Print this page
Thursday, 03 December 2015 00:00

Political Liberalism and Islam Against Capitalism

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Introduction

Liberalism seems to be the best of the human systems today. What makes liberalism preferable within secular systems is that it can change as a result of experience and in line with the demands of “civil society”. But most of the intellectuals in Türkiye unfortunately have a habit of adopting the most extreme ones of every ideology. The most extreme of liberalism is classical liberalism, that is, capitalism, which favors the complete liberalization of the market. One of his most influential contemporary philosophers from the mid-twentieth century to the present is Friedrich von Hayek. Liberals in our country follow him to a large extent. Two writers of the Yeni Yüzyıl newspaper with the title of “professor” are examples of this situation:  

Prof. Dr. Birol Kovancılar, in his article titled “I hate capitalism” on 19 November 2015, stated at this year's business world summit that Ali Koç said, “Capitalism must be eliminated for inequality to disappear. The real problem is capitalism” and he was criticizing Bill Gates’ words “I hate capitalism” that he has been saying since the 2008 World Economic Forum. Prof Dr Atilla Yayla, on the other hand, in his article titled “Capital and the Shroud” on November 20, 2015, criticized President Erdogan's speech at two sessions of the G-20 summit, urging employers to share some of their earnings with the poor by increasing the salaries of their employees. 

Liberalism as a Non-Metaphysical Ideology

The call to share was expressed only with conscientiousness in Bill Gates' words, and with both conscientious and religious grounds in his words suggesting a good memory after death, after Erdogan repeated an anonymous statement that “shrouds have no pockets”. However, Hayek (1899-1992) is of the opinion that it is not possible for anyone to know what is best, and therefore he is in favor of each individual trying what he believes he can do. Therefore, it is also against calling the market to adhere to the ethical values of society. Thus, he is in the position of one of the competent representatives of liberalism, which is described as “ideology without metaphysics” by some.

Atilla Yayla, who seems to think like Hayek, while opposing the President's call for conscientious and religiously based sharing, says, "People carry out their economic behaviors – production, saving, consumption, investment, etc. – according to the complainants” and that an entrepreneur “already” gives a share of the revenue to the workers he employs, otherwise he cannot keep them in business. However, employers generally do not have such a concern for workers, except for a few jobs that require very specific knowledge and skills. Because they do not have difficulty in finding people to work. The reason for the determination of the “minimum wage” by the state is the merciless temperament of capitalism. On the other hand, not only is the ambition to earn a lot, but metaphysical values are also human.

Hayek, whose influence is noticed in both authors, believes, just like other classical liberals, that if he is freed, the necessary order will be created in the market. However, the search for the necessary order in liberal countries' markets has not been driven by a free market understanding, but as a result of the rebellious actions of the workers throughout history, and the interventions in the form of work interruptions with strikes that became legal over time. Otherwise, it is not that the employer who has the ambition to earn a lot, which Yayla mentions in his article as “the result of the nature of man and the ecosystem in which he lives”, is “already” sharing.

In short, neither the liberal philosopher Herbert Spencer's “laissez faire laissez passer” logic with connotation of “social Darwinism” nor Adam Smith's “invisible hand” hope could lead capitalism to sharing. It is the visible and struggling hand of civil society that directs it to share, even if it is insufficient. Reducing working hours to a tolerable level, increasing wages, and establishing social security rights are all thanks to the struggle of that hand against capitalism throughout history.

That struggle took place in some cities of France in July and August 1999, after the meat imported from the USA turned out to be hormonal; In December of the same year, while protesting the World Trade Organization with slogans such as “No to free trade, yes to honest trade!”, in the city of Seattle, USA, there were clashes with the police from time to time; It was continued in Davos in January 2000, in Prague in September of the same year, in Quebec in April 2001 and in other cities of the West on different dates, as the “Seatle spirit”. Then, the global crisis that started in 2008 continued for years, and Bil Gates's first use of the phrase “I hate capitalism” was in 2008, when that crisis began. As a continuation of that crisis, demonstrations with the slogan “Occupy Wall Street” were held in 2011 against the injustice in income distribution, targeting the region where the financial centers in the USA are located, which started in Spain and spread to other countries. The organizers of those demonstrations also announced that they would invite everyone in Western countries to withdraw their money from banks. In the end, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Mun had to call, “Listen to Wall Street.” This means that the practices of capitalism, not only in history but also in the 21st century, have caused problems, but they were partially restrained after great reactions. Despite this, it still seems unrealistic to say that the capitalists "already" share their revenues with the workers.  

Despite all this, Birol Kovancılar, who continues to defend capitalism like Atilla Yayla, states that the increase in our standard of living in the last century is due to capitalism, in response to Ali Koç's statement that the above-mentioned capitalism should disappear, implying that there is no other alternative. Margaret Thatcher, who was the British Prime Minister at the time of the collapse of the USSR, declared capitalism as “There is no alternate”. However, an alternative philosophical view is developing, which tries to restrain capitalism, albeit within Western secular liberalism. Although the classical liberal Hayek accused him of being "outside of real liberalism", that view is called “social liberalism” and “political liberalism” by both its members and non-partisans. While this view is also metaphysical, it is not as indifferent to metaphysics as classical liberals.

Another Liberalism

John Rawls (1921-2002), one of the most influential philosophers of political liberalism, particularly emphasizes the difference principle and, contrary to Hayek, recommends that different should try to be beneficial to each other. In this way, he wants the advantaged to object to an application that will not benefit the disadvantaged in the society. Thus, it considers it appropriate to support the disadvantaged to a level that can be determined, and says that this can only be possible by sharing financial opportunities with them within the framework of a measure. Rawls also emphasizes that such justice is essential for cooperation between people and expresses it as "justice as fairness". Rawls should be right in this approach, because although the individual, as an employer or employee, thinks about himself first, since a person is a social creature, he should also consider social peace and be in solidarity with those who are different from himself. Rawls expresses this not with a materialistic-individualistic logic, but by addressing the emotional side of human beings such as "brotherhood, friendship".

In the meantime, it should be noted that Rawls, who says that all known belief systems are reasonable by political liberals, can easily give examples from religion and moreover Islam. Rawls cites the early periods of Islam as an example for those with differences of faith to live together. In that case, it is necessary to take a brief look at the principle that escaped Rawls's attention, which empowers the disadvantaged, that is, the economically weak, without being hostile to individual wealth in Islam. 

Capitalism vs Islam

As it is known, Islam has ordered that labor should be rewarded as a right “before the sweat of the worker dries up”. For those who are completely in need, it is stated that the poor have the right in the wealth of the rich, as a Qur'anic decree.

It is seen that that right (zakat) is more binding than Rawls's perspective it as a duty of brotherhood-friendship, since it is seen as a legal responsibility in Islam. That binding is the basis of the following words in the first sermon of the first caliph, Hazrat Abu Bakr: “The weak among you is deemed strong by me, until I return to them that which is rightfully theirs, insha Allah. And the strong among you is deemed weak by me, until I take from them what is rightfully (someone else’s), insha Allah.”

Conclusion

Not only thinking theoretically, but also looking at the results of the practices in history and today, it is understood that it will be for the benefit of humanity to bring to attention all kinds of political, economic, legal, moral, conscientious and religious explanations, provided that they are not hostile to personal wealth and employers, and then to try to end capitalism actually.

Just as it is unfair to see people chasing only material values, it is equally unfair to impose capitalism, which has many complainers from its supporters, as "there is no alternative", at least because it makes people look impotent. Even if there is no alternative to capitalism at the moment, it is worth looking for, and it should be that search that befits an intellectual.      

Read 1019 times Last modified on Monday, 15 August 2022 11:46
Hüseyin DAYI

Hüseyin DAYI  Türkçe (Türkiye) English (United Kingdom)

1952 yılında Erzurum’da doğdu. İlk gençlik yıllarından itibaren, kültürel maksatla kurulmuş çeşitli derneklerde görevler aldı. Üniversite tahsilini, İktisat ve felsefe olmak üzere iki ayrı dalda yaptı. Sırasıyla memuriyet, ticaret ve gazetecilikle meşgul oldu.

Genellikle dinî inançlar ile felsefî teorileri ve sosyal hayata etkilerini inceledi. O maksatla özellikle din, felsefe, tarih, antropoloji, sosyoloji ve sosyal psikoloji alanlarında çok yönlü okuyup düşünmeye yöneldi.

Ulusal ve uluslararası bilim kongrelerinde tebliğler sundu, hakemli dergilerde makaleleri yayınlandı.

Başta Türk milleti hakkındakiler olmak üzere, Batı’da üretilmiş millet teorileri ile milliyetçiliklerin yanlış ve zararlı olduğu şeklindeki görüşlerini dile getirdi. Türk teriminin, Türkçeyi ortak dil olarak kullanan farklı etnik kökenden Müslüman kavimlerin birleşiminin ismi olduğu şeklindeki tespitini anlattı.

Çevrecilik, insan-hayvan-bitki hakları, savaş aleyhtarlığı ve demokrasinin en sağlam temellerinin İslamiyet’te olduğunu savundu.

Dünya Gündemi, Star, Yeni Şafak, Önce Vatan ve Zaman gazetelerinde makaleleri; Yeni Asya ve Yeni Şafak gazetelerinde kendisiyle yapılan röportajlar yayınlandı.

Siyaset ve sosyal bilimler alanına “Ötekileştirmek” kavramını kazandırdı. “Devletin milleti- milletin devleti” şeklindeki tasnifi de ilgi görmektedir.

Orta derecede İngilizce bilen yazar, evli olup bir evlat babasıdır.

İlk yayınlanma tarihi sırasına göre kitapları şunlardır:

1- Batı’dan İthal Milliyetçilik ve Ötekileştirdikleri (Türkler ve “Öteki”ler, Okumuş Adam Yayınları, 2006; Türkler ve Ötekileştirdiklerimiz, TİMAŞ Yayınları, 2008, Akis Kitap Yayınları, 2012).

2- Batı’dan İthal Milliyetçiliğin Dinle Kavgası (Bilgeoğuz Yayınları, 2010; Akis Kitap Yayınları, 2012).

3- İslam Medeniyetinin Küreselliği -Başka Alternatif Yok- (Akis Kitap Yayınları, 2012).

 

Hüseyin DAYI

He was born in Erzurum in 1952. From his early youth, he took part in various associations established for cultural purposes. He completed his university education in two different branches, Economics and philosophy. He was engaged in civil service, trade and journalism, respectively.

He generally studied religious beliefs and philosophical theories and their effects on social life. For this purpose, he tended to read and think in many ways, especially in the fields of religion, philosophy, history, anthropology, sociology and social psychology.

He presented papers at national and international scientific congresses, and his articles were published in refereed journals.

He expressed his views that nation theories and nationalisms produced in the West, especially those about the Turkish nation, are wrong and harmful. He explained his determination that the term “Turk” is the name of a combination of Muslim tribes of different ethnic origins who use Turkish as a common language.

He argued that the most important foundations of environmentalism, human-animal-plant rights, anti-war and democracy are within Islam.

His articles were published in the newspapers Dünya Gündem, Star, Yeni Şafak, First Vatan and Zaman, and interviews with him were published in the newspapers Yeni Asya and Yeni Şafak.

He introduced the concept of “marginalizing” to the field of politics and social sciences. His classification as “the nation of the state - the state of the nation” also attracts attention.

The author, who speaks intermediate level English, is married and has a son.

The books, in order by date of first publication, are:

1- Batı’dan İthal Milliyetçilik ve Ötekileştirdikleri (Türkler ve “Öteki”ler, Okumuş Adam Yayınları, 2006; Türkler ve Ötekileştirdiklerimiz, TİMAŞ Yayınları, 2008, Akis Kitap Yayınları, 2012).

2- Batı’dan İthal Milliyetçiliğin Dinle Kavgası (Bilgeoğuz Yayınları, 2010; Akis Kitap Yayınları, 2012).

3- İslam Medeniyetinin Küreselliği -Başka Alternatif Yok- (Akis Kitap Yayınları, 2012).

Login to post comments