth is a necessity for a family's livelihood and anything in excess should not be permitted. A job or a profession intended for the collection and accumulation of wealth is wrong, even harmful. Trades and exchanges must be based upon the buyer's need for the commodity and the seller’s need dispense with that commodity, and not for the acquisition of wealth and money. Money is a means of exchange and must not become an instrument for collecting wealth and usury. If money becomes a means to accumulate wealth, disputes and disruptions would arise. Like his teacher Plato, Aristotle considers involvement by the professionals – craftsmen and farmers - in the affairs of the government in admissible due to their special psychological and physical characteristics.

Another student of Socrates, Xenophanes (570-480 B.C.), stated that ownership meant having absolute freedom; he first attached importance to agriculture, then to commerce by way of maritime transport. He recommended that the government establish commercial enterprises and promote mining, particularly gold and silver, and that the government maintain control over these sectors.

Among the legacies of ancient civilized countries and the Romans, before the influence of Christianity, we do not find independent and documented theories of ownership and economics. Roman theories followed those of Greek scholars and after the permeation of Christianity into Roman territories and Eastern Europe, economic conditions and the system of ownership were influenced by Christian teachings and adapted to natural and national customs.

After the destruction of the Roman Empire by invading tribes and during the first part of the Middle Ages Europe fell into chaos, murder, and plunder. After peace and tranquility were restored in the cities there followed a period of aristocracy, wealth and splendor. In the littoral regions and vast lands of the European continent common profession for a long time comprised thievery and plundering, farming or herding of sheep and cattle. The only consolation the deprived people had were the teachings of Christianity that inspired a sense of mercy among the wealthy and the aristocracy.

Only the religious leaders kept the people on the path of justice, fairness, sustenance, tolerance, and obedience to the laws of the Old Testament and the ethical rules of the New Testament. The religious leaders reproached the wealthy and the usurers and collected funds from them for the benefit of the poor, for charity and the expenses of the churches. During the entire Middle Ages the church and the church councils were the source of judicial settlement of disputes as well as religious teachings. During this period most scholars and writers were Christian theologians whose source of ideas and thoughts were the prophetic revelations, at times mixed with the teachings of Greet scholars, particularly Aristotle.

Towards the end of the Middle Ages in Europe - following the consolidation and expansion of commerce and agriculture - the landlords, capitalists, and the wealthy emerged more powerful than ever. Usury and hoarding of money, gold, and silver became prevalent. The ruling classes relied upon and needed the capitalists and their wealth for the continuation of their authority and maintenance of the army. Class differences and economic disorder were on the rise. Amid such transformation and changes various economic theories emerged reflecting particular conditions as well as the circumstances pertaining to the training and class orientation of the theoreticians.

As a result, none of these theories was a description of general principles or offered a comprehensive solution. Some of them were in support of peasants and the poor while others supported the interests and rights of the aristocracy, landlords and merchants or the leaders of the Church.

From the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of modern times, Europe was undergoing a historical transition. The discovery of America in 1492 had a profound impact on this transition. Amid these dramatic changes, thinkers and learned men demanding justice appeared. Since they considered the existing theories limited, inadequate, and ineffective for building a superior and just life, they instead preoccupied themselves with imaginary assumptions hoping they would be able to prepare the public mind for the building of a superior way of life.

Sir Thomas More (1478- 1535)

More was one of those who lost hope of establishing social justice on earth - in Europe - hence he constructed an imaginary country. The sweet memories of Plato's ideal state and the brotherly life of the early Christians, and the important impact of the discovery of America evoked thoughts of an ideal society in his conscience.

As Prime Minister of England he resisted the injustices of the King of England and the Pope. For this act of disobedience, he was deposed, tried, and condemned to death, and he died bravely. More's Utopia was published, after his death. In this book he describes the social structure of an imaginary island in the words of a ship's captain who travelled around the world accompanied by several discoverers of the American continent. The captain, dissatisfied with injustices and wars, has come to the conclusion that wherever there is private ownership, and money is used a standard measure of value for everything, justice and happiness disappear; the best bounties of the earth would go to the worst and the ignoble, and a minority would divide the wealth among themselves while others lived in a quagmire of poverty and suffering.

On this island the captain would have the people work six hours a day and spend the rest of their time reading, discussing, and improving their spiritual life. Since the islanders would be aware of the dangers of gold and silver they would abhor them, using them only to make chains and yokes to shackle the guilty and criminals.

Thomas Campanella (1578 - 1639)

Also, among those who wanted to calm their indignant minds by perceiving an imaginary country and died wishing for such a country on the face of the earth was Thomas Campanella, an Italian priest, who had intended to revolt and as a result was condemned to spend twenty-seven years in prison. While serving his term he authored a book entitled The Sun Country where he describes a ship's captain who during his travel around the world succeeds in meeting a group of Indians taking refuge from the oppression and injustices of their rulers in a tropical area.

These Indians live a brotherly and communal life: the rooms in the houses, the beds and everything are communally shared. Once every six months the judicial council decides who should occupy a particular room and writes the person’s name above it. They have everything and the means of livelihood are accessible to everyone. Yet they are not anyone's property. The work, too, is divided equally and no one works for more than four hours a day. Food is plentiful and the young take care of the elderly who live to be more than one hundred or even two-hundred-year-old. There are no servants and everyone has to carry out his own tasks. Murders, thefts, and adultery do no exist. No sin is committed. What are considered to be sins are: laziness, ingratitude, lying, and grief. In The Sun Country the sun is respected and God worshipped. Their society is close to the one envisioned by Christ and Plato.

Denis Diderot (1713 - I784)

Diderot in one of his books describes a journey to the mythical city of Otaiti. For example, the traveller says that the aged host, while seeing him off, had said, in effect: We are innocent and fortunate people and you will not be able to destroy our happiness. We live in accordance with nature’s law and you cannot rub off nature's color from the mirror of our souls. Here everything belongs to everybody; do not try uselessly with your speeches to impose ideas upon us that we are unable to comprehend.

Whatever is needed for the comfort of life belongs to us. Are we to be belittled for not wanting to accumulate in excess of our needs? Any time we feel hungry we have food, and when cold we, we have clothes, and this is sufficient because if we go beyond this limit we would have to work hard for the rest of our lives.1

Theories and idea of utopian communities emerged toward the end of the Middle Ages and during the beginning of modern times and civilization. They indicated, on the one hand, a lack of legal, social and economic principles capable of regulating every aspect of the modernizing countries, which were evolving in the direction of urbanization from nomadic life. On the other hand, these theories and ideas of utopian communities were expressions of the widening gap and conflicts among classes, which obliged men of thought and ideas to look for a solution to bring about order to that disorderly situation.

Since conditions in those countries were in a state of flux, such men were unable to express specific ideas and opinions and propose specific, practical laws. All they could speculate and write about dealt which those principles and ideas that had remained in their minds from the earlier teachings of Greek scholars and Christianity. These principles and ideas did not harmonize with the European environment of that era and were impractical. Perforce they were content with description of theories of an ideal state, hoping that conditions for their realization would be made available and that such hypothetical ideas could be established in some corner of the earth.

As was pointed out, in ancient Rome and Greece principles and regulations concerning ownership and economic relations did not exist. It was only after the spread of Christianity, sometimes mixed with Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotle's, that effective rules for regulating economic relations began to be used among people who followed its teachings. After the Renaissance - which began approximately in the middle of the fifteenth century at about the same time as printing - an unprecedented economic transformation occurred, concurrent with the transformation of ideas and science, the discovery of America, European access to the mineral wealth of the new continent and other continents, and the expansion of foreign and domestic trade.

Europe, which was suddenly faced with new ideas and a new way of life, abandoned the teachings of Christ and the rule of the Church. Thus, Christian teachings or general and imaginary theories could not help them to bring forth ideas and methods to regulate and to adjust social and economic relations. Therefore, the thoughts of men of ideas were directed to finding limits to and prescriptions for order in the existing situation and possibly in the social and economic relations between classes. But principles and regulations derived from existing conditions could not stay fixed and unchanging everywhere and forever; naturally they had to change in accordance with social changes.

And if we believe in fixed and general principles regarding economic relations (known as the science of economics) after the passage of many years since the birth of this science, we would find no more than a few principles around which other issues revolve.

Mercantilism

Toward the end of the fifteenth century when urban living was expanding in Europe and partial security was being established in cities, maritime transport enabled Europeans to travel to distant continents and gain access to vast domestic and foreign markets for commerce. Commercial goods were imported from and exported to every corner of the globe, and shiploads of gold and silver poured in from newly discovered America, Africa, and India. In such an atmosphere, men of mental and intellectual agility - who were able to inveigle gold and money from the public and governments – emerged. These new entrepreneurs advocated different ideas to achieve this purpose and believed in the supremacy of commerce and money over agriculture and industry. Subsequently, their methods and advice came to be known as the economic doctrine of trade or mercantilism.

The Physiocrats

With the daily expansion of domestic and foreign commercial markets in Europe and the opening up of new sea lanes, accompanied by the emergence of industries, concentration of money and wealth in the cites and expansion of the power of governments and policing authorities, the peasants migrated to the booming cities and were absorbed by governments, companies and commercial centres. As money began to be used more widely as a medium of exchange and commerce, and urban living flourished, the agricultural lands grew more barren and villages became impoverished.

The level of agriculture output declined. With the abundance of gold and money in cities, the means of livelihood for the majority of people diminished. In such social climate, and against this background of public and economic relations, new ideas emerged. Because their proponents adhered to common principles they came to be known as the Physiocrats.

The main principle of their theory was that agriculture was the only natural and increasing source of production. Commerce and industry, although useful, were sterile and unproductive, they maintained. They called merchants and artisans the 'sterile class', because their function was to collect commodities and raw materials. The manufacturer merely altered the shape of the raw material and then distributed it among the people. Agriculture, however, followed a multiplicative formula; a farmer spread the seed in the soil and what he reaped was a multiple of what he had planted.

The merchant and manufacturer were dependent upon the farmer who in turn depended on the inexhaustible resources of the land. Agriculture, they decreed, was similar to the blood flowing in the body of society among different classes and individuals, and the benefit was returned to the farmer, who in turn was connected to the land.

From this point of view, the physiocrats came to believe the order of life in general must depend on natural order, and in society, economics and ethics could not be disassociated from each other. They defined natural order as follows: It is a self-evident order and can be understood by everyone: to comprehend the self-evident truths, one must be set free and be detached from the bounds of habit and acquired knowledge, which is that one must possess the spirit of physiocracy.

They argued that this order is beyond human will, scientific comprehension, and social contracts, and that it is unchanging, eternal, and divine. For the sake of happiness of the society it must be studied, discovered, and put into practice. They would sometimes liken the social order to that of insects such as the honeybee; this likeness drew its roots from the Greeks. Plato in describing the ideal state compared the division and skills of various classes and their non-interference with one another to those of the honey bees and stated that non-working male bees were like the aristocratic class or parasites who make unjustified demands and consume the fruits of labour of the producing classes. They do not work and are lazy. One of the physiocrats in one of his satirical poems also made use of this comparison until he angered some of the 'male bees' of his time and was compelled to justify his metaphor.

These were the general principles and scientific ideas of this group. Their practical contribution was the following: since the interest of the society are provided for within the interests of its individual members, the individuals must remain free as created in order to reveal their talents and initiate good relations amongst themselves. Competition at work must be unrestrained so that production and capita are boosted and prices are determined naturally between the buyers and sellers for mutual benefit. Work must be divided and categorized. The physiocrats considered private ownership of land md natural resources to be legitimate.

Although the physiocrats believed in the freedom of work and domestic and foreign trades, they still supported government efforts in levying taxes imposing restrictions whenever by public interest. Because the physiocrats were a group of thinkers and agreed on the same fundamental principles, they came to be known by this name. Owing to chaos and lack of a clear economic order at the time their ideas gained some currency. One of the most famous physiocrats was Francois Quesnay, and their well-known slogan was “Unfortunate is a country whose farmers are deprived and poor”2

The most serious shortcoming of their scientific ideas and practical methods was that they considered the social and economic orders to be related to actual natural order. The basis of discovery and realization of such natural order is unknown and subject to varied opinions. For this reason, although their ideas at the beginning of the era of transformation were received with enthusiasm, and focused the attention on economic issues and stimulated thinking, they also became a source of conflicts and a subject of criticism and eventually conclusive result was not realized.

In fact, in some European countries such as France the spread of physiocracy weakened the economic order. In subsequent years, scholars and men of ideas began to debate, criticize, and eliminate some of the deficiencies and shortcomings in the physiocrat ideas after which attention began to be focused on the subject of value.

Adam Smith (1722-1790)

During the first phase of the Industrial Revolution and the invention of the steam engine, concurrent with the spread of physiocracy in France, certain schools of classical economic thoughts were of flourishing in England. Adam Smith was one of the originators of the classical school. He initially specialized in the field of ethics, and then studied the ideas of physiocrats (especially Quesnay) as well as other economic theories until he wrote an eloquent investigative book using examples and statistics entitled An Inquiry into the Origins and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

The principal elements of Smith's ideas, which can be discerned from the collection of his writings are as follows: the real order of society and economy is a ‘natural order’ - as the physiocrats believed - and this order is the same one which is molded in the free nature of individuals and societies. People are induced to work and put forth efforts because of parsimonious need and personal interest. It follows that labour is divided automatically, and from the labour performed order is restored and society will achieve its objectives.

Based on these principles Smith believed that all productive classes must be free to act, and the government – except in special cases – must not restrict the activities of individuals and classes. The government's duty is only to provide security and defence. With freedom of gainful and productive classes, the division of labour proceeds. The incentives of need and self-interest provide for the society’s interest. This ‘incentive’ is the ‘invisible hand’ and the Divine Will which rules over human will and the unconsciously motivates everyone toward fixed truth.

This orderliness of exchange, the laws of supply and demand, the general money supply and the increase in capital all rest upon this natural order and freedom. Also, the competition – like the principle of agricultural commerce and industry – must be free because perfect competition leads to good management, regulates prices, improves the quality of products, and brings about their abundant supply to consumers. Whereas monopoly destroys good management, distorts prices favouring monopolists and compels the public to consume huge quantity at any price. Good management is a good protection for all classes. Since making profit is the main incentive for economic progress, the more ways there are available for the capitalists toward making profit, the more progress will be made and the higher the wages will rise. Rent is also a return to fixed capital, which is the consequence of a limited quantity of land and restricted ownership over productive land

Unlike the physiocrats who considered land to be the primary source of wealth, Smith considered labour to be the source of wealth and, moreover, he considered commerce and industry to be productive as well. According to Smith, various classes in society are like parts of a machine, each assisting the other and collectively producing goods. Based on this principle, labour must be divided, thereby increasing cooperation among labourers. The more distinct the division of labour the greater is a worker's skill in performing his work. When confronted with difficulties and problems at work, the worker would be inspired to seek solution. Correspondingly, division of labour would reduce the time spent on the job and production would increase.

Although Smith considered commerce and industry useful and productive, he placed special importance on agriculture and contended that most capital ought to be spent on agriculture. This, in turn, would influence and accelerate other sectors of the economy. He considered excessive expansion of commerce and industry to be harmful. It is on the basis of this principle that Smith believed that a solid economic foundation rests on the shoulders of workers. He paid attention to the value or labour and based real value largely on its power.

Smith stated that the value of exchange depended upon the economic conditions of supply and demand. In his opinion the determinants of the real value of labour included skill, specialization, speed of production, the original capital, and the tools of production, but the value of exchange did not always equal the real and true value. Desires and necessities, purchasing power and excess demand drove up the prices, returning additional profits.

Once profits rise, more attention would be paid to the production of the commodity in demand and its supply would be in excess of demand. The price may sometimes diminish below the real value. In any case, price would vary around the real value. Smith thought everyone would benefit in a free and competitive market, as more of a certain commodity would be supplied to the market. Everyone would be attracted to the job he was best capable of performing and in this way, specialization would be achieved in every line of work (contrary to Plato's theory which considered human instinct to be the origin of interest n a line of work and the motive for specialization).

In summary, Adam Smith believed that absolute freedom in economic and social order was the natural order. Contrary to the physiocrats who thought that the realization of such an order was possible by way of searching for self-evident truths, Smith believed in the natural order and asserted that such a realization lay in freedom. Although his theories - including the subject of value - was ambiguous in some areas, were new and unprecedented, they attracted attention and had a profound impact on the development of commerce and industry.

Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834)

Thomas Malthus was born in England at the beginning of the era of industrial transformation amidst diverse ideas regarding solutions to the increasing unemployment and frequent economic crises. It appears that his priesthood and Christian upbringing had been influential in making him sensitive and uneasy about the events of his time. Scrutinizing the situation closely he could neither be as optimistic as Adam Smith and his peers nor perceive the nature a source of goodness and prosperity or the proposed solutions as adequate and effective. His inquiry into the reasons for injustice led him to the conclusion that the main reason for all human deprivations and social disorder was an unrestricted growth in the population.

Having realized this 'root' of social illness, the inevitable solution was irxtc1SC in population control. He detailed his ideas in a treatise, An Essay on the Principles of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society. His writings and ideas were severely criticized, which compelled him to revise them. In summary, he insists that since population grows geometrically and food production follows an arithmetic growth pattern, the amount or food available would necessarily continue to diminish. This phenomenon is the origin of all deprivation and disorder. It follows that blame does not rest with any particular class or group. The society's problems do not originate from capitalism or private ownership; the laws and regulations, too, do not help in this situation. The only solution to famine and the way to promote wellbeing is to prevent increase in the population.

A mandatory method of preventing population growth, in Malthus' opinion is to limit marriage and childbirth. Another way is for individuals and groups to refrain from giving to charity and stop contributions except in limited cases. Donations should be given only to those who arc working because charitable contributions lead to an increase in the number of non-working individuals, the lazy, and the parasites. Malthus believed that the order and laws of society and nature also prevent population growth; wars, famine, and diseases that destroy excess population are useful and beneficial to mankind. The basic principle of this theory is the struggle for existence, which inspired Charles Darwin.

Malthus believed that the structure of wages and production could be used to control an unrestricted growth of population; as wages increase and workers' welfare improves, fertility and reproduction will rise, and as this happens, wages will decline and unemployment rise, eliminating excess population. For example, given a fixed amount of land, the use of more fertilizer brings about an initial increase in profit. Thereafter profit would decline in relation to expenditures leading to a decline in incomes (the law of diminishing return).

Based on this analysis Malthus believed that people could benefit from life, but those who failed to follow these instructions and principles would automatically be ostracized from the society. He says that those who are unfit to consume nature’s bounties will be driven into oblivion and inflicted with poverty, hunger, and diseases.

This is a summary of the theories and predictions of Malthus, whom some called a pessimist, and labeled his theory “the gloomy philosophy”. His predictions about increase in the population relative to food production turned out to be incorrect. With subsequent discovery of better means of agricultural productions and the use of chemicals it has been proven that if natural resources are utilized with scientific means and the output is justly distributed among the people, regardless of the rate of population growth, people would not remain hungry and without adequate shelter. For instance, today many countries of the world are looking for solutions to their population problems and arc not worried at all about feeding future generations. Instead they are concerned more about the moral decadence and women being pushed into social activities, which have resulted in a decline in the birth rate.

David Ricardo (1772 – 1823)

Ricardo is one of the most famous economists of the classical school and is the first person that studied economic principles employing mathematics, figures, and reasoning. He was a Spanish Jew who converted to Christianity. Before becoming famous in economics, he was known as a mathematician, a wealthy landowner, and a politician. He was a member of the British Parliament.

After he wrote Principles of Political Economy and Taxation in 1817, the title of '"economist" was also added to his previous ones. He is the first economist to have raised the issue of distribution. A summary of his ideas is as given below:

1. The land – like the air – initially has no value. It is only when the best lands are possessed (by some) that they gain value. Therefore, rent3 is a legal and legitimate right.

2. Wage increases do not result in improvements in the livelihood of wage earners. Rather is a source of increase in the number of workers that subsequently lead to food shortages. Since subsistence depends on food, its shortage leads to a decline in workers’ fertility and the birth rate.4 With the increase in wages of workers and supervisors, rent declines.

3. The price of goods produced is determined by competition. The origin of value is the power of production excluding the rent.

4. Capital is a part of value and hence conflicts between workers and employers will take place.

5. Since the power of production and labour is the source of value,5 the relative quantity of labour is a measure of relative value.

6. On foreign trade he expresses a few theories and considers free trade the foundation of exchange.

Ricardo's ambiguous theories led to controversies and opened new channels of debate and discussion.

This is a brief summary of the scientific and practical principles in regards to ownership and its consequences - or, using modern terminology, the theories of economics - which have appeared in Europe. Until the era of the Industrial Revolution, opinions regarding economics centered largely on the acceptance or rejection of these principles and theories. Under closer scrutiny, it is seen that these theories were a by-product of the conditions of their era and were applicable to a particular place, and are no more than merely a few limited principles. They arc not absolute or general. It is obvious that as nature’s endowments are critically analyzed, the importance of ownership - both qualitatively and quantitatively - will be enhanced and this will lead to new difficulties and complications. To solve these new complications, new theories must appear. These new theories and the solutions they offer cannot be general scientific principles capable being applied to any time and to any place.

The Industrial Revolution

From the middle of the eighteenth century, with the genesis of new inventions and industries, a rapid and sudden revolution took place in the industrial countries of Europe. If these changes, as before, had taken place gradually, perhaps the social conditions and economic factors would have been more in harmony with them, and equilibrium and interdependence among various classes would have been somewhat maintained.

The sudden revolution in industries and means of production opened new doors for the accumulation and concentration of wealth, which in turn provided new means of seizing natural resources and quenching the thirst for profit and privilege. As a result of these desires, giant companies were formed for industrial production. The introduction of all kinds of tools and industrial equipment deprived thousands of workers of economic opportunities.

Some group, thanks to the power of manufacturing industry that were controlling the wheels of production, found new opportunities in mining. Other groups lost the chance of even the smallest economic opportunities and the doors of opportunity were shut in their faces. The enormous capital placed at the disposal of the privileged and the cartels opened new avenues for luxury, privilege and inordinate desire.

The owners of capital easily earned substantial profits and their only ‘inconvenience’ was to spend the money they acquired. The thunder and lightning of inventions and the roar of the turning wheels of production attracted complete attention of the public and the intellectuals. While powerful minds began to work to perfect new industries and inventions, consideration of the principles of religion, ethics, and social welfare were abandoned.

Amid magnificence, glory, splendor and amusements, and the flames and smoke of greed and covetousness, and the cacophony of new inventions, the cries of the deprived fell on deaf ears. Even the warnings of the men of religion and justice were not listened to. The kind of trust and friendship that the men of God had once established in the society and the sort of intimacy and mercifulness which had once connected the hearts of men gave way to vindictiveness, suspicions and animosity. The bond of faith, namely the bond of unity and cooperation weakened and broke.

Human conscience ceased to function and the feeling of mercy disappeared while the darkness of greed, egotism and profit seeking tarnished the intellects and blinded eyes. The unfortunate and the deprived, who saw their very existence exposed to the draught of covetousness of the greedy, laid in wait for their oppressors, and the headstrong, covetous men erected palaces with the blood of their victims and danced on their corpses. Whatever it was and whatever happened, day-by-day, the doors of mercy, happiness, peace and tranquility were further shut and the doors of hell, hatred and war opened.

The two poles - the rich and the poor, the workers and the employers - joined ranks and lined up against each other. The more those with power felt the impending danger, the more ruthless they became. As pressure mounted and deprivation grew, the sentiment for vengeance intensified and those under pressure became more volatile. In addition to the deprivation and difference in lifestyles, the lack of access to the means of production on the part of the masses, the breaking off of spiritual relations and bonds of faith, and the decline of morality severely shook the society's equilibrium and harmony.

It is not just that poverty and deprivation destroy equilibrium and creates opposing poles. Poverty, deprivation, and differences had always existed within nations, but never had there been such a huge gap. Differences with respect to the necessities of life had previously been of limited magnitude and the public had access to areas of work and nature's largesse. Before this rapid change, financial privileges belonged solely to those related to royal courts, the ruling class, and the aristocracy (the feudal masters).

Since such privileges were considered hereditary or divinely ordained, they did not appear to be too objectionable to the masses. But after the Industrial Revolution and the dispersion of wealth among those who did not previously possess such privileges, and upon the exposure of the splendor, luxuries and magnificent lifestyle of the privileged class to the eyes of the public, the flames of discontent, competition, and deprivation grew as if they were fanned.

Such discontent and anger cannot be attributed just to poverty and the need for necessities; the standard of life of a worker, craftsman, and farmer in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution did not deteriorate relative to that before. In a sense it even became better than the standard of living of former kings. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the monarchs did not have access to a number of luxuries that many people of the post-Industrial Revolution got to enjoy. For example, they did not have access to automobiles, electricity and recreational facilities. It was the overall displacement in life's relative equilibrium and the emergence of luxury, diversions and anticipation of privileges that brought about intense feelings of deprivation and class antagonism.

Another reason whose impact on life's equilibrium was no less than the reasons cited above was the deprivation of economic opportunities brought forth by inventions and industrialization. Small production tools of the pre-Industrial Revolution era had allowed each individual and group to remain independent, or dependent only on his own work. This created in each person 's inner self a feeling of contentment. The rise of large factories removed this sense of independence and self-worth. A factory worker, regardless of wages and his standard of living, still considers himself dependent and in need of external support. Unlike in the past, he does not feel that others need him.

Unemployment and a lack or accessibility to the means of production by a worker makes him aware or the value of his independence and allows him to acquire a sense of self-respect so that he might want to prove his independence and to make employers understand: "You need me!" Of course, pretending to have such independence is not possible, the workers must unite and organize, and sometimes strike in order to maintain their identity and demonstrate their independence. Since individually they lack the will and are helpless against the industry and shareholders might, they must organize themselves into unions.

What further intensified and flared the flames of greed, hatred, and rivalry was a decline in the moral values of various classes. As was mentioned before, the dispersion of wealth into the hands of the public at large and the rise of luxury and lust and diversion of minds to collecting, hoarding, and acquisition of wealth for their own sake, severed the cultural and spiritual bonds and weakened virtues, honor, self -respect, and faith.

Deviations of religious institutions and life in the name of religion, and religious leaders shielding those with power and wealth, the deprivation of public freedom and propagation of unscrupulous ideas and superstitions - all these became a prelude to revolution, change, and reaction in Europe. Since the reliance on faith had vanished, the role of ethics and spirituality weakened. The industrial revolution made people angrier and more pessimistic.

The following is a summary of the factors, which caused a collapse of social order and brought about disturbances in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution:

1. Wealth became concentrated among fewer groups.
2. Most craftsmen and farmers were denied access to natural resources and self-employment.
3. As a consequence or the population congregating in the cities and the rise in consumption of luxury goods, a multiplicity of desires and wants were generated.
4. The weakening of workers' and farmers' independence or identity.
5. Public consciousness as a consequence of closer contact among people and as civilization progressed.
6. Malpractices and superstitions of the proponents of religion resulted in a pessimistic and adverse reaction against religion, which further weakened the foundations of ethics and spiritual relations.

These are a few examples of the consequences of industrialization and the rise of a new civilization. As a result of industrialization, socioeconomic equilibrium and harmony vanished and the old relationship among various classes were sundered.

• 1. Denis Diderot, “Supplement au Voyage de Bougainville,” public’ d’apre’s de manuscript de Leningrad, with an introduction and notes by Gilbert Chitnard (Paris: Librarie E. Droz, 1935). This passage has been translated from Taleqani’s condensed version (tr)
• 2. Translated from the Persian translation of the original French text. No reference to the French or the Persian source is mentioned by the author (tr).
• 3. The term used by economists to describe the financial return on land.
• 4. The ‘iron law’ of Malthus.
• 5. Smith also expressed the same opinion.