Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The September 11 counterattack on America has created a crisis of legitimacy for the West. The collapse of communism had recreated faith in Hegel’s hope of “an end of history” and of the final triumph of capitalism. The counterattack on the T in To ers seeks to refute this faith. !an capitalism be transcended" #s capitalist order natural or merely historical" At least until the rise of $orbache% most &ar'ists seemed to belie%e in the possibility ( perhaps the ine%itably ( of the transcendence of capitalism. This belief seems to ha%e been abandoned by all socialists) e%en by !hina and !uba and the !*# +&, hich rules #ndia’s -engal. These regimes mimick the market) elcome Western cultural imports and institutionali.e democratic practices. The socialist challenge to the capitalist system as a hole has disappeared ( although post modernist single issue mo%ements) +anti globali.ation) feminism) gay rights) en%ironmentalism) all partly influenced by socialist thought, continue to appose isolated aspects of capitalist order. Transcending capitalist order ( its norms) regulatory regimes transactional forms ( is not on the agenda of any of these single issue mo%ements. #s it on the agenda of #slamic re%olutionaries" Huntington seems to think it is) for he speaks of “a clash of ci%ili.ations” +it is one of the great merits of Huntingten’s ork that he implicitly e/uates Western “ci%ili.ation” ith capitalism,. 0thers +e.g. 1o'ana 2uben) 3oseph 4ye, speak of a “ci%il ar in #slam” in hich the West has become entangled reluctantly. 5oes this “ci%il ar” pose a threat to the e'istence of capitalism as a orld order" What sort of state ill the &u6ahideen establish) a national #slamic state seeking its “rightful” place in global capitalist order" 0r a uni%ersal state threatening capitalism ith permanent re%olution" There is certainly an intellectual di%ide) if not a “ci%il ar”7in the &uslim orld. A si.eable proportion of the &uslim intelligence sees capitalist order as natural and subordination of #slam to capitalist order as ine%itable +indeed desirable,. &ost of the leaders of &uslim thought ( the ulema and the soofia ( are non committal. They do not fully appreciate capitalism as a orld order and are some hat confused and be ildered by the systemic challenges posed by the &u6ahideen. A microscopic minority of &uslim thinkers is beginning to theori.e the #slamic struggle against capitalist orld order. This book seeks to make a preliminary statement of the #slamic case against capitalism. We &uslims ould like to understand the West’s claims about the uni%ersality and necessity of its fundamental modes of historical e'perience) its claims that there are no alternati%es to capitalism and democracy. This book begins by describing the conception of the self that as de%eloped by the 2nlightenment philosophers. #t situates this self in capitalist order by describing this order in brief detail at the le%el of the market) ci%il society and the state. The relationship of the market and the state in globali.ing capitalism is described and the crucial role played by America in sustaining this order is e%aluated. !hapter three focuses upon three social sciences ( economics) political science and social theory ( hich are based on 2nlightenment ontological and epistemological assumptions and hich 6ustify capitalist order. This discussion also illustrates ho these social sciences pro%ide a technology for the go%ernance of capitalist markets) societies and states. !hapter four analy.es the #slamic response to the uni%ersali.ation of capitalist order. #t sho s that #slamic mo%ements ha%e adopted a re%isionist approach) seeking to accommodate #slamic practices ithin capitalist order. #slamic economics and #slamic constitutionalism are typical re%isionist responses leading to a legitimation of capitalist discourses and policies on #slamic grounds. They also facilitate the


de%elopment of a go%ernance technology hich subordinates #slamic mo%ements and regimes to capitalist order. The sociology of #slam as de%eloped by Ali Shariati seeks a similar legitimation of &ar'ist theory and practise on #slamic grounds. The book ends ith a plea for the total and final re6ection of capitalism and democracy. Such a re6ection re/uires a re%i%al of the classical #slamic sciences ( fi/h) kalam tafseer and tasa uf. The scope of the applications of the principles +usul, enunciated by these sciences should be broadened and ahkam should be deri%ed for an e%aluation of the capitalist system as a hole. 2%aluation of indi%idual capitalist practices ( financial transactions) social stratification rules) electioneering ( should be conte'tualised by an o%er arching e%aluation of the entire capitalist life orld. This re/uires a re%i%al of #slamic orthodo'y. The on going re%olutionary struggle for the o%erthro of capitalism makes such an epistemological re%i%al both possible and necessary. &uslim scholars must build upon #mam $ha.ali’s methodologies for achie%ing a final refutation of capitalist discourse and practise. Chapter 2 Capitalist Order


Capitalist Individuality 2nlightenment philosophy identifies the essential characteristics of capitalist used to deal society. 2nlightenment philosophy presumes a human self capable of kno ing and go%erning the orld ithout dependence on any transcendental non human source. This claim is founded on the 2nlightenment’s conception of rationality. Abstract truths “disco%ered” through deducti%e and empiricist en/uiries can pro%ide an ade/uate ans er to all ontological /uestions. This is the essential dogma underlying 2nlightenment rationality. 1eason 7 the capability to disco%er ontological truth through deducti%e and empiricist methodologies 7 is seen as the fundamental core of human nature) hich makes uni%ersal agreement possible. 2nlightenment reason re/uires that 9the pursuit of happiness’ be accepted as the sole purpose of the organi.ation of indi%idual and social life. Human progress +attainment of higher le%els of happiness, is regarded as ine%itable for it is a conse/uence of human self7reali.ation. The pursuit of human happiness re/uires a uni%ersal rationali.ation of moral norms and social practices. -ut this uni%ersali.ation implies not domination but autonomy. :or e%eryone has e/ual access to reason and “ought” to reach the right +same, conclusions regarding norms and practices. Agreement on uni%ersal truths could be achie%ed by “inter7 sub6ecti%e” communication among antecedently indi%iduated autonomous citi.ens. These uni%ersalistic claims ere challenged e%en in the eighteenth century not only by 1omantics but e%en by Hume ho sho ed that reason and e'perience could not 6ustify the e'istence of the orld outside our e'perience. He rote) “1eason is and ought to be the sla%e of the passions” +1;<1 p. =<1,. This is a central theme of the 1omantic mo%ement) hich like the 2nlightenment belie%es in the indi%idual’s personal access to truth. #n the 1omantic tradition intuition takes the place of reason as the source of self7 reali.ation. As both Hume and 1ousseau sho this is not a repudiation of reason. 1eason’s instrumental %alue is affirmed. #t must continue to ser%e as “the sla%e of the passions’. That is hy Hume and 1ousseau can both be regarded as figures straddling 2nlightenment and 1omanticism. 1omanticism’s enduring contribution to the 2nlightenment pro6ect lies in its conceptualisation of an “inner self”. -oth 1ousseau and >ant insist on the necessary goodness of the self 7 it is good e%en hen it ills e%il +1ousseau 1;<= p. ?@,. Hence the 1omantic endorsement of autonomy for illing e%il does not negate the goodness of the self. The foundations of democracy and capitalism are rooted in the contracting acti%ity of necessarily +by definition, good autonomous sel%es. These contracts create “the


general ill hich tends al ays to the preser%ation and the elfare of the hole and of e%ery part” +1ousseau 1;<= p.1?, and is therefore al ays necessarily good +despite its autonomous illing of e%il, 1. The self8) says >ant “does not deri%e its la s from but prescribes them to nature” +1;<= *A?, for it “possesses an order hich is fi'ed and immutable in all of us “+p. ?@, >ant agrees ith Hume that the orld is not “out there” but “in us”. The indi%idual kno s the orld because the self determines the structure of his e'periences 7 that is the meaning of >ant’s assertion that “ob6ects must conform to kno ledge” +1;;A p. ?<,. The self acts upon the orld to gi%e it form and meaning. The self imposes the one possible set of structures upon the orld) hich it has disco%ered by categori.ing its sensations to recogni.e ob6ects and their relations +>ant’s understanding, and by de%eloping concepts on the basis of such 9 understanding’. The self is thus the basic source of all e'periences and concepts. >ant describes it as “transcendental” in that it is the necessary and uni%ersal basis of all e'periencing and conceptuali.ing @. The self possesses a priori kno ledge of the concept of an ob6ect and the process of causation = and reality must conform to those structures of the mind “ e can kno a priori of things only hat e put in them” +>ant 1;<= p. ?<,. The e'istence of kno ledge thus re/uires the prior e'istence of an understanding) reasoning self. The +self, reali.ation of the self is thus the condition of the e'istence of the orld. &oreo%er this “transcendental” self is not 6ust the source of kno ledge. #t is the ill determining all action and all kno ing. #n this sense the transcendental self is 9consciousness in general”. #t cannot be kno n for it is the source and not the ob6ect of e'perience. The recognition of the self re/uires not kno ledge but faith. That is hy >ant can claim that his task is “to limit kno ledge in order to make room for faith”. -ut faith in hat" #n freedom says >ant for freedom is “a postulate of practical reason a pre7supposition of morality”<. #t is this faith in freedom) hich makes it possible to deri%e the uni%ersal moral principle) hich defines duty. 1eason tells the indi%idual hat his duty is. &orality is merely the free and practical use of reason. 1eason defines for man his religion and his morality. 1eason gi%es a morality) hich enunciates uni%ersalisable principles. These uni%ersalis able principles 7 >ant calls them “moral la s” 7 are categorical imperati%es. The categorical imperati%e hen acted upon produces a harmonious community in hich 1iffat is al ays treated as an end in herself. This is >ant’s “>ingdom of 2nds”. The indi%idual is autonomous in that he can unaided disco%er truth. &orality is merely a relationship bet een him and the uni%ersal la s) hich he has disco%ered by reasoning 7 the uni%ersal la is thus a product of pure practical reason alone. 1eason enables the indi%idual to detach his noumenal self from his phenomenal self +desires, and from the phenomenal orld. The indi%idual is good in himself because he autonomously disco%ers the good. -ut rationality is ultimately grounded on the indi%idual’s “belief in freedom” to hich he is intuiti%ely committed. >antian morality is therefore not a re6ection of the instincts and the passions. The space for the instincts as a source of kno ledge and therefore morality is most clearly presented in the Third !riti/ue +1;<A, here >ant argues that feeling has its o n intelligence and ultimate cosmic truths must be felt. #n this conception of the self) the indi%idual is the source of all feeling) kno ledge and actionB all e'ternal reality is incorporated into his mind. The indi%idual’s mind constitutes reality and he is responsible for the orld being the ay it is. The $erman 1omantics 7 :ichte) Herder and Hegel 7 insisted that the indi%idual also is a bearer of %olksgeist 7 the spirit of a community. :ichte emphasi.es that the indi%idual is a doer 7 not a mere kno er 7 “in the beginning as the act” rote $oethe summari.ing the essence of :ichte’s teaching. #t is the indi%idual ho is absolute not the orld. Spino.a had also argued this 7 though in a different ay 7 in the se%enteenth century. Schelling as to argue that the orld as in the indi%idual. #n Schelling’s conception the indi%idual is a single) multifaceted) self7creating continuously de%eloping cosmos of hich nature is one aspect and mind another. Here it is impossible to separate sub6ect form


ob6ect. $od gains consciousness of Himself through the human indi%idual’s being and makes of nature hat he ills. The human being defines truth he does not 6ust kno it.

illing A) as he

-ut the indi%idual is not Hegel’s $eist 7 he is part of a language community) hich embodies the self as absolute in a specific history. Such a language community concei%es of truth as its o n agreement ith itself 7 for there is no “ orld in itself” %alidating a uni%ersal truth. 2%ery language community is a reali.ation to ards uni%ersal truth. The indi%idual must submit to 9spirit’ hich is a shared interpretation of the mutual interdependence and ultimate collecti%e identity of the language community in hich the indi%idual participates. A language community reali.es uni%ersal truth through a dialectical process 7 as in *lato so in Hegel +and in Habermas, truth emerges in con%ersation ?. #t is self7reflection by a language community) hich leads it to the reali.ation of uni%ersalisable truth. This leads to a reali.ation of freedom in the orld C. :reedom is reali.ed in history often through “the cunning of reason”. Spirit is fully reali.ed at the end of history. Hegel sees e%ery member of his language community as a bearer of Spirit and Syedna #sa +alai his salam, is seen as 6ust a representati%e figure. This sho s that Hegel re6ected the concept of autonomy at the le%el of the indi%idual only to assert it at the le%el of the language community. The community is autonomous only to the e'tent to hich the indi%idual is effecti%ely enmeshed in a stable net ork of social relationships. The shared %alues) feelings and customs hich sustain these relationships originate in a culturally and linguistically specific Sittlichkeit. &orality is based not on uni%ersal la s of reason autonomously disco%ered or created by the indi%idual but on the con%entions of a language community + hich can be uni%ersali.ed,. #n his Dectures 0n the *hilosophy of History Hegel announces the arri%al of the end of history and identifies nineteenth century Western ci%ili.ation as the bearer of $eist 7 its con%entions) constitutions and customs constituting indispensable means for the reali.ation of freedom ; and therefore re/uiring uni%ersali.ation. The West has created a orld through such uni%ersali.ation but Schopenhauer argued this is a orld dominated not by its 1eason but pre 7 eminently by its Will. This Will is a brutal indifferent force capable of organi.ing and manifesting itself in time and space. The Will determines e%erything) though is itself not determined1E. The Will itself is free but the indi%idual is a sla%e of his Will +character,. He is compelled to obey the dictates of his desires 11 and lo%e is impossible18. His reason too is a sla%e of his desires and philosophy teaches him to gi%e up the illusion that life is good or purposeful according to Schaupenhauer. Since the nineteenth century mainstream Western thought has often re6ected this Schaupenhaurian conception of the impossibility of choice. -ut it recogni.es choice is to be e'ercised ith respect to intrinsically %alueless ends. As >ierkegaard insists it is not hat the indi%idual chooses that matters but ho he chooses. He must choose passionately and personally 7 >ant ould say authentically and autonomously. -ut there are no rational grounds on hich his choice can be defended. He chooses only to satisfy his desires) his sub6ecti%e truth. >ierkegaard emphasi.es the orth of the indi%idual’s inner life. The indi%idual is an authentic self alone ith his feeling) passionately choosing hat he is to become ithout the aid of reason 7 there are shades of Wittgenstein in this image. The indi%idual is acutely conscious of the absurdity of the passionate choices he makes 1@. There is a dialectic to hich the indi%idual inner life is al ays sub6ect engulfing him in crises and forcing him to make choices bet een aesthetic and ethical commitment but this dialectic leads only to mo%ement 7 ne%er to progress 1=. The indi%idual can therefore ha%e no conception of hat >ierkegaard called the big picture 7 no plans to change the orld. >ierkegaard as scornfully contemptuous of “the public” and regarded the re%olutionary uphea%als of 1C=C as ridiculous and insane.


The young &ar' 7 as >orsch and Ducas 1< keep on reminding us 7 like >ierkegaard as also profoundly concerned ith the integrity of 9man’s soul’. He distinguished this sharply from 9the money soul of capitalism’. His pro6ect) like Scheler’s as that of situating a hole harmonious person in a hole harmonious social order and to end the indi%idual’s isolation abo%e all from his self +&ar' 1;A@,. Alienation could be ended once the indi%idual recogni.ed that through a Sla%e ithin the capitalist system he had the po er to o%erthro the &aster. The indi%idual ould purify himself by putting an end to all mastership and in communist society 7 not so different from >ant’s >ingdom of 2nds 7 he ould be “free to choose”. !ommunism returns man to the realm of inherently absurd +no necessary, choices. :rom the mid nineteenth century mainstream Western philosophy has focused on the /uestion of the possibility of the indi%idual’s freedom. The positi%ists 7 !omte) &ach) :rege) -rentano) Wittgenstein 7 argue that necessary and uni%ersal propositions could be deri%ed only from mathematics and logic. The rest as hat :rege described as merely contingent and empirical hypotheses of “psychology”. -rentano insisted that e%ery act of consciousness must ha%e an ob6ect other than itself. We kno things not ideas 1A. The indi%idual is al ays concerned about ob6ectsB he is not a self7enclosed consciousness concerned only ith himself. 4othing e'ists but concrete) particular ob6ects. 2motions like thought also ha%e ob6ects 7 %alues are 6ust ob6ects of consciousness. -rentano +1;=C, thus bases his ethics on “%alue feelings” 7 #t is only a short step to the conclusion that emotions like 6udgments may be correct or incorrect 7 they may or may not correspond to ob6ects that e'ist 7 soon :reud as to tell us hat the indi%iduals true “%alue feelings” are1?. #t is also only a short step a ay in another direction ( the indi%iduals true “%alue feelings” reflected merely the meanings he deri%ed from his participation in a particular history and there are no necessary or uni%ersal meanings that unite humanity. 5ilthey as uncomfortable ith this idea and put his faith in hermeneutics 7 the systematic interpretation of human e'perience 7 hich he hoped ould allo us to understand the social and cultural meanings that underlie e%ery human e'perience. This ho e%er is not incompatible ith relati%ism as se%eral philosophers ha%e argued. 5o positi%ism and relati%ism deny the indi%iduals free agency" -ergson 1C thought not) though he belie%ed the indi%idual to be a bearer of 9a %ital force’ flo ing through time. &an is a consciousness of this %ital force and of the flo of time as a concrete indi%isible process. #t is meaningless to conceptuali.e this process 7 to separate cause and effect. The indi%idual is choosing continuously +not at a point in space,. He acts freely hen an act emanates spontaneously from his hole personality 1;. 4iet.sche8E combines a passionate hatred for 2nlightenment’s uni%ersal morality ith a passionate lo%e for 2nlightenment’s ob6ecti%e) i.e. freedom. Truth for the indi%idual is an instrument of sur%i%al not a source of abstract ob6ecti%e) impersonal kno ledge. Thought cannot be di%orced from inclination. The e'istence of the orld is 6ustifiable only on aesthetic grounds. The indi%idual should li%e his life as a ork of art. 4iet.sche announces the death of $od and argues that man is moti%ated solely by the ill to po er. &orality is a ser%ant of this ill. Accepting the moral e/uality of all human beings is to 9le%el’ society to the lo est common denominator in the name of autonomy. According to 4iet.sche 9reason is no more than a system of relations bet een passions and desires’ +1;AC *@C?,. #nstincts alone mo%e the indi%idual and make him percepti%e) creati%e and ise. *hilosophy must encourage 9 life enhancing’ instincts and re6ect 9sla%e morality’. 1e6ecting this morality is re6ecting Socratic F !hristian teachings about the unreality of this orld and the eternity of the hereafter. -ut 4iet.sche does not ad%ocate principles of master morality for he belie%es in :ate. He teaches the indi%idual to 9lo%e our fate’. #s he +part of, Gbermansch Who lo%es His fate and sees all He has done and is doing as orth hile and is illing to do it endlessly" “This life ith e%ery pain and e%ery 6oy and e%ery thought and e%ery sighH thou must li%e..H innumerable times” +1;?= p8?E,. #f not part of Gbermansch 7 not of “the fe ” ( the indi%iduals self dissol%es into nothingness. *henomenology reasserts the orth of the self by asserting that truth could be found in consciousness. The indi%idual can disco%er the orld in his o n consciousness. *hilosophy as to become a science


because phenomenology as the e'amination of the essential structure of consciousness hich could lead to the deri%ation of the uni%ersal and necessary truths of e'perience. Such necessary truths are non empirical and cannot %ary from creature to creature or culture to culture 7 Husserl re6ects “psychologism” and “anthropologism” on such grounds. !onsciousness is a separate realm of pure meaning 7 separate both from ob6ects and the causes of an ob6ect’s appearance in consciousness. This is the separation of the “#” +the transcendental ego, from the “me” 7 the empirical self hich must remain in constant touch ith ob6ects. As transcendental 2go the indi%idual has access to 9the things themsel%es’ +.u din Sachen selbst, ithout presuppositions and philosophical theories. 4ot only does the truth) reside in the self) the self itself must find it there. The indi%idual consciousness is thus both the source of truth and its disco%erer. The sub6ecti%e turn leads to the disco%ery of ob6ecti%ity 81. -ut if the “essential structure of the ego” is to be “disco%ered” hat becomes of :ree Will" :reud spent his life e'ploring the relationship bet een the conscious and the 9unconscious’. The indi%idual’s life is a ne%er7ending struggle bet een the libido +9the urges of the unconscious’, and the ego 88 7 the self is the product of %iolently conflicting forces. The unconscious is the seat of the se'ual traumas) hich necessarily dominate the indi%idual’s life and could not be understood ithout psychoanalysis. The indi%iduals inherent impulses are e%il and ci%ili.ation is possible only through the repression of these instincts. -ut such repression de%astates the indi%idual’s being and the “pleasure principle” gi%es ay to “the death ish” +the principle of homeostasis8@, as a conse/uence of “self denial”. The inability of the rational self to disco%er or li%e an ethical life as forcefully reiterated by Wittgenstein. :or him 7 unlike the Iiennese positi%ists he inspired 7 the “uns ayablity of metaphysics” as manifest proof of the necessity to transcend rational thought and to find meaning and significance not in kno ledge but in faith) a ordless faith hich manifests itself in action and character. >no ledge of “faith” is impossible for faith is uns ayable and kno ledge is that hich can be said. Danguage represents the orld but there is no necessity in the orld 8= nor any %alue. Ialues ha%e to do ith the ay the orld ought to be not the ay it is. Ialues do ha%e necessity and are not accidental) but nothing can be said about them. 2thics e'ists “outside the orld” +1;88 A.=811, and belongs to the transcendental. Sub6ect is not in the orld but is “ the limit of the orld” +1;88 <.<A@8,. This sub6ect cannot be described or represented8< and “ hereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent”. Dater on in life Wittgenstein lost faith in language as a source of kno ledge. There e'ist merely 9language games’ reflecting different forms of life. Danguage ac/uires meaning in social interaction and cannot be a representation of uni%ersal truth) +1;A?,. Self7doubt is Wittgenstein’s parting gift to humanity. This self7doubt is re7enforced by Heidegger. The indi%idual is not an “# think” not e%en a “consciousness”. He is simply 9being in the orld’ or 5asein “the being through hom e en/uire about -eing”. As 5asein the indi%idual is concerned ith the nature of his being and the meaning of his e'istence8A. The indi%idual’s being in the orld is a seamless hole. He is both absence and presence) both hat is no not present to us and hat presents itself. His kno ledge is secondary to his concernedness his in%ol%ement in the orld. The indi%idual is fore%er asking the ultimately unans erable /uestion “ ho am #"”. This is unans erable because man’s boundaries as 5asein are not self e%ident 7 he is in the orld concerned primarily ith being) not kno ing) the “ ho of dasein is not at all the # myself” +1;A8 p.11<,. -ut despite this ambiguity) of identity the indi%idual’s e'periences are the sole basis for his understanding of the orld. He must care about the orld and about his self +and not merely kno them as a thing,. #t is only by %irtue of self concern that the indi%idual can relate to other daseins and to the orld. -ut self concern does not imply the prior e'istence of an indi%iduated self 7 the self e ac/uire is socially constructed +das &an,. #t is “the they” ho tell him hat to do and ho to be. The indi%idual must 9take hold of himself”) a%oid :alleness +9a%erage e%erydayness”, and choose his e'istence despite the presence of facticity. He must choose his authentic 2'isten..


Taking 92'isten.’ seriously is coming to terms ith death hich das &an ne%er doesJ no one can die for 1iffat 7 she dies holly for herself and by herself. 1iffat is a 9being unto death’ in the profound sense that by ha%ing her o n death she can become an authentic self. :acing death as one’s o n is the hallmark of authenticity. -ut facing death authentically is terrifying and Heidegger is e'tremely obscure about this aspect of 2'isten. 7 he often seems to agree ith Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein that in the end e should be silent. 5asein may be the 9ultimate disclosure of meaning” but hat meaning is disclosed remains profoundly obscure. Hermeneutics brings back the search for meaning from death to life. $adamer argues that 1iffat shares ith all the orld a historical situation hich makes possible a comparing of %arious interpretations. Deading to a fusion of hori.ons this rea akens a consciousness of solidarity hich makes the indi%idual to kno himself as essentially part of a humanity that shares the problem of life on earth. Habermas laments that communication and interpretation are systematically distorted by political forces. &odes of interpretation need to be fashioned hich can facilitate a truer understanding of our sel%es in the orld. Habermas is con%inced of the ultimate possibility of a harmonious uni%ersal consensus on interpretation and has faith in 2nlightenment %alues 7 specially in human reason and in freedom. 1ecently ho e%er Habermas seems to ha%e abandoned his attempt to 6ustify human rights and the uni%ersalist morality deri%ed form this 6ustification. We ill return to this point later. The indi%idual “absolute freedom” is a central tenet of Sartre’s philosophy. There are no necessary choices8?. With freedom comes responsibility. !onsciousness is fore%er searching for the self hich is to be created through li%ing 7 that is by 1iffat’s actions and her relations ith other people. !onsciousness 7 in Sartre and !amus and &erleau 7 *onty 7 is not selfish. #t is it free and rational set against and seeking to kno and separate itself from a meaningless) and 9absurd’ 8C physical orld. #t is part of the indi%iduals responsibility to put hate%er meaning he likes into an indifferent) %alueless orld. #n !amus’ %ie death frustrates him for it sho s the ultimate meaninglessness of his life. The only unpardonable sin is the re6ection of freedom and “success is not important to freedom” +Sartre 1;<A p. <;1,. #n this Sartre’s ethics are closely akin to >ant and 1ousseau. Se%eral authors ha%e noted the close affinity bet een Sartre’s and >ant’s ethical thought. -ut for Sartre “hell is other people” and freedom is “freedom from others” but parado'ically conflict can be o%ercome only in a group hich is fighting to in its independence8;. Seeking freedom in this ay can be interpreted as losing sub6ecti%ity and finding la s in structures of languages and cultures. De%i 7 Strauss thought that this is not a re6ection of uni%ersality for the structures of the human mind could be disco%ered in culture and languages. The indi%idual simply disappears in structuralism hich is a search for the ob6ecti%e la s determining human acti%ity. An analysis of structure does not re%eal meaning hich remains sub6ecti%e @E. :oucault’s “archeology” can be interpreted as an e'tension of De%i Strauss’ structuralism. #t is a description of the actual historical permutation of the elements of the Western system of ideas and practices @1. :oucault argues that as one cannot define an element outside a system it is impossible to formulate a description of all possible permutations of the elements of a system and uni%ersal +cross cultural and a temporal, la s regarding such permutations cannot be kno n. :oucault speaks of “the death of man” in the specific sense that uni%ersal meanings cannot be deri%ed. >no ledge is po er in :oucault’s system and meanings are socially manufactured. Systemically specific meanings are re%ealed in the 9discursi%e practises’ that depict po er relations in a specific social order. :oucault recogni.es the e'istence of meaning but argues that it should not be taken seriously. He re6ects the idea of progress. :oucault’s hyper pessimism depicts the indi%idual alone in the 6ungles of post modern society filled ith re%ulsion of that society and of himself. -ut he retains the >antian faith in freedom +1i.%i 8EE1, and continues his meaningless struggles against domination hile recogni.ing the ine%itability of the dominance of capitalist structures of po er. 5errida ridicules these struggles for both $od and man are dead and presence is a myth @8. There are simply no certainties e%en philosophical language is riddled ith contradiction. We can only 9deconstruct’ meaning and there is “no author of


te'ts” no transcendental sub6ect. 5econstruction is the art of destroying the 9transcendental signified’ and of sho ing the historical rootedness of all practical consensus @@. 1e%olution) too of course) is meaningless and 5errida’s is merely an academic denial of $od) the self and the orld. 4either 5errida nor Habermas) nor any one else in the Western metaphysical tradition re6ects freedom as an ideal and as an aspiration. They are ho e%er increasingly unable to 6ustify this commitment to freedom. As noted abo%e until recently 6ustifying the morality of freedom as a central theme in Habermas’ ork. -ut in recent ritings +Habermas 8EE1 p11@78;,) human rights are defended merely as an ans er to a problem that once confronted 2uropeans. Human rights and constitutional democracy are seen as contingent upon the desire of free and e/ual citi.ens to self legislate. The e'istence of free and e/ual citi.ens and their desire to self legislate is not 6ustified. Habermas recogni.es that the morality of freedom cannot be 6ustified to anyone ho ould not argue about morality for the process of arguing is itself normati%ely structured. Ialidating the commitment to the morality of freedom through participation in discourse re/uires the prior commitment of the participant to +a, recogni.e no other normati%e authority other than that of the argument and +b, to aspire to ards a secular frame ork to articulate their specific interest +Abdel ( 4oor 8EE=p.?<,. #n other ords only secular cogniti%ists can be rationally con%inced of the 6ustification of constitutional democracy and the morality of freedom. They accept that norms are %alidated ith references to the ills of the participants of the discussion ( they cannot be %alidated ith reference to a super rational source or a transcendental authority. “Argumentation” as understood by Habermas can lead to mutual understanding +Ierstandigang, only if participants ha%e e/ual access and e/ual opportunities of participation. Truth is merely the consensus arri%ed at among such discourse participants ho recogni.e discourse as the only means for arri%ing at truth in this consensual manner. The presuppositions of argumentation and the moti%es of those ho participate in the argumentation process are thus interconnected. &oti%es of participants as ell as reason hich they accept must be articulated ithin a particular Sparchsystem hich necessarily limits the articulation of reason and interests. Habermas assumes that a Sparchsystem can be found in hich all interests can be e'pressed and ithin hich uni%erslai.ation can be %alidated as a criterion of morality and constitutional democracy as the principle of political legitimacy. The democratic principle encodes the idea of both participation and indi%idual rights +i.e. public and pri%ate autonomy,. #t is simultaneous pro%ision of pubic and pri%ate autonomy hich characteri.es constitutional democracy. The presupposition of the e/ual access and e/ual participation of all members of a Sparchsystem is re/uired for the rational 6ustification of constitutional democracy. #f some members +prophets) aulia and ulema for e'ample, ha%e pri%ilege of access constitutional democracy cannot be 6ustified on Habermasian grounds. #t is only ithin argumentation as concei%ed by Habermas that re6ection of constitutional democracy and the uni%ersali.ation principle is a logical impossibility. #f the presuppositions of argumentation are re6ected there are no grounds for the rational 6ustification of either uni%ersalisability or constitutional democracy. We ha%e seen that these presuppositions commit the participants in argumentation to secular congniti%ism. &uslims and others ho re6ect secular cogniti%ism can only endorse constitutional democracy if they “bracket” the metaphysical and ethical orld %ie hich they espouse. #n a constitutional democratic regime &uslims are e'pected to gi%e minimal importance to the #slamic beliefs and practices hich contradict the presuppositions underlying uni%ersalism and constitutional democracy. The “needs” and “interests” a &uslim pursues ithin constitutional democratic order cannot emanate from his commitment to #slamic moral and political practices ( these practices must be subordinated to constitutional democracy. 4either Habermas nor 1a ls offer any argument 6ustifying this “bracketing and tri%iali.ation of the &uslims comprehensi%e doctrines. &oreo%er the &uslim must be prepared to modify F abandon his moral and political doctrines in a process of argumentation ith other secular cogniti%ists. Habermas does not demonstrate the necessity of accepting his conception of argumentation ith its implied pre suppositions as the only +rather than the 2uro centric specific, form of communication in society. 4either Habermas nor his apologists +e.g. William 1ehg 1;;=, can present a


reason for the %ie that norms must emerge from argumentation or social communication or conflicts regarding norms ought to be resol%ed through argumentation +as concei%ed by Habermas,. There is no 6ustification for assuming the uni%ersality of secular cogniti%ism. This illustrates the fact that the ad%ocates of constitutional democracy ( the ad%ocates of modernity ( presume a particular sub6ecti%ity +Touraine 1;;<,. This presupposed sub6ecti%ity is inherently and essentially anti religious. #t celebrates its “liberation” from an all encompassing holistic order. #t celebrates its autonomy and its right to pursue its endsJ ithout reference to religious prescriptions of any kind. The modern F post modern sub6ect is forced to take up the $od like position of a transcendental nodal point. This transcendental pretense is of course bogus) Habermas is forced to confess “the principle of sub6ecti%ity is not po erful enough to regenerate the unifying po er of religion in the medium of reasonH The demotion of religion leads to a split +in the sub6ect,) hich the 2nlightenment cannot o%ercome by its o n po er” +1;C? p8E,. The “liberated” sub6ect frantically seeks meaning) re embededness) identity. The modern sub6ect seeks a distancing from “e%erydayness” through the psuedo transcendence besto ed on him by the modern constructs of nature and culture. #dentity +indi%idual and collecti%e, is sought in cultural constructs such as nation and class. -ut identity is al ays purchased at the cost of autonomy. &odern sub6ecti%ity is al ays torn bet een the promise of liberation and the threat of alienation. Schi.ophrenia is ritten into the formati%e phase of the modern self. The main sources of capitalist identity consciousness ( family) class and nation ( are in relentless decline throughout the Western orld. The market is ine'orably coloni.ing) e%ery segment of society and all relations are being commodified. $enetic engineering and communication technology seek to reconstruct nature and culture in the ser%ice of the market. The foundations grounding modern identity are being eroded. *ercepti%e obser%ers such as !ornelia >linger ha%e recogni.ed that this has created a “neither nor” situation for modern man “4either can e hope to compensate for the loss of certainty and solidarity in a /uest for ne foundations) nor can e celebrate the freedom that e ill in” +8EE= p1@1,. The market dissol%es modern sub6ecti%ity by submerging the sub6ect in the ocean of consumption. The market replaces) $od) the family) the nation) the class. The modern sub6ect “shops for his real self”. The modern self is defined by and dependent upon pre fabricated goods. The freedom he en6oys is merely choosing one good rather than another. Stepping outside the market is not a possibility for the market has no coloni.ed all aspects of indi%idual and social e'istence “eroding the distance bet een commodified and non commodified regionsH hyper commodification +leads, to the commodification of meaning” +!ook et al 1;;8 p?=,. !apitalism is no both culture and reason) both sub6ecti%ity and ob6ecti%ity. There is in modern indi%iduality and modern society no “outside’ of capitalism +Tourainne 1;;< pA=,. #n capitalism “the sub6ect is trapped in an obsession ith identity and reason is merely an instrument of might” +Tourainne 1;;< pAA,. 4arcissitic indi%idualism takes the place of social consciousness and there is a complete di%orce bet een public and pri%ate life. This leads to “the triumph of po ers defined purely in terms of management and strategy. The ma6ority retreat to a pri%ate space lea%+ing, a bottomless %oidH here there as once the political spaceH that ga%e birth to democracy” +Tourainne 1;;< p1<E. #deas of a common good and of a uni%ersal community appear ridiculous in such a setting. -ut parado'ically the liberation from foundations +religion) tradition) nation) class, makes resistance to the capitalist markets almost impossible. 4o %antage point is a%ailable to modern F post modern man for criti/uing capitalist totality. !apitalism coloni.es the self. The indi%idual is de%oid of in ardness and depth. “The managed possession of consumer goods is atomi.ing and de7historici.ing. The consumer item isolates and the consumer is solitary” +-audrillard 1;;C p?<,. &odernity based on pure indi%idual self interest lea%es the sub6ect ithout any solidarity) ithout any binding collecti%e culture. He is adrift on the tides of momentary desires %ulnerable to complete subordination to market forces. The capitalist economy is hegemonic. #t dissol%es sub6ecti%ity ( as structuralism recogni.es ( through the confinement of choice in consumer and financial markets.


2nlightenment philosophy ser%es capitalism by creating the myth of a /uasi transcendental sub6ect ( a sub6ect ho seeks transcendence in the orld ( liberated from tradition and religion) autonomous bearer of rights) sub6ect of capital +economic man,. This sub6ect as supposed to be so%ereign as citi.en and as consumer. Autonomy and secular identity +in the form of nation or class, implied the possibility of at least a theoretical distancing of freedom from the order of capital. This illusion must no be abandoned as the collapse of the socialist regimes illustrates. The market subsumes the state and the decisions of the citi.en cannot contradict the logic of capital. There is literally no transcendental pretense in modern capitalist order as Habermas’ inability to 6ustify uni%ersali.aiton and constitutional democracy sho s. #n this insane orld the only rationality hich sur%i%es is market rationality) the rationality of consumption and of accumulation for its o n sake. As >linger notes “this attempt to turn means into meaning is parado'ical and ill remain futile in the long run. This fact may ho e%er be effecti%ely hidden from %ie since the hunger for meaning is easily duped and constantly deferred by the supply of e%er ne mean” +8EE= p1@<71@A,. !apital has sub6ectified human being through liberating it from $od and from submission to His ill. Transcending capitalism necessitates a re6ection of liberation and an assertion of man’s status as Abd Allah +the sla%e of $od,. Diberation F freedom is to be re6ected ithin the market society and the state. We no turn to an analysis of the market.

• • • • • • •

• •

Summary: Capitalist Individuality #s capitalism F democracy uni%ersal and necessary" This claim founded on the 2nlightenment’s conception of rationality ( ontological truth can be disco%ered through deducti%e F inducti%e logical processes. This reason is uni%ersal ( common to all human beings as is the pursuit of this orldly happiness. 1eason is therefore a sla%e of this passion for pleasure. 1eason identifies the uni%ersal moral norms and social practises) hich can ma'imi.e human happiness. Since e%ery one is rational e%ery one must rationally choose +a, ma'imi.ation of happiness as the purpose of life +b, the norms and practises hich makes this possible autonomously ( no domination. #n 1omanticism intuitions F passion are seen as the source of ontological truths. The self ( the source of intuitions ( is necessarily good +for it can disco%er truth,. #t is good e%en hen it ills e%il +for this is 6ust a means for achie%ing good,. That is hy the 1oussiuan $eneral Will is al ays good ( illing the elfare of all. This is the basis of the faith in democracy and +autonomous, capitalist contracts. According to >ant the self “does not deri%e its la s from but prescribes them to nature”. #t possesses an order hich determines the structure of our e'periences. The self gi%es the orld its form and meaning. The self is transcendental in the sense that it is the necessary uni%ersal basis of all e'periencing and conceptuali.ing. #t has prior kno ledge of the concept of an ob6ect and of the process of causation. As the self is the source of e'periencing and kno ledge it cannot be kno n. We ha%e faith in it ( in a self hich is free to kno and to ill the orld autonomously. This freedom is the presupposition of democratic F capitalist immorality. #t is reason hich tells us hat our duty is. 1eason produces uni%ersali.able moral principles. The practise of these uni%ersali.able principles produces a harmonious community +“a kingdom of ends”, in hich e%eryone is treated as an end in himself.


• • •

1eason permits a detachment of the noumenal self from the phenomenal self and the phenomenal orld. The self is essentially good because it can autonomously disco%er the good. :aith in freedom is re/uired for this disco%ery. :aith in freedom is intuiti%e. The self is the source of all feeling) kno ledge and action and it is responsible for the orld. #n the $erman 1omanticist tradition the self is seen as creating the orld ( illing truth not 6ust kno ing it. Hegel e'pands the self from the indi%idual to a language community. Hegel also denies the e'istence of self %alidating uni%ersal truth. 2%ery language community creates its o n uni%ersal truth hich is a shared interpretation of the collecti%e e'periences of a language community. The self reali.ation of a language community takes place in history. The self reali.ation of the West is the end of history. #t is not the indi%idual but the language community hich is autonomous. &orality is the con%entions F ay of life of a community ( it is not uni%ersal la s created F disco%ered by autonomous indi%iduals ( at the end of history the West’s con%entions F constitutions are indispensable for freedom. Schaupenhauer sho ed that the orld that the West has created is dominated by its Will not by its 1eason. The Will is free ( and reason is its sla%e. :rom the 1; th !entury the West insists upon the possibility of choice ( but choice only among %alueless ends. >eirkegard argues it is not important hat you choose but ho you chose it. !hoices cannot be defended rationally. All choices are ultimately absurd and passionate commitment does not lead to moral progress. Dife is full of crises of choosing bet een e/ually absurd commitments. &ar' sa this as alienation and belie%ed that it could be a%oided by situating the hole harmonious person in a hole harmonious society. !lass struggle as the means for creating a harmonious society and ould lead to !ommunist Society here choice ould be unlimited. Absurdity returns. Since the late 1;th century the West asks) is :reedom possible. The positi%its ( !omte) Wittgenstein) :rege ( re6ect the possibility of ans ering the main ontological /uestions rationally ( necessary and uni%ersali.able propositions are only logical F mathematical other in%estigations of ontological /uestions ere mere “psychologism”. 2motions and 6udgements are correct if they reflect the indi%idual’s true “%alue feelings”. Thus 5ilthey argued that these may reflect historical e'perience but hermeneutics ( the systematic interpretation of human e'perience ( may allo us to understand the meaning of e%ery human e'perience. 4e%ertheless relati%ism could not be ruled out. 4eit.sche ( and -ergson ( react to relati%ism by seeing the indi%idual as the bearer of a %ital force ( the ill to sur%i%e. Truth is an instrument for sur%i%al) not a source of kno ledge. The morality of ubermansch is spending life as a ork of art ( a re6ection of sla%e morality and an acceptance of fate. *henomenology sought to return to uni%ersals by asserting that truth could be found in consciousness. 2'amining the structure of consciousness could re%eal the uni%ersal F necessary truths of e'perience. The transcendental self “#” must find the truth in itself. Turing in ards leads the indi%idual to ob6ecti%e truth +Husserl,. :reud argued that ob6ecti%e truth is to be disco%ered essentially in the sub conscious. The urges of the unconscious +9the libido’, dominate the indi%idual’s life. -ut these urges are e%il and ci%ili.ation is possible only through their repression) this repression) “self denial”) leads to the “death ish”. Wittgenstein asserts the impossibility of disco%ering the ethical life through reason. &etaphysics is unsayable. There as therefore a need to transcend rational discourse. There is no


necessity or %alue in the orld. >no ledge is not to be found e%en in language ( there are only “language games” hich cannot represent uni%ersal truth. Wittgenstein gi%es us self doubt. Self doubt is re7enforced by Heidegger. The indi%idual is merely 5asein ( “being in the orld” en/uiring about -eing. Asking the unans erable /uestion “ ho am #”. The boundaries of the self are unclear. The indi%idual is concerned primarily ith being not kno ing. The self is partly constructed by “the they”. The self must choose his 2'isten. and a%oid :alleness. !hoosing 2'isten. seriously is coming to terms ith death. :acing death is the hallmark of authenticity. -ut ho this is to be done and hat meaning is re%ealed by being remains unclear in Heidegger. $adamer and Habermas argue that meaning is to be found in life not in death ( the self kno s itself as part of a humanity that shares the problem of life on earth. #ntersub6ecti%e communication ( if not distorted politically ( can lead to a harmonious consensual uni%ersal fusion of interpretations that asserts 2nlightenment %alues. Since the mid 1;;Es Habermas has significantly /ualified these claims about the uni%ersality of human rights. Sartre endorses the absolute freedom of the indi%idual ( there are no necessary choices. The self is to be created. #t is itself nothing. !onsciousness can make the orld hat it is not. #t can put hate%er meaning it likes into the orld attempting to do this is anting to be $od. Abandoning this ish is bad faith but in !amus’ %ie death frustrates this ish and sho s the ultimate meaninglessness of life. Structuralism argues that ob6ecti%e la s of human beha%ior ( though not meaning ( can be disco%ered in the structure of culture and language. :oucault seeks to study the structure of Western ci%ili.ation and identifies the historical sources +the genealogy, of these structures. He denies the possibility of deri%ing uni%ersal la s of human beha%ior from this e'amination. He speaks of the death of man in the precise sense that uni%ersal meanings cannot be deri%ed. >no ledge is socially manufactured and discursi%e practices re%eal po er relations in a specific social setting. #n :oucault meaning is not truth. *rogress is impossible. The indi%idual is filled ith re%ulsion of post7modern society but continues the meaningless struggle for freedom despite recogni.ing the ine%itability of capitalist sub6ecti%ity. 5erida ridicules these struggles. There is no meaning) no sub6ect) no reality. All practical consensus is historically constructed. We can merely deconstruct.

8.8. The Market The sub6ect of capital seeks freedom primarily in the market. The /uest for freedom) capitalism) destroys the sub6ects pri%ate life 7 it pro%ides no grounds for ordering felt ants and desires and these can only be concatenated not ordered 7 capitalism is an immoral order hich tri%iali.es all ends e'cept accumulation hich is a means for any +and therefore no, end. 4on market +family and friendship, relationships are thus left ungrounded and their gradual disappearance from capitalist society mirrors the impossibility of lo%e for lo%e is essentially the negation of freedom. The sub6ect of capital thus cannot ans er the /uestionJ hat is the good life for he pursues the e%il) freedom) in his association ith all men. Wal.er +1;?8, is simply rong to ad%ocate separation of “spheres of 6ustice” and arn against the domination of one sphere o%er another. He himself recogni.es that the market is a sphere ithout boundaries 7 for “money is insidious +it, is like a totalitarian sate dominating e%ery other distributi%e processH transform+ing, e%ery social good into a commodity” +pp.11;718E,. The recognition of the ine%itability of market dominance 7 and the associated disappearance of morality and the sub6ect’s pri%ateness 7 led Hegel to speak of ci%il society in hich indi%idualistic) contractual relations of e'change are buttressed by elfarism and the strengthening of 9corporations’ @= and no arrangements are seen as necessary for safeguarding family life from the encroachment of indi%idualist contracts@<. #ndeed the separation and gradual elimination) of pri%ate and public spheres 7


and the gradual) systematic destruction of the sub6ect’s morality and his pri%ate life) is a conse/uence of the rise of the market as the primary source and form of economic organi.ation. Although the sub6ect is not bought and sold in the market his life practises are commodified) commodification of the sub6ect’s life practises in%ol%esJ +a, The sub6ect’s o n %aluation of these practises as means for satisfying any desires he may happen to ha%e +i.e. as means for e'panding his freedom, rather than in terms of their intrinsic %alue. +b, 0ther people’s %aluation of these practises and of the sub6ect as a means for promoting their freedom F desires ( the sub6ect of course has no moral orth in such a system of %aluation. +c, -oth the sub6ect and other people regard products of all practises as e'changeable. They are rendered e/ui%alent through the uni%ersalisable medium of e'change 7 capitalist money ( hich assumes the concrete form of freedom in the circuit of accumulation. !i%il society is the sphere of the market in the profound sense that the indi%idual’s) practises and products hich are not bought or sold are methodically sub6ected to commodification) sub6ected that is to %aluation in terms of their contribution to the satisfaction of preferences +enhancement of freedom, hich themsel%es re/uire no moral 6ustification @A. The traditional #slamic ba..ar is an arena for the e'pression of %alues assigned to practices hen the indi%idual is capable of ordering his ants on the basis of Allah’s command and hen #slamic society sanctions these practises. The ba..ar is marketised as ants are concatenated) morality is abandoned and %aluation is determined in terms of the relati%e contribution of practises to the promotion of freedom +accumulation of capital,. When marketised the ba..ar necessarily subsumes ci%il society in the profound sense that all of the sub6ect’s practises are sub6ected to commodification. The market forces the sub6ect to order his ants in accordance ith the single permanent uni%ersal criterion of capital) accumulation +the concrete form of freedom,. Since satisfaction of ants depends primarily on access to capital practices hich obstruct the capital accumulation process are assigned negati%e %alue and the orth of all practices and all practitioners is determined strictly in accordance ith their contribution to capital accumulation. Since there are no other operationali.able criteria for %aluation in ci%il society &ac#ntyre’s internal goods +such as the aesthetic appeal of art or of scientific theory, are necessarily decomposed and sub6ected to the capitalist %aluation processes. 4either &ac#ntyre nor any one else can identify any alternati%e %aluation criteria or any insurmountable hurdles restricting the uni%ersalisability of capital %aluation criteria in ci%il society. *re%enting the #slamic ba..ar’s marketi.ation is necessary for resisting the commodification of the indi%iduals being. #solating practice spheres from market %aluation ithin capitalist society is not feasible because 7 as Wittgenstein recogni.ed 7 %alues cannot be produced in this orld. What the market produces is an absence of %alue) not an alternati%e to the %alue assigned to practises by Allah. Ialuing practices in terms of their contribution to capital accumulation +freedom, is not %aluing them in an absolute sense 7 for freedom has no %alue) no substanti%e content. #t is a mere nothingness. The market produces preferences for prioriti.ing capital accumulation and its associated practises. #t is not 6ust that it ignores the “internal goods” of non7accumulation practices. #t’s operation systematically coloni.es all non accumulati%e practises and permeates them ith the logic of capital. !ontrary to &ac#ntyre’s conceptuali.ation there is no room for “e'ternal” goods since the ba..ar’s marketisation by its nature is a totali.ing e%il. &arketising the ba..ar is establishing the global hegemony of capital. !apitalist markets in%ariably emerge from non7capitalist social orders and they are deliberate creations of a capitalist state or of their agencies 7 the World Trade 0rgani.ation is presently constructing a global technology market by uni%ersalising the GS patent system. The creators of capitalist property and of capitalist markets are moti%ated by the accumulating ethos@?. &arketising the ba..ar re/uires the prior legitimation of the


capitalist property form. This legitimising of capitalist property re/uires both the production of a ne ideology@C and the e'ercise of political po er by those ho espouse this ideology. The continued social dominance of the market re/uires that po er be transferred to those ho can best organi.e production and e'change systems for ma'imi.ing capital accumulation not 6ust in the market but in politics) culture) scientific research and religion. This re/uires a uni%ersali.ation of the age form 7 once again not 6ust in the market but throughout society. The uni%ersali.ation of the age form in%ol%es the necessary “ ithering a ay” of pri%ate property. !apitalist property is not pri%ate because it is dedicated to accumulation. !ontrol of this property is %ested in indi%iduals ho possess the skills and kno ledge for efficient accumulation. They manage capitalist property on behalf of its formal “o ners” and re ards to both “o ners” and managers correspond to relati%e success achie%ed in capital accumulation. -oth operati%es and managers are aged 7 they constitute the o%er helming ma6ority of a capitalist country’s labour force 7 and the ability of non7 aged “o ners” to accumulate efficiently depends crucially on the performance of the aged operati%es and managers. Dabour is the starting point of capital in the specific sense that uni%ersalising of the age form is a pre 7 re/uisite for the social dominance of capital accumulation. As &esa.oras rites “+2,%en the richest capitalists) no matter ho many shares they o nH must obey the ob6ecti%e imperati%es of the system H or suffer the conse/uence and go out of business H their po er of control ithin the frame ork of the capital system is /uite negligible “+1;;< pp. =17=8,”. This ithering a ay of pri%ate o nership should not obscure the fact that the continued social dominance of markets re/uires their regulation. 1egulation is typically undertaken both by “pri%ate” market agents 7 firms and banks 7 and by public agencies 7 ministries) courts) intergo%ernmental bodies. :orms of market regulation are historically and culturally specific and that is hy e can speak of the +co, e'istence of different %ariants of capitalism 7 $erman) Anglo Sa'on) merchant) industrial etc. We can also speak of a transition from one capitalist regime of accumulation to another or of a transition from a capitalist to a non7capitalist property form. #t is the duty of the capitalist state @; to delegitimise and obstruct a transition from capitalist to non7capitalist property regimes and facilitate a transition from a non7capitalist to a capitalist formation. 2stablishing the hegemony of capitalist markets re/uires the uni%ersali.ation of the %ices of a%arice and co%etousness. The pursuit of freedom not the practice of %irtue is to be regarded as the purpose of indi%idual and social life. As *olyani says K“instead of the economy being embedded in social relations) social relations are embedded in the economic systemH society is run as an ad6unct to the market “+1;=; p. <?,. :or such a social system to be regarded as legitimate there must be a forgetfulness of death and of being and an acceptance of the doctrine of the eternity of the orld in hich the sub6ect of capital shares through capital accumulation. The sub6ect must also accept the income and po er distributional ine/uali.ation of capitalist order as not transcendable and ha%e faith in capitals’ ability to e'pand the realm of freedom=E. Sustaining faith in these premises re/uires the regulation of both the market and the state =1. Actually e'isting capitalism is characteri.ed by both coherence and heterogeneity ( the sub6ect’s beha%iour is often irrational and practises and structures in the market are also sometimes non7optimising. !apitalist rationality has to be made dominant by regimes of regulation hich structure the beha%iour of indi%iduals and groups ith asymmetric access to information and other resources and possessing heterogeneous %alues. The regulation regimes smooth out the distortions created by a particular process of accumulation. Accumulation is the process hereby money F po er is concentrated in the hands of those ho manage capital and freedom takes the form of capital 7 freedom is essentially the freedom to accumulate. 1etaining faith in freedom re/uires establishing the uni%ersal dominance of finance 7 for accumulation has finite physical limits. #nfinite accumulation can occur only in financial markets. #n financial markets alone can the %ices of a%arice and co%etousness find infinite) limitless) eternal and uni%ersal e'pression.


!ommodity and labour markets must therefore be sub6ected to the dominance of the financial markets. The mo%ement of money capital +finance, must determine the di%ision of labour) structure the employer 7 employee relationship and dominate the “pri%ate” =8 and public life of both “capitalists” and “labourers”. :inance dominates commodity and labour markets in the specific sense that it %alues all practises and products of these markets in terms of their relati%e contribution to accumulation. *ri%ate property must be destroyed and property must be corportised so that death is transformed into bankruptcy and the hereafter is concei%ed as infinite) limitless accumulation. !apitalist order must thus entail +a, Gni%ersalising dominance of the desire to accumulate +b, !ontinued e'pectation of the possibility of accumulation. +c, !ontinued domination of financial markets +d, !ontinued management of financial claims and obligations to a%oid systemic crises. A crisis 7 the mismatching of claims and obligations 7 is an e%er7present possibility in financial markets. Accumulation necessitates the systematic taking of risks to reali.e %alue. #n%estment flo s to corporations) hich are e'pected to be efficient accumulators) but the market has no mechanisms to ensure that its e'pectations are right. Accumulation takes the forms of e/uity and bond stocks) hich can become %alueless and debt) hich can be repudiated. Gltimately the market possesses no kno ledge for ascertaining accumulati%e %alue potential. #t’s %aluation assessments are arbitrary based on caprices) pre6udices and mathematical models. These %aluations are no more than speculations about the future and the future is a closed book for capitalist social sciences =@. This illustrates the point that capitalist %alue ordering is not spontaneously or naturally generated either in the market or in the sub6ect’s consciousness) nor is it self perpetuating. All markets can be demarketised and the indi%idual can re6ect capitalist immorality. &aking this impossible is the task of policy makers in the market) in the state and at the global le%el==. #n the capitalist market the principal policy maker is the corporation. #t structures rules of payments) flo s of goods and financial relationships into a hierarchy relating stake holders ith claims and obligations on the %alues produced in the market. The corporation legitimises this structuring on the basis of a specific internal political practise) hich defines it as a capitalist +and not an #slamic, business. #ntra corporate political practice delegitimises the pursuit of freedom at the orkplace and legitimates the subordination of non7managers to managers for the pursuit of freedom +accumulation, in the market. Doss of this right to pursue freedom ithin the corporation has to be compensated else here for in order to retain his personal immoral commitment to accumulation the sub6ect must personally accumulate money F po er. #n the “ :ordist” regime of accumulation +roughly 1;@@ 7 1;CE in -ritain and America, subordination at the le%el of the orkplace as legitimised by the pro%ision of collecti%e rights) “labour” interests ere integrated in markets by recogni.ing the collecti%e political rights of non capitalists to negotiate the terms of the employment contract and their share of added %alue produced in the market. This in%ol%ed restrictions on the mo%ement and the accumulation of capital and on the mobility of labour ithin corporations. &ore importantly it created ne personal identities 7 trade unionist) professional) manager 7 hich displaced traditional identities 7 !hristian) #rishman) mother 7 and ser%ed to pro%ide social foundations to capitalist order. The consolidation of these ne identities re/uires the indi%iduals continued commitment to consumerism and his belief that access to freedom depends on collecti%e action taken by groups that effecti%ely represent his class interests. “:ordism” as undermined by the ine'orable atomi.ation of communities 7 :ordism’s basic collecti%ity) that of labour) pro%ed to be far more fragile than the religious and national collecti%ities it had partially supplanted. #t endorsed the politics of globali.ation and relin/uished its hold on the le%ers of market and state po er “not ith a bang but a himper”. #t accepted a re%ision of the employment contract and


idening income and ealth distributional disparities. The “post :ordist” order sa a massi%e gro th in the social and political po er of the market and the %irtual disappearance of restrictions on the mo%ement and the accumulation of capital. -ut “post :ordism” is also not a self7sustaining order. #t needs regulation. So human resource management has taken the place of collecti%e bargaining at the le%el of the corporation and a “market friendly” or “market creating” state illing to under rite the risks and reduce the costs of the corporation has emerged from the ruins of social democracy and its elfarist political regime. +!homsky 1;;C,. 5isorgani.ation of labour is a key feature of the “post :ordist” regime of accumulation. This is a necessary conse/uence of the increased concentration and centrali.ation of capital and the enhanced dominance of financial markets ithin capitalist social formations. The mediation processes through hich this disorgani.ation of labour is achie%ed operate at se%eral le%els 7 enterprise) market) culture) state and global. Here e ill e'amine the causes of the disorgani.ation of labour at the enterprise and market le%els only. The proliferation of the ne management techni/ues has t o ma6or systemic causes. :irst) the democratic state no plays an increasingly important role in prioriti.ing capital’s interest ithin the social formation. Anti union legislation restricting collecti%e rights has been common throughout the Anglo Sa'on orld +and in many Datin American and Asian countries, during the last t o decades. Degislation restricts strike action and legitimises no strike deals. Strict strike balloting procedures are instituted and unions are hea%ily penali.ed for %iolation. Gnofficial action is effecti%ely outla ed and secret balloting has replaced mass meeting decisions in most countries =<. Thus) it is the state) hich pro%ides democratic legitimacy for the empo erment of management at the ork place. &anagement uses the ne legal resources placed at tits disposal to the full 7 legalism replaces negotiation as a key feature of the ne industrial relations system. Secondly) the ne found strength of the H1 manager is based upon the gro th of e'isting and potential unemployment and specially the breakdo n of the tenured full time 6ob contract. 3ob insecurity is a threat to all orkers but ne recruits and specially the young can be easily alienated from shop floor labour practices. Such orkers are typically more influenced by market conditions 7 5unford speaks of a “customi.ation” of the orking class +1;;C,. !ontract and other non7tenured orkers are more easily “responsiblised” in the sense that they are made conscious of the need to continuously meet customer e'pectations. -uyers 7 specially large buyers) no regularly inter%ene in the production process to ensure /uality) risk free supplies and price structure commitments. 0ften customers participate directly in strike breaking and threats to ithdra orders is no normal customer practice for disciplining orkers. Work teams are made directly responsible to corporate customers and indi%idual orkers de%elop a sense of accountability to customers. *articipati%e TL& ideology is often a mask for customer hegemony at the shop floor le%el. The customer effecti%ely 6oins the super%ising staff in the lo trust strictly disciplined organi.ational structure of team production. #n theory) TL& and team orking are e'pected to encourage co7operati%e orking attitudes at the shop floor le%el and generate an atmosphere of high trust. #n practice they produce fear) stress and insecurity and therefore undermine trust +Thompson and Ackroyd 1;;C,. The ne industrial relations are premised on a systematic suppression of rank and file organi.ation and a re6ection of the collecti%e rights entailed in :ordist commitment to full employment and age determination through collecti%e bargaining. The breakdo n of :ordism as a social accumulation regime is a ma6or pro'imate cause of the disorgani.ation of labour. 1educing full time employment is an e'plicit ob6ecti%e of the institutionali.ation of lean production as is the dissolution of collecti%e bargaining processes through the enactment of multiple year age


negotiation periods. Dean production is a means for the intensification of ork 7 it re/uires a more aggressi%e) more demanding management style but this is not typically accompanied by an enhancement of training or an impro%ement of the ork en%ironment. The institutionali.ation of the ne ) H1& techni/ues depends crucially upon a de7politicisation of labour. Gltimately the disorgani.ation of the ork force in the ma6or capitalist countries +and in Datin America) South and 2ast Asia, is e'plained by its political demorali.ation and the failure of its traditional political parties to articulate coherent macroeconomic strategies premised on a reassertion of collecti%e +as against human, rights. Se%eral authors +$all 1;;C) :airbrother 1;;A, ha%e argued that there are no binding technological constraints restricting the re organi.ation of labour at the orkplace or systemically. *ost :ordism has often shifted po er and ork process control from one group of orkers to another not to managers. $all +1;;C, documents this shift in the case of the -ritish ne spaper industry. He sho s ho changes in technology shifted po er from one group of orkers 7 compositors 7 to another 7 6ournalists. The introduction of ne technology does not itself lead to labour disorgani.ation 7 managers deliberately mould technology adoption processes to achie%e this end. #ntroduction of ne technology also often in%ol%es the abolition of the closed shop and the introduction of no strike deals but many groups of highly organi.ed orkers ha%e sho n that such ork process changes can be contested. 4e ly empo ered skilled orkers can sei.e control of the technology and impose a hea%y cost on management through an adroit use of go slo and ork to rule practices. Similarly) there is no reason hy /uality circles +L!s, should be accepted as union substitutes) orkers 7 specially skilled orkers 7 can successfully resist. H1& initiati%es aimed at their indi%iduation. -ut this can occur only if unions acti%ely resist incorporation and de7politicisation of ork organi.ation processes. :airbrother lists a series of “preconditions” for union re%i%al in the post :ordist ork en%ironment. These are +a, high leadership turno%er +b, high le%el of membership participation in union affairs +c, stress on membership education +both technological and political, and +d, a%oidance of sectarianism. &anagement sponsored forms of representation may be skillfully used alongside traditional collecti%e bargaining if these pre 7 re/uisites are met. -oth Thompson and Ackroyd +1;;C, and :airbrother +1;;=, stress that as the ne technology increases the pressure on management to raise profits and continuously meet rising debt obligations) ne opportunities are created for orkplace unionism. Dabour skill and competence re/uirements are rising ine'orably. The production process is often a fragile one and a small group of strategically placed orkers can do a lot of damage /uickly 7 moreo%er as intellectual property becomes pri%ati.ed technology becomes more and more firm specific and firing skilled labour becomes prohibiti%ely e'pensi%e. The central lesson seems to be that the balance of po er at the ork place is constructed politically not technologically. #t is the politics of H1& that need to be challenged for contesting labour disorgani.ation. #n other ords) union re%i%alism at the ork place must in%ol%e an e'plicit re6ection of the liberal democratic premises of H1&. -ut the orkplace is often an inade/uate place for fully articulating such a re6ection and it must in%ol%e the linking of orkplace organi.ation to national political forces 7 orker confidence at the shop floor cannot be built up or sustained in a political en%ironment characteri.ed by apathy) defeatism and atomi.ation here traditional parties of labour are continuing to increase their commitment to capitalism. Dabour reorgani.ation at the orkplace) in the market and in the state is restricted not by technological factors but the uni%ersality of capitalist immorality. This is the immorality of human rights) hich asserts the indi%idual’s autonomy and his e/ual right to freedom. At the turn of the t enty first century) this immorality has become uni%ersally dominant in the West) in the sense that a coherent challenge to its dominance is not on the agenda in any ma6or Western country at least for the foreseeable future.


Human rights dominated orders necessarily dissol%e collecti%ities and reconstitute them ith in the single dominant category) capital. This process hich began in 2urope in the se%enteenth century ith the dissolution of !hristian social and political order continues today in the form of the gradual dissolution of the collecti%ities) hich sought to replace !hristian hierarchies. The defeat of the *uritans) the 4a.is and the !ommunists and the disintegration of the elfare state may be interpreted as defining moments in the uni%ersali.ation of human rights based immorality. The dissolution of the collecti%ity hich sustained the elfare state +:ordism, is more problematic for human rights immorality than the dissolution of !hristian or nationalist collecti%ities. This is because :ordism as a moment in the systemic organi.ation and uni%ersali.ation of human rights discourse 7 as !hristianity) nationalism and communism ere not. #ndeed the collecti%e rights asserted by labour ere premised on human rights and social democrat thinkers such as >eynes and -e%eridge +and no Habermas and 1orty, sa them as essential for making labour a sub6ect of capital +>ay and &ott 1;C8 pp. 1@? 71<A,. Human rights are the formal recognition of the so%ereignty of the citi.en 7 his di%ine right to participate in the definition of the good 7 but the actual e'ercise of this so%ereignty is constrained hen the %ast ma6ority of indi%idual citi.ens lack the recourses and the capabilities for this purpose. The constitution of labour into a collecti%ity 7 through trade unions and political parties 7 as a means to o%ercome this constraint. Dabour’s collecti%e rights ere means for enabling the indi%idual to become a citi.en 7 a sub6ect of capital. 2%en in the :ordist era ho e%er the constitution of a collecti%e sub6ect restricted the uni%ersali.ation of human rights. 4o.ick +1;C1, and Hayek +1;CC, ha%e documented this at great length. The near uni%ersal commitment to indi%idual freedom has ensured an increase in the concentration and the centrali.ation of capital. This led to a transcendence of collecti%e sub6ecti%ity and its associated collecti%e rights throughJ • The gro th of consumerism and hat used to be called “high mass consumption”. The middle class became a /uantitati%e ma6ority in mature capitalist order. As conditions for access to resources ere uniformalised) commitment to capitalist rationality became the primary determinant of success. 2conomic mobility ithin mature capitalist societies increased and social e'clusion as confined to those ho ere un illing to or incapable of internalising capitalist %alues and rationalities. The disappearance of o nership in any meaningful sense as far as in%estment and financing of capital e'penditure is concerned. The systemic dominance of financial markets. &anufacturing is a declining source of $5* in all mature capitalist economies and less than ten percent of transactions on the international e'changes ha%e anything to do ith the financing of physical in%estment and trade 7 ;E percent of these transactions are purely speculati%e +Hirst and Thompson 1;;?,.  The decline in the so%ereignty of the nation states hich has taken three formsB  An increase in the political po er of globalising capital ithin the nation state 7 this is specially the case in America.  The emergence of super state political authorities and regional authoritati%e institutions in the 2uropean GnionB  An e'pansion in the mandate and scope of operation of multilateral agencies such as the #nternational &onetary :und and the World Trade 0rgani.ation. The dominance of global capital at the national le%el) emergence of super state authorities and the empo ering of multilateral agencies ha%e all contributed to a shift a ay from collecti%e rights. This is most clearly e%ident in 2urope here the emergence of the common currency is correctly seen as a means for dismantling the national bargaining structures) hich determine age le%els in :rance) $ermany and #taly +Habermas 8EE1,.

• •


The reassertion of collecti%e rights seems unlikely because of the increase in the concentration and centrali.ation of capital) the systemic domination of financial markets) the erosion of national so%ereignty and the gro th of consumerism. These trends emanate from the logic of capital itself 7 they are necessary for its continued “uni%ersal permanence” in a Hegelian sense. The assertion of collecti%e rights as a phase in capitalist history 7 the phase of the construction of industrial) national capital. That phase has been transcended and the dominant form of capital is no financial F global not industrial F national. A re%ersion to the former phase +“:ordism”, ill necessarily constrain efficient accumulation 7 accumulation hich ma'imi.es profit by enhanced financial mediation of e'change %alue produced on the basis of a continuously relati%ely narro ing commodity base. Such efficient accumulation can be constrained by crisis by labour unrest and by nationalist go%ernments. -ut if the uni%ersal) permanence of capitalist order is to be maintained efficient accumulation must pre%ail 7 both logically and “in the long run”. !ollecti%e rights are premised on human rights and on them alone +>ay and &ott 1;C8,. Human rights are merely the ob%erse of the duty to accumulate capital 7 that is hy human rights discourse +in for e'ample Docke or &ontes/ue or e%en Hegel, is grounded on a defense of capitalist property. !ollecti%e rights ser%e the purpose of initiating the transformation of the sub6ect of $od into the sub6ect of capital. -ut this as an unsatisfactory transformation in that the ne sub6ecti%ity maintained an +at least potentially, antagonistic autonomy. !ollecti%e rights ensured access to 1a ls’ primary goods 7 income) ealth) po er) authority 7 hich ere beyond the reach of the indi%iduals ho though endo ed ith formal human rights ere still members of the proletariat. As capital accumulates and centrali.es) access to po er F authority become some hat irrele%ant 7 hence declining %oter turnouts in 02!5 country elections +5ahrendorf 1;;A, 7 and access to income and ealth increases. The rationale for the continued e'istence of labour as a collecti%e sub6ect is eakened and the uni%ersali.ation of the age form +in particular, leads to a collapse of labour into capital. The accumulation of capital becomes the purpose of being and the atomised indi%idual becomes a direct) immediate) sub6ect of uni%ersal) permanent capital. *ost :ordist capital is of course not uni%ersal permanent and like all historical phenomenon it ill pass a ay. -ut social democracy cannot today be a means for capitalism’s death or for its sur%i%al. *ost :ordist capitalism’s essential systemic eaknesses are +a, the atomisation of the indi%idual and the disintegration of communities +b, a gro ing dis6uncture bet een the organi.ation of production and finance +both global, on the one hand and of political go%ernance +national and sub7national, on the other +c, the e'clusion of a rising mass of unemployable indi%iduals from the immediate circuit of accumulation. These eaknesses ha%e created great an'iety and despair reflected for e.g. in modern American literature. A idely popular no%el Sno !rash by 4eil Stephenson speaks of a t enty first century America parceled out among pri%ate corporations in hich national go%ernment has lost rele%ance 7 go%ernment is merely a corporate entity running its o n little encla%e. !iti.enship has died American shores are threatened by in%aders from “the 1aft” 7 floating hulks inhabited by millions of Asians hoping to s im to America. The 1aft is a %ast international slum ruled by criminal gangs. The central message of Sno !rash and of countless other orks popular today is that democracy is a farce and go%ernment is merely an agent for giant corporations. This %ision of hat Hobsba m describes as “the collapse of citi.enship” has roots in post modernist philosophies 7 such as those of :oucault and Heidegger. *ost modernism ho e%er preaches resignation not resistance +3ameson 1;;8, 7 resignation to the ghastly reality of the %iolent) inhuman) corrupt society that is contemporary America. Social democratic pleas for a return to :ordism +Habermas 1;;;) 1orty 1;;C, are misconcei%ed in the sense that :ordist collecti%e rights ere means for enabling ordinary citi.ens to access resources essential for the practice of human rights. Such resources can be accessed relati%ely easily in the de%eloped countries today despite the gro th of unemployment and income ine/ualities. The resignation) hopelessness) apathy and dread hich manifest themsel%es in a ithdra al from citi.enship in America is


a reflection of a idespread disillusionment ith the 2nlightenment ideals of indi%idual autonomy and freedom as the ob6ecti%e of political order. The social democrat pro6ect has succeeded in that through the construction of collecti%e rights) human rights practice has been uni%ersalised in the West. -ut there is decreasing space for the e'istence of any collecti%ist sub6ecti%ity 7 communitarian) occupational) religious) national 7 in post :ordist) capitalist order. The indi%idual is a direct) immediate) uni%ersal) permanent sub6ect of capital. He finds this to be a horrific) nauseating and dreadful situation. -ut escape from this sub6ection to capital cannot be achie%ed by the construction of a sub6ecti%ity premised on 2nlightenment discourse and concerned ith the uni%ersal practice of human rights. #t is this practice) hich has created the asteland that Heidegger and :oucault and Duhmann describe. Those ithdra ing from citi.enship re6ect the sub6ecti%ity of capital. They seek to break the golden chains of freedom. !apital seeks to deny po er to those ho re6ect its sub6ectification. The ne't section argues that its principle strategy in this ar against morality is to attempt to destroy the non hegemonic state. Summary: The Market

• • •

• • • • • •

!apitalism is the /uest for freedom. :reedom is sought in the market. The market is a tri%iali.ation of personal choice. #t tri%iali.es all ends. #t is immoral reflecting a concatenation of desires :reedom is e%il for it tri%iali.es all good. Spheres of life cannot be separated. The market dominates all spheres of life ( it has no boundaries. The market creates Hegelian “ci%il society” in hich e%eryone pursues interests through contracts. 4o room for families or tribes) no room for lo%e in the market. The market commodifies all life practises. All acts are %alued in terms of their contribution to freedom F accumulation rather than in terms of their intrinsic %alues. All indi%iduals are %alued not in terms of their moral orth but in terms of their contribution to freedom F accumulation. The ba..ar is bounded by halal Fharam and con%entions F traditions of #slamic biradries. The ba..ar is marketi.ed hen all this is abandoned and %aluation is on the basis of contribution to accumulation alone. The market forces the indi%idual to %alue all desires in accordance ith their contribution to freedom F accumulation. *ractises hich restrict accumulation F freedom are assigned negati%e %alue. #n this sense the market commodifies all being. The market is immoral for it produces no absolute %alue. :reedom is a mere nothingness. #t systematically relati%ists all %alue and coloni.es all social sphere. #t is totali.ing e%il. &arketi.ing society is accepting the global hegemony of capital. This hegemony is created by state po er or po er of international organi.ations W-FWT0F#&: GS la s being uni%ersali.ed to create a global technology market. &arketi.ing society re/uires the legitimi.ing of capitalist property ( property dedicated to accumulation. Separation of o nership from control) uni%ersali.ing of the age form through out society and end to pri%ate property. 4o classes e'ist in mature capitalism) orkers) o ners) managers all sub6ect to the la of accumulation. !apitalist regimes are regulated by both “pri%ate” and state agencies. #t is the duty of the capitalist state to pre%ent a mo%ement from capitalist to a non7capitalist social formation. This re/uires +a, uni%ersali.ation of a%arice and co%etousness +b, promotion of belief in the eternity of the orld and participation in it through capital accumulation +c, promotion of faith in capital’s ability to e'pand freedom despite ine/ualities. All beha%ior hich negates this has to be suppressed. 2ssentially re/uired is the dominance of finance ( a%arice F co%etousness uni%ersali.ed here alone. :inance must dominate e%erything7


• •

physical markets) factor markets) pri%ate li%es. A%oiding financial crises ( mismatch of claims F obligations ( main purpose of policy. !rises is al ays possible for e'pectations can be rong. The future +time, is a closed book for economics. This sho s that capitalism can be o%erthro n and capitalist rationality re6ected. #n :ordism pursuit of accumulation is through collecti%e bargaining for ages. This re/uired +a, restriction on mo%ements of capital +b, creation of ne collecti%e identities + orker manager, hich legitimated class struggles. -ut these ne collecti%ities pro%ed e'tra ordinarily eak and collapsed in “post :ordism”. *ost :ordism in%ol%es +a, disorgani.ation of labour +b, increased concentration of capital +c, limitation of the elfare state +d, pro capitalist legislation banning strikes +e, disappearance of full time life long employment +f, customi.ation of ork force through TL&. 1eorgani.ation of labour at orkplace le%el is technologically possible. *ost :ordism has often shifted po er not to managers but from one group of orkers to another +from compositors to 6ournalists ithin print industry,. 4e ly skilled orkers can often sei.e control of technology. As technology is “pri%ati.ed” it becomes firm specific and firing strategically placed skilled orkers becomes %ery costly. Dabour resistance to capitalism is not restricted by technological factors but by the uni%ersal commitment to human rights. Human rights dominated orders dissol%e collecti%ities ( *uritan) 4a.i) !ommunist. -ut :ordism as a moment in the uni%ersali.tion of human rights ( gi%ing collecti%e rights to labour as a means for making it the sub6ect of capital. Human rights proclaim the di%ine right of the citi.en to define the good. !ollecti%e rights ere re/uired to enable the labourer to become a citi.en) a sub6ect of capital. -ut human rights are no directly a%ailable to “labourers” through +a, gro th of consumerism. The ma6ority is the middle class and capitalist %alues ha%e been internali.ed by all in the West +b, globali.ing capital has become more po erful ithin the nation state reducing the scope for collecti%e rights +c, the state is often subordinated by supra state technical agencies +#&:) WT0) 2G,. !ollecti%e rights ha%e been destroyed because capital is no global F financial not national F industrial. Human rights are the ob%erse of the duty to accumulate capital. !ollecti%e rights initiated the process of con%erting the sub6ect of $od into the sub6ect of capital but the ne collecti%ity ( labour ( possessed an antagonistic autonomy. !ollecti%e rights enabled labour to obtain money F po er by confronting capital. -ut as capital accumulates) po er becomes disembodied. All parties ha%e the same programmes. Ioter turn outs fall. 2%eryone is a direct immediate sub6ect of capital. -ut if collecti%ities collapse and go%ernments are agents of corporations democracy cannot sur%i%e. :oucault) 5erida all preach resignation to the corruption that is “post democracy”. :reedom F autonomy is meaningless ( that is hy there is a ithdra al from citi.enship. -ut no ne collecti%ity can be based on human rights. :reedom has made lo%e impossible in the West today.

2. . Civil S!"iety and The State *akistan is +potentially, both #slamic Society and #slamic State. The >uffar seek to turn it into modern *akistan +land of filthiness, by making the reali.ation of this potential impossible. !reating modern *akistan in%ol%es the spreading of corruption in society and in the state. The democrati.ation of *akistan as a key feature to con%ert it into a !apitalist State. The essence of democracy is the assertion of human so%ereignty ( the indi%idual’s presumed right to arbitrarily order his preferences as he ishes. 5emocracy creates a society of immoral e/uality in hich e%ery indi%idual is recogni.ed as e/ually so%ereign irrespecti%e of the /uality of his pri%ate %aluations 7 the drunkard and the fornicator is the immoral e/ual of the 9abid and the .ahid. 5emocracy specifically re6ects the pattern of social stratification sanctioned by #slam. As Sheikh Abu -akr Sira6 ad 5in +&artin


Dings, has sho n +1;;? p 18A 7 18C, mankind is di%ided into three groups “those of the right) those of the left and the foremost” The &uslim community is itself di%ided into “those of the right”) “the righteous” and “the foremost”. The Holy *rophet +may Allah sho er His choicest blessings on our lord and master, often spoke of the superiority of some of the belie%ers o%er others 7 of Sayidna Abu -akr) Sayidna Ali) Sayidna Abu Gbaidah and of the Sahaba as a group +Dings 1;;? p. @8?,. The soul itself according to #slamic teaching is di%ided into the lo er +ammara, the upper +la amah, and the integrated hole +mutmainah,. The supreme aim of democracy is to make this integration of the soul 7 hich tantamounts to its re6oicing acceptance of its status as Allah’s sla%e 7 impossible. 5emocracy teaches the indi%idual to assert his o n so%ereignty ( his right to submit to his o n desires. A soul denying Allah empties itself for Satan and Satan fills it ith lust +shah at, and rath +gha.ab,. The indi%idual destroys his orth by seeking satisfaction of his lust and the e'pression of his rath. &odern *akistan’s ci%il society and the capitalist state depend crucially upon the indi%idual’s conscious re6ection of chastity +iffat, and honour +asmat,. &ost basically this in%ol%es the indi%idual denial of motherhood and femininity. 5emocracy makes society filthy primarily by spreading se'ual corruption and se'ual %ice and destroying haya and purdah 7 the segregation of the se'es. This destroys the family and as the e'perience of the Western countries sho s increasing gender e/uality leads to a uni%ersali.ation of se'ual corruption and .ina and e%entually to national suicide. The rate of gro th of population is no negati%e in the ma6ority of the Western countries 7 e%en in America the results of the 8EE1 census sho similar results for the hite race. The share of Western countries in orld population has fallen from 81 percent in 1;E1 to 1= percent in 8EE1 and is e'pected to fall to ; percent by 8E<E. 4inety eight percent of all children born during 8EEE 7 8E8E ill be in non Western countries. The dearth of children is also creating an aging crisis in the West 7 the o%er A< ho are normally less than 8 percent of a country’s population ill represent almost @E percent of the population of the West by 8E<E +G4 1;;;,. The West is dying for one simple reason 7 se'ual immorality and defemini.ation ha%e made lo%e and motherhood impossible. There are no biological e'planations of the decline in fertility rates. #t is only the diabolical orship of human rights hich induces omen to sacrifice children to the demon of pleasure. Abandoning $od is abandoning life for the “dead heart is incapable of recei%ing life” as Sheikh Abubakr Sira67ud7din teaches. The West pretends that it has forgotten death 7 but as Heidegger foresa it is death alone hich you can choose hen you choose to orship freedom. The most potent danger of the human rights mo%ement is the a%alanche of se'ual corruption hich it has unleashed throughout the orld. #t has effecti%ely destroyed the family in most of 2urope much of America and many parts of the third orld. The H#IFA#5S epidemic is one of its first fruits 7 and the tolerant treatment of A#5S patients hich the World -ank ad%ocates +8EEE p.1A@, implies that it is a natural condition of human e'istence in a right dominated orld. !hastity and honour ha%e become %irtually meaningless 7 city council sur%eys sho that 8? percent of girls under 18 ere raped by their near kin or ac/uaintances in Di%erpool in 1;;C. Almost CE percent of $erman schoolgirls are se'ually acti%e before their thirteenth birthday. #n S eden and 4or ay more than <E percent of all babies born are bastards) se'ual crimes are committed at the rate of t o a minute in America. 0pen fornication 7 in parks) discothe/ues and beaches 7 is becoming a common sight e%en in 2astern 2urope. Western society has become nauseatingly filthy. Third World countries) hich ha%e surrendered to the human rights malaise) are seeing an e'plosion of se'ual %ice. The A#5S epidemic has sei.ed #ndia by its throat and se'ual crimes are sky rocketing. Africa has been de%astated by A#5S 7 its economic progress has been paraly.ed. #t is only the &uslim orld ith its relati%ely strong moral codes and stable family structure that has sho n some social resistance.


A#5S is ho e%er s eeping -angladesh 7 there are reported to be hundreds of thousands of %ictims. The spread of A#5S is a direct conse/uence of the proliferation of the imperialist sponsored defemini.ation mo%ements hich ha%e gro n rapidly since its con/uest by #ndia. Human rights discourse obliterates se'ual morality “ # ant it all and # ant it no ” is its theme song. Homes are destroyed and families recked as omen surge into business) politics and education. The old are abandoned to nursing homes) the children to nurseries and crMches. 5efemini.ation rips apart social cohesion as a knife goes through butter. As the family is ruined pri%ate space is destroyed ( the indi%idual is fore%er sub6ect to the ga.e of human rights imperialism. As :oucault says liberal society is capable of “bringing the effect of po er to its most minute and distant elements”. 4o onder one million American teenagers attempt suicide in an a%erage year. #n order to create modern *akistan) imperialism has launched a ma6or human rights initiati%e. #t sponsors 4$0s and ci%il society organi.ation +!S0s,. Thousands of these 4$0s are financed by imperialism. Some of them are in%ol%ed in political sabotage but their main concern is to legitimise human rights discourse and to delegitimise state initiati%es specially those concerned ith challenging the systemic dominance of global capital. 5e7centrali.ing state authority is delegitimising the state’s concern ith issues of “high politics” and marketising the political system. 4$0sF!S0s are the natural allies of global capital +and the multilateral agencies hich are global capital’s public agents in the Third World,. Although conflict bet een local groups and multinationals ha%e not been uncommon imperialism’s ne “ci%il society” initiati%es seek to subsume them ithin the conte't of human rights discourse to ensure that they are not resol%ed in a manner hich challenges the systemic dominance of global capital. A social order fractured into local groups and single7issue +:oucauldian, mo%ements lea%es little scope for the e'pression of collecti%e identities. 4$0sF!S0s may therefore legitimately be seen as an imperialist in%estment for the disorgani.ation of labour and of lineage based communities and the establishment of the supremacy of global capital in the Third World. !reating modern *akistan must also in%ol%e a reorgani.ation of the *akistani state. The capitalist state plays an important part in creating a manageable indi%iduality in liberal order 7 an indi%iduality hich accepts the ma'imi.ation of freedom as the uni%ersal self e%ident purpose of life and hich is capable of e'ercising self discipline in the pursuit of e/ual freedom. The capitalist state is comprised of an ensemble of relationships hich seek to reproduce a particular social order by enforcing collecti%ely binding decisions on the basis of a specific conception of the general ill. Sustaining a particular conception of the general ill is the essential and distinguishing function of the capitalist state. The state must structure and facilitate ideological discourses hich legitimi.e the particular conception of the general ill hich it seeks to sustain. Structuring this discourse in%ol%es inter%ention in society. State policy pro%ides instruments for such inter%ention. #t is one means among many through hich the capitalist state seeks to structure interpersonal relationships in order to uni%ersali.e particular %alues. *olitical legitimacy re/uires both that the indi%idual accept certain %alues as consensual and the processes through hich their dominance is secured as natural. The state may be said to e'ist only hen it possesses an administrati%e staff hich is empo ered to maintain ideological domination o%er the people. This administrati%e staff shares po er ith other key elements ithin the capitalist state system) particularly its representational strata. *olicy conception) articulation) and reformulation are necessarily a multi7faceted process riddled ith contradictions. State policies usually emerge from shifting) unstable alliances among groups ith differing perceptions and strategies. :or policy initiati%es to be coherent and sustainable) there must be a stable core of support representing the perceptions of a dominant coalition partner. This dominant force must strengthen the internal unity of the state ensemble through hegemonic state pro6ects hich pro%ide the ideological guidelines for the conception and conduct of state policy. The purpose of the hegemonic state pro6ect and


its associated policies is the indi%idual’s sub6ection. This in%ol%es both his sub6ection to the state apparatus and his self 7 sub6ection to a set of particular ideas hose consensuality is sustained by the state 7 these ideas pro%ide a criterion for the e%aluation of the beha%iour of both the dominated and the dominant elements ithin the state system. According to Skinner +1;C;) p.<1,) the liberal state 9is therefore doubly impersonal) e/uated neither ith the ruler nor ith the ruled.’ #t is in this sense that the liberal state is concei%ed as 9so%ereign’. The nature of particular states depends on the particular hegemonic pro6ects undertaken at particular points in time. Duhmann +1;C;, notes that ne forms of organi.ation and administration are re/uired for state formation. State pro6ects form particular types of states 7 polei.estat) 1eichstat) So.ialstat. These different forms are not mutually e'clusi%e. An authoritarian *olei.estat may pursue liberal economic pro6ects as a means for augmenting state po er. Diberal pro6ects necessarily /ualify democratic practice by placing certain 9fundamental rights’ outside the frame ork of democratic decision 7 makingB as 5 orkin +1;?C, argues) the basic liberal commitment is to indi%idualism) the 9right’ of e%ery indi%idual to e/ual concern and respect) irrespecti%e of his self7determined life plan) and not to democracy. Similarly) liberal states need not necessarily be concerned ith securing the conditions of a particular mode of capital accumulation in a gi%en situation. 2%en &ar'ists like 3essup recogni.e thatJ “There is no single unambiguous logic of capital 7 unless it be the autopetic logic of continually reproducing the circuit of capital regardless of the specific forms in hich this occurs. #t follo s that there can be no single unambiguous reference point for state managers +determining, ho the state must ser%e the needs and interests of capital +1;;E p11;,. !apital accumulation can occur under the most di%ergent state forms. There is little that can be said in fa%our of the %ie that a particular state form is 9re/uired’ by capital in general. 4e%ertheless) the performance of certain functions by the state apparatus facilitates capital accumulation. The circuit of capital can be sociali.ed through the state. -ut the state’s capacities to facilitate capital accumulation are necessarily limited. This is reflected in macroeconomic policy failures such as fiscal crises) inflation) unemployment) and debt o%erhang. 2ndorsement of the state’s claim to represent the popular general ill against pri%ate capitalist interests necessitates its +partial, e'clusion from the heart of the production process. There are inherent limitations in using la and money as steering mechanisms. The World -ank literature on 9good go%ernance’ has noted these limitations at great length. The state is thus an imperfect ensemble of institutions and instruments for determining indi%idual consciousness. &oreo%er) the state is a terrain of struggle ith different groups seeking control and dominance. #ts domination o%er society is therefore ne%er complete. The functioning of both state and societal processes are characteri.ed by a relati%e autonomyJ relati%e in the sense that these processes influence but cannot determine each other. They are not self7sufficient and their strategic capacities are al ays limited) relati%e to the tasks hich confront them. #n other ords) although state policy possesses a logic of its o n) it remains part of society and its capacity to determine the indi%idual’s being is contested both ithin and beyond its boundaries. The state’s formal responsibility of sustaining a particular interpretation of the general ill re/uires it to manage the relati%e autonomy and functional interdependence of the ma6or sub7systems +cultural) political) economic, of a particular social order. The success of a state pro6ect is measured by its ability to integrate these systems into a non7necessary) socially constituted) and sustainable relati%e unity. *olitical practices 7 including macroeconomic policies 7 are means for sustaining this relati%e unity of the ma6or sub7systems of a desired social order so as to achie%e a particular sub6ection of the indi%idual.


Assessing the effecti%eness of state policies re/uires a specification of the desired social order and the desired sub6ecti%ity that the forces hich dominate the state seek to create and sustain. -uilding modern *akistan is creating a capitalist state structure in *akistan through the uni%ersali.ation of democratic practice. The purpose of democratic practice is to sub6ect the *akistani state to the hegemony of global capital. That is hy all democratic parties 7 the &uslim Deague) and the *eople’s *arty in particular 7 seek imperialist support and enthusiastically espouse the imperialist economic agenda =A. The essential difference bet een *akistan and modern *akistan is thisJ *akistan is an #slamic society and state hich re6ects the immorality of freedom) proclaims the so%ereignty of Allah and declares 6ihad on uni%ersal) permanent global capital) modern *akistan is a liberal F nationalist society and state hich asserts human rights and human so%ereignty and submits to the global hegemony of uni%ersal) permanent capital. The strategy for creating modern *akistan has t o elements. :irst the go%ernment seeks to rapidly integrate the *akistan economy into the global capitalist economy 7 this is a deliberate policy choice and not dictated by financial or technological imperati%es. *akistan’s trade F $4* ratio is only about @@ per cent is a typical year and net foreign capital inflo s e/ual about 1E percent of gross in%estment +*2S %arious Statistical appendi',. The *akistan economy performed creditably during 1;;;F8EEE hen there as no #&: sur%eillance 7 $5* gro th as =.; percent) inflation @.A percent) in%estment efficiency rose) the trade balance impro%ed and the 1upee did not depreciate at all for the first time in many years. We did not recei%e a penny in assistance from the #&: or the World -ank or the A5- or the #slamic 5e%elopment -ank during that year=? 7 yet e paid more than NAEE million to these institutions as usury charges. This illustrates that a self reliant strategy is %iable and fruitful e%en in the most difficult circumstances. !reating modern *akistan is a central concern of the secularists. They ha%e handed the reins of economic policy making to agents of American imperialism. These people ha%e spent their entire orking li%es as ser%ants of !itibank) the #&: and the World -ank. #t is literally true that they are on a mission. A central pro6ect of the secularists is locali.ation. Weakening the state is seen as necessary for creating modern *akistan. Without this it is belie%ed that our country cannot be sub6ected to the so%ereignty of uni%ersal permanent capital. Docali.ation is the transfer of authority from federal to local go%ernments. These local go%ernments are formed by local bodies election. -ut alongside these locally elected representati%es they also include 4$0s and representati%es of secular ci%il society. The purpose of these local go%ernments is to create modern *akistan by seculari.ing society 7 marketi.ing not 6ust the traditional #slamic ba..ar but the mohalla) the baradri) the school) the mos/ue) all aspects of &uslim community life. The reser%ation of a proportionally large number of seats for omen and for the >uffar is a means to ensure that the local go%ernment plays this seculari.ation and defemini.ation role effecti%ely. &arketi.ation is the principle instrument for the seculari.ation of society. Docal go%ernments are to be concerned ith ma'imi.ing economic elfare ithin their territories. The local go%ernments are to function as elfare F profit ma'imi.ing corporations. Docal go%ernments are e'pected to finance their acti%ities by floating municipal bonds on national and international stock e'changes. All public ser%ices are being pri%ati.ed 7 including e%en the collection of ta'es and policing. #t is hoped that multinational corporations and international banks ill sei.e control of the local go%ernments by purchasing their bonds and by participating in pri%ati.ation 7 as is already happening in 3akarta here a multinational company has sei.ed control of the hole urban ater supply system. We can therefore see that through the locali.ation process po er is sought to be ultimately transferred from the federal go%ernment to international banks and multinational companies. Docal go%ernments are merely the local agents of global capital. &ost important they are a means for reducing the commitment of the people to issues of high politics 7 defense) economic self reliance) ideological orientation. modern *akistan ill be fractured into


local ra6 aras hich ill surrender national so%ereignty to another imperialist po er) as -hopal) Ii.yanagram) Hyderabad) 1ampur) 3unagarh surrendered so%ereignty to imperialist po er -ritain. &odern *akistan ill ha%e no independent defense) foreign or economic policy. At best it may be allo ed to en6oy dominion status ithin the American empire) or hat is more probable &odern *akistan ill collapse into #ndia) completely abandoning #slam and re%erting to Hinduism +1i.%i 8EEE pp. ;711, =C. !reating &odern *akistan through locali.ation necessitates the uni%ersali.ation of human rights discourse. Gni%ersalising human rights is uni%ersalising the %ices of a%arice and co%etousness. Human rights separates 1iffat from #slam and from the ummah by teaching her self orship 7 her right to re6ect Allah’s authority and ill hat she ills =;. This destroys 1iffat’s capabilities for lo%e and sacrifice and makes it impossible for her to participate in family life for the family is founded on lo%e and sacrifice alone. The destruction of the family is a necessary pre re/uisite for the uni%ersali.ation of human rights discourse and for 1iffat’s sub6ection to a%arice and co%etousness +i.e. freedom,. Gni%ersalising human rights discourse is a means for transforming 1iffat from being a sub6ect of Allah to being a sub6ect of capital. This must in%ol%e her complete defeminisation 7 her total renunciation of motherhood. Docali.ation is thus an aspect of uni%ersalising 2nlightenment norms and practices the essence of hich is the orship of freedom F capital. This uni%ersali.ation is to be achie%ed by destroying national so%ereignties in the Third World and subordinating them to the authority of America) hich itself has become an agent of global capital. #n order to understand hy this is necessary e must look at America. Summary: Civil S!"iety and the Capitalist State

• • •

• • •

5estroying the po er of those ho re6ect capitalist sub6ectification is an attempt to destroy *akistan. *akistan is to be con%erted into &odern *akistan by democracy. #n democracy all are e/ual) irrespecti%e of the /uality of their pri%ate %aluations. 5emocracy re6ects #slamic social stratification based on ta/ a. 5emocracy fills the soul ith lust and rath. 5emocratic society leads to capital accumulation through degendering and spreading of the %ices of a%ariceFco%etousness and se'ual immorality. 5eclining population in the West) se'ual corruption) A#5S in #ndia and -angladesh. Also Africa. Agents for spreading se'ual %ice) a%arice are imperialist sponsored 4$0s. They seek decentralesation and marketisation of the political system. #nterest orientation and single issue +:oucualdian, mo%ements destroy communities and pa%e the ay for the dominance of global capital. The liberal state creates a particular indi%iduality hich e'cersises self discipline for the ma'imisation of freedom. #nterpersonal relations are also restructured for this purpose. All state pro6ects ser%e this purpose. 5emocracy may itself ha%e) to be limited to ensure ma'imisation of freedomFaccumulation +Algeria,. The state represents “capital in general” this re/uires its e'clusion from spheres of competition hile managing competition. This is the essence of “good go%ernance”. The state must manage all social sub7systems +cultural) religious) economic, to ensure the reproduction of relations of accumulation. A liberal state in the modern orld must be sub6ect to the global hegemony of capital. That is hy all democratic parties seek imperialist support and espouse the imperialist agenda. !reating &odern *akistan re/uires +a, integration ithin the orld capitalist economy. This is not ine%itable since OP&F$5* and :#F$4* are lo . 1;;;F8EEE performance good. #&: programmes disastrous. :oreign e'perts destroying the *ak economy. Docalisation) Doss of so%ereignty marketising society local go%ernment function as profit ma'imisers. *ri%ati.ation. :loation of bonds. 5omination by &4!S (4$0s local agents of liberal capital. They redue the commitment of the people to high politics &odern *akistan ill collapse into #ndia or America.


• •

Docalisation leads to uni%ersalisation of human rights) defeminisation and re6ection of Allah’s so%ereignty. This must in%ol%e destroying *akistan for *akistan proclaims Allah’s so%ereignty. *akistan is an #slamic society and state) proclaiming Allah’s so%ereignty and declaring 6ihad on global capital. &odern *akistan is a liberal societyFstate) asserting human right and submitting to the hegemony of global capital and to America.

2.#. $meri"a and %l!&al Capitalist Order What is the theoretical 6ustification for seeking dissolution of national so%ereignties in the Third World and the subordination of Third World polities to global capital" To ans er this /uestion e ha%e to consider the nature of the relationship bet een capital and the state. !apital may be defined as “e%er e'panding e'change %alue in the form of pure /uantity” +&es.aros 1;;< p.11<, 7 this corresponds to the !hristianF#slamic concept of a%arice F takathur. !apital may also be described as a concrete form of freedom +Suri 1;;; p.?E,. At least in liberal F capitalist societies both negati%e and positi%e liberties can be actuali.ed mainly through control of capital 7 in practice the capitalist is freer than the non capitalist + ho as Docke sa could not be holly free lacking property,. :reedom is a continuing self76ustifying /uest for human self7creation) in%ol%ing an assertion of man’s mastery o%er nature. A capitalist system has the follo ing essential features. • • • • • The primary means of social control are economic. The credit ne'us is uni%ersally dominant. Gnder capitalism “money has no master” *rofit ma'imi.ation determines the organi.ation of all production including the production of “kno ledge”. The market is the primary means for the homogenisation of indi%iduality and of all social practices. The e'istence of a system of %aluation of all practices in terms of their contribution to accumulation 7 this implies the dominance of financial markets o%er society. #nterest is the key reference price in capitalism. The establishment of formal e/uality 7 as a citi.en 7and substanti%e) ine/uality 7 as a sub6ect of capital. The primary purpose of the state is to pro%ide a political F legal frame ork for the continuous reproduction of formal e/uality and substanti%e ine/uality in capitalist society.

The state may be defined as the structure of legitimate obediences necessary for the articulation of a ay of life based on the practice of consensual social %alues. These consensual %alues emerge in society +ci%il or religions,. Diberal society +properly called ci%il society, comes into being hen e/ual freedom +/uest for self 7 creation, ac/uires the status of a consensual social norm. !i%il society comes into being hen freedom +of hich capital is the main concrete form, is desired for is o n sake 7 i.e. as an end in itself by most indi%iduals. #n 2urope and America religious society as transformed into ci%il society during the 1Cth to 8Eth centuries. This “great transformationJ” took t o distinct forms the Anglo7Sa'on and the $ermanic. #n the Anglo Sa'on pro6ect freedom as achie%ed through the state sponsored de%elopment of a free market +$ray 1;;;,. #n America) for e'ample the free market as established by the merciless slaughter of fifteen million 1ed #ndians +among other state initiati%es,. #n $ermany freedom as sought through the de%elopment of a political commitment to a nationalist Weltanschauung 7 the market as subordinated to the so%ereign ill of the political community) hich sought freedom not for the indi%idual but for the community as a hole. As $ray has perceptibly pointed out +1;;;. !hp1, America seeks to uni%ersalise the Anglo Sa'on /uest for freedom. This commitment to the Anglo7Sa'on 7 rather than the $ermanic 7 pro6ect is not per%erse or


myopic +as $ray seems to belie%e,. #t’s selection is determined by a crucial eakness of capitalist order. !apital accumulation and concentration logically entails the disorgani.ation and atomisation of labour. The mo%ement of capital logically disorgani.es and decomposes the political communities) hich sustain capitalism 7 and does not articulate a morality for the constitution of a ne political community. “Gni%ersal citi.enship” is inherently incompatible ith globali.ation for such citi.enship +like national citi.enship, ould ine%itably stand in the ay of capital accumulation. That is hy eakening of +say, $erman citi.enship does not lead to a strengthening of 2uropean citi.enship and federal 2urope is necessarily a 4e 1ight pro6ect. #n ci%il society it is capital) hich is so%ereign concretely) and this so%ereignty is e'ercised o%er the citi.en ho is a sub6ect of capital 7 and hose so%ereignty is an abstraction) a medium for the reali.ation of the concrete so%ereignty of capital. The citi.en possesses the standard negati%e freedoms and >antian autonomy. These freedoms are endorsed in a constitutional order founded on a recognition of assumedly in%iolable human rights. !onstitutional orders operationalise the practice of the doctrine of Toleration hich restricts the pursuit of collecti%ist ends to facilitate personal autonomy. The political community does not possess the right to o%erride human rights. Since human rights can be articulated mainly by accessing capital in ci%il society they can be %ie ed as the ob%erse of the duty to accumulate capital. The doctrine of Toleration is thus a legitimation of the subordination of the +abstract, so%ereignty of the citi.en to the +concrete, so%ereignty of capital. There is no such thing as a liberal community hich is not in a process of self7destruction for capitalism necessarily corrodes the pre liberal moralities on hich liberal public order is founded. *ersonal autonomy can be seen as negati%ely associated ith state po er and positi%ely associated ith the gro th of the so%ereignty of capital. #t is in this sense that personal autonomy is a community destroying force. !apital has no outgro n the nation state. #t needs a state) hich delegitimates citi.en’s national so%ereignty +e'cept as an abstraction,. The focus on human rights) Toleration and pluralism is a means for achie%ing this delegitimation of the citi.en’s national so%ereignty through a eakening of the nation state. There are t o essential steps that must be taken to ensure nation state disintegration and subordination to global capital. :irst national identities and high politics must be de7legitimised. The World -ank’s priority concern ith locali.ation reflects this initiati%e. “Autonomous” ci%ic go%ernments ill be less concerned ith issues of national ideology) foreign policy and state po er. The citi.en ill see himself primarily as a consumer. He ill be illing to bargain ith the agents of global capital directly) unencumbered ith collecti%ist ideological and po er preoccupations. “!i%ic communities” are a contradiction in terms. &odern cities destroy communities. They are the natural habitat of the isolated) atomised) self7determining practitioner of human rights. Hong >ong) *anama) !osta 1ica) &acao and Singapore illustrate the reality of ci%ic go%ernance 7 its total subser%ience to global capital and its comprehensi%e re6ection of high politics. Second the transformation of the citi.en into a consumer and the delegitimation of high politics re/uire a bureaucrati.ation of the later. #ssues regarding the defense of capitalist orld order and regulation of global commodity and finance markets must be remo%ed from the arena of public choice. The G4 and its speciali.ed agencies pro%ide the resources for this bureaucrati.ation of high politics. The Security !ouncil) the *eace >eeping &issions) the WT0) the #&: and the World -ank ha%e been crafted to ser%e as the public agents of global capital. Their task is to replace “the go%ernment of people by the administration of things” through the technicalisation of the issues of high politics such as legitimation of American terrorist attacks throughout the orld) disarmament) financial market de7regulation) trade liberali.ation) immigration) aging policy and en%ironmental management. Technicalisation and “depoliticisation” of such issues is necessary because the national democratic decision7making process e%en in America ill not produce the type of results re/uired to sustain and e'tend the dominance of global capital. The nation state must therefore be transcended not by a global democracy but by the


bureaucratic) technocratic tyranny of global capital. A global democracy cannot be built for the concentration of capital re/uires the disintegration of political communities. Gni%ersali.ation of human rights is a means for the disintegration of political communities at the national le%el. #t is a means for social atomisation. Human rights are asserted against political communities) they cannot of course pro%ide a foundation for the formation of a global community represented in a orld state. $lobali.ation manifests liberalism’s contingent) non7necessary endorsement of democracy. Diberalism is the political 6ustification of the public order of capital 7 it is nothing else. That is hy all classical liberals argue that a commitment to personal autonomy implies endorsement of capitalist property. Human rights re/uire the uni%ersali.ation of capitalist property since human rights practices presume the ob6ectification of labour and the atomisation of the social agent. !apitalist property is the primordial form of indi%idual liberty +Summers 1;AC p.1@?,. Diberalism endorses the democratic process hen the anticipated out come is an e'tension of human rights and capitalist property. When democratic practices threaten to restrict capitalist property and human rights liberal policy is necessarily anti democratic. The post modern liberal pro6ect of globali.ation is anti democratic for democratic practice e%en in the West threatens to create public identities demanding restraint on the uni%ersali.ation of human rights and capitalist property. Diberalism therefore seeks to transfer political po er from the natural habitat of the so%ereign citi.en 7 the nation state and to lodge it at le%els +local and global, here the citi.en is depri%ed of his so%ereignty and rendered incapable of contesting the so%ereignty of capital. 5emocratic process in the Third World is likely be more sub%ersi%e of capitalist property and human rights since globali.ation is necessarily an ine/uali.ing) immiseri.ing phenomenon and takes place largely at the e'pense of the mustadafeen +the disempo ered, in the third orld 7 for one South >orea one can count fifty !ongos. 5emocracy in the third orld may become a threat to global capital and human rights imperialism. Hence the nation state must be disempo ered and so%ereignty transferred to the state of global capital) America +Qakaria 8EE@,. 5isempo ering third orld states is also an urgent America strategic need. As *eterson +1;;;, sho s the t enty first century is likely to see a perceptible decline in the global po er of the West. 5emographic factors are the underlying determinants of this loss of po er. #t is estimated that by 8E@E the ratio of orking ta'payers to pensioners ill fall to 1.<J1 7 as against @J1 in 8EEE in the 02!5 countries. *eople o%er A< ill constitute roughly a third of the population of these countries. This rapid increase in the elderly represents an increasingly ominous fiscal burden for the 02!5 counties. #t is officially estimated that the 02!5 countries ill ha%e to spend an e'tra ; to 1A percent of their $5* during 8EEE 7 8E@E merely to meet their old age benefit commitments. To finance this an increase of @E to =E percent in e'isting ta'ation le%els in the 02!5 countries ill be re/uired. !learly this is politically unfeasible so go%ernments ould ha%e to ha%e %ery high fiscal deficits absorbing much of the sa%ing of the 02!5 countries and F or drastically cut old age benefits. Aging 02!5 countries ill seek to attract third orld sa%ings to finance their fiscal deficits<E. 5efense e'penditure ould also ha%e to be cut back to pay for old age benefits. As populations shrink not e%en America the sole rogue super po er ill be able to afford a gro th in its defense spending. :alling populations ill mean smaller imperialist armies. !apital intensity of imperialist ar machines ill increase and America ill usually respond to challenges to the hegemony of global capital by terrorist attacks on the third orld states and all out attacks ith nuclear eapons. -ut *akistan +i.e. #slamic society and state, possesses nuclear eapons and has an increasing capacity to retaliate effecti%ely to super po er terrorist attacks through the mobili.ation of the mu6ah6ideen. *eterson rites “The richest industrial po ers of the future + ill, be demographically imploding) capital importing) fiscally star%ing neutrals ho t ist and turn to a%oid e'pensi%e international entanglements “+1;;; p. <E,. &oreo%er the West ill be increasingly dependent on the Third World for surplus capital and as a home for its in%estments.


-ut Third World countries ill fund imperialist e'penditure <1 and in%estment only if they ha%e been subordinated to the public order of global capital. As *eterson recogni.es the main danger to imperialist global hegemony come from “the most rapidly urbani.ing) most institutionally unstable areas) + hich, are most likely to fall under the s ay of re%olutionary leadership. +These, are the societies that spa ned most of the military strongmen ho ha%e bede%iled the Gnited States and 2urope in recent decades”+1;;; p.<1,. The long term planners of the *entagon predict that urban re%olutionary upsurge in the third orld ill pro%ide a ma6or challenge to the rogue super state America in the first decade of the t enty first century. *entagon strategists are particularly apprehensi%e of “youth bulges” in the orld’s poorest urban centres. Docali.ation is a strategy for using the re%olutionary .eal of poor urban youth to fuel secessionist mo%ements leading to the disempo erment of nation states throughout the third orld. America is uni/uely suited to play the role of a surrogate global state disciplining the indi%idual) society and non capitalist states to organi.e sub6ection to global capital 7 moreo%er no other political structures e'ist at present hich can enable global capital to e'ercise its systemic so%ereignty. Thus hile global capital eakens other states) it strengthens America. American policies for tightening imperialist control are immensely popular ith the American people) as e%ery *resident and aspirant *resident kno s. American state terrorism ill increase because it ill become immensely popular domestically 7 much as gladiatorial contests became all the rage during the dying days of the 1oman empire. #n order to understand this phenomenon e ill ha%e to look closely at American society. &erciless slaughter of defenseless people is the dominant theme of American history. :ifteen million 1ed #ndians ere systematically butchered o%er a period of t o hundred years and an entire continent stolen from them 7 much as the Qionists are no murdering and plundering *alestine. The 1ed #ndians ha%e been follo ed by &e'icans) &oros) >oreans) Iietnamese) !ambodian) Dao) Serbs) Afghans and #ra/is in this ne%er ending horror story of the blood thirsty American /uest for orld domination. -ut such sa%agery is not confined to American’s dealings ith strangers. #t characteri.es all public life in America. Today America’s prison population rose. #t no stands at ell o%er t o million. American imprisonment rates are no more than si' times higher than those of -ritain) !anada or :rance. #n addition to this a further @.@ million Americans are on probation and o%er ?EE)EEE on parole. 0ne percent of all hite American males and ; percent of all black American males are currently in prison. 0%er 1.8 million black male Americans are on probation or parole. #ncarceration rates ha%e more than doubled for both hite and black American males during the past t enty years. The American -ureau of 3ustice Statistics predicted in 1;;; that a third of all American black males ill go to prison during their life time. Thirty three percent of all black male Americans are currently under some form of 9correctional’ control as against 1< percent of all hite males in America. The crime industry is booming in America 7 a /uarter of all li%ing Americans ha%e been %ictims of %iolence during their li%es 7 as against only 1? percent in strife torn 4orthern #reland. #ncrease in imprisonment has ho e%er failed to check criminal beha%iour. Thus the number of people imprisoned for drug abuse rose by t el%e hundred percent during 1;?; to 1;;? but the -ureau of 3ustice Statistics data sho s that drug abuse is rampant throughout America. The percentage of American high school seniors ho thought it easy to get hold of 9mild’ drugs such as mari6uana rose from CC percent in 1;?< to C; percent in 1;;<. The share of American school children ho thought it easy to get hold of 9hard core’ drugs increased form @? percent to =; percent during this period. The rising purity of drugs and increased drugs use has led to a four7fold increase in drugs related deaths during 1;?;71;;?. H#I and Hepatitis ! epidemics are also gro ing in tandem.


The booming American crime economy is offering glamorous lifestyles and attracti%e career opportunities. A life de%oted to crime in%ol%es little risk for the GS police force is amongst the most corrupt and least efficient in the orld. The -ureau of 3ustice Statistics estimates that in 1;;? only @ percent of %iolent crimes led to prison sentences in America. The ma6ority of cases remain unresol%ed and the American legal profession has no become an inseparable component of the national crime industry. The criminalisation of the American 6ustice system recei%ed an impetus during 4i'on’s %icious persecution of the -lack *anthers. Since then the American 3ustice administration has learnt ho to use the introduction of drugs and the organi.ation of gang arfare as a means for controlling the inner cities. The GS police has learnt ho to induce urban riots so as to murder its %ictims methodically. The abuses at Abu $harib are a mild reflection of the torture and rape that is routine in prisons throughout America. #t is not only the criminals ho thri%e on crime in America) the 6ustice department) the police force and the legal professions all share the booty. -usiness also prospers for as imprisonment rates increase prisons ha%e to be built all o%er the country. As ealth concentrates the bloated financial sector pulls in%estment a ay from inner cities) small to ns and e%en suburbia. !onstructing prison buildings is a means for offsetting these ealth7ine/uali.ing pressures and hence the prison industry has become both lucrati%e and popular. #t pro%ides local 6obs. We can no speak +as Dadipo does, of a ne “prison industrial comple'” comprising of builders) subcontractors) trade unionists) local and state administrators etc. The prison industry is also being pri%ati.ed and pri%ately run prisons are attracting lucrati%e federal and state contracts. The !orrections !orporation of America +!!A, leads the po erful and increasingly influential pri%ate prison industry. The second largest pri%ate prison firm Wackenhut. !orrection is run by 1eagan’s former 4ational Security Ad%isor. The #nformation and !ommunication Technology +#!T, industry has also found the prison industrial comple' useful 7 for prisoners phone collect and can be charged higher rates. -ooming tech stocks thus re/uire booming prison population. *risons ha%e also become a source of cheap labour for the multinationals. *rison made output sales increased by @@< percent during 1;CE to 1;;= and in 1;;? ere ell in e'cess of N@ billion TWA) &icrosoft and Starbucks are among the leading employers of prison labour. There are many stakeholders 7 police officers) la yers) 6udges) local and federal officials) multinationals and labour leaders 7 benefiting from the prosperity of American criminality. They seek to ensure that the criminal population continues to gro . The most effecti%e means for ensuring this is prison life itself. American prisons systematically brutali.e the ne prisoner. 1ape is the most common means for ensuring discipline. A 1;;= sur%ey of a &id estern prison re%ealed that 88 percent of male prisoners had been raped. The Stop *risoners 1ape $roup estimates that about @EE)EEE males are raped annually in GS prison 7 usually repeatedly. The youngest and most %ulnerable are routinely targeted. #t is no idely accepted that almost e%ery American oman prisoner is routinely raped by guards) officials) %isitors procured by guards and fello prisoners. The prisoners at Abu $harib are merely e'periencing hat is normal practise in American prisons. The total officially recogni.ed criminal population of America is about A million and gro ing at an annual a%erage rate of about 11 percent. 0nce a criminal al ays a criminal 7 this is ensured by conditions inside the prison and by American social conditions generally. Sammuels estimates that the total population benefiting directly or indirectly from the crime economy as about A? million in 1;;< 7 about a /uarter of all Americans benefit from the continuing criminalisation of American society. #s there any onder that they enthusiastically applaud the global crimes of the American State" Ho did America become such a sick society and the a%erage American citi.en a neurotic) paranoid) demonic) psychopath" An ans er to this /uestion re/uires an understanding of American history.


The founding fathers of the -ritish colonies in 4orth America ere no ordinary criminals 7 they ere criminals ho 6ustified their crimes in the name of !hristianity. The pioneers sallied forth to murder) rob) rape and spread diseases among the 1ed #ndians ith !hristian hymns on their lips and crosses in their hands. This process lasted for se%eral centuries 7 as 3ohn 5ee has sho n in his path breaking study 'ury My (eart at )!unded *nee+ Abraham Dincoln as an enthusiastic 1ed #ndian slaughterer. *rotestant !hristianity’s greatest crime against $od as its sponsoring of 1ed #ndian genocide in 4orth America. $od’s holy book 7 the -ible 7 as grotes/uely distorted to 6ustify these crimes and lay the foundations of a rapacious) marauding state system in hich the White &an claimed so%ereignty and 6ustified his re%olt against $od. The ,ederalist -apers+ hich pro%ide the conceptual frame ork of the American constitution are replete ith such claims. Whitman and 5e ey are apostles of human so%ereignty. Their modern day disciple 1ichard 1orty brags that “America is the only country hich seeks not to please $od but to please oursel%es”. In $"hievin. Our C!untry 1orty celebrates America’s rebellion against $od and argues that “ e ha%e the right to forgi%e oursel%es the crimes e committed” +1;;C p?@, and continue to commit. The essential doctrine of the American !onstitution is “Da ilha illa #nsan” 7 man has the inalienable right to define good and e%il and to li%e a life) hich pleases himself. Society is based on a +constitutional, contract) hich facilitates accumulation to enable man to please himself. The supreme moral duty) of hich human rights are merely a corollary) is the duty to accumulate capital. !apitalism compels man to accumulate capital for its o n sake. Human rights are merely a means for performing this duty. !apital is intrinsically e%il in itself and fosters the gro th of the %ices of a%arice and co%etousness +competition, A rights based society is a society hich necessarily distorts indi%idual perception and promotes immorality. #n such a society the indi%idual forgets death and seeks to become $od. This idespread self obsession destroys indi%idual morality. #n such a society lo%e is impossible and the con/uest of nature 7 most importantly human nature 7 turns e%ery man into a predator. This rights obsessed predator ars against $od and ars against himself. His life is %icious) demonic and frustrating because he seeks to usurp $od’s authority and orship his o n self. The American constitution and the global human rights mo%ement hich it has spa ned ridicules the holy te'ts and seeks to trample on $od’s commands. 4o onder America and its associated human rights entourage regard the &uslims as their primary enemies and 7 in #ra/ and *alestine and Afghanistan and >ashmir 7 continue their campaign of mass terror and genocide. #slam challenges human rights discourse and the satanic social orders it sustains. #slam re6ects man’s right to interpret $od’s ill and seeks to construct a moral political system on the basis of man’s total and unconditional surrender to $od. The emergence of such an order ould destroy global capitalism and its agency can only be an #slamic state. 5estroying state authority in the &uslim orld is therefore an important need of global capitalism hich is characteri.ed by the increasing dominance of the financial markets o%er systems of production and e'change. !orporate management is today more sub6ect to finance market discipline than e%er before and restructuring today typically in%ol%es state de7regulation. This systemic dominance of finance is embedded in the nature of capital +a%arice and co%etousness,. The limitless e'pansion of financial markets reflects the inherent insatiability of desire ( there are no limits to the gro th of a%arice and 6ealousy.


Gnlimited e'pansion of capital re/uires uni%ersali.ation of rules and procedures throughout the orld ( the creation not 6ust of global markets but also of global state structures. This globali.ation of rules) procedures and norms is a re/uirement of the functioning of the global debt market for it is go%ernment issued debt instruments hich ser%e as the bench mark for the determination of the price of all debt ( i.e. the structure of interest rates. #t is in this sense that e can assert that public debt remains at the basis of the structure of pri%ate debt. :inance capital and its limitless e'pansion re/uires that states pursue “risk free” policies i.e. policies that do not endanger the limitless e'pansion of finance. The financial markets punish states hich act “irresponsibly”) but their capacity to do so is constrained. They can destroy Argentina) crush #ndonesia) relegate >orea) humble :rance ( but they cannot punish America ithout seriously in6uring themsel%es. While most “autonomous” central banks ha%e become instruments of global finance ( means for subordinating national economies to global financial markets ( this is not true of the :ederal 1eser%e System +-linder 1;;C,. The health of the GS economy is a pre7condition for the health of the globali.ed financial system. The Americani.ation of the international regulatory regimes) through the ork of the -ank of #nternational Settlements) the #&:) the World Trade 0rgani.ation and pri%ate and /uasi7pri%ate sector regulatory bodies in accountancy) intellectual property) legislation determination of /uality standards etc) reflects the strength of the American state as an ultimate guarantor of the dominance of global finance. #t is sometimes held that globali.ation has been an American state pro6ect ( “made by America”. The GS go%ernment has had a key role in mediating financial crises in the 1;;Es. #n 1;;C the Wall Street 3ournal stated “the sad fact is that the international banks ne%er accomplish much unless pushed by the GS Treasury” and 1udi 5urnbusch summed up the impact of the 2ast Asia crisis thus “the positi%e side is that South >orea is no o ned and operated by the GS Treasury” +both /uoted in *anitch 8EEE p.<,. The American state has been strengthened by the globali.ation of finance. The political nature of global finance as captured in one of 4icos *oulant.is seminal studies o%er three decades ago +1;?<,. He sa multinational capital as an agent of social transformation subordinating both host country markets and the host country states to America. This according to *oulant.is lead to the creation of a “ne type of non territorial imperialism) implanted and maintainedH thought the induced reproduction of the form of the dominant imperialist po er ithin each national formation and its state” +*=A,. $lobali.ation re/uires “the e'tended reproduction ithin +each dominated national formation, of the ideological and political conditions for the de%elopment of American imperialism” +*oulant.is 1;?< p.=?,. American ideology +the ideology of human rights, markets and go%ernance process must achie%e hegemony in the sense that they alone are recogni.ed as legitimately ordained “imperati%es of reason” +>ant’s “categorical imperati%es”) Habermas “necessary pre7suppositions”,. State elites) in e%ery country) ha%e to be taught to Americani.e local markets and go%ernance processes and to subordinate them to America. As 2d ard !onor sho s in great detail +1;;C, officials from the GS 5epartment of 5efence) the GS Treasury the #&:) the World -ank and the WT0 play a crucial role in negotiating terms on hich GS hegemony is institutionali.ed in both metropolitan +i.e. 2uropean, and non7metropolitan states. Similarly Iogel +1;;A, and &oran +1;;=, ha%e presented impressi%e e%idence to sho that the liberali.ation of financial markets) pri%ati.ation and de7regulation all depend crucially on GS sponsorship and support. “America in e%ery important respectH. has the predominant po er to shape frame orks and influence outcomes. This implies that it can dra the limits ithin hich others choose from a restricted list of options the restrictions being in large part a result of GS decisions” +Strange 1;C; p.1A;,. Strange’s description of GS hegemony needs to be /uoted at some length. “What is emerging therefore is a non7territorial empire ith its imperial capital in Washington) 5.!. here imperial capitals used to dra courtiers from outlying pro%inces) Washington dra s lobbyists from


outlying enterprises) outlying minority groups) and globally organi.ed pressure groupsH As in 1ome) citi.enship is not limited to a master race and the empire contains a mi' of citi.ens ith full legal and political rights) semiciti.ens and nonciti.ens like 1ome’s sla%e population. &any of the semiciti.ens alk the streets of 1io or of -onn) of Dondon or &adrid) shoulder to shoulder ith the nonciti.ensB no one can necessarily tell them apart by color or race or e%en dress. The semiciti.ens of the empire are many and idespread. They li%e for the most part in the great cites of the noncommunist orld. They include many people employed by the large transnational corporations operating in the transnational production structure and ser%ing as they are all %ery ell a are) a global market. They include the people employed in transnational banks. They often include members of the 9national’ armed forces) those that are trained) armed by) and dependent on the armed forces of the Gnited States. They include many academics in medicine) natural sciences) and social studies like management and economics ho look to G.S. professional associations and to G.S. uni%ersities as the peer group in hose eyes they ish to shine and to e'cel. They include people in the press and media for hom G.S. technology and G.S. e'amples ha%e sho n the ay” +1;C; p. 1A?,. Qhigenie -rer.henski notes that “the three great imperati%es of +GS, geopolitical strategy are to pre%ent collusion and maintain dependence among the %assals) to keep tributaries pliant and to keep the barbarians from coming together’ +1;;? p.=E,. These ob6ecti%es are to be achie%ed by Americani.ing societies and go%ernance processes of both “%assal” and “barbarian” states. As 1i.%i +8EE1, argues America is the first state hich 6ustifies its e'istence on the grounds of capital accumulation +9liberty’ and 9pursuit of happiness’ in the 3effersonian formulation,. Human rights ideology is America’s national ideology Americani.ing societies and states on a global scale re/uires the prior legitimation of uni%ersal human rights. 0nly constitutional) liberal states seeking integration in orld capitalist markets and accepting American systemic hegemony are recogni.ed as legitimate repositories of +limited, national so%ereignty in the global order of human rights imperialism. States hich refuse to accept the +unlimited, so%ereignty of capital and American hegemony +#slamic Afghanistan) 4orth >orea) !uba) pre ar #ra/, must be sub6ected to unrelenting genocide. There is 4o Alternati%e strategy or policy because human rights imperialism demands man’s total) unconditional) final and eternal surrender to capital. We ill continue to struggle against human rights imperialism because e belie%e in Allah’s so%ereignty +His attribute of being &alik7ul7&ulk,. We re6ect the so%ereignty of capital and see human rights ideology as a means for the uni%ersalisation of the %ices of a%arice and co%etousness. Human rights imperialism ordains the e'istence of ci%il society in hich all moral ends are regarded as e/ually tri%ial and in hich outcomes are %alued strictly in accordance ith their contribution to capital accumulation. Human rights imperialism compels us to Americani.e our society and our go%ernance processes and to submit to the systemic hegemony of America. :or these reasons imperialism. e ill continue to struggle against human rights ideology and human rights

Summary: $meri"a and %l!&ali/ati!n America is the state of global capital. The state reconciles formal political e/uality and substanti%e market ine/uality for sustaining capitalism. The stateF market ci%il society dominated by takathur. #n 2roupe free marketsFci%il society created by the state. The GS established the free market by the slaughter of the 1ed #ndians. America seeks to uni%ersali.e the /uest for freedom. -ut a global capitalist state is not possible for it re/uires a global community hich capital can’t produce since there is no other. +as in nationalism,.


• •

• • •

Gni%ersali.ing human rights is treating %alue as tri%ial ( this is the doctrine of Toleration (the social dominance of e'change %alue. Toleration is the recognition of capital’s so%ereignty. This must destroy communities. $o%ernance by capital takes the place of go%ernance by nationFcommunities. The citi.en becomes a consumer an in%estor ( a sub6ect of capital and of its state America. This means that high politics are bareaucratised. 5efence of orld capitalist order and regulation of markets must be beaurocratisedFremo%ed from public choice ( the Security !ouncil) the peace keeping missions) #&:) WT0) all agents of American beaurocracy. Technicali.ation of issues such as disarmament) American terrorism) trade liberali.ation) financial de7regulation) emigration) ageing policy. The nation state is sub6ected to global beaurocratic tyranny. The ideology of this bearuuoratic tyranny is human rights. Human rights ensure that democratic practices cannot frustrate capitalist so%ereignty ( democratic politics must destroy #slam +Algeria) Turkey,. American dominance of *akistan is necessary) because of demography. #n 02!5. +a, ta'payers to non ta'payers ratio ill fall from @.E to 1.< o%er 8EEE78E@E +b, o%er A< population ill rise to @E percent of total +c, 1ER of $5* ill ha%e to be allocated for pension payments re/uiring massi%e ta' increases. Therefore go%ernment deficits ould ha%e to rise 5efense e'penditure cut back re/uired. American terrorism and nuclear attacks ill increase as population and army shrinks. America ill become more dependent on third orld sa%ings and in%estment. Grban re%olutionary uphea%al feared. America ants to direct re%olutionary .eal to ards seccionist not ant imperialist mo%ements. $lobal capital strengthens America because American state and society are uni/uely suitable for sustaining capitalist global hegemony. American society. 7 Slaughter of 1ed #ndians) &e'icans) &oros) >oreans) Iietnamese) #ra/is. 7 *rison population) 8 million plus = million on probation and parole. 7 1 percent of hites 1E percent of blacks in prisons. 7 !rime soaring. *rison population doubled 1;CE78EEE. 7 Thirty three percent of all black males e'pected to go to prison during their life. 7 8< percent of all li%ing American %ictims of %iolent crime. 7 <E percent of all school children use drugs. 7 GS police most corrupt @ percent crimes con%iction rate. 7 *olice officers) business) 6ustice dept.) trade unions all benefit from the crime industry total population benefiting directlyFindirectly A? million. 1e6ecting Allah’s so%ereignty a central feature of the American constitution. America is free to please itself. !apital accumulation and Tolerance sacred. America the natural state of global capital America #slam’s natural e'eny for #slam re6ects freedom and asserts the so%ereignty of Allah.


Chapter 0usti1yin. and %!vernin. Capitalism This chapter ill argue that seeking the transcendence and o%er thro of capitalist order re/uires an e'plicit re6ection of the social sciences for the social sciences legitimate capitalist order and supply capitalism’s go%ernance technology. !ontemporary #slamic scholarship and contemporary #slamic re%olutionary acti%ism has often adopted a /uasi conciliatory stance to ards social science methodologies and the policies generated by an application of social scientific thought to contemporary problems. We argue that an e'plicit re6ection of the social scientific episteme is re/uired for a delegitimation of the norms and structures of the Western ay of life and for its supercession by #slam. The chapter is di%ided into four sections. We begin by %ery briefly tracing the genealogy of the social sciences and identifying the metaphysical foundation underlying social science methodologies and practices. We argue that the social sciences are teleological ( not %alue neutral ( and their essential purpose is to legitimate and operationali.e capitalism. Subse/uent sections sho ho three ma6or social sciences ( economics political science and social theory ( perform the function of capitalist legitimation and the operationali.ation and structuring of capitalist practices. #n chapter #I e ill sho ho #slamic economics) the sociology of #slam and #slamic constitutionalism ha%e become means for subordinating. #slamic norms and practices to capitalist order. This illustrates the inherent danger in%ol%ed in employing social science methodologies for de%eloping #slamic policy responses to contemporary problems. .1. The %eneal!.y and Tel!s !1 the S!"ial S"ien"es Social sciences are of recent origin. Their origin may be traced to the re%i%al of classical philosophy in the se%enteenth century and its formal separation from theology) e'pressed most emphatically in a do ngrading of Aristotelian thought and an espousal of the empiricist methodologies. The appearance of the social sciences is coterminous ith the appearance of modern man. The essence of modernity is post !hristian secularism. Secularism transforms man’s conception of being and his relationship to the orld. &an sees himself) not as part of creation but as actual or potential creatorFmaster of nature. This is both an epistemological and an ethical claim. Since man is +actual or potential, creator the telosFpurpose of theoretical and practical reason is the articulation of this creati%ity F mastery. The promotion of po er F pleasure as the purpose of all theoretical and practical acti%ity is pro%ided 6ustification by :rancis -acon in the 1Ath F 1?th century. “The true and la ful end of the sciences” he rites “is that human life be enriched” +cited in 1oberts 1;;? p=<1,. -acon is a founding father of both 2mpiricism and Gtilitarianism. -acon’s ork also illustrates the close association bet een modern science and modern philosophy ( the former rests upon indispensable assumptions about the nature of being and of the orld pro%ided by the later. The natural sciences concei%ed of the uni%erse as a mechanical system in hich change as a conse/uence of the uniform and uni%ersal orking of the la s of nature hich ere not dependent on $od’s ill. #n this conception $od as at most a atch maker and the act of creation effecti%ely ended ith the manufacture of the clock that as the uni%erse. *ost 4e tonian science sees the uni%erse as a self regulating) self contained dynamic order. #n this conception truth itself is a conse/uence of self disco%ery ( not re%ealed by $od. The 2nlightenment sa reason as an instrument for self disco%ery and self fulfillment) not for ser%ing $od. The only authority is the self’s desires ( for as Docke taught moral %alues reflected merely the minds e'perience of pleasure and pain. The %alue of kno ledge as determined by utility F pleasure and this as specially so as far as the practical +physical and social, sciences ere concerned. *ractical reason decreed ealth not %irtue to be its ob6ecti%e. The >antian and Humean strains of 2nlightenment complement and reinforce each other for freedom is seen a as necessary condition for ell being and ell being F happiness is a pre condition for freedom. The inherent anti clericalism of the 2nlightenment mo%ement ( both 1ationalism and 1emittanticism ( reflects this commitment to po er and pleasure. &an should not submit to $od nor should he seek to please Him. &an is free to make of the orld hat he ills and pleasing himself is the only purpose of rational acti%ity.


The social sciences ( anthropology) economics) political science) psychology and sociology ( share the 2nlightenment’s conception of being and of kno ledge. The transition from !hristian to humanist belief took place o%er se%eral centuries in 2urope and both the natural and social sciences are products of this transition. The natural and the social sciences thus share common metaphysical presumptions ( but the social sciences are a more comprehensi%e and unreser%ed endorsement of the 2nlightenment’s basic beliefs. There is no such thing as a pre 2nlightenment economics or a pre 2nlightenment sociology and the essential purpose of the in%ention of economics and sociology is to reali.e the 2nlightenment ob6ecti%es of self fulfillment and material progress. As against this pre 2nlightenment physics and chemistry did e'ist and e%en in the ork of 4e ton 2nlightenment metaphysical presumptions are not fully endorsed and some room remains for traditional religious beliefs <8. Accepting social science methodologies necessitates accepting 2nlightenment presumptions regarding the nature of being and kno ledge. Luite e'plicitly social sciences commit their practitioners to a specific amalgamation of the philosophies of Hume and >ant. :or Hume nothing e'ists but sensations. 1eason is a sla%e of the passions +1;<1 p=<1, not an autonomous human capability. 1eason can therefore pro%ide no proof of natural la s or of causati%e processes but Hume argues men ha%e a natural propensity to presume the uni%ersality of natural la s and in Hume’s %ie this intuiti%e belief in natural regularity necessitated a re6ection of all religious doctrine. Hume’s empiricism pro%ides the philosophical underpinnings for the utilitarian approach common to all social sciences ( utilitarianism is the translation into social and moral theory of the core of Humean empiricism. Human beha%iour ( indi%idual and institutionali.ed ( is to be 6udged not in terms of religious edicts but on the basis of this orldly pleasure ma'imi.ing conse/uences. The application of this felicific calculus to acts) indi%iduals and performance of institutions pro%ided an indispensable basis for the 6ustification of capitalist order. #t is also a basis for 6ustifying democracy for all human beings are seen on ha%ing the same passions and in the felicific calculus e%ery indi%idual counts as one. >ant as an a%id student of HumeB >ant strongly endorsed the cogniti%e claims of empiricist based sciences. As e ha%e seen in !hp.8 >ant did not re6ect the Humean claim that the senses pro%ide no proof of the e'istence of natural la s or causati%e processes. #nstead >ant presumed that the notion of causality and ob6ecti%ity are inscribed in the structure of the human mind. 0ur e'perience of the e'ternal orld is shaped F structured by pre7e'isting mental categories. “The self” says >ant “does not deri%e its la s from but prescribes them to nature” +1;<= pA?, for “it possesses an order hich is fi'ed and inalienable in all of us” +p?@,. >ant agrees ith Hume that the orld is not “out there” but “in us” >ant’s assertion that “ob6ects must confirm to kno ledge” +1;AA p?<, implies that it is the self hich determines the structure of e'periences. The self imposes the one possible set of structures upon the orld) hich it has disco%ered by categori.ing its sensations to recogni.e ob6ects and their relations and by de%eloping concepts on the basis of such 9understanding’. The self is thus the basic source of all e'periences and concepts. >ant describes it as “transcendental” in that it is the necessary and uni%ersal basis of all e'periencing and conceptuali.ing<@. The self possesses “a priori kno ledge of the concept of an ob6ect and the process of causation<= and reality must conform to those structures of the mind. &an is autonomous in that he can unaided disco%er truth. >ant’s emphasis on rights and duties do not ( as e ha%e seen ( represent a definiti%e break ith empiricism. 1ule utilitarianism +follo ing &ill, endorses both indi%idual rights and uni%ersali.ability. 5espite it’s focus on separable phenomena empiricism seeks to in%estigate hat it takes to be an orderly structure of the orld. The utilitarian calculus is grounded on a basis ( e%ery indi%idual counting as a basis ( hich >ant 6ustifies in the form of autonomy. 2mpiricism and >antian mechanism compliment each other in the 2nlightenment pro6ect and both seek to defeat a comma enemy) religion. -oth Hume and >ant opened the ay for the


de%elopment of the liberal social order in hich the rational) pleasure seeking human indi%idual replaced $od as the source of creation) kno ledge and %alue. #n the 1;th century &ill as to rite “o%er his o n body and mind the indi%idual is so%ereign” +1;AE p1<,. This illustrates the comma commitment of utilitarianism and >antianism to freedom. &uch earlier -enthan and Smith had recogni.ed that freedom as to be sought in ealth not in %irtue. Diberalism and capitalism are committed to the elimination not of %ice but of +absolute, po%erty and as Smith argues) to the promotion of the “passion for money making”. #n his Theory of &oral Sentiments Smith speaks of “self interest” as the legitimate summation of all passion and this as Hirschman has sho n is an essential moral argument 6ustifying capitalism +1;??,. !apitalism according to Smith emerged as an unintended conse/uence of the pursuit of self interest of the “great proprietors” and “merchants and artificers” +1;C1 p.@?E,. !apitalist order is 6ustified according to Smith because it establishes liberal political rule and ensures orld ide plentitude<<. Smith recogni.ed that sustaining capitalist order re/uires the e'istence and reproduction of an indi%iduality focused on the pursuit of +this orldly, self interests and committed to the legitimacy of liberal rights. #t is the uni%ersali.ation of this type of indi%iduality hich ensures that e'pansion of the market and dominance of the rule of la +of capital, become ine'tricably interlinked. The market is both a means and an end ofFfor the uni%ersali.ation of liberal rights. The market and the liberal state are instruments for the e'pression of the theoretical so%ereignty of the indi%idual and his practical sub6ection to capital in public life and to the passions in his moral %aluation <A. The principal function of the social sciences is to 6ustify capitalist order. 2'plicitly this entails the 6ustification ofJ • !apitalist indi%iduality ( being dominated by a%arice and co%etousness and rationality seeking truth through understanding human ill and imposing its order on the orld. • !apitalist property ( the organi.ation of production and e'change ith the ob6ecti%e of continuous e'pansion of capital in the form of pure /uantity and the sub6ugation of all %aluation to the logic of capital accumulation<?. • 1ule of la of capital ( an order reali.ing the simultaneous reproduction of theoretically so%ereign but practically sub6ected indi%iduality. The social sciences also pro%ide a frame ork for ensuring the practical functionality of capitalism. !apitalist order must produce both abundance and liberties in e%er e'panding amounts continuously. This re/uires a continuous read6ustment of the market state relationship hich the social sciences facilitate. They pro%ide tools for constructing relationships that balance the need for e'panded capital accumulation ith the need for a%oiding marginali.ation and e'clusion from social order of that o%er helming ma6ority of capitalism’s sub6ects ho do not accumulate but are the sub6ects of capital. -oth the legitimating and the functional role of the social sciences are of fundamental importance for the continuing reproduction of capitalist order. This is so because capitalist order is not natural. &en do not naturally submit to the rule of capital +a%ariceFco%etousness, &en are not naturally self interested and there are no moral F theological grounds a%ailable for legitimating self interest as a life go%erning principle +-ell 1;?A,. &en are not free and do not naturally seek freedom. They ha%e to be forced to be free by capital. 2%en Hayek can rite) “man has not de%eloped in freedom. :reedom as made possible by the disciplines of ci%ili.ation” +1;?; p.1A@,. The social sciences pro%ide the technologies of go%ernance necessary for the creation and sustenance of capitalist order ( an order in hich man is sub6ected to freedom +a%ariceFco%etousness,. #n the follo ing section e shall seek to describe ho three ma6or social sciences ( economics and political science ( legitimate capitalist order and pro%ide technologies for its go%ernance.


• • • •

• •

Summary: The %eneses and Tel!s !1 the S!"ial S"ien"es: $ Summary Social science methodologies are teleological ( not %alue neutral. Their essential purpose is to legitimate and pro%ide the technologies of go%ernance for creating and sustaining capitalist order. Social sciences presume the %alidity of the central proposition of >antian mechanism and empiricism F utilitarianism. Social sciences are committed to a secular conception of being and the orld. &an is a +an actual or potential, creator of the orld and the purpose of practical reason is to establish man’s mastery o%er the orld. Social sciences presume the uni%erse to be a self contained self regulating dynamic mechanism the la s of motion of hich are to be disco%ered Fdetermined by self reflection. >no ledge is a product of the self understanding of the self hich imposes its order on the orld. The self itself cannot be kno n for it is the condition of kno ledge. 1eason is a means for practicing the uni%ersalisable commands of the +unkno able, self. The social sciences are committed to freedom ( the unlimited right of the self is to ill its ends. -elief in the self legislating self eliminates the need for seeking any moral authority for granting the self this unlimited right. The social sciences are an unreser%ed and total endorsement of the beliefs underlying mechanism and utilitarianism. The social sciences are means for the reali.ation of 2nlightenment ends ( self fulfillment and progress. There is therefore no room in the social sciences for the recognition of $od as sustainer +1abb, as there is in 4e tonian physics. The social sciences recogni.e reason as a sla%e of the passions. All indi%idual acts and institutions are to be 6udged on the basis of the felicific calculus. Wealth not %irtue is an end in itself. &an is recogni.ed as so%ereign in the basic sense that he is the sole legitimate possessor of his body. The social sciences are committed to the elimination not of %ice but of po%erty and to the promotion of the passion for money making. !apitalism is the uni%ersali.ation of this passion ( the uni%ersali.ation of a%arice and co%etousness. The social sciences legitimate and pro%ide technologies of go%ernance for operationali.ing the rule of capital in the market and in the state.

.2. 2"!n!mi"s While Schumpeter begins his History from $reeco71oman times he traces the emergence of economics as a separate science from the middle of the se%enteenth to the end of the eighteenth century appearing as a broadly self contained system of assumptions) theories and techni/ues in the Wealth of 4ations +1;A1 p.<1,<C. The >antian ( Humean roots of classical economics are e%ident in its commitment to indi%idualism despite its recognition of distinct social classes. Society as seen as being based an economic ( not on political or religious7foundations. #n Smith for e'ample the mode of subsistence is regarded as the determinant of moral sentiments) forms of go%ernment and social institutions. The di%ision of labour is the mechanism through hich society e%ol%es through four stages) hunting) pastorage) agriculture and commerce. The state is an instrument for the promotion F protection of the moral sentiments and the property form appropriate to a particular mode of subsistence +&eek 1;?A,. The moral order is strictly subordinate to the economic order a means for ensuring the later’s reproduction. #n Smith’s “commercial society” the primary rule of the state is to secure human rights and to promote the marketi.ation of social relations <;. Such a society is sustained by human nature ( “the propensity to truck) barter and e'change” ( but re/uires the protection of a liberal state. While the pursuit of self interest creates a po erful impetus for the material progress of society) social harmony is based on the technological dependence of the three great classes ( labourers) lando ners and “o ners of stock” +capitalists, ( for the furtherance of the di%ision of labour and the e'pansion of the market. All classes benefit from and therefore support accumulation. Accelerating the rate of accumulation is thus a re/uirement of social 6ustice hich the liberal state can ensure by promoting uni%ersal self interestedness.


Self oriented indi%iduation and social harmony are thus seen as mutually reinforcing tendencies in capitalist society. Social harmony re/uires that the indi%idual be oriented to the pursuit of his self interest and capitalist society is 6ustified on the grounds of material progress. *rotecting the natural and inalienable right of capitalist property is thus an essential element in the construction of a 6ust order. 1icardo completed Smith’s system by formally basing economic analysis on the labour theory of %alue hich e/uates the %alue of a commodity ith the labour time used up in its production. This labour theory of %alue also pro%ides the basis for Docke’s 6ustification of human rights and of representati%e democracyAE. The %alue concept is thus emptied of its moral content and firmly grounded on a materiali.ed basis. The concept of a 6ust price becomes meaningless and capitalist 6ustice is merely e/uating costs and re%enues +allo ing for normal profits,. !apitalist society as theori.ed as resting on a rationalist) naturalist base and interference ith the market on the basis of moral prohibitions and in6unctions +halal and haram, ere delegitimi.ed. The legislati%e proposals put for ard by the classical economists ere thus based on class interests A1 and not as moral considerations ( Smith and 1icordo’s only “moral” commitment as to the gro th of capital) hich as e'plicitly seen as an end in itself. &odern economic analysis begins ith the abstract alienated indi%idual ho uses his reason to ma'imi.e his consumption or his profit. He finds himself “thro n” +in a Heidegerian sense, into a system of relationships ith other indi%iduals ho manifest the same beha%ior patterns. 2conomics ne%er asksJ here did this system come from" *roduction and e'change are seen as strictly technical processes and their 9moral’ content ( the commitment to self interest and the tri%iali.ation of moral concerns ( is deliberately concealed. Thus the social relations of capitalism are presented as natural and the formal e'pressions of human rationality ( rationality is dedicated to the fulfillment of self interest and it is unnatural F irrational to use rationality for achie%ing any other ends. Self interest commits the +abstract, indi%idual to accumulation F freedom ( i.e. to a continuous ne%er ending amassment of means for reali.ing one’s ends. All ends are de%oid of moral content and hence tri%ial for as >ant teaches the self cannot be kno n nor its ends e%aluated e'cept on the basis of the uni%ersalisability criterion. Accumulation is therefore the only end in itself in capitalist order and necessarily becomes the basis for ascribing %alue to all practices. 2conomics sees the indi%idual as free in t o fundamental senses. :irst he possesses capitalist property A8. Secondly he must be free of all moral constraints. !onstitutional arrangements and legal regulation are means for e'panding the indi%idual’s realm of freedom. Da and the constitution are thus means for sub6ugating the indi%idual to capitalist property +most essentially his body and its desires, and freeing him from morality. 2'panding the realm of freedom re/uires the organi.ation of production and e'change on the basis of the circulation of capitalist money ( money dedicated to accumulation and registering the e'change %alue of practices in terms appro'imate to their contribution to accumulation. !apitalist money possesses the po er of self e'pansion ( that is hy interest is the life blood of capitalism +&aududi 1;A1 p?=, and this is hat distinguishes it from non capitalist money. &oney takes the form of capital in the process of self e'pansionA@ and self e'pansion of money becomes the purpose of the circulation of money among economic practices. Those ho control the process of accumulation are not the o ners but the agents of capital ( the de%ils of a%arice and co%etousness are in possession of their souls. That is hy managers ( and not shareholders ( control and organi.e production and e'change in capitalist society and as &es.aros +1;;<, sho s e%en the ealthiest shareholder has no po er to defyFre6ect capitalist rationality ( he must accept resource allocation in accordance ith the need for capital accumulation or go bankrupt. #n capitalist society people are ( in principle ( e/ually free i.e. e/ually committed to the uni%ersali.ation of a%arice and co%etousness +takkathur,. The history of 2urope and America sho s that practical freedom is capital accumulation. #t is nothing else A=. :reedom is the possessionFsub6ugation of man by capital +indi%idually or collecti%ely,. !apitalist society remains harmonious +and can be reproduced, as long as


indi%iduals committed to the uni%ersali.ation of e/ual freedom +a%arice and co%etousness, remain legitimately dominant ( either because most people are committed to e/ual freedom or because people holding non capitalist %alues do not ha%e the po er to legitimately challenge the capitalist elite. #t is particularly important to reali.e that distributional struggles ( struggles for e'ample for the establishment of a elfare state sanctioned by >eynesianism or for communism ( cannot transcend capitalism for they do not challenge the doctrine and practice of the uni%ersali.ability of e/ual freedom +a%arice and co%etousness,. The capitalist elite recogni.es the possibility of a systemic challenge based on %alue change A< and a particular concern of traditional sociology has been to generate pro capitalistic solidaristic sentiments through secular education and encouragement of ci%il society institutions *romoting liberal %alues has been a central pro6ect of social science and it is in this sense that Herbert Spenser called sociology 9a moral science’ +1;E= pCC,. -ut since the late 1; th century economics has mo%ed a ay from ad%ocacy and this task has been monopoli.ed by mainstream sociology. The dominant paradigm ithin economics during the last century and a /uarter has been that of marginalism) pioneered by 3e%ons) Walras and &engerAA. The marginalists used a ne method of economic analysis and applied the calculus to the determination of prices. They also re6ected the possibility of the ob6ecti%e determination of e'change %alue by abandoning the labour theory of %alue. #n the marginalist perception relati%e prices ere determined by utility +not costs of production, and utility of commodities and practices as sub6ecti%ely determined on the basis of preferences that marginalist economics took as gi%en. &arginalism and modern economics base their claim of %alue neutrality on the grounds that they take preference as gi%en and do not ostensibly ad6udicate among them. 4e%ertheless modern economics is based on a /uite specific theory of indi%iduality and society and pro%ides a materialistic 6ustification for capitalist order. 2conomics is not a positi%e science in any sense. #t is not a technology applicable to any end. #t presumes the e/ual tri%iality of all ends and preference orderings. Without accepting this presupposition the claim that economic rationality enables the optimi.ation of preference fulfillment in meaningless. This is so because economic rationality structures transactions to prioriti.e accumulation and such a society necessarily articulates a preference for preference itself. The dominance of the preference for preference negates all other %alue claims and the market) through its rationality) coloni.es both indi%idual being and the hole of the life of society. &odern economics has >antian roots. #t insists on a rigorous separaton of facts and %alues but ad%ocates freedom +a%arice and co%etousness, and accumulation as an end in itself disguised as a means for the satisfaction of ends. &a'imi.ation of freedom is garbed in the robes of optimum allocation of resources for the elimination of scarcity and policy prescriptions +specially concerning the e'tent and form of go%ernment inter%ention, are deri%ed for achie%ing this end. !apitalist rationality and capitalist institutions are 6ustified on this basis. 2conomics argues that capitalist institutions are natural and secure the general interest. 2conomics assumes that e%ery rational indi%idual is committed to the ma'imi.ation of freedom +a%arice and co%etousness,. 2conomic rationality seeks to sho ho this can be achie%ed in an ideal orld characteri.ed by perfect kno ledge) perfect foresight) pure rationality and perfect competition. 2conomics is not concerned ith sho ing ho prices are determined in any actually e'isting capitalism but in e%aluating actually e'isting capitalism on the basis of its ideal of pure rationality +i.e. total and unreser%ed commitment to the ma'imi.ation of freedom,. #t is this unreser%ed commitment to freedom ma'imi.ation hich makes scarcity the central problem hich economics addresses. 0nly scarce goods ha%e e'change %alue ( since air is not scarce) it’s marginal unit has no %alue. 2conomics assumes that 2%eryman seeks to escape scarcity and ma'imi.e utility. #n seeking utility ma'imi.ation ithin the market each indi%idual is faced ith gi%en e'change ratios +prices,. To ma'imi.e utility the relati%e marginal utilities of goods possessed by the indi%idual must correspond to the prices +e'change ratios, in hich they stand. Gnder conditions of perfect rationality and perfect competition it can be sho n that the prices hich pre%ail ill clear all markets. These prices ill


correspond to the free and rational choices of all indi%idual members of society seeking utility +freedom, ma'imi.ation in conditions of scarcity. 2conomics thus abstracts both from the process of preference formation and the process of production. $i%en preferences and gi%en production technology + hich in this perspecti%e alone determine production relations, rational +utilityFprofit ma'imi.ing, indi%iduals make the optimum use of resources under conditions of scarcity. *rices of production ser%ices +9factors’ of production, are determined in a manner analogous to the determination of the prices of commodities ( i.e. on the basis of correspondence of the marginal contribution of each 9factor’ of production to the final utility generated in the production process. 1eturn to 9capital’) labour and land are thus sho n to correspond to their respecti%e contribution to utility as estimated by the sub6ecti%ely determined preferences of utility ma'imi.ing consumers. Assuming perfect kno ledge) foresight) rationality +i.e. utility F profit ma'imi.ing beha%iour, and competition factor markets can also be sho n to clear +i.e. eliminate e'cess supply and demand,. As these are abstract models they necessarily ignore historical specifics. They are not positi%e as they merely assume and cannot 6ustify utilityFprofit ma'imi.ation. They pro%ide 6ustification for the e'istence of capitalist property) capitalist money and capitalist markets on the basis of the presumed necessity F durability of utility F profit ma'imi.ation A?. These institutions are re/uired for both structuring social decisions on the basis of utility ma'imi.ation and for the estimation of utility in outcomes of indi%idual practices. Within this frame ork the prices that arise are a conse/uence of the spontaneous and unconstrained e'pressions of capitalist rationality ( a rationality committed to utilityFprofit ma'imi.ation. All institutions) of both the market and the state) can then be theori.ed as technical instruments enabling free utility and profit ma'imi.ing indi%iduals to practise their economic rationality. *rices are thus optimal in t o senses. :irst they pro%ide rational opportunities for calculating utility outcomes of utilityFprofit ma'imi.ing practices. Secondly they permit technically efficient social institutionali.ation at the le%el of the market and the state. “5istorting” prices frustrates utility ma'imi.ing decisions of autonomous indi%iduals. #t is both technically inefficient +in that it reduces aggregate utilityFprofit ma'imi.ation, and un6ust. Such “distortion” may ho e%er be 6ustified on t o grounds. • • !ompetition in the market is not perfect and inter%ention is necessary to reduce monopoly. Here prices are being “corrected” to approach competiti%e le%els The initial endo ments on the basis of hich free utilityFprofit ma'imi.ing indi%iduals enter the markets are such that some indi%iduals can influence the process of price formation. #nter%ention is then 6ustified on grounds of correcting ine/uality.

Social democratic and communist regimes +!hina, 6ustify inter%entions on the basis of such considerations. They therefore do not achie%e a transcendence of capitalism ( although both social democratic and communist regimes do constrain +but do not in principle negate, human rights AC. Social democracy and communism ob6ects to marginalism’s separation of the analysis of the pricing of “factors of production” from its analysis of the efficiency and e/uity of the +initial, distribution of endo ments and for treating the distributi%e shares of 9capital’ and labour in the social product as natural categories. -ut they do not ob6ect to the capitalist ideal of a society hich offers the most perfect e'pression of the preferences of the rational +utilityFprofit ma'imi.ing, members of that society ( that is hy the incumbent !hinese leadership can continue to laud the “socialist market economy”. The essential affinity bet een orthodo' economists and their social democrat +including >eynesian, and communist critics is that both propose measures for reducing monopoly and enhancing e/uality ithin the conte't of a freedom ma'imi.ing society. Thus the neo classical economist :rederich Ion Wieser A; ad%ocated encouragement of trade unionism) orker protecti%e legislation) compulsory insurance) housing subsidies) control of speculation) land reform and establishment of state and municipal enterprises as necessary reforms for correcting po er distributional ine/ualities generated by capitalist order +1;8?,.


Also both orthodo' economists and their social democrat and communist critics recogni.e the manager as the most efficient representati%e of capital and ultimate controller of capitalist property ( that is hy in liberal social democratic and communist organi.ation the orker’s subordination to management has al ays been accepted as legitimate. Social democratic and communist practices change form not the content of capitalist property. #n both liberal and communist manifestations of the capitalist system pri%ate property is abolished. !ontrol of capitalist property has necessarily to be %ested in the representati%e of capital) state enterprises or corporate managers. Degal o ners of capitalist property ( hether shareholders or citi.ens of communist countries ( do not ha%e the po er to resist capitalist rationality and hence concentration +of authority and information, cannot be restricted ithout reducing capital accumulation. !apitalist society ( hether liberal or communist ( is necessarily fractured into an increasing mass of po erless people and a decreasing elite of more and more po erful controllers. Subordination of the po erless to the po erful is maintained essentially through labour market relationships and gro th in ine/ualities is a means for sustaining the scarcity ithout hich utilityFprofit ma'imi.ing rationality ould loose its raison d’etre. The capitalist system produces abundance in the form of o%erproduction of agricultural goods and manufactures aste) obsolete e/uipment and technology and increased masses of unemployed and pensioned citi.ens. -ut for the capitalist system to be sustainable men must not recogni.e this abundance. They must be obsessed by a%arice and co%etousness. They must ant more) and more than others. !apital is the concrete form of freedom ( insatiable a%arice and limitless co%etousness. While consumption of cars) computers) rice and haircuts is necessarily limited there is no limit to the accumulation of pure /uantity in the form of financial assets. !apitalist rationality perpetuates scarcity in that those sub6ect to capitalist order al ays need more capital. !apitalist institutions ( in the market and the state are not spontaneous or natural unintended conse/uences of human beha%iour. They are specifically designed to sustain and promote the uni%ersali.ation of a%arice and co%etousness. These %ices must possess human bodies) societies and states for the continuing reproduction of capitalist order. !apitalist rationality ( the uni%ersal dominance of a%arice and co%etousness ( has to be constructed. #t can come to dominate man’s being in the orld only in specific circumstances. !apitalist rationally thus describes man’s potential for becoming hat he ought to be according to >antian and utilitarian philosophers. #t is in this sense that capitalism has a history ( a se/uence of epistemological) social and political inter%entions through hich man is sho n his “natural” potential and taught and enabled to practise a%arice and co%etousness. #n the 2nlightenment and the 1omantic traditions the crucial epistemological transformation is the replacement of abdiyat by freedom as man’s fundamental con%iction. !apitalist man is irre%ocably committed to freedom and the repudiation of Allah’s so%ereignty. Gnreser%ed commitment to a%arice and co%etousness re/uire a prior commitment to man’s autonomy and e/uality +the t o necessary attributes of freedom,. !onstructing capitalist indi%iduality is the central pro6ect of modernist and post modernist philosophy and aesthetics +1i.%i 8EE8,. #t is necessarily a pro6ect hich re/uires the delegitimation of religion’s ontological accounts of being and of the orld. The construction of capitalist indi%iduality re/uires the construction of capitalist markets and capitalist states. !apitalist markets in%ariably emerge from non capitalist social formations ( this is true e%en of the Gnited States here for e'ample 3aynes +1;CA, has documented the legislati%e acts and policy measures adopted to create a labour market after the abolition of sla%ery in the decades after the ci%il ar. The GS go%ernment after 1CA< enforced a legal political system that effecti%ely disenfranchised the blacks) reduced their economic po er and shaped the labour market. There as thus little “spontaneity” in the de%elopment of capital labour relations in the America South in the second half of the nineteenth century. Today legislati%e and policy making measures adopted by the World Trade 0rgani.ation are similarly constructing technology markets by uni%ersali.ing the GS


patent system. 0nce again there is nothing spontaneous or automatic about the processes of legitimi.ation hich reduce the access of de%eloping countries to the ne technologies. !apitalist markets and capitalist property forms are thus historical constructions in the specific sense that capitalist la s and practices are re/uired for their emergence and their sustenance. 0utcomes of course need not ha%e been as intended but a certain easily definable ethos moti%ated the actions hich led to the de%elopment of capitalist property. These markets are premised on the e'istence of ideologically sanctioned property rights ( rights about o nership) e'change and unre/uited transfer ith respect to human bodies) life forms) ater) land and artifacts. Similarly) a property7defining authority must be ideologically sanctioned. Since such sanctioning re/uires an e'ercise of political po er) the state necessarily plays a ma6or role in defining and enforcing the legitimi.ation of a particular conception of property rights. !apitalist markets structure price7based decision7making bet een anonymous indi%iduals. Social positions do not define e'change relationships. 4on capitalist e'change is conte'tualised by a set of rules and traditions hich restrict the scope for price based choices. Similarly) e'changes bet een citi.en and go%ernment of e%en the most mature capitalist state in history do not constitute a market relationship because a citi.en cannot directly choose the ser%ices he recei%es or the ta'es he pays to go%ernment. 4on7 market e'changes are) ho e%er) increasingly e'ceptional in capitalist +ci%il, societies and price7based e'change among anonymous buyers and sellers usually dominate. &arket relations are the main determinant of the pace and pattern of economic acti%ity. !apitalist states like capitalist society +“ci%il society”, are historical constructs. Their primary purpose is the continued reproduction of capitalist property and its associated relationships. This is achie%ed through a “regime of accumulation”. Today the global regime of accumulation re/uires the construction of a capitalist state) hich can legitimi.e. +a, The subordination of national public transport) energy) communication) and financial sectors to global capital. +b, The marketi.ation of public sector age contracts. +c, The determination of age le%els ithin processes of international competition leading to a idening of age differentials in national economies. +d, 2nhanced systemic mobility of capital +but not of labour since there is no rela'ation of immigration controls at the global le%el,. +e, Abandonment of full employment as a goal of macroeconomic policy. +f, Abandonment of state regulation of financial markets and increased dependence on foreign financial flo s. +g, Higher financial returns in both capital and money markets. +h, The dominance of financial markets ( and therefore of national economies7by non7bank financial intermediaries) hich speciali.e in di%iding risk associated ith market finance into their elementary components and making them negotiable. 1isk sales of this sort ha%e led to the emergence of colossal markets in global li/uidity. States increasingly articulate accommodati%e macro strategies to fall in line ith the preferences of these ne global financial giants. +i, The gro th of indi%idualism and the eakening of collecti%e e'pression of indi%idual aspirations. +6, The ne compartmentali.ation of the ork process associated ith the increased application of information technology. 4eo liberalism both 6ustifies and pro%ides a go%ernance technology for this “*ost :ordist” regime of accumulation. Since the late 1;?Es) there ha%e been se%eral important methodological ad%ances in mainstream theory and as :ine puts it “the political is being put back into economic analysis” +1;;? p. 1=<,) through for e'ample segmented labour market theory and analysis of rent seeking beha%iour. -ut


such broadening of scope does not amount to a departure from methodological indi%idualism. The “gi%eness” of preferences and the compulsion to ma'imi.e are retained as assumptions underlying the analysis of household beha%iour) educational choice and trade union action. &ethodological indi%idualism no occupies those sub7disciplines +de%elopment) urban and labour economics for e'ample, from hich it as pre%iously +partially, e'cluded. The state itself is %ie ed as an indi%idual ith gi%en preferential trade offs bet een potential policy outcomes. #nstitutional economics +in particular, has also de%eloped theories e'plaining the collecti%e beha%iour of optimi.ing agents. -oth the ne political economy and institutional economics represent a ma6or ad%ance in coloni.ation of other social sciences +industrial relations) la ) sociology and multi disciplinary approaches such as analytical &ar'ism,. 2ndogenous gro th theory has also sought to open up the black bo' of the technological residual in a typical Solo 75ennison type production function. This has partially legitimi.ed “capacity building” policy initiati%es at the micro and macro le%els ( ithout calling into /uestion the rele%ance of rational e'pectations “in the last instance”. The emphasis laid on the role of human capital +Ducas 1;CC,) producer durables and “ideas” +1oemer 1;;A, creates a possibility of going beyond e/uilibrium analysis and de%eloping a deeper understanding of +optimi.ing, choices. -ut the policy prescriptions of endogenous gr oth theory ha%e not been %alidated by empirical e%idence. As 1uttan argues) hy “capability building is more successful in specific cases is not ade/uately e'plained by endogenous gro th theory. #t does not ha%e the capacity to reach behind the “pro'imate” causes of gro th and understand “pre7conditions “and “take off” stages +or processes,” +1;;C p. 8=78<,. 1uttan seems to belie%e that by modifying assumptions +regarding for e'ample homothetic preferences and neutral technical change, and “adding on” %ariables such as changes in the structure of productiEon) demographic transition patterns) en%ironmental constraints etc. these eaknesses could be addressed. -ut it is the commitment to methodological indi%idualism +commitment to the “gi%eness” of preferences and the “unmi%ersality” of optimi.ing beha%iour, hich is the primary dominant constraint on indigenous gro th theory’s ability to understand capitalist process. This theory ( like all other manifestations of the “ne ” economics ( accepts as unproblematic the “uni%ersal permanent” character of capitalist e'pectations) markets and go%ernance processes. #t is thus ine%itable that it can say little about possibilitiesFstrategies for ensuring or undermining the continued uni%ersal) permanence of capitalist order. 2conomic theory’s commitment to the non7problemiti.ed uni%ersal permanence of capitalist order is reflected in its commitment to a premise of homogeneity. 2conomics is inspired by liberal political thought and aspires to describe a “pure” economy go%erned ultimately by 4atural Da +>eat 1;;@,. #n this perspecti%e) 1iffat is committed to a supposed uni%ersal rationality +optimi.ing discounted consumption flo s o%er a finite lifetime,. !ommitment to such rationality and the added assumption of competiti%e e/uilibrium also implies 1iffat’s a areness of the +total, eb of +human and natural, relationships hich structureFconstrain her use of resources. #n this sense a general e/uilibrium system is completely centrali.ed in that the characteristics of the system are in the minds of all interacting indi%iduals and they all effecti%ely beha%e us a single indi%idual +1iffat is alone in her o n empty uni%erse,. This commitment to homogeneity necessarily rules out the possibility of policy effecti%eness ( as rational e'pectations based models ha%e so often demonstrated. Actually e'isting capitalism +in all its historical states, is characteri.ed by both heterogeneity and coherence. 1iffat’s beha%ior is often “irrational” +non7optimi.ing and or based on imperfect information,. Set) there is sustainable coherence of beha%ior patterns reflected in the normal practices of markets and states. 2conomics e'plains this coherence by attempts to identify the microeocnomic foundations of the macroeocnomy the macroeconomy is treated effecti%ely as an aggregated microeconomy. “Adding up” micro le%el outcomes and systematically ignoring relational comple'ities at and bet een economic le%els is seen as unproblematic by +at least, neo classical economics.


T enty first century capitalism is likely to be characteri.ed by increased heterogeneity. 5ifferential access to information creates asymmetries of influence and po er. &oreo%er) increased e'ternalities are also limiting the homogeni.ation effects of market allocati%e processes. 2'ternalities blur the distinction bet een public and pri%ate goods and prioriti.e collecti%e +co7operati%e, o%er competiti%e action. Thus) market e/uilibrium systems cannot be used to describe +macro, economies in cases here e'ternalities significantly influence distributional processes. !ompetiti%e e/uilibrium cannot e'ist in a orld characteri.ed by significant informational asymmetries and e'ternalities ( in such a orld competiti%e beha%ior may be disad%antageous from the perspecti%e of +e%en, self interested indi%iduals and the policy coordinating role of markets may therefore be limited. #n capitalist order money is the primordial link bet een indi%iduals ( it is the key to membership of capitalist society and the medium fro the legitimate settlement of obligations incurred in the pursuit of differentiated indi%idual ends ( coherence in capitalist society is ensured by the uni%ersal commitment to settle debts in the form of money. &oney %alue of income may make the settlement of obligations impossible e%en o%er a life time and the mismatch of payment ability and payment obligations +both measured in money, creates the possibility of crises. !apitalism is essentially a monetary system. *o er is e'pressed in the ability of capital’s managers to create and circulate money in a form) hich permits accumulation. 2conomic %alue is the relati%e assessment e'pressed in money terms of each indi%idual economic act by capitalist society. These assessments reflect the act’s contribution +direct or indirect, to accumulation. #n non7capitalist society) assignment of %alue reflects adherence to transcendental moral conceptions +!hristian) #slamic, or to a tans7historical conception of human needs. !apitalism defines such norms ith reference to accumulation alone. The achie%ement of the ma'imum satisfaction of needs +ma'imi.ation of aggregate utility, and of its associated 6ustices is seen to be a conse/uence of efficient accumulation alone. &oney thus becomes the symbol of the so%ereignty of a citi.en ho belie%es in capitalism’s norms and it is the adherence to these norms hich necessarily sub7ordinates the capitalist state to capitalist ci%il society. Since money is the basis of capitalist order accumulation of capital is the accumulation of po er ( the desire to accumulate moneyFpo er infinitely is uni%ersally dominant in capitalist order. The mo%ement of money capital determines the di%ision of labour) structures the employer ( employee relationship and dominates both “capitalists” and “labourers”. This dominance of money capital is a pre7re/uisite for assigning relati%e %alue to economic acti%ities in accordance ith their +relati%e, contribution to accumulation. !apitalist order thus re/uiresJ a. Gni%ersal dominance of the desire to accumulate capitalist moneyFpo er b. !ontinued e'pectation of increased access to capitalist moneyFpo er. Subordination to the desire to accumulate takes places most formally at the le%el of the enterpriseJ this subordination has a collecti%e character. !ollecti%ely labourers are subordinated to the authority of managers ( indi%idually 1iffat is free to pursue pri%ate ends and ork for hom she chooses. !ollecti%ely managers are dependent on consumers. #ndi%idually they are free to compete. Accumulation necessitates the systematic taking of risks to bring about structural changes in the di%ision of labour. #n%estment risks cannot be taken ithout the enhancement of indebtedness ( hence the uni%ersality of the continual buying and selling of debts and rights to capital use and the e%aluation of these claims in financial markets ithin capitalist order. These e%aluations are speculations on the future. 5oubts about sol%ency of risk takers and their financiers may lead to ma6or changes in financial e%aluations by firms) banks and macro economic managers. Hence sustaining capitalist orders also re/uires. c. 2fficient mediation to ensure compatibility bet een financial claims and obligations for continuing accumulation.


*olicy is re/uired to ensure the continued e'istence of +a, +b, and +c,. !apitalist order is not spontaneously generated in the spheres of production and finance or ithin the social sphere) and it is not self7perpetuating ( hence the possibility of crises emerging from the non7reali.ation of +a, andFor +b, and F or +c,. *olicy may be regarded as successful if it strengthens the social dominance of the desire to accumulate moneyFpo er) facilitates such accumulation by dominant indi%iduals in different social groups and articulates an effecti%e debt management strategy. *olicy is a means for linking different segments of the micro7economy ithin the conte't of a particular macroeconomic coherence. #n capitalism enterprises +firms and banks, are important co7ordinating links bet een the micro and macro economy. The enterprise structures rules of payments) flo s of goods and financial relationships into a heirchy relating stake holders ith claimsFobligations on the collecti%ely produced added %alues. These structures are created by collecti%e ( and therefore necessarily political ( actions. The political nature of the mediation process is a reflection of the underlying tension bet een the continuing need to accumulate and the continuing need to legitimate particular forms of accumulation. The maintenance of social cohesion re/uires this continuing legitimi.ation and it usually takes the form of democrati.ation of decision making processes at the inter enterprise le%el. #n the t entieth century) successful mediation has taken the form of the creation of a high age society. this has often entailed rising fiscal costs but has gi%en collecti%e purpose to the pursuit of pri%ate interests. #n t entieth century capitalism of the “-utskellist” %ariety subordination at the le%el of production of the indi%idual orker as legitimi.ed by the pro%ision of collecti%e rights. This form of mediation as established not spontaneously but through continuing political negotiations bet een the representati%es of capitalists and labourers. This as “:ordism”. -reakdo n of a mediation regime) +say :ordism, may be interpreted as the conse/uence of a break do n of interactions bet een mediation mechanisms hich are concerned ith balancing di%ergent aspects of regimes of accumulation. Thus) :ordist organi.ation facilitated both security and +limited, mobility. #t as compatible ith pluralist order) hich has space for personal autonomy. -ut tensions are necessarily in%ol%ed in managing autonomy and subordination and the possibility of the emergence of a recurrent sub7optimal e/uilibrium +recession, or dise/uilibrium +crisis, cannot be ruled out. The literature attributes se%eral reasons for the breakdo n of :ordist order +Dash and Grry 1;C?) Hirst and Thompson 1;;?) Agleitta 1;;;,. These include +a, globali.ation of production and financing systems +b, changes in production and e'change technology +c, deproletarianisation of the labour class and +d, atomi.ation of social life +and destruction of communities, specially in the 02!5 countries. “*ost :ordist” order is characteri.ed by gro ing full time unemployment) increased maldistribution of income +specially in the Gnited States, the spread of consumerism to many third orld countries) the gro th of part time employment) cheapening of the cost of financial and technological transfer across national frontiers) idening of differentials in inter sectoral producti%ity gro th rates and changes in demographic structures. 2ffecti%e mediation processes are re/uired for sustaining “post :ordism” ( it is not a self sustaining order. :ordist mediation structures are collapsing but in 2urope at least social rights remains a constituent element of citi.enship ( though political commitment to these collecti%e rights is eakening. Similarly) mediation ithin the ork process continues ith collecti%e bargaining being replaced by human resource management. As monopolistic competition increases organi.ational changes in firms and state bureaucratic decision making structures facilitate outsourcing) “automation” and the gro th of “fle'ible speciali.ation”. All these are mediated) not spontaneous) responses. A ne compatibility bet een the accumulation regime and the social commitment to capital’s hegemony is being created and needs to be sustained.


#t is important to stress ho e%er that post :ordism ( like all other phases of capitalism ( is a political choice. The political forces sustaining financial liberali.ation ha%e been identified. #nternational financial liberali.ation has been an e'plicit political choice of the metropolitan states. !apital account liberali.ation by the 02!5 go%ernments is attributable to the gro ing political influence of international banks in the Gnited States) $ermany and -ritain. Gnder this political pressure ad%anced country go%ernments) chose not to implement more effecti%e capital controls hen they had both the legal right and the technical e'pertise to do so. :inancial liberali.ation is a political not a technical imperati%e. States continue to ha%e the technical resources to regulate capital markets but they choose not to do so for political reasons. $o%ernments are not forced to liberali.e for technical reasons but choose to do so because the political representati%es of international finance dominate them. #n recent years) a large literature has been produced to sho that capital controls retain high effecti%ity in present circumstances. The choice not to use capital controls reflects a political illingness to bear the domestic costs of the international integration of financial markets. Thus Webb +1;;=, attributes the greater financial instability of the 1;CEs and 1;;Es not to a decline of GS hegenory but to increased international financial integration fostered by the policy support of the GS go%ernment. #n the post -retton Woods period the financial po er of the Gnited States %is7T7%is other states has not declined. #t has declined ith respect to the international financial markets because the representati%es of international finance ha%e captured the GS states and ha%e become a systemically pri%ileged force ithin it. As domestic political costs of ad6usting to international financial market integration increase) policy co7ordination becomes a matter of imposing a larger proportion of such costs on the eaker open states ( such as those of 2ast and South Asia. #n this sense) international financial market integration increases the %ulnerability of the eak states) hich rely on forcing capital +Thailand) &alaysia) and #ndonesia,. :ailure on the part of these states to subordinate their fiscal and monetary policies to those of the Western po ers is hea%ily punished by the speculators dominating orld financial markets. Degitimi.ing post :ordism thus re/uires political mediation *ost :ordism is characteri.ed by +a, globali.ation of capital markets +b, a shrinking of the authority and the scope of state mediation processes +c, an increasing threat to collecti%e identities. Symptoms of these structured imbalances are +a, persistent high unemployment in 2urope +b, increased incomeF ealth related distribution ine/uality in America. +&osley 1;;;, and +c, crisis and fundamental restructuring leading to subordination in ad%anced third orld countries and stagnation in the rest. The gro th of indi%idualism) the globali.ation of capital markets and the retreat of the state has initiated a process for the destruction of :ordist mediation regimes hich combined a degree of social insurance ith rising accumulation by limiting labour market competition through collecti%e bargaining and state subsidi.ation of both in%estment and labour markets. A ne structure of mediation seems re/uired to reconcile the need for accumulation and social cohesion. !apitalist order must continue to pro%ide +at least the prospects for, a high and rising real age for its typical citi.en. Whether it can do so depends on the nature of the transition from :ordism. This leads to the /uestion hether the capitalist system as a hole +and not 6ust some of its constituent parts, is e'periencing or is likely to e'perience a “crisis”. *ost &ar'ist analysts ( and ( others continue to argue that capitalism has been e'periencing a secular do nturn since the break do n of :ordism. This is so e%en for the Gnited States here as &osley +1;;;, sho s during 1;A<71;;? producti%ity gro th has slo ed do n to 1 percent per annum +as against t o per cent per annum during 1;<E7A<, and a%erage real ages ha%e fallen by 1< percent. The do nturn since 1;A< has been /uite une'pected ( thus Herman >ahn had e'pected GS a%erage real ages to triple by 8EEE. &oreo%er) there has been stagnation in profits


measured as a proportion of net capital stock. This ratio e/ualed 1< percent in 1;;= as in 1;?E ( thus the increase in profits since 1;CE has merely led to a making up of the ground “lost” during the 1;?Es hen ages had risen sharply in 1;=C the profits to net capital stock ratio stood at 88 percentJ The breakdo n of the high age society is also reflected in the rise in the percentage of orkers in lo paid 6obs ( up from 8@ percent in 1;?@ to @1 percent in 1;;A +&ishel 1;;? p1@A,. Di%ing standards ha%e been maintained by a massi%e gro th of personal debt ( this has gro n from ?ER of annual personal income in 1;?< to 1EE percent in 1;;A +&ishel 1;;? p1=?,. Hea%ily indebted people are %ery %ulnerable to economic do nturn and increase in interest rates. The introduction of the ne information related technology has not significantly raised producti%ity or profits in the Gnited States. Thee is therefore no likelihood that the lo age strategy ill be abandoned in the near future +&osley 1;;;,. The relati%ely better gro th performance of the GS during the 1;;Es +no hotly disputed by economists such as >rugman and -renner, is e'plained by the increase in foreign capital inflo ( these rose from N<A billion in 1;;@ to o%er N8AE billion in 1;;? and represented one fourth of total pri%ate in%estment in the Gnited States in that year. This accelerated inflo allo ed the GS to reduce go%ernment deficits and stimulated gro th. #t also led to a substantial increase in stock market prices and had a pronounced ealth effect in sustaining high consumption le%els. -ut increased dependence on foreign capital has created problems ( an inability by Asian banks to settle their rescheduled debt commitments can lead to significant falls in GS stock %alues and rises in interest rates ( and this ill ha%e a serious impact on a larger proportion of GS householders ( those ho finance consumption by borro ing and those ith significant in%estment on the capital markets. A recession in the Gnited States is thus not improbable in the present decade. The 1;CEs) 1;;Es and the first half of the present decade ha%e seen a protracted recession in Africa and se%eral crisis +follo ed by recession, in Datin America and 2ast Asia. The mainstream +World -ank inspired, literature attributes this to “cronyism” and lack of good go%ernance hich is defined as a political mismanagement of economic decision making processes +>eily 1;;C,. While being forced to ackno ledge the e'istence of periodic crisis in se%eral parts of the Third World the con%entional literature can offer no coherent strategy for creating a ne set of mediation mechanisms to deal ith the type of problems associated ith the decline of :ordism. #nstead #&: reform programs implemented in 2ast Asia represented an orthodo' dismantling of :ordist policy ( market constraining institutional arrangements of a type that are common in 2urope ere e'plicitly targeted by the #&: and the pace of disbursement as deliberately slo ed do n to force compliance ith policy dismantling conditionalities. #&: policies ere hea%ily critici.ed by e%en usually sympathetic commentators +5ornbusch 1;;=,. Subse/uent re%isions incorporated no inno%ations ho e%er but a mere slo ing do n of :ordist policy dismantling. This enabled many Asian countries to pursue mild e'pansionist policies and make use of capital controls. The #&: ho e%er continues to argue for speeded up liberali.ation and en6oys strong GS support for these initiati%es. Amendment to the :und’s articles of agreement is being sponsored by the GS to enable the #&: to mandate capital accounts con%ertibility for all its members. This ill significantly enhance the #&:’s systemic po er and reduce state capacities to articulate national mediation initiati%es for sustaining post :ordist accumulation regimes. There is ho e%er no e%idence that remo%ing capital controls stimulates accumulation or addresses any of the other typical imbalances of a post :ordist mediation regime +1odrik 1;;C,. !apitalism today is e'periencing systemic transition. This transition is reflected in changes such as the increased international dependence of the orld’s only rogue super po er and the set backs suffered by capitalism’s most dynamic economies in 2ast Asia. Slo do n in orld economic gro th has persisted since the mid 1;?Es and there are no signs of a ma6or upturn in the 02!5 economies. Se%eral authors ha%e identified hat they consider to be the ma6or structural causes underlying this protracted do nturn. Thus -renner +1;;C, argues that o%er capacity and o%er production in manufacturing has led to a secular decline in profits and in the rate of accumulation. 1estructuring of manufacturing in%ol%ing a reduction of


e'cess capacity and elimination of obsolete technology is resisted by the old monopolists ho dominate these branches and systematically obstruct ne entrants. Hence gains from economies of scale and scope cannot be reali.ed. :alling profits are a conse/uence not of rising ages but of inter capitalist competition. *olicies hich break up the old monopolies and increase the po er of ne entrant latest technology utili.ing capital are re/uired to stimulate gro th. #n the absence of such policy) there is co7 ordination failures for hile not in%esting is optimal for a firm +due to o%er capacity, in%estment leading to restructuring is optimal from the point of %ie of the macroeconomy. !apitalist crisis may be understood as a short) sharp turn around in the business cycle. #t in%ol%es idespread bankruptcies) bank failures) shooting up of interest ratesB collapsing e'change rates and monetary panics. 1ecessions on the other hand are long dra n phases of persistent high le%els of unemployment and lo or negati%e output gro th. System ide crisis ha%e become uncommon since the late 1;th century but capitalism has itnessed se%eral recessions in the t entieth century ( national crisis on the other hand ha%e been common in Datin America) 2ast Asia and sub7Saharan Africa. 1ecessions are mediated through credit chains linking domestic economic sectors and the national economy to orld financial markets. 1ecessions ha%e the potential to change the course of capitalism’s historical de%elopment. -ut neither crisis nor recession are sufficient causes of transition from capitalism ( such a transition re/uires a comprehensi%e break do n of capitalist order specially its political mediation processes and a holesale man re6ection of capitalist %alues) a%arice and competition. !risis are triggered by speculation. Scope for speculation ithin a capitalist economy is created by the link bet een the credit +trade and banking, system and the accumulation regime. #nter7linkages bet een credit claims +usually of a speculati%e nature, ensure increased danger of an escalation of bankruptcies in mature financial systems. 5uring crisis) there is a rapid s itch from credit to monetary assetsJ This triggers the bankruptcies of many financially %iable firms. #t is in this sense that a capitalist crisis is necessarily a monetary phenomenon in%ol%ing a collapse of credit. The institutional financial structure is thus %ery important in the determination of the intensity and duration of crisis and recession. #n 9main banking’ financial system +such as 3apan, cross shareholding makes mergers and ac/uisitions +& and A, difficult and facilitate long term commitment of bank capital to industry. #n recession) such banks are illing to tolerate long periods of non7payment of interest. #n the GS such bank tolerance of interest nonpayment is unheard of and there is s ift capital restructuring through & and A. #n the main banking system) industrial and financial policy are inter7linked and the state plays an e'plicitly counter7cyclical “go%ernance” role. #n Anglo7Sa'on financial systems on the other hand) state institutions are essentially lenders of the last resort. #nternationali.ation of financial markets must in%ol%e the creation of a ne financial “architecture” hich subordinates national financial go%ernance regimes ( during the 1;;Es this has in%ol%ed uni%ersali.ation of financial liberali.ation practice but hile financial efficiency has increased orld ide manufacturing producti%ity gro th has stagnated ( e%en in the Gnited States +&osley 1;;;,. :inancial sector gro th has not been accompanied by increased accumulation in orld industry. #ndustry has lost the role of capital’s primary source of accumulation that it occupied in the most ad%anced countries since the decline of agriculture ( and specially in the :ordist era +>ay 1;?<,. 4o much financial surplus generated in industry is channeled into speculation and other in%estments on the financial markets. Diberali.ed finance capital has asserted a ne found autonomy %is7T7%is both the nation state and orld industry. This is surely a ma6or atershed in capitalism’s history. :inance capital prefers gro th restrictionist +“conser%ati%e”, policies and this inhibits industrial restructuring. Thus) an important policy concern for capitalism’s managers must be to reconcile financial liberali.ation ith the need to maintain industrial sector dynamism. &odern economic theory’s ne found concern ith strategic beha%iour) informational asymmetries and co7ordination failure retain its commitment to methodological indi%idualism. #ts foolish search for the microeconomic roots of the


macroeconomy se%erely limits its ability to understand the mediation processes hich ser%e the purpose of reconciling hetromonious beha%ior patterns and preferences ithin the conte't of a deliberately created and precariously sustained coherent accumulation regime. 2conomics) as a discipline) is increasingly ineffecti%e in legitimating the practices of actually e'isting capitalisms ( its usefulness as a source of appropriate capitalist go%ernance technology is also limited. #nstitutions such as the #&: the World -ank and the WT0 and central banks and national finance ministries do ho e%er dra upon) economics as a source of regulatory practices for maintaining national and imperialist capitalist order. As e argue in chapter = economics methodology cannot be used to legitimate or go%ern a non capitalist order. The #slamic economists attempt to articulate #slamic policy on the basis of theori.ation ithin the economics paradigm leads to a subordination of #slamic norms) regulation procedures and transaction forms to capitalist order. #t cannot lead to a transcendence of capitalism. • • • • • Summary: 2"!n!mi"s and Capitalism 2conomics first appears in the thought of :rench and Scottish. 2nlightenment thinkers of the 1C th century. 2conomics’ >antian ( Humean roots are e%ident in its commitment to methodological indi%idualism. 2conomists regards society as being based on material foundations) production and subsistence) ( not on political or religious grounds. #n Smith the modes of subsistence determine moral sentiments and forms of go%ernance. 2ach 9mode of subsistence’ re/uires a specific set of moral sentiments and the state must promote this and its associated property form. #n Smith’s 9commercial society the primary role of the state is to promote human rights and the marketi.ation of society. !apitalist order is 6ustified on naturalistic grounds ( it is based on human nature) social harmony is based on the technological mutual interdependence of the three classes) in the classical perspecti%e. All classes benefit from the e'pansion of the di%ision of labour and accumulation. Accelerating accumulation is a re/uirement of social 6ustice. According to the classical F neo classical perspecti%e self interested indi%iduation and social harmony are mutually reinforcing tendencies. !apitalist property is seen as the terrain for reconciling the particular +indi%idualist, and the general interest through accumulation. The naturalistic 6ustification for capitalist property is pro%ided by the labour theory of %alue. The body is seen as the primary instrument dedicated to accumulation. When %alue is based on labour time it is empted of any moral content and based on materialist foundationsJ !apitalist society is seen as based on a naturalisticFmaterialist basis and interfering ith price formation is seen as interfering ith nature. 1estricting economic practices through halalFharam in6unctions is thus un6ust. The only legitimate ob6ecti%e is accumulation for its o n sake. 2conomic analysis begins ith the isolated indi%idual ho dedicates his rationality to accumulation. *roduction and e'change are seen as technical processes. &an is naturally immoral +all ends of accumulation are tri%ial, and capitalist social institutions are free e'pressions of human immoral rationality. Accumulation is the only end in capitalism and necessarily becomes the basis for ascribing %alue to all economic practices. 2conomics sees the indi%idual as free since +a, he possesses capitalist property +b, he is not sub6ect to e'ternal moral constraints. !apitalist regulation sub6ects the indi%idual to freedom +accumulation, and therefore to capitalist property. #t frees him from morality.

• • •

• • • •


• • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

5omination of society by accumulation is dominance by finance and capitalist money ( self e'panding money. The contribution of a practice to the self e'pansion of money determines its %alue. As long as such %alue determination remains legitimate capitalist order can be self sustaining. !apitalism is threatened not by distributional struggles +social democracy, or struggles for possession of capitalist property +communism, but by %alue change. $enerating pro capitalist solidarity has been the central concern of mainstream sociology. The dominant economics paradigm since the late 1; th century ( marginalism ( 6ustifies liberal %alues by the use of a ne methodology. Here %alue is determined not by labour time incorporated in a commodity but by its utility ( its ability to satisfy preferences of consumers. The marginalists took preferences as gi%en. &arginalists do not ad6udicate among preference. They 6ustify the preference for preference itself. 2conomics seeks the ma'imi.ation of the satisfaction of preferences in conditions of scarcity. The optimum F most efficient pattern of resource allocation is that hich achie%es this end. 2conomics sees capitalist institutions as natural technical means for facilitating the ma'imi.ation of freedom F output. #n an ideal orld of perfect kno ledge and perfect competition capitalist institutions need no regulation. Actual outcomes are measured ith reference to the ideal orld of perfect competition F kno ledge. *olicies are ad%ocated to mo%e the actual to the ideal orld. Scarcity is the central problem of economics because of its unreser%ed commitment to freedom ma'imi.ation. *rices in markets characteri.ed by perfect competition and perfect rationality reflect the free choices of all indi%iduals in condition of scarcity. -ecause of this markets ill clear. 2conomics does not ask +a, hat are the right preferences +b, here does production technology come from. *ricing in factor markets is analogues to pricing in goods markets ( determined by the contribution of each factor of production to utility. :or capitalist markets to function both capitalist money and capitalist property must e'ist. !apitalist property and capitalist money are seen as natural F technical and all institutions supporting capitalist property and money are also natural F technical means for enabling indi%iduals to make free choices. 5istorting prices frustrates utility ma'imi.ation. This is both inefficient and un6ust. Social democrats and communists 6ustify inter%ention in markets on grounds of efficiency and distribution both related to monopoly. Social democracyFcommunism does not transcend capitalism because it endorses freedom despite re6ecting indi%iduation. Socialist reforms are means for ma'imi.ing freedom and indi%idual preferences are seen as distorting resource allocation patterns. -oth liberals and communists recogni.e managers as representati%es of capital. -oth endorse capitalist property and orker sub6ugation. -oth liberal and communist capitalism abolishes pri%ate property. !apitalist rationality is imposed on the people. -oth liberal and communist capitalist societies are fractured into the po erless and the controllers. Subordination is maintained through the labour and financial markets and increasing relati%e po%erty is a means for sustaining the ine/uality ithout hich freedom loses meaning. !apitalism produces abundance of commodities and leisure. -ut for capital +a%ariceFco%etousness, to e'ist abundance should not be recogni.ed and e%ery one should ant more and more than others. This means dominance of financial markets.


• • • •

This re/uires creationFregulation of specific institutions hich can uni%ersalise a%ariceFco%etousness. !apitalist rationality has to be socially constructed. !apitalist order teaches man to seek freedom re6ect abdiyat. !apitalist markets are created by capitalist states ( WT0 is creating a orld technology market ( through capitalist la and regulation. !apitalist la transforms the hole of society into a market. #t uni%ersali.es the age form and sanctions the %alue determining role of the financial market. 1egulation has to be historically specific and that is hy +a,capitalism e%ol%es +b, there are many capitalisms. *ost :ordist +globali.ed, regulatory regime must legitimi.e.  dominance of energy) communication and finance by global capital.  international market determination of age contracts  abandonment of national financial so%ereignty  marketi.ation of technology flo s  indi%iduali.ation of ork form from collecti%e bargaining to H1& 1ecent de%elopments in economic theory and policy seek to do this but their success in legitimating and pro%iding an appropriate go%ernance technology for capitalism remains limited.

. . -!liti"al S"ien"e -oth sociology and political science are concerned ith the legitimation of capitalist order. *olitical science is concerned principally ith state regulation) hile sociology primarily addresses issues related to the regulation of capitalist society +ci%il society,. *olitical science originates in the ork of the :rench encyclopedists of the eighteenth century ?E. !entral to their ork as a re6ection of !hristian metaphysics and a commitment to empiricism. 2mpiricism naturally focuses attention on this orld and the orld to come necessarily loses significance as a source of kno ledge and %alue. *olitical science thus delegitimises claims based on di%ine authority. Human happiness in this orld becomes the criterion establishing the efficacy and 6ustice of political institutions. *olitical science is thus based on indi%idualist and utilitarian pre6udices ?1. *olitical science is empiricist to the core ( indeed it is in this sense that it claims to be a “science” +>ing et al 1;;=,. #t’s %alue claims are supposedly grounded on empirical obser%ation. &ainstream political science represented by the institutionalists is also inductionist ( an empirical generali.ation on obser%ation of particulars ?8. #t seeks the inducti%e disco%ery of regularities in the political orld. *olitical science supposedly proceeds from the obser%ation of facts to the generali.ation of hypotheses hich hen empirically %erified obser%ations yield) scientific la s on the basis of hich e'planations of past and predictions of future e%ents can be made. 2%en *opper +1;?1, recogni.es that the inducti%e method is incapable of guaranteeing the %alidity of scientific kno ledge ( as e ha%e seen Hume pointed this out in the 1C th century. 2mpiricism can ne%er establish necessary connections bet een e%ents. &oreo%er obser%ation is ne%er passi%e ( the obser%er imposes his presumptions upon the obser%ed. All theories +including political science theories, are necessarily based on non obser%able phenomenon and propositions. Therefore the %alidation of the scientific method +and its application to political e%ents, has to fall back upon. *opper’s falsification criteria?@. !urrently *opperion conceptions of scientific method dominate political science. The *opperian methodology is committed to incrementalism and to problem sol%ing. The *opperian approach is forced to admit that it’s commitment to pluralism entails an acceptance of relati%ism and an admission that there can be no rational 6ustification of %alues. *opperian analysis takes political preferences as gi%en and are often modeled upon the market studying the unintended conse/uences of a mass of separate actions and not on the intention of political actors. #n post *opperian analysis there is a pragmatic s itch from concern ith truth to a concern ith 9 hat orks’. $i%en this approach it is naturalFine%itable that the


present political system of the West pro%ides the criterion for e%aluating other political ideas and institutions by *opperian analysts. Thus ideas and institutions are falsified if they fail to conform to Western conceptions of the political good but the possibility of the falsification of Western political conceptions are remote ( as post positi%ist in%estigations ha%e sho n falsification of dominant paradigms can easily be a%oided +1ice 1;C=, Western practices are %ie ed by political scientists as 9natural) real) reasonable and same’ and anti Western practices as 9de%iant) unnatural) impractical) irrational) insane’. These pre 6udgments underlie political science ( these pre 6udgments constitute political science’s 9hermeneutic circle’ These pre 6udgments must remain fi'ed if they are to pro%ide criteria for assessing other practices. !ritical reflection is possible only ithin the hermeneutic circle of political science. The pre suppositions underlying the conception of meaning) rele%ance) e'perience and e'planation in political science reflect Western con%entions traditions and norms. These presuppositions are e%ident in the Western definition of politics ( Aristotle for e'ample distinguishes bet een ruling and politics and regards politics as being possible only as a relation among e/uals +1;<<,. He also insisted that politics could e'ist only in a “realm of freedom” ?=. *olitics) in this perception is the acti%ity by hich e/ually free citi.ens define %alues and create institutions to enable them to li%e the sort of life they ish to lead. *olitical kno ledge on the other hand is a means for defining the good and the method for achie%ing it. This kno ledge may re%eal a truth hich is not actuali.ed by the free political acti%ity of a community of e/uals ( and the political thinkers ho reali.e the truth may not ha%e the po er to actuali.e it Aristotle thus recogni.es an unbridgeable distance bet een political practitioners +e/ual citi.ens, and political theorists ?<. The truth re%ealed in Aristotelian thought is the human telos ( the purpose for the attainment of hich freedom is a legitimate end. *ost enlightenment political science ?A ostensibly esche s any concern ith teleology and concentrates on description and analysis of state institutions ( the institutionalist) positi%ist and pluralist methodologies are e'plicitly empiricist. The central concern of the institutionalists has been the e'amining of constitutional pro%isions to identify structures of go%ernance and distribution of po ers in different polities. *olitics is thus identified ith constitutionally sanctioned beha%iour) ithin the conte't of go%ernment institutions ( the e'ecuti%e) legislature and 6udiciary. Anti constitutional mo%ements ( such as those of re%olutionaries are thus delegitimi.ed. 1ealist political scientists such as Das ell +1;<E, stress that politics is a study of the distribution of po er. *olitical actors are self interested “po er ma'imi.ers” and the market model is therefore rele%ant to an analysis of political beha%iour. #n this perception the 9 ill to po er’ determines political action and %alues used for political mobili.ation are masks concealing this 9reality’. *luralists and institutionalists contend that manipulation of democratic ideals to reali.e selfish ends is constrained by se%ere limits in constitutional regimes. *olitics in the pluralist perspecti%e is an acti%ity through hich di%erse interests and %alues are balanced and reconciled ( some political actors may pursue po er) but others seek the promotion of distributional e/uality ( and the constitutional regime pro%ides a frame ork for balancing the orderly pursuit of these di%erse and conflicting ends through bargaining) negotiation) and compromise +Dindbolm1;A<,. The good of politics is merely the achie%ement of this balancing of di%ergent +e/ually tri%ial, conceptions of the good hich indi%iduals are free to pursue. The freedom ma'imi.ing principle in the pluralist perception is the coalition building and sustaining principle. *luralism like institutionalism is status /uo maintenance oriented and anti constitutional acti%ity is necessarily delegitimi.ed for such acti%ity is based on the premises that some interests are irreconcilable ithin the conte't of a constitutional regime. *luralism endorses hat has been described as the emoti%ist conception of %alue +Hudson 1;?E,. *olitical %alues reflect the sentiments and feelings of political participants and not conceptions of truth. There can be no rational debate about political %alues since they are a conse/uence of sub6ecti%e preference and political science +like economics, has nothing to say about preference


formation. 4e%ertheless pluralism endorses freedom as the ultimate ideal for it like mainstream economics, concei%es of the self as choosing its identity and ends arbitrarily ??. #ndeed freedom appears as the in liberal society permitting the reconciliation of di%erse pri%ate ends. #n reality freedomFcapital accumulation alone is recogni.ed as possessing %alue and all pri%ate ends are tri%iali.ed +&ac#ntyre 1;C1,. The functionalist political scientists +2aston 1;?1, e'plicitly recogni.e the subser%ience of liberal politics to capital accumulation. -oth structural functionalists and systems analysts concei%e of liberal politics as a self regulating systemic component of capitalist economy and society fulfilling systems maintenance 9necessary tasks’. *olitical science identifies these necessary tasks and conceptuali.es efficient methods for their performance. :unctional structuralists recogni.e that legitimating capitalist order re/uires cultural conte'tuali.ation ( 3apanese capitalism is different from American capitalism as far as its socio7political organi.ation is concerned. The task of systemic cultural political studies is to generate a scientific understanding of the demands made upon a political system +in terms of state building) redistribution of resources) sustaining national identity consciousness etc., of specific cultures for the reproduction of capitalist order. The issue of the transition from capitalism remains inconcei%able in this conte't. :unctionalist7structuralists and systems analysts +like other ma6or political science schools, participate in the pro6ect of uni%ersali.ing capitalist order by 6ustifying freedomFcapital accumulation as the sole legitimate %alue ( the telos of political order. &oderni.ation F democrati.ation theory is an inheritor of the functionalist approach. The uni%ersalisation of liberal democratic practices is seen as both desirable and the ine%itable for the uni%erslai.ation of capitalism?C. &oderni.ation F democrati.ation theorists argue that there is a t o ay causati%e relationship bet een participation in capitalist markets on the one hand and the fostering of liberal %alues and commitment to representati%e democracy on the other. *olitical organi.ation and mo%ements ( specially fundamentalism ( hich challenge capitalist norms and the democratic organi.ation of society are %ie ed as irrational. &oderni.ation F democrati.ation theory is a central theoretical initiati%e for furthering human rights imperialism. &odernistFdemocratic theorists ad%ocate the suppression of anti7 capitalist) anti7democratic tendencies on functionalist grounds ( such acti%ity is 9dysfunctional’ and 9de7 stabili.ing’ and most importantly liberalism has no argument for its delegitimation. As 5reben ( 1a ls’ leading apologist ( states. “We are arguing for a constitutional) liberal democracy. #f one cannot see the benefits of li%ing in a liberal constitutional democracy then # do not kno ho to con%ince him. What do you say to +him," The ans er is nothing. Sou shoot him you do not try to reason ith him. 1eason has no bearing on this /uestion” +8EE@ p@8C7@8;,?;. 1a ls also describes ideologies hich re6ect constitutional democracy as akin to contagious diseases and ad%ocates that they should be suppressed +1;C< pA=,. *olitical science thus ad%ocates the uni%ersali.ation of capitalist norms as the substance of an ine%itable social de%elopment. World -ank and Asian 5e%elopment -ank programs for promoting 9good go%ernance transfer this 9kno ledge’ to the &uslim orld. &odernist political science abandons claims of %alue neutrality and claims regarding the operationali.ation of analysis in a non prescripti%e manner. #t abandons the institutionalist claim that research methodologies are neutral techni/ues for the organi.ation and collection of data &oderni.ation F democrati.ation theory argues that the %alue of freedom) F capital accumulation) is reason’s telos and attempts at transcending freedom through the uni%ersalisation of abdiyat are necessarily irrational. *olitical science creates a orld in its o n image and uses concepts of passi%ity) neutrality and ob6ecti%ity to disguise the fact that this is not the only possible orld. These ho seek to destroy this orld must therefore be suppressedCE. They cannot be argued ith.


*ost modernism is a criti/ue of 2nlightenment but not a repudiation or re6ection of freedom. #ndeed it critici.es the 2nlightenment pro6ect for its failure to achie%e F understand freedom +specially as a process,. *ostmodernism re6ects the 2nlightenment metanarrati%es for the reali.ation of freedom +Dyotard 1;?;,C1. #t /uestions the uni%ersalisability of 2nlightenment %alues and methods. #t argues that 2nlightenment categories +publicFpri%ate) sub6ectFob6ect) appearanceFreality, are not uni%ersal or necessary. They can ho e%er ser%e particular historical pro6ects of legitimation of specific configurations of po er. That this is not a repudiation of the 2nlightenment pro6ect is reflected in :oucault’s recognition of the need for “continued faith in 2nlightenment and the pursuit of patient labour gi%ing form to our impatience for liberty” +1;C= p<E,. The post modernist remains attached to the 9truths’ of the 2nlightenmentC8 and does not recogni.e any alternati%e to freedom 1ather the key concern is ith it’s boundaries and pushing back the limits hich restrict the operationali.ation of freedom. *ost modernist discourses focus on the restrictions on freedom imposed by 2nlightenment sanctioned technologies of po er and kno ledge. *ost modernism displays a basic incredulity regarding the 2nlightenment’s emancipatory claims. *ost modernism signals a legitimacy crisis in the epistemological) cultural and political life of modern Western societies. These societies cannot rationally defend their conception of the true) the 6ust or the good. *ost modernists such as 1orty argue that there is no need for a rational defense of these conceptions. >no ledge and politics should be concerned ith identifying “ hat orks”. This “pragmatic turn” makes post7modernism an appropriate apology for globali.ed capitalism. There are pragmatic grounds for belief in science) reason) democracy and progress ( but e%en in 4iet.sche +1;?@, there is a reali.ation that these beliefs do not lead to freedom. !oles +1;;?, sho s that the %ie that man is continuously progressing to ards the achie%ement of freedom C@ is a means by hich e conceal our response to the other ( the /uest for freedom leads to tyranny and domination as do attempts to transcend the perspecti%ist limits to understanding. Attempts to grasp the totality of e'perience ( uni%ersali.ing perspecti%es ( suppress heterogeneity. The pursuit of kno ledge F po er is “the %iolent or surreptitious appropriation of a system of rules) hich in itself has no essential meaning in order to impose a direction) to bend it to a ne ill “+:oucault 1;C=b,. All kno ledges) economic) cultural) se'ual pro%ide conduits for the e'ercise of po er. *o er is producti%e of specific truths for “truth is a thing of this orld. #t is produced only by %irtue of multiple forms of constraints. And it induces regular effects of po er. 2ach society has its regime of truth) its general politics of truth” +:oucault 1;CE p1@1,. Transcendence of po er +i.e. of capitalism, is not possible. :oucault insists that there is no outside of po er. This idea is also reflected in Heiddeger’s conception of 5asein hich /uestions being and the a prior claims about being made by 2nlightenment philosophy) from a distinctly this orldly perspecti%e. 5asein is pre7eminently being in the orld limited by specific time and space. 5erida’s ork sho s that it is also limited by its necessary disa%o al of the other C=. 5erida analysis the %iolence immanent to this disa%o al of otherness. 5econstruction asserts the essential relatedness of the sub6ect and suggests a conse/uential instability built into selfhood. The self can ne%er be fully separated from the other despite its e'perience of differentiation and deferral C<. Attempts at differentiation and deferral hich al ays remain incomplete obscure meaning +Holland 1;;?, and frustrate the 2nlightenment pro6ect of narrati%e closure through systematic accumulation of kno ledge. &eaning al ays remains indeterminate and freedom remains an ultimately unachie%able ob6ecti%e. According to 5erida +1;?A, politics pro%ides space for the e'ercise of dominance and %iolence in the /uest for meaning. *olitics makes possible the assertion of an e%er elusi%e mastery. That this recognition of the impossibility of an achie%ement of freedom is not a re6ection of freedom F capital accumulation as an ideal can be seen for e'ample in the ork of feminist post modernists ho argue that se'ual difference and oppression is produced ithin the conte't of certain relations of po er and symbolic configurations. This recognition is seen as a liberating e'perience for it enables omen to understand ho they are psychically and socially acculturated as se'ed figures and ho they might resist


the hetronormati%e narrati%es that follo from assumptions about immutability of se'ed identities political order +#rigary 1;C< -atler 1;;?,CA.


*ost modernist politics are typically articulated in single issue mo%ements ( omen) /ueer) ecology) disarmament) anti racialist. They are not a re6ection of freedom F capital but an e'ploration of the limits to hich disciplines and their associated dominations can be stretched. *ost modernism does not seek to transcend freedom F capital. #ts ackno ledgement of difference is not an abandonment of the Western claims of superiority. 1ather as 1orty argues there is no need to defend the postmodernist preference for liberties on rational grounds. America’s only duty is “to please itself” +1;;C p1C, and the preference for post !hristian Western life styles is based on esthetic grounds C?. :reedom may be seen as a ay of regulating and administering a society that depends on the capacities of free +i.e. utility F profit ma'imi.ing, indi%iduals. !reating a free society ( in post !ommunist 2urope) or post #slamic Afghanistan ( in%ol%es first of all teaching people methods of calculating and managing that make profit and utility ma'imi.ation possible. Ialues of consumerism) competition and accumulation ha%e to be fostered and %alues of ta akkul) .uhd and sabr ha%e to be delegitimised through the reform of the educational system. *sychotherapists ha%e to supplant the ulema and the soofia to enable people to endure the misery of freedom and the tyranny of capital. &en are not born free. They are made free by turning them into agents of capital. The rationalities of freedom are pre7eminently economic rationalities. The market is the prime locale for the practise of freedom. The practise of freedom in%ol%es the marketisation of not 6ust society but of the indi%idual CC. 2conomic man %alues choice for its o n sake (be chooses only freedomFcapital. To him life is meaningful only to the e'tent that it yields freedomFcapital and freedomFcapital ac/uirement is therefore the only criteria for %aluing all acts and relationships. This economic based indi%iduality must become a norm for e%aluating political programs and social arrangements in capitalist society. *romoting freedom obsessed indi%iduality is therefore the telos of capitalist go%ernance. #t is also an instrument of capitalist go%ernmentality inspiring the creation of a %ariety of go%ernance technologies. These technologies enable the sociali.ation of freedom in a manner consistent ith its indi%iduation. Diberalism may be seen as perhaps the most successful +to date, technology of go%ernance hich links the sociali.ation and the indi%iduation of freedom. Diberalism responsibli.es its sub6ects ( they are taught to discipline themsel%es for the sake of freedomFcapital accumulation. They are made to be “ illing to do their bit in maintaining the system that defines and delimit them. They must play their parts in a game hose intelligibility and limits they take for granted” +1a6shman 1;;1,. :reeing people ( turning them into sub6ects of capital ( necessarily in%ol%es their responsibli.ation) their %oluntary acceptance of the discipline of a particular accumulation regime. Diberalism e/uips the free indi%idual ith specific techni/ues of self understanding and self mastery hich internali.e capitalist rationality and transfer human being into human capital. :reeing the indi%idual thus in%ol%es +a, the uni%ersali.ation of age labour C; and +b, the establishment of the dominance of the financial markets as %aluers of all social practices ;E. Accepting the discipline of the orkplace and the money and capital markets is thus a crucial element in the freeing of indi%iduals ( in the construction of capitalist sub6ecti%ity. 4urturing capitalist indi%iduality in%ol%es the normali.ation of the indi%idual. The rationality and practices of freedom in the West ere technologi.ed through the reinstitutionali.ation of culture. 4e spaces had to be created here the free indi%idual could be sub6ected to normati%e ga.es. 1egulation of urban life through police) medical ser%ices infrastructural support systems in%ol%ed the calculated use of architecture in the promotion of regulated liberty. &useums) hospitals) prisons) department stores and e'hibitions ere designed to discipline and regulate the conduct of the urban masses ( and to circum%ent and sub%ert the discipline of religious institutions. The free indi%idual is enmeshed in a eb of %isibilities of public codes. The family is torn from its communal moorings ( the 6oint family is destroyed and initially the nuclear family) bearer of capitalist %alues takes its place. The nuclear family is the focus of


the deployment of technologies of pri%ate responsibili.ation in early capitalism. +1ose 1;C?,. The nuclear family is sub6ected to the ga.e and discipline of e'perts ( doctors) social orkers) marriage counselors) psychiatrists. These e'perts sanction modes of beha%iour hich are bearers of capitalist rationality. 2'perts determine modes for the care of the body) the child) the spouse) the old as means not for ser%ing $od but for facilitating capital accumulation ;1. #t is these ulema replacing e'perts ho define the norms of personal beha%iour in capitalist society and produce free indi%iduality. :ree indi%iduals are go%ernable ( they freely accept sub6ection to capital. To be free is to be attached to capitalist order here certain modes of conducting one’s e'istence are considered as normal by e'perts espousing capitalist rationality. The norms sanctioned by the e'perts are the basis on hich the free indi%idual 6udges himself. Secular educational institutions) the school and the uni%ersity) play a key role in producing responsibili.ed capitalist sub6ecti%ity in the form of the free indi%idual. The essential purpose of liberal education is to create the ci%ili.ed sensibilities hich sub%ert and ridicule religious consciousness. The greater the self sub6ection of the indi%idual to capitalist rationality +through the de%elopment of appropriate sensibilities, the less the need to sub6ect him to formal structures of go%ernance. Diberalism is distinguishable from anarchism due to its recognition that self sub6ection to capitalist rationality can ne%er be complete and the need to police) regulate) discipline and go%ern can ne%er be eliminated ;8. The increasing mass of marginali.ed people un illing or unable to practice capitalist rationality ould al ays need to be sub6ected to the formal authority of capitalist institutions ( parliaments) prisons) social security agencies) mental asylums) hospitals) schools) uni%ersities etc. 4ormal citi.ens are also in need of being assigned duties) assigned rights) and assured of the authority of e'perts. This can be achie%ed more effecti%ely by agitprop agencies of capital ( public and pri%ate media and educational institutions ( but formal go%ernance processes cannot be dispensed ith as far as the performance of this function is concerned. :reedom e'ists in capitalist order ( and in it alone. !apitalist order re/uires a de legitimation and disintegration of community. 2%en the community of labour hich had been a product of the dominance of capitalism is destroyed and this destruction is 6ustified by the 4e 1ight. :reedom here is indi%iduation ( the establishment of an identity through a shaping of e%eryday life. This identity is created by the use of t o distinct technologies of go%ernance ( technologies of consumption and psychological technologies. The self of the free indi%idual is constructed by the marketers of products the free indi%idual is induced to desire. *roducts are imbued ith a sub6ecti%e meaning and associated ith a desirable life style. The free indi%idual identifies his self ith commodities not ideologies) beliefs or political systems. #dentities are purchased in the market. Since all of society becomes a market one is forced to choose and the only possible e'pression of choice F freedom is the purchase of one commodity rather than another. Self reali.ation in capitalist order is the comodification of life ( of ork) play) se') childbearing) health) education etc. *sychology elaborates the kno ho of this per%eted self reali.ation. *sychologists possess the speciali.ed kno ledge of the commodified self +and of its commodification,. :reedom is the unending search for the animal sources) secrets and truths of this per%erse self. 0ne frees oneself through the application of a rational technology of the self. The free indi%idual frees himself through subordination to a psychotherapist. To li%e as a free indi%idual he must learn ne technologies for practicing upon himself the rationalities of freedom. :reedom is liberation from religion and sub6ection to a ne priesthood hich ad%ocates and legitimates the practise of lust and greed. The aspiration for freedom con%erts the sub6ect of $od into the sub6ect of capital. This con%ersion is e'pressed in an unreser%ed commitment to human rights. Human rights entail duties of capitalist states to ensure the de%elopment of capitalist indi%iduality) ci%il society and some form of republicanism +preferably though not necessarily a representati%e democracy,. #slam re6ects the humanist claim that man has rights by %irtue of his belonging to a particular biological specie) homo sapien. Human rights are no such rights ( they are merely means for constructing capitalist indi%iduality) ci%il society and some form of republicanism so that the duty of capital accumulation +promotion of a%arice and 6ealousy, may be legitimated and continuously performed.


There are no rights one ac/uires merely by the biological fact of being a homo sapian. There are no grounds for situating human rights in human “nature”. Human rights are a doctrine legitimi.ing the rule of capital ( i.e. the dominance of indi%iduality) society and state by the %ices of a%arice and 6ealousy. That is hy human rights are specific to the era of capitalism and are uni%ersal only to the e'tent of the uni%ersality of the rule of capital. #t is important to stress that human rights are held by indi%iduals against the state. They are held that is by the indi%idual in his personal F pri%ate capacity against his public capacity as a citi.en. #t is thus /uite rong theoretically to argue ( as for e'ample the arrogant. American human rights apologist 3ack 5onnelly +1;CC, does ( that human rights entail no duties. The “en6oyment” of human rights by the pri%ate indi%idual re/uires that in his public life he implements the rule and the la of capital and continuously constructs capitalist societies and capitalist states. The autonomous indi%idual is not free to re6ect freedom) to re6ect the organi.ation of the market and the state in accordance ith the la hich actuali.es the prioriti.ation of capital accumulation ( the uni%ersal dominance of a%arice and 6ealousy. Subordinating human nature to the %ices of a%arice and 6ealousy is thus a capitalist pro6ect. The Gni%ersal 5eclaration of Human 1ights lists the duties of states for creating capitalist indi%iduality obsessed ith a%arice and 6ealousy. The often stressed commitment by the G4 and liberal and social democratic authors to the inalienability of human rights is important in that it sho s capitalism’s un illingness to recogni.e as human an indi%iduality) hich re6ects autonomy. An indi%idual hose life is not dominated by a%arice and 6ealousy and ho does not prioriti.e the practise of freedom is not recogni.ed as a human being. Similarly a state hich does not perform the duty of constructing capitalist indi%idualities and ci%il society loses legitimacy. The state must ensure that its’ citi.ens remain human ( i.e. committed to the systemic prioriti.ation of capital accumulation. 0ther social groups ( specially the family ( also ha%e the duty to promote capitalist) greed and 6ealousy obsessed indi%iduality. #n capitalist order families ha%e no right to pre%ent the practise of Qina by their children for as Western practise has sho n the uni%eresalisation of Qina is an important means for the construction of capitalist indi%iduality) and ci%il society. What duties must the state perform to ensure the continuing construction of capitalist indi%iduality and ci%il society" The Gni%ersal 5eclaration of Human 1ights deri%es its list of human rights from the 5 orkinan conception of human beings as autonomous indi%iduals e/ually entitled to “concern and respect”. These include the Dockean F 3effersonian rights of life) liberty) property and the pursuit of happiness. 1ecognition that the propertyless indi%idual must be inclusi%ely integrated into capitalist order has led to the social democratic insistence on idening the list of uni%ersal human rights so that the propertyless) also become the sub6ects of capital. *olitical and eco7social rights are inter ( related in that the state must perform duties in both areas for constructing and nurturing capitalist indi%iduality. -oth sorts of rights emerged as a conse/uence of the con/uest of state po er by elites committed to autonomy. Diberal elites o%erthre authoritarian rule by constructing ci%il societies and republican states. Social democratic elites incorporated the mass of ordinary people into capitalist order by encumbering the states ith >eynesian duties +“ elfare rights”,. !onstructing capitalist order re/uires commitment to t o central %alues ( autonomy and e/uality. This essentially re/uires that the state does not constrain liberty on the grounds that one citi.en’s conception of the good is superior to another’s. Treating each person ith “e/ual concern and respect” implies taking all ends as of e/ual %alue ( i.e. of no %alue at all. The only %aluable end is freedom ( the right to choose any e/ually %alueless end ( and to increase resources +1a ls’ primary goods, for the e'ercise of this absurd choice. Accumulation is thus an end in itself and the sub6ect of accumulation losses all moral orth for all his choices are e/ually %alueless. #n this fantasy of e%il the e/uality and autonomy “en6oyed” by the citi.en is purely formal. #n theory he can choose any ay of life in practise he is compelled to choose a ay of life that prioritieses accumulation +a%arice and 6ealousy, for it is this +substanti%e, choice alone


hich makes possible the +formal, choice of any of the “compulsions of freedom”.

ay of life. #t is in this sense that :oucault often spoke

A capitalist life is a necessarily rational choice for all +normal, indi%iduals in capitalist order. A religious life is necessarily a life of surrender +>ant ould call it heteronomy,. #f this surrender is not restricted to the “pri%ate” life of the indi%idual +i.e. to the le%el of a tri%ial merely esthetic) %alueless choice, it makes the construction of ci%il society and a constitutional republic impossible. The capitalist state is therefore necessarily anti7religious in that its la obligates its sub6ect to confine his moral %aluations to his personal life. As citi.en) his %aluation is necessarily immoral ( in that it assigns orth to acts in accordance only to their contribution to increasing the resources for freedom +capital accumulation,. The capitalist state refrains from “enforcing a particular %ersion of the good life” only as far as %alueless personal choices are concerned ( i.e. choices to hich %alue cannot be assigned by capitalist %aluation processes. At the public le%el it ruthlessly enforces the capitalist ay of life ith all the force that it can command. 2nforcing human rights is a means for ensuring +a, that +pri%ate, moral %aluations of indi%iduals are rendered e/ually tri%ial and barred from affecting +immoral, public choices and +b, public choices are %alued systemically in terms of their contribution to capital accumulation +i.e. e%il, alone. The autonomy F dignity of the indi%idual is defined in terms of his commitment to the e/ual tri%iality of all moral e%aluations on the one hand and to capitalist rationality on the other. #n this order the di%ine right of the king is substituted by the di%ine right of the indi%idual but the indi%idual is king only if he is committed to capitalist rationality at the public le%el and committed to the tri%iali.ation of all moral e%aluations. 2/ually autonomous indi%iduals publicly sanction all ends made possible by capital accumulation. #n public life capital accumulation is the only “end in itself”. !apitalist rationality re6ects the possibility of a moral e%aluation of capital accumulation ( the operation of capitalist markets +commodity) money) shares, articulate this impossibility. The uni%ersali.ation of human rights is a necessary conse/uence of the globali.ation of capitalist markets. The popular demand for the recognition of uni%ersal human rights is thus based on a prior acceptance of the legitimacy of capitalist property +i.e. property dedicated to accumulation for its o n sake,. #n societies) such as Afghanistan and *akistan) here capitalist property is not socially legitimated there is no popular demand for uni%ersal human rights. As against this there is a popular demand for human rights practice in urban and S2Qised parts of !hina here people yearn for full participation in capitalist property relationships. The concept of capitalist property is based on the premises that man is an o ner of himself. -ut in a fundamental sense the Dockean “Da of 4ature” +1eason, re/uires that this possession be forfeited to capital. #n Docke’s system “the right to self preser%ation” is best articulated in the indi%idual’s right to unlimited pri%ate property. Docke argues that the purpose of ci%il society is to preser%e property +1;A?) @.17@) C<) 1<71A) 1?@) A7C,. 0ne’s -ody is one’s property +Docke 1;A?) 1?;.87@,. This conception of the -ody as indi%idual property lies at the base of Docke’s +and subse/uently 1icardo’s and &ar'’s, labour theory of %alue. The -ody thus is the basis of capitalist property since the purpose of being +indi%idual and social, is to preser%e :reedom. Docke recogni.es a duty to labour producti%ely +1;A?) @8.1,. Hence the -ody is capitalist property because it pro%ides a basis for +and ought to be used for, unlimited accumulation +:reedom, Docke argues that capitalist money hich can be accumulated ithout limit remo%es the natural la constraints on indi%idual accumulation +1;A?) p =A 8C7@E,. Docke 6ustifies the massacre of the 1ed #ndians and the sei.ure of their lands as a means for making unlimited accumulation possible +1;A? @A71C) =1) 17@) passim,. Accumulation is 6ustified ho e%er only if the property appropriated +by the slaughter of the 1ed #ndians in America, is put to “use” ( i.e. used for further accumulation. 1a ls and 5 orkin are firmly in the


Dockean tradition hen they suggest that use must in%ol%e egalitarian concerns since unlimited accumulation cannot be “used” to construct a fully inclusi%e capitalist order.

ithout this

The all encompassing +inclusi%e, nature of capitalist property is graphically illustrated by Docke’s definition of property Docke rites. “He seeks out and is illing to en6oy in society ith othersH. for the natural. *reser%ations of the Di%es) Diberties and 2states hich # call by the general name *roperty” +1;A?J 18@) 1=71?) 2mphases in original,. The indi%iduals’s -ody) liberty and estates all are *roperty in the sense that all are instruments for useful production and society’s o%er riding purpose is the 9en6oyment of *roperty’ ( i.e. accumulation. -oth “negati%e” and “positi%e” rights are recogni.ed by liberal go%ernments for the purpose of “the en6oyment of *roperty” Docke rites “Da isH. the direction of a free and intelligent Agent to his proper #nterest H the end of Da is to preser%e and enlarge :reedom” +1;A?) <?) 1E71@) 1?71C,. As e ha%e seen :reedom is merely the “en6oyment of *roperty”. The “en6oyment of *roperty” is thus the end ser%ed by the rule of la . The rule of la is thus an instrument for the 1ule of !apital. The Second Treatise only recogni.es one positi%e right) the right to property. This is because property is a precondition for autonomy. #n the market property o ners are enabled to automously construct contracts. :rom a liberal perspecti%e there are no propertyless indi%iduals in a capitalist market ( for e%ery indi%idual possesses his -ody the original repository of *roperty. :ormally e/ual contracts can be constructed as long as the 9right to ork’ ( the illingness of an o ner of estates to enter into a contact ith an o ner of a -ody on terms of formal e/uality ( e'ists. #t is only the unemployed +rigorously speaking the unemployable, ho are propertyless and e'cluded from the circuit of capital. Welfare rights are recogni.ed by social democrat regimes and theorists such as 1a ls and 5 orkin as necessary for e'tending capitalist property to the gro ing multitude of stateless indi%iduals in ci%il society and to eliminate unemployment. #t is in the social democratic states that the domination of capital is most comprehensi%e though this comprehensi%eness often has to be “purchased” at the cost of deceleration in the rate of capital accumulation. The doctrine of the di%inity and omnipotence of man is the essence of human rights ideology. #t has al ays been a re%olutionary ideology. That is hy Docke’s Second Treatise concludes ith a defense of the right to re%olt. Diberalism is essentially a re%olt against Allah’s so%ereignty for it sees uni%ersal human nature as committed to self creation and to the creation of the orld through labour leading to the accumulation of property. Diberalism re%olts against regimes hich do not prioriti.e the accumulation of property by performing the duties re/uired for the uni%ersal practise of human rights. Diberalism demands that all conceptions of human nature hich re6ect the autonomy of the indi%idual be abandoned. The central purpose of human rights ideology is to delegitimi.e all political regimes based on the concept of Allah’s so%ereignty and to replace them by regimes committed to the so%ereignty of capital. *roperty as concei%ed by Docke and >ant and *aine resides essentially in the -ody hich actuali.es its :reedom by accumulation of &oney. The -ody is thus an instrument of capital +a%arice and 6ealousy, and asserting the so%ereignty of the e/ual and autonomous a%aricious and 6ealous indi%idual) his right to make his self and the orld his creation is asserting the so%ereignty of capital. #t is nothing else. !apital is e%il +-adiou 8EE1,. Typically men do not naturally submit to it en masse. An influential group of e%il men possessed by the de%ils of a%arice and 6ealousy sei.e control of the apparatus of go%ernance ( specially legitimation discourses ( and establish the so%ereignty of capital on un illing populations. This can be seen most clearly by seeking to understand the organic and unbreakable link bet een liberalism and imperialism.


The presently dominant uni%ersal human rights regime as born in America in the late 1C th century. America had been the theatre of the mass slaughter of 1ed #ndians ( fifteen million of hom perished during three centuries +5ee 1;?E,. #n a fundamental sense it as this slaughter and the theft and plunder of an entire continent hich made the construction of a constitutional regime possible. $eorge Washington as a are of this and repeatedly felt compelled to 6ustify the mass slaughter of the 1ed #ndians on the grounds that “1ed #ndian tribes are ol%es in human clothing and the sur%i%al of human ci%ili.ation depends on their e'termination” +5ec. 1;?E p.=1,. The American 5eclaration of #ndependence +1??A, is the orld’s first political document legitimi.ing national so%ereignty on the basis of human rights ideology. The American constitution incorporates this commitment to human rights. The anti federalists ho apposed the constitution did so specifically on the grounds that its’ enactment ould lead to the rule of capitalists and financiers o%er America +2lster 1;;@ p=A@,. The most important ob6ecti%e of the constitution as to protect the +capitalist, minority from the tyranny of the ma6ority. The :ederalists did not claim that the constitution reflected the ill of the people nor as the constitution e%er endorsed by a popular referendum. The authors of the :ederalist *apers sa themsel%es as “political scientists” ith access to a superior kno ledge) hich identifies the “true good” of the people and the means for attaining it. The American constitution is based on this “true kno ledge”. #t is not based on the ill of the people +1ousseau’s “ ill of all”,. The American constitution is seen by the authors of the :ederalist *apers as based on an authentic reading of the -ook of 4ature hich enunciates eternally %alid and immutable principles of go%ernance for the establishment of 6ustice. 3ohn 1a ls and 1onald 5 orkin are reiterating these claims hen they argue for the uni%ersali.ation of human rights. The fictitious -ook of 4ature + hich has replaced the -ooks of Allah as the source of hidayat, ordains that the achie%ement of freedom F abundance re/uires the rule of the capitalists for it is they alone ho can organi.e the market and the state for the achie%ement of abundance. Therefore the particular interest of the capitalists +and their representati%es, is the interest not only of America but of all of mankind. #t is the uni%ersal interest and America has the duty to ensure it’s uni%ersal dominance through the uni%ersalisation of human rights i.e. of global capitalist order. Human rights are thus in a %ery important sense prior to democracy. 5uties associated ith them must be imposed upon a state before it can be allo ed to practise democracy. This is because human rights construct autonomous +a%arice and 6ealousy obsessed, indi%iduality on the one hand and protect the capitalist minority from the “tyranny of the ma6ority” on the other. That is hy the G4 !harter of Human 1ights is modeled on the American -ill of 1ights and the 5eclaration of #ndependence. The !harter) the -ill and the 5eclaration all proclaim the e/ual autonomy of the indi%idual. This commits democratic ( and all other republican ( regimes to an acceptance of the doctrine of self creation hich is the fountainhead of capitalist order. A religious state cannot be considered legitimate in the perspecti%e of human rights ideology for such a state necessarily denies man’s capability of self and orld creation. There is simply no basis in #slam or !hristianity for recogni.ing human rights. That is hy Docke could not substantiate his claim that $od ills human self7determination by direct reference to the -ible. The only legitimate regime according to human rights ideology is a constitutional ( not necessarily a democratic 7 republic. Such a republic proclaims man’s so%ereignty in principle and the so%ereignty of capital in practice. This is because a constitutional regime accords %alue only to freedom i.e. the accumulation of means for the satisfaction of any e/ually tri%ial ends. #t necessarily re6ects morality by “taking the difference bet een persons seriously” and regarding all pri%ate %aluations as e/ually orthless. Treating the indi%idual ith “concern and respect” amounts to e/uali.ation F tri%iali.ation of all moral choices and therefore necessarily) %aluing outcomes F choices solely in terms of their contribution to ards accumulation of resources for the satisfaction of e/ually tri%ial and %alueless ends. #t


is therefore not surprising that constitutional republics are necessarily dominated by capitalist oligarchs hose personal choices +leading a life of a%arice and co%etousness, coincide ith the preferences of the socially %alued ay of life. #n practice it is capitalist norms and %alues that are imposed upon all citi.ens ( indeed one is a citi.en only to the e'tent one considers legitimate the social prioriti.ation of accumulation. Human rights ideology and its practise makes it impossible that an alternati%e social prioriti.ation be articulated. 1epression is thus necessarily part of the agenda of uni%ersal human rights. Such repression is usually 6ustified in the name of “the people” ( this as first done by the authors of the American constitution. The mass slaughter of fifteen million 1ed #ndians) the fire bombing of 5resden and Tokyo) the atomic attacks on Hiroshima) the napalming of Iietnam) the use of daisy cutter bombs in Afghanistan) the constant state terrorism leading to the death of millions of #ra/i children and the occupation of #ra/ and *alestine ( all these are the legitimate acts of a liberal regime hich 6ustifies them on the basis of human rights ideology) in the name of “ e) the people”. &ichael &ann has argued that there is a relationship bet een liberal democracy and genocide +1;;;,. Diberal democracies continuously commit ideologically legitimated genocide +Iietnam) *alestine) #ra/) Afghanistan, argues &ann. The greater the commitment to homogeni.e beha%iour through the acceptance of human rights as a uni%ersal norm and the conse/uent +e/ual, tri%iali.ation of personal ends) the greater the temptation to murder those ho refuse to accept these norms. This “other” has to be coerced or induced to assimilate i.e. to submit to the so%ereignty of capital. Submission to capital F human rights is a necessary condition for sur%i%al in liberal order. Human rights ideology does not ad%ocate peaceful coe'istence. 1aces such as the 1ed #ndian and states such as Afghanistan and #ra/) hich do not submit to the so%ereignty of capital) ha%e to be e'terminated. The edifice of liberal America as built on the corpses of fifteen million slaughtered 1ed #ndians and the preser%ation of global order re/uires the mass slaughter of the Afghans and #ra/is. &ann is conscious of liberalism’s compulsi%e commitment to e'terminate “outsiders” hen he discusses the beha%iour of settler communities in eighteenth century 4orth America ( “the greater the democracy among the perpetuators the greater the genocide “+1;;; p.8A,”. The +liberal, rule of “ e the people” thus necessarily re/uires the elimination of the other. That is hy “ethnic cleansing) murder) deporting) genocide as central to the liberal modernity of the 4e World “+&ann 1;;; p. 8?,”. The ethnic cleansing of the hole of Asia and Africa has ne%er been a %iable pro6ect ( !ecil 1hodes and Dord &acualay came to this conclusion centuries ago. #t becomes increasingly un%iable as the share of the 2uropean races in orld population continues to fall ( +G4 8EEE, ( and as the 2uropean races age. 1epression must therefore take the form of imposing the rule of capital through uni%ersali.ing human rights and destroying state authority in Asia and Africa. • • • • Summary: -!liti"al S"ien"e and Capitalism *urpose ( legitimation of capitalist order ith particular reference to the state. 0riginates in the ork of the :rench 2ncyclopedists of the 1C th century hich re6ected !hristian metaphysics and emphasi.ed empiricism. This implies reliance on this orld +and not the orld to come, as the source of kno ledge and %alue. *olitical institutions are 6ustified not ith reference to di%ine la but in terms of their contribution to human happiness in this orld. *olitical science is essentially utilitarian. *olitical science methodology claims to be inductionist ( generali.ations are supposed to be basis on empirical obser%ation of particulars. Such inductionism yields la s hich supposedly e'plain past e%ents and predict the future.


• •

• •

• • •

• •

Ho e%er scientific kno ledge is not generated by inductionism +Hume) *opper,. 2mpiricism can ne%er establish necessary connections bet een e%ents. &oreo%er the obser%er necessarily imposes his theoretical categories on the obser%ed. All theories based on non obser%able phenomena. The *opperian methodology hich dominates political analysis holds that theories should be held on to until falsified by obser%ation of facts. #t is committed to incrementalism and problem sol%ing. Gltimate %alues can ne%er be 6ustified. Hence preferences ha%e to be taken as gi%en in political science as in economics and the market is often a model for political science analysis. *resent post *opperian political analysis is concerned not ith truth but ith 9 hat orks’ ithin the conte't of Western capitalist polities hich therefore pro%ide the criteria for e%aluating all political ideasFinstitutions. #f non Western political ideaFinstitution do not conform to Western ones) they are falsified. -ut Western political ideasFinstitutions cannot be falsified since they represent the dominant paradigm and the dominant paradigm related practices are 9natural) rational’ hereas non Western practices are “irrational) unnatural”. Western norms are political science’s pre6udgments hich must remain fi'ed if they are to pro%ide assessment criteria. !ritical assessment is only possible ithin the dominant paradigm. The presuppositions underlying the dominant paradigm are all based on 2nlightenment norms and Western practices. These pre suppositions are reflected in Western definitions of politics Aristotle defines politics as “a relation among e/uals” +no riaya , and possible only ithin a “realm of freedom”. 2/ually free citi.ens define %alues and establish institutions to enable them to lead the life they %alue. This is politics. *olitical kno ledge defines the good and identifies the method to achie%e it. #n Aristotle’s thought freedom is a means to human flourishing. &ainstream institutionalist) pluralist) positi%ist political science identifies flourishing ith freedom and describesFe%aluates institutions on this basis. Appro%ed politics is constitutionally sanctioned beha%iour. Anti constitutional acti%ities are delegitimi.ed. The realist school sees political actors as po er ma'imisers. They use the market model in analy.ing beha%iour. *olitical institutions are masks concealing 9the ill to po er’. *luralists) institutionalists and realists endorse the constitutional regime as pro%iding a legitimate frame ork for the pursuit of po er and of di%erse interests. :reedomFpo er is ma'imi.ed hen balancing of di%erse interests is effecti%ely sustained. The presumption is that all interests are reconcilable ithin a constitutional regime and anti7 constitutionalist acti%ities are therefore de7legitimi.ed. The constitutional regime makes possible the arbitrary choice of identity and ends by e%ery self and freedom is the modus %i%endi hich makes possible the pursuit of di%erse pri%ate ends. These ends are tri%ial and freedom alone has political %alue. :unctionalists recogni.e the subser%ience of liberal politics to capital. System theorists and structuralists concei%e of the political system as a self regulatory component of capitalist economyFsociety. System maintenance is it’s necessary task. :unctionalists recogni.e that legitimi.ing capitalist order re/uires cultural conte'tualisations ( different capitalist go%ernance systems +GS) 3apan, and cultures may impose different re/uirements on state institutions) resource distribution) identity consciousness etc. and these must be reconciled ith the need for capital accumulation. System cultural political studies address this issue. They sho that capital accumulation is possible in different cultural conte'ts and transition from capitalism is impossible F undesirable. &odernisation F democrati.ation theory is a follo up of functionalism. #t seeks the uni%ersali.ation of liberal practices and capitalism. #t sees a relationship bet een participation in markets) acceptance of liberal %alues and participation in liberal institutions. 0pposing representati%e democracy F capitalism is %ie ed as irrational. #t ad%ocates suppression of all anti liberal acti%ities. #t cannot 6ustify liberal democracy. $ood go%ernance programs should be seen in this conte't. These


• • • •

• •

• •

programs promote the kno ledge that there is no alternati%e to capitalist de%elopment F liberal institutions. &odernisation theory is aggressi%ely non neutral about %alues. #t sees freedom as reason’s telos and attempts at transcending freedom as irrational. *olitical science creates a orld in its o n image and like economics) uses concepts of neutrality and ob6ecti%ity to disguise the fact that this is not the only possible orld. *ost modernism is a criti/ue of 2nlightenment but not a re6ection of freedom. #t critici.es 2nlightenment for its failure to achie%e F understand freedom. #t re6ects 2nlightenment metanarrati%es) methods and categories and regards them as non uni%ersal and non necessary. These methods F pro6ects) can ser%e particular pro6ects of legitimating specific configurations of po er. The concern is to e'pand the realm of liberty ithin the order of capital. The post modernist does not recogni.e any alternati%e to freedom and capitalism. *ost modernists seek to reduce restrictions imposed on freedom by 2nlightenment technologies of po er and kno ledge. *ost modernism recogni.es that 2nlightenment conceptions of the true and the good cannot be rationally defended but 1orty argues that there is no need for such defense. They are 6ustified on esthetic and pragmatic grounds. And e should be concerned ith hat orks. This makes post modernism an appropriate apology for globalised capitalism. *ost modernists argue that plurality is to be encouraged for it is a means for e'panding the boundaries of freedom and does not constitute a threat to capital. Transcendence of capitalism is not possible. 9There is no outside of po er’ +:oucault, Heiddeger and 5erida also emphasi.e the impossibility of transcending capitalism. 5erida stresses the impossibility of separating the self from the other despite difference. This makes freedom an ultimately unachie%able ob6ecti%e. *olitics according to 5erida pro%ides space for asserting dominance in the name of freedom. &o%ements inspired by post modernist politics such as anti globali.ation) feminism etc. are seeking an e'pansion of the limits of freedom. Thus feminist politics seeks liberation from hetronormality +#rrigary,. The feminist preference for the post !hristian life does not need to be defended on rational grounds according to the post modernists. :reedom is a method for regulating a capitalist society. *eople ha%e to be taught the utility calculus. Ialues of consumerism and competition ha%e to be fostered and the %alue of Ta akkal F Quhd delegitimised. *sychoanalysts ha%e to sho people ho to bear the misery of freedom and the tyranny of capital. &en are made free by their sub6ection to capital. -oth the indi%idual and society has to be marketised. &an must be taught to %alue choice for its o n sake and to accept freedomFcapital as the only criteria for %aluing all acts F relationships. This pro%ides the basis for %aluing politics. The telos of go%ernance is the promotion of capitalist indi%iduality. Diberalism is the most successful go%ermentality technology for linking the sociali.ation and the indi%iduation of freedom. Diberalism teaches the indi%idual ho to discipline himself for capital accumulation. The indi%idual illingly submits to the discipline of capital. He accepts capitalist order as rational F ine%itable. Techni/ues of self understandingFself mastery are promoted hich internali.e capitalist rationality and con%ert human being into human capital. This re/uiresJ  uni%ersalisation of a%arice F6ealousy  establishment of financial markets as %aluers of all practices.  acceptance of the discipline of the ork place. !reating capitalist indi%iduality re/uires the creation of a hedonist F anti religious culture. 2stablishment of the authority of the police) the psychiatrist) the doctor) the department store) the museum.


• • •

• • • • • • • •

• •

The family is torn from its communal base and becomes a bearer of capitalist %alues. The family is sub6ected to the ga.e F discipline of e'perts ho sanction models of beha%iour specifying modes for the care of the body and the child for enhancing capital accumulation. !apitalist indi%iduality is produced by the doctor) the the marketer) the psychiatrist) the social orker) the policeman ho define normal beha%iour. Such normali.ation makes indi%iduals go%ernable. The free indi%idual 6udges F disciplines himself on the basis of the norms specified by e'perts specially in schoolsFuni%ersities. The essential purpose of secular education is to create the sensibilities hich sub%ert FridiculeFdeform religious consciousness Diberalism recogni.es that self sub6ection to capitalist rationality can ne%er be complete. 4ormali.ed citi.ens must be sub6ected by the assignment of duties F rights. -ut mass media makes capitalist go%ernmentality easy. :reedom e'ists in capitalist order through indi%iduali.ation but this destroys communities +including that of labour,. The free self is constructed through psychological technologies and technologies of consumption. The free indi%idual identifies himself ith products not ideologies. #dentities are purchased in the market :reedom is merely choosing one commodity rather than another. !apitalist self reali.ation is commodification of all of life. *sychologists possess the speciali.ed kno ledge of the commodified self. They re%eal the truths of the animal self. This legitimi.es the practise of lust and greed. This is the basis for the uni%ersali.ation of human rights. Human rights entail the duties of capitalist states to ensure the de%elopment of capitalist indi%iduality and ci%il society for capital accumulation. Human rights legitimate the uni%ersali.ation of a%arice F co%etousness. That is hy they are specific to capitalism. Human rights are the public duty of the free indi%idual to uphold the la of capital in the form of the free market and the capitalist state. The G4 5eclaration refuses to recogni.e as human) indi%iduals and states hich re6ect freedom F capital accumulation. -oth state and society must promote the uni%ersali.aiton of a%arice F 6ealousy ( specially Qina for ithout this construction of capitalist indi%iduality and ci%il society is impossible. !onstitutional and elfare rights sub6ect the indi%idual to capitalist property. This entails that acts are %alued only to the e'tent to hich they contribute to accumulation. All other choices F acts are %alueless F tri%ial. !apitalist order is therefore necessarily anti religious. 2nforcing human rights re/uires +a, acceptance of personal moral choices as e/ually tri%ial +b, sub6ecting all public acts to the criteria of accumulation +a%arice F 6ealousy,. *opular demand for human rights e'ists only here capitalist property is considered legitimate. !apitalist property is based on the acceptance of the -ody as belonging to man. -ut according to Docke the o ner of this property must dedicate it to accumulation. The -ody is thus capitalist property because the purpose of -eing in to promote :reedom. There is thus a duty to labour producti%ely to accumulate. Docke 6ustifies the massacre of the 1ed #ndians because this facilitated accumulation and :reedom is only the 2n6oyment of *roperty. The rule of la +rights, is thus a means for the rule of capital. There is only one human right ( the right to property. The right to life can be respected only if the -ody is recogni.ed as property. 1e%olt is 6ustified against states hich do not recogni.e man’s o nership F so%ereignty o%er his -ody and therefore o%er the orld. Diberalism is a re%olt against Allah’s so%ereignty. !apital alone is so%ereign and the -ody is its instrument. &en do not naturally submit to capital. They ha%e to be forced to be free. That is hy liberalism is linked to imperialism. The mass murder of the 1ed #ndians made possible the establishment of America ( the first constitutional regime. The American constitution 6ustifies the creation of the state on the basis of human rights and the anti federalists argued that this as in the interest of capitalists. The authors of the constitution sa themsel%es as political scientists ho possessed kno ledge of the


• •

true good of the people) this re/uires the rule of the capitalists ho alone can ensure freedom F abundance. America thus has the duty to uphold the la of capital globally to ensure the uni%ersali.ation of freedom. America is committed to the uni%ersali.aiton of human rights and the destruction of states hich re6ect human so%ereignty. 5emocracy is a means for uni%ersalisility human rights) capitalist order. #t is not an end in itself. #n constitutional regimes freedom is prioriti.ed hich necessarily means promotion of a%arice F 6ealousy. The bearer of these %alues dominate society and all other %alues are tri%iali.ed. Those ho re6ect these dominant %alues must be repressed. Diberal regimes massacred and celebrate the massacre of 1ed #ndians) Iietnamese) Afghanistanee) #ra/is. Diberal regimes commit ideologically legitimated genocide. They ha%e uni%ersali.ed human rights and homogeni.ed beha%iour through genocide and plunder. 2thnic cleansing of AsiaFAfrica is not practical so these states must be dominated through sub6ecting them to the so%ereignty of global financial markets and uni%ersal standardi.ation of rules of state beha%iour hich makes possible the limitless e'pansion of capital. #nternational organi.ations ork for America and for the American dominance of the global capitalist system. 4on7territorial imperialism functions through the Americani.ation of the socio7political system of dominated countries. Within these countries American ideologies and go%ernance processes alone are recogni.ed as legitimate and reasonable. State elites in dominated countries legitimi.e Americani.ation. America recogni.es as legitimate only constitutional regimes for they alone can integrate into global capitalist order. All other regimes must be sub6ected to genocide for human rights imperialism demands total) unconditional and final surrender to capital.

.#. Mar3ist S!"ial The!ry This section concentrates on sho ing the relationship bet een &ar'ist social theory and capitalist order. # do not look at sociology as a discipline because sociology’s role in legitimating and pro%iding a go%ernance technology for capitalist order is ob%ious and self e%ident. Degitimating and pro%iding tools for the management of capitalist social order is the telos of all sociological theoretical schools. This is most clearly e%ident in Habermas’ first ma6or statement in this field made in the late 1;AEs. Habermas’ main concern in this ork as to challenge the hegemony of positi%istic sociological approaches and to sho that access to the symbolically structured ob6ect domain of social hegemony called for an interpretati%e and phenomenological approach. Habermas ho e%er emphatically re6ected “hermeneutic idealism”. He e'plicitly recogni.ed the usefulness of positi%ist studies + hile /uestioning their methodological frame ork, and sought in integration bet een 9e'planatory’ and interpretati%e approaches +1;;1 p1?7@E,. He found functionalism useful in understanding the ob6ecti%e interconnection of social actions. #n Habermas’ %ie functionalism does furnish important tools for analy.ing the ob6ecti%e interconnection of actions. -ut functionalism ignores or obscures the hermeneutic dimensions of social analysis. #nterpreti%e and phenomenological accounts supplement and complete functionalist analysis by pro%iding space for a recognition of “repressed needs hich are not absorbed into social roles) transformed into moti%ations and sanctioned” +1;;1 pA=,. Thus Habermas %ision of a historically oriented theory of society) a “systematically generali.ed history” reflecti%ely grasping the formati%e processes of society and reconstructing it ith reference to a specific anticipated future is similar to that of the orthodo' social theorists such as 5urkheim and *areto. #nterpreta%ist and phenomenalogists merely deepen this analysis. Habermas does this by using psychoanalysis as a model for reconceptuali.ing and reintegrating functionalist and interpretati%e approaches Habermas %ie s psycholanatic theory as a general interpretati%e scheme of psychodynamic de%elopment. #ts reconstruction of indi%idual life histories makes possible a combination of causal e'planations and interpretati%e understanding +Habermas 8EE1,.


-uilding upon :reud’s methods and insights Habermas calls for “a hermeneutically enlightened historically oriented functionalismH. guided by an emancipatory cogniti%e interest that aims at reflection H +from, an anticipated point of %ie ” +1;;8 p1@=,. #t is clear that there is room ithin Habermas’ system) for modified %ersions of symbolic interactionism) functionalism and ethnomethodology. His uni%ersal pragmatics and attempts to situate social scientific in/uiries in a theory of language may be %ie ed as something of a retreat in methodological terms +reflected in his inability to 6ustify uni%ersalisability and human rights, but he continues to find something of %alue in all the ma6or sociological schools of thought. This is amply e%ident for e'ample in Habermas’ *ost 4ational !onstellation. Habermas can eclectically synthesi.e all mainstream sological schools and find something of %alue in all of them because he %ie s capitalist norms) regulatory procedure and trasactionary forms as natural and eternal +that he cannot 6ustify them is another matter,. There is no need to transcend capitalism because unconstrained communication ill uni%ersali.e freedom i.e. unconstrained capital accumulation. &ar'ist social theory is the 2nlightenment inspired paradigm hich claims to re6ect capitalist order. We no turn to an in%estigation of this claim. Habermas of course began of as a &ar'ist ( a student of Adorno and Horkenhiemer) a member of the :rankfurt school. #s he a traitor" Habermas’ fre/uent trips to #ran are surreptously organi.ed by the American !#A +as are !homsky’s orld lecture tours,. &uch of Habermas’ research ( and that of his acolytes ( is funded by the 1and :oundation. His ad%ise is eagerly sought for by the commissioners of the 2uropean Gnion. -ut is Habermas a traitor to &ar'ism" To ans er this /uestion e must present &ar'’s social theory. &ar'’s criti/ue of capitalism as grounded in his theory of alienation. !apitalist society is so organi.ed that it allo s pri%ate proporiters to appropriate the fruits of the labour of others through the determination of %alue in the market. Abolishing the market ould abolish the 9pri%ate appropriation’ of others’ labour and thus o%ercome alienation. Abolishing the market is possible because in &ar'’s %ie certain features of the capitalist organi.ation of production are not natural +as the classical and ne classical economists argue, but social historical. !apitalist society is ridden ith contradiction and is +partially, irrational. #t cannot achie%e its a%o ed ob6ecti%e of a 9state of abundance’ +ma'imi.ation of production, so that the principle of 9from each according to his ability to each according to his need’ can become operational. &ar' endorses this principle and the rationality of the ob6ecti%e of seeking to achie%e a state of abundance. &ar' re6ects the classical F neo classical formulation of the relations of production as merely technical means for the efficient ma'imi.ation of output +&ar' 1;AA,. The labour time hich determines a commodity’s +e'change, %alue is not embodied labour but 9socially necessary labour’. Ialue is labour for others) alienated labour ( labour socially recogni.ed as the essence of a commodity. Ialue is homogeni.ed labour hose /ualities ha%e been reduced to the single /uality of duration. Ialue reali.ed through e'change +i.e. in markets, has +non natural, social foundations +&ar' 1;?1,. #t is the social organi.ation of production through the market hich gi%es labour its 9%alue form’. &ar' sees capitalist property in the +narro , sense that the indi%idual participates in production for himself and not for ser%ing e'plicit social needs. The capitalist system seeks to co7ordinate the acti%ities of 9pri%ate producers’ hich are ne%ertheless not producing for themsel%es but for others. These 9pri%ate producers’ necessarily alienate their o n labour and appropriate the alienated labour of others. #n a commodity producing +market dominated, society needs can be satisfied only through the production of +e'change, %alue. The di%ision of labour is regulated through the e'change of commodities as %alue. The +e'change, %alue of a commodity thus e'presses the social relations of the people ho produce and e'change. The %alue form of the product of labour is the most uni%ersal e'pression of the capitalist mode


of production according to &ar' +1;?1 p<?178,. Transcending this %alue form is a crucially important means for the o%erthro of capitalist order. &ar' critici.es classical political economy for abstracting from the social conte't in hich labour appears as %alue form. He critici.es the conception of isolated capitalist indi%iduality and the conception of production and e'change as essentially technical processes necessary for the reali.ation of the state of abundance. Thus the social relations of capitalist production are naturali.ed and presented as the free e'pression of rationality. The indi%idual is free to choose 9his ends and the efficient functioning of market processes ensures that means for achie%ing these ends are being optimally produced and distributed. !lassical political economy presumes that the indi%idual is free in t o senses. He is endo ed ith capitalist property and is not encumbered by e'ternal moral claims and obligations. These are necessary presuppositions for rational 6udgment of self interest according to the classical economists. Society ought to be organi.ed to promote indi%idual capitalist endo ment and man’s freedom from e'ternal moral obligations +heteronomy,. !apitalist society claims to be the %ery 2den of the imamate rights of manH. the e'clusi%e realm of :reedom 2/uality) *roperty and -enthan +&ar' 1;?1 p8CE,. -ut argues &ar' capitalist society is not a relation bet een abstract pri%ate indi%iduals. #n &ar'’s %ie capitalist society is a dense net ork of social relationships bet een 9pri%ate’ property o ners. Ho e%er the 9pri%ate’ act production is necessarily conte'tuali.ed by a social di%ision of labour e'pressed in the totality of capitalist relations of production and e'change. 9*ri%ate’ property) according to &ar') is a specific form of the social relations of capitalist production and e'change. The commodity is not merely a thing. #t is also a social relation. #n capitalist society 9pri%ate’ property establishes a relation bet een an indi%idual and a %alue. :or the commodity is produced as bearer of +e'change, %alue and not merely as a thing. #f the commodity is seen as a social relation bet een 9propertied’ and 9property less’ indi%iduals) capitalist relations of production cannot be %ie ed as relations bet een isolated indi%iduals. They must be seen as relations bet een possessors and non possessors of 9pri%ate’ property. *roduction organi.ed for the purpose of producing surplus %alue hich can be pri%ately appropriated is according to &ar' a barrier to the free de%elopment of the production forces) a barrier hich comes to the surface in crises’ +&ar' 1;AA part ## p<8?7<8C,. &ar' defines capital as 9%alue in process) money in process’ +1;?1 p8<A,. He sees capital as a process in hich money F %alue ac/uires the po er of self e'pansion +1;?@ p 8<C,. The capitalist form of the labour process allo s the capitalist to 9pri%ately’ appropriate the total %alue produced) to pay the labourer a age e/ui%alent to the %alue of labour po er purchased and to retain 9surplus %alue’ +1;?1 p8;178;8,. This retention is possible according to &ar' because the capitalist 9o ns’ the means of production and subsistence hich can be accessed by labour only through the sale of his labour po er. The capitalist can F must control the labourer because the capitalist 9o ns’ the means of production and subsistence. The purpose of capitalist production is the production of surplus %alue and the production of use %alue is merely a mean to this end. :rom this &ar' concluded that increased production ould be accompanied by increased depri%ation of the orkers +&ar' 1;AA pt. 1 p@??7@CE,. This +e'pected, depri%ation is a conse/uence of the continuing separation of the labourer from capitalist property in the process of production. The labourer looses his substanti%e freedom and e/uality by being separated form and sub6ection to capitalist property +&ar' 1;?1 p?8;7@E) ?@@7=1,. #t is “the monopoli.ation of the means of production by a certain section of society confronting + orkers, as labour po er +embodied, in products and orking condition rendered independent of labour po er” +&ar' 1;?= p?;@7?;=, hich creates and reproduces the depri%ation and alienation of labour. #f the labourer could appropriate the hole of the product) alienation F depri%ation ould end. Docke recogni.ed this but he also recogni.ed the labourer’s right to assign his right to another in return for a


fi'ed age. 3ustice re/uires an e/ui%alence bet een the %alue of the age and the %alue of the product. Such an e/ui%alence is impossible in hat &ar' calls “the capitalist mode of production” here the production of surplus %alue and its pri%ate appropriation is the purpose of all economic acti%ity. -y endorsing %alue and class as the fundamental concepts underlying his theory of capitalist order &ar' is announcing his acceptance of 2nlightenment) ontological assumptions. &ore accepts 2nlightenment %alues) freedom and e/uality) and endorses the /uest for abundance. He re6ects the claims of classical political economists and sociologists regarding the natural F rational character of capitalist institutions ( market) factory) “pri%ate” property) money) finance etc. !apitalist institutions and capitalist order as a hole is irrational according to &ar' because it pre%ents the achie%ement of abundance and freedom. &arket allocati%e efficient does not generate freedom F abundance or e/uality. 0n the contrary it generates depri%ation F alienation for the masses because of the 9pri%ate’ appropriations of surplus product in the form of surplus %alue. #t is not the production of surplus in e%er e'panding %olume to hich &ar' ob6ects ( &ar' is a materialist primarily because he accepts the /uest for abundance as the essential force enabling social transformation. &ar' ob6ects to the production of surplus in the form of surplus %alue and to the “pri%ate” appropriation of this surplus %alue &ar'ism seeks an abolition of the 9market and of the pri%ate appropriation of surplus as a means for the achie%ement of abundance F freedom. As history has sho n this is a strategy for a reorgani.ation of capitalist order not a means for its o%erthro . The common metaphysical roots of liberalism and socialism ( &ar'ist or other ise ( are ob%ious. They become e%en more manifest hen e e'amine &ar'’s %ision of communist society) the state of abundance at the end F beginning of history. This is presented in Appendi' 8. &ar' as tremendously influenced by the same rational and romantic thinkers ho inspired the founders of liberalism. To begin ith it is striking to note that in his description of ideal society &ar' pays so little attention to the associations and institutional forms that ill replace the structures of capitalism. He concentrates almost e'clusi%ely on describing the /ualities of the “species man” hose e%olution under communism finally coincides ith the e%olution of each indi%idual. The communist indi%idual) according to &ar'. 1. 8. @. =. <. #s interested in and able to carry out a ide range of tasks. #s highly and consistently co7operati%e. Has a masterful control o%er nature. 1egulates his acti%ities ithout e'ternally imposed la s) customs and rules. #s indistinguishable from other communist men hen %ie ed from the perspecti%e of social di%isions +race) religion occupation) family etc.,

The construction of the personality of this “species being”) is begin by the dictatorship of the proletariat and is completed under full blo n communism. &ar' belie%es tin the potential di%inity) there is no other ord for it) of man. He belie%es that each indi%idual is dri%en by an inner urge to reali.e this potential and that the o%erall fulfillment of the potential of each indi%idual re/uires the simultaneous fulfillment of all others. Diberalism shares at least the first t o of these assumptions and although most liberals ould regard the third as unrealistic there is a ne%er ending liberal search for social forms hich reconcile the search for indi%idual fulfillment ith the /uest for ma'imum social elfare. That is hy the o%er helming ma6ority of the non American) non %ulgar criti/ues of &ar'ism presented by liberals /uestion not the %alues underlying &ar'ism but the social processes ( re%olution) dictatorship of the proletariat) organi.ation of communist society7through hich they are to be reali.ed. As far as ultimate %alues are concerned there is much that is common bet een socialism and liberalism. #n order to unearth the indi%idualist basis of &ar'’s thought one has to focus on the relationship of the ork of >ant and Hegel. >ant asserts that the indi%idual has ob6ecti%e %alue in himself and hence the


particular life chosen by him necessarily embodies this %alue. -ut the particular ill must respect the e/ual %alue of the particular life chosen by the other. Since the particular ill in the >antian conception has %alue) has an immediate embodiment of the single indi%idual’s absolute ill) it cannot as a particular ill be concerned ith anything but its o n life ( certainly not ith reali.ing the absolute %alue that lies in the other. There is thus an unsurmountable separation and opposition bet een the particular and the uni%ersal dimensions of indi%idual life. >ant argues that if freedom is to be reali.ed pure reason in %irtue of hich the indi%idual is of absolute %alue must itself be practical. *ure reason must be capable of determining the particular ill in accordance ith substanti%e la s that are purely rational. >ant failed to sho ho e%er ho substanti%e moral la s are deri%ati%es of pure reason. Within the 9>antian system pure reason and absolutely free ill remain empty concepts incapable of determining practical) empirical life. Hegel attempts to address this eakness of the >antian system and to sho ho the self determination of a free rational ill is actuali.ed in nature and history. #n Hegel’s thought pure reason and the free ill is an infinite spirit that reali.es its absolute %alue in coming to see in the orld of particulars a structure hich is perfectly rational because it is purely the product of Spirit’s dri%e to reali.e its o n absolutely and inherently free nature. Spirit kno n itself as the creator +>hali/, and sustainer +1ab, of the orld. Spirit achie%es this self kno ledge in the fully de%eloped consciousness of the indi%idual human being. The indi%idual reali.es himself as infinite spirit through his o n particular life. $od. ( or hat Hegel prefers to call $eist ( is man and achie%es self reali.ation through man. $od is not a transcendental) e'ternal force as concei%ed by the higher religions. The self reali.ation of the free ill in%ol%es the deliberate alienation of the uni%ersal ill from the particular. The uni%ersal ill seeks a particular determinate content for its self reali.ation. #t goes into the orld of particulars seeking the actuali.ation of its o n nature ( namely freedom. :reedom is to be understood “as the free ill hich ills the free ill” +Hegel 1;?; sec 8?,. The determinate content hich the uni%ersal needs for its self reali.ation is a system of purely rational la s and institutions. They constitute 9ethical life’ +Sittleakheit, and Hegel’s claim is that the ethical forms he specifies are demanded by the acti%ity of pure reason +uni%ersal ill, in its dri%e for self reali.ation. The self determination of the uni%ersal ill is the mo%ement of pure reason in de%eloping the rational forms of its o n being out of itself. This Hegel calls “dialectical thought” the mo%ement of the dialectic is po ered in the sphere of practical reason by the alienation of pure reason in particular ill and its attempt to find itself in such latitude. &o%ement occurs hen there is a reali.ation of the inade/uacy of the initial unity of the uni%ersal and the particular. This initial conception is concei%ed by Hegel as that of “indi%iduality”. #t is a necessary element in the uni%ersal ill’s self enfolding and must be preser%ed but the full attainment of freedom re/uires the de%elopment of a larger hole ( a “community” +the sphere of the operation of purely rational la s and institutions,. When particular men come to pursue their li%es as means to the reali.ation of the uni%ersal in them) as embodied in the rational la s and institutions of the community “the ill is then uni%ersal because all restriction and all particularity has been absorbed ithin it”. The metaphysical assumption underlying this %ision is that of the unity of the uni%ersal and the particular ill. The particular ill is the human indi%idual reali.ing the absolute %alue inherent in himself as a free being and thus o%ercoming particularity and finitude. #n the -hil!s!phy !1 Ri.ht Hegel seeks to identify e'istents embodying the free e'istents 1ight. What are fully ade/uate forms of 1ight" ill. Hegel calls such

To begin ith Hegel endorses the indi%idualist conception of rightJ the right of indi%iduals to appropriate the orld as an essentially and immediately free singular personality ( this is the right of +capitalist, property. This right of property and contract is regarded as a necessary element in the free ill’s self reali.ation. 0ther indi%idualist rights are also endorsed on the grounds that the free uni%ersal ill can be


ob6ectified only through the ills of indi%iduals ho en6oy the hole range of the rights of persons) as concei%ed by indi%idualist theories. Ho e%er these rights are inade/uate embodiments of the uni%ersal for the particular contents of the ills of persons are not determined by the uni%ersal. Thus Hegel argues there is no ay in hich a group of indi%iduals hose particular ills are determined by their o n interests can o%ercome their reciprocal e'ternality. This cannot be o%ercome by contract. The common ill it creates is only the contingent unity of particular ills +and not a uni%ersal ill because a common self consciousness is not produced,. #n order for freedom to be actuali.ed the indi%idual must not concei%e himself as being immediately free +i.e. irrespecti%e of the content of his particular ill, but only in so far as he himself determines the content of his particular ill in accordance ith hat is ob6ecti%ely good and uni%ersally %alid ( a ill hich so determines its’ particular content is described as the 9moral ill’ +Hegel 1;?; Sec. 1E?,. -ut the ob6ecti%e good is e'ternal to the moral ill hich is the ill of single indi%iduals. The indi%idual ill aimed at the good cannot yield a substanti%e and ob6ecti%e content ( hence the essential emptiness of the >antian conception of the good ill. #n the sphere of morality e are concerned ith the rights of the indi%idual) to determine the particular contents of his ill +in accordance ith the ob6ecti%e good, and to be held responsible only for hat he has so determined. This right has a t o fold aspectJ it entails a right to elfare as ell as the right of +capitalist, property and contract. The good) that is to be pursued +and in accordance ith hich the particular content of the ill of the indi%idual is to be determined, must balance +capitalist, property and elfare rights) since they necessarily limit each other. Through the process of dialectical thought the sub6ecti%e ill recogni.es itself as an embodiment of the uni%ersal. The sub6ecti%e ill ills the uni%ersal and chooses a particular life in accordance ith the ob6ecti%e good hich harmoni.es the pursuit of abstract right +property, and elfare for all. Hence the self reali.ation of free ill as the sub6ecti%e ill pursuing a particular good is identical ith the reali.ation of the good of a hole i.e. a community. Thus the self reali.ation of free ill is the self reali.ation of the ill of a community in the determination of its good in a system of balanced property and elfare +capitalist, rights but only in and through the ills of its indi%idual members. The indi%idual is free to the e'tent to hich he can see himself as the %ehicle for the e'istence of this system. The freedom and indi%iduality of a person consists in his grasping in his e'istence a consciousness of the unity of absolute %alue ith particular life. The ob6ecti%e ethical order hich alone is permanent contains three purely rational institutionsJ family) ci%il society and state. 2ach of these institutions embody the unity of the ob6ecti%e order of the community ith the sub6ecti%e ills of its members. This is most clearly e%ident in the family) here the indi%idual does not distinguish his o n particular aim from the good of the family and seeks to reali.e them. -u the particular family cannot suffice for the full personal de%elopment of the indi%idual. :or this there is the institution of ci%il society in hich the abstract right of the particular +the right of capitalist property, has its fullest de%elopment ( the good of the hole is not present in the consciousness of its members ho pursue their pri%ate end +although in co7operation ith each other,. :or the ade/uate conceptuali.ation of the relation of particular indi%iduality to the hole the de%elopment of a state is necessary. The state is the hole community ( “the actuality of concrete freedom + here, personal indi%iduality achie%e+s, complete de%elopment and pass +es, o%er of +its, o n accord into the interest of the uni%ersal and kno s and ills the uni%ersal” +Hegel 1;?; Sec. 8AE,. The indi%idual sees the reali.ation of his particular ends as the reali.ation of uni%ersal ends in the state. Hegel ideali.ed the -ismarkian state) although he did not go so far as to assert its infallibility or immortality. #t’s structures sho ed the ay to ards the achie%ement of perfect harmony bet een the particular and the uni%ersal but actual freedom can only be grasped in the theoretical realm of the pure self acti%ity of dialectical thought and not in the course of orld history and the actual empirical de%elopment of the state. The unity of the particular and the uni%ersal ills cannot be grasped in practice


( Hegel concedes this to >ant and e may note in anticipation that Hegel of an optimist than as &ar'.

as less of an idealist and less

&ar' critici.es Hegel for restricting freedom ( the harmoni.ation of particular and uni%ersal interests ( to the le%el of the state. #n the ideal communist society the state ithers a ay and pri%ate property is totally abolished i.e. ci%il society is li/uidated. These t in “ itherings” are essential for the absorbtion of the particular into the uni%ersal ( the becoming of man into a species being. This is the central ethical idea of communist society +see Appendi' 8,. &ar' takes his conception of specie being from :euerbach ho argued that “the true ob6ect of infinite %alue is man and hat he orships in $od or *ure 1eason is his species’ o n essential po ers”+:uerbach 1;<= p11?,. #t is the species hich creates the indi%idual. The species is unlimited7for e%er con/uering nature) surmounting limits7and immortal. Ho e%er in capitalist society man is alienated from his species because he is alienated from his producti%e acti%ity as e'pressi%e of his essential po ers. The abolition of 9pri%ate’ property) allo s for “the reappropriation of the specie essence by man and the return of man out of religion) family) state etc. into his human i.e. social being”. &ar' re6ects the %ie that there is separation in the human being’s conception of his indi%iduality and his sociability. “Ho e%er much he is a particular indi%idual) man is 6ust as much the ideal totality) the sub6ecti%e e'istence of society as something thought and felt. +&ar' 1;A? p1<E,. The indi%idual’s particularity is merely in terms of its being a particular mode of e'istence of the species or of social life. This leads to the %ery important conclusion that for &ar' +as for :euerbach, indi%idual self consciousness is unproblematic. 4o self consciousness is problematic. To possess indi%iduality man must become conscious of his single e'istence as a self constituted hole separate both from the !reator +Allah, and other created beings. The problem of indi%iduality is the problem of determining the %alue of one’s indi%idual e'istence in terms of one’s relationship ith $od and other creatures. #n the !hristian conception this problem is “sol%ed” by postulating the immediate unity of the finite and the infinite +the human and the di%ine, in the person of !hrist. Diberalism builds its theory of democracy and 6ustice on the belief that e%ery indi%idual is !hrist. 2%ery indi%idual is of ob6ecti%e %alue. There is an immediate inseparable unity of the absolute %alue that is present in man as such ith the %alue that is present in each and e%ery indi%idual. This %alue resides in the “life plan” formulated by self determining autonomous indi%iduals and the social good is a concatenation of these indi%idual life plans ( each of hich are of e/ual %alue. Hence in the liberal conception indi%iduality is understood as the particular beings’ consciousness of himself as of ob6ecti%e %alue identical ith his consciousness of himself as a specie being. Hegel and &ar' accept the liberal belief in the di%inity of humanity +this is based on >ant’s metaphysical theory, but deny that the indi%idual to be conscious of himself needs to constitute himself as an end by separating himself from society. such separation F alienation is the process through hich spirit or dialectical thought uses the indi%idual as a %ehicle for the reali.ation of the absolute good hich is nothing but the species ill. #n communist +unalienated, society indi%idual ends are ipsofacto socialFspecie ends and there can be no conflict bet een them. !ommunism) therefore necessarily denies all forms of particularity7family ) ci%il society) state7and in this sense can be described as empty of moral content. &orality consists of re%olutionary practice in capitalism aimed at heightening indi%idual consciousness of man’s social ends. 0nce permanent re%olution is transcended +at the end of the era of the dictatorship of the poletariat, morality too must ither a ay. !ommunist man faces neither scarcity nor e%il. He beha%es as he beha%es because the scientific truth on ho to ma'imi.e indi%idual and social happiness stands fully re%ealed. There is as little possibility of denying this truth as of denying that t o plus to make four.


#s &ar' an indi%idualist" Some &ar'ists such as Tucker and $ould and >ameneka ould affirm this %ie and no7one can deny that freedom is the central %alue of the &ar'ist doctrine “the category hich ser%es to unify &ar'ist theories of history and nature” +$ould 1;CE p.1C8,. 2%en !roce and Hilferding ho interpret &ar' as essentially an unethical thinker cannot deny that to &ar' man is not the product but the creator of social relations and that abstract social forces7technology) class struggle7ha%e no causal status independent of human acti%ity. :reedom of course presupposes similarity or 2/uality and the &ar'ist ethical system necessarily enshrines this %alueJ e/uality characteri.es the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat and is the means for the elimination of differentiation and particularity in the communist hea%en. :reedom and e/uality are thus the common %alues of liberalism and socialism. Diberalism asserts that the good of the state consists in the ma'imum indi%idual freedom of e%ery member and in the e/ual %aluing of their indi%idual life plansJ society is a concatenation not an ordering of indi%idual ends and social 6ustice re/uires that each be pro%ided e/ual opportunity for the pursuit of his ends ith special care being taken to ensure that the relati%e disad%antage of the poorest section of society is gradually reduced o%er time. This is the %ie of 1a ls +;1?1,) modern liberalism’s most noted political philosopher and may also be regarded as a consensual %ie . #t ill be readily seen that this common acceptance by liberalism and socialism of freedom and e/uality as the ultimate %alue is rooted in the common >antian origins of these t o doctrines. -oth liberalism and socialism accept the >antian conception of man as a self determining being. Diberalism asserts that separation of phenomenal and nomenal ills identified by >ant is illusoryJ the nomenal self is merely a concatenation of indi%idual phenomenal ills. Socialism argues that the duality of the nomenal and the phenomenal ills is o%ercome in history ith the coming into being of the perfect society here scarcity is abolished) e%il and good is impossible and e%ery man is $od. Diberalism and socialism differ not in terms of absolute %alues or ends but about the means for the reali.ation of these absolute %alues. What is desired abo%e all is freedom and e/uality as a means for the reali.ation of freedom. The liberals from Docke to 1a ls belie%e that social arrangements hich permit the indi%idual to pursue his life plan and e'pand the social opportunity for him to do so are ideal for the reali.ation of freedom and e/uality. &ar' and other socialists argue that these social arrangements increase ine/uality) inhibit material progress and make freedom impossible for subordinate classes. The reali.ation of freedom re/uires the abolition of all differentiation and particularities especially those associated ith the e'istence of 9pri%ate’ property. The dictatorship of the proletariat integrates the life plan of indi%iduals into a comprehensi%e social +national, plan and is an instrument for o%ercoming the material conditions hich make alienation necessary. A people ho respond to the &ar'ist da’ ah do not abandon the 2nlightenmentF1omantic %alues of freedom and e/uality. They re6ect merely the liberal doctrine that reali.ation of these %alues re/uires marketised) social arrangements. They put their belief in the &ar'ist claim that the dictatorship of the proletariat and comprehensi%e social planning are necessary means for the achie%ement of freedom and e/uality. The acceptance of this claim has historically been falsified in 1ussia and 2ast 2urope and !hina by a number of factors. The single most important of these is the fact that the reali.ation of liberal freedom re/uires a high le%el of material de%elopment7an abundance of ealth hich calls forth a%arice and greed and dissol%es communitarian ties. #ndi%iduals in societies) hich responded positi%ely to the &ar'ist message) did not ha%e highly differentiated “life plans” and their history and their culture prepared them for participation in a social re%olution hich promised e'panded social opportunities and heightened social consciousness) as a means for self reali.ation. The emphasis hich socialism lays on this strengthening of communitarian ties establishes a natural affinity bet een its teachings and that of nationalism. The success of a socialist re%olution and the establishment of a communist regime does lead to a sub6ugation of the market by the plan and to the abolishing of pri%ate property. -ut pri%ate property is also abolished by the operation of the money and the capital markets and Denin +1;A8, himself ( not 6ust


-ernstein) 0tto -auer and -ukharin took note of this fact. Abolition of pri%ate property ( hether through the plan or through the financial markets ( establishes the social hegemony of capital) hich is neither a social process nor a stock of money by a %ice) takkathur. 0ur master &aulana &uhammad &armouduke *ickthall +may Allah e'alt his hea%enly status, defined takkather as “ri%alry in orldly increase” +1;<; p=?@,. This formulation captures the t in %ices of a%arice +accumulation, and co%etousness +competition,. &en ho are a%arice and 6ealousy obsessed necessarily surrender to the representati%es of capital for the representati%es of capital ( hether 9pri%ate’ corporate managers or communist delegates ( are the true representati%es of a freedom orshipping people. #n such a society the dominant rationality must be the rationality of capital ( for ho e%er surplus is produced and appropriated accumulation for its o n sake alone guarantees abundance. A communist re%olution leads to a change in the structure of capitalist order. #t does not lead to an o%erthro of capitalist order for liberalism and communism are routes to the same end ( the state of abundance in hich man proclaims his di%ine right to ill hat he ills and to reign as the sole so%ereign lord of the uni%erse. Summary: Mar3ist S!"ial The!ry and Capitalism  Degitimating and pro%iding a go%ernance technology for capitalism is the telos of all sociological theoretical schools  5espite Habermas’ criticism of positi%istic sociological approaches and his emphasis on adopting phenomenology and interpreti%e approaches for understanding the symbolically structured domain of sociology) he sought an integration bet een 9e'planatory’ and interpretati%e theories. He found functionalism useful in understanding the ob6ecti%e interconnection of social action. #nterpretati%e accounts can complement functionalist analysis by pro%iding space for a recognition of 9repressed’ needs.  Habermas’ %ie of a historically oriented theory of society and reconstructing it ith respect to specific anticipated futures is not dis7similar to that of orthodo' sociologists such as Weber. #nterpreti%ists and phenomenologists mainly “deepen” sociological analysis. Habermas uses psycholoanalysis as a model for integrating functionalism and interpreti%es approaches and ethno methodology.  Habermas can seek such an integration and find something of %alue in all sociological schools because he accepts norms) processes and transaction structures of capitalism as rational. &ar'ist theory is the 2nlightenment inspired paradigm hich claims to re6ect the rationality of capitalist order.  #n &ar'’s %ie the irrationality of capitalism emerges from the 9pri%ate’ appropriation of surplus produced by labour in the form of surplus %alue. Abolition of pri%ate property and market relations is necessary for eliminating alienation and the achie%ement of a state of abundance.  According to &ar' capitalism is irrational because capitalist relation of production obstruct the achie%ement of abundance. The achie%ement of abundance is accepted as an ob6ecti%e by &ar'.  &ar' re6ects the classical F neo classical analysis of capitalist relations of production as technical means for the ma'imi.ation of efficient production.  The determination of e'change %alue +%alue for others, in markets has social foundations under capitalism. #t gi%es labour a %alue form hich ensures that needs can only be meet by producing %alue +for others, and appropriating %alue +produced by others,. Abolition of this %alue form is transcending capitalism according to &ar'.  The abolition of capitalist relations of production +the embodiment of labour in the %alue form, is necessary for the uni%ersalisation of freedom. !apitalist social relations constrain freedom by re/uiring isolated indi%iduals to participate in the transformation of labour into the %alue form as the only means for the satisfaction of their needs. !apitalist relations are relations bet eenJ propertied and 9propertyless’ +une/ual and unfree, indi%iduals.


 !apitalist crises according to &ar' reflect the production relation’s incompatibility ith reali.ing abundance. This is because in capitalism production is a means for the generation of surplus %alue and not a means for the satisfaction of needs. #ndeed according to &ar' increased production of surplus %alue is usually accompanied by increased depri%ation for the orkers. The labour or looses his substanti%e freedom and e/uality by separation from and sub6ection to capitalist property.  #n capitalist society the indi%idual is not able or free to define his self interest because he is forced to transform his labour into %alues and is part of a class !apitalist institutions ( property) money) etc. ( are not natural F rational but designed to ser%e the interests of the bourgeoisie hose /uest from ma'imi.ing surplus %alue creates increasing depri%ation +unfreedom, for the proletariat.  &ar' endorses the 2nlightenment %alues of freedom and e/uality. He ob6ects not to the production of surplus in e%er increasing /uantity but to its production in the form of %alue and surplus %alue. &ar' is a materialist in that he accept an increase in production as the primary cause of the transformation of social relations. &ar'ism seeks an abolition of the market and the “pri%ate” appropriation of surplus %alue for the achie%ement of freedom and abundance.  There are many similarities bet een &ar'ist and liberal %isions of the ideal society +see appendi' 8,. 5espite his acceptance of the dialectical methods and much else in Hegelian theory &ar' has often been seen as an indi%idualist. #n communism all collecti%ities ( family) class) nation) state ( ither a ay and the indi%idual is complete master of nature. 2nlightenment %alues are fully reali.ed in communist society.  A socialist re%olution leads to a restructuring of capitalism not to its o%erthro . The plan takes the place of the market and pri%ate property is abolished by the state rather than by the financial markets +as in capitalism,. Abolition of pri%ate property establishes the social hegemony of capitalism in both liberal and communist regimes.  !apital is not a stock of money nor a social process. #t is the %ice of takkathur) the uni%ersali.ation of a%arice and co%etousness. -oth liberal and communist societies are dominated by 6ealousy and greed ( i.e. by capital. -oth liberalism and communism are routes to the some end ( abundance and freedom the orship of desire and the proclamation of man’s so%ereignty and his rebellion against $od.


Chapter # 4e.itimi/in. Capitalism: Islami/ati!n !1 S!"ial S"ien"es This chapter discusses the conse/uences of attempts to #slamise economics) political science and &ar'ist social theory. #t argues that #slamic social scientists ha%e accepted the %alue premises underlying economics political science and social theory and that the policies generated by addressing contemporary issues problems ithin the conte't of these #slamised social scientific paradigms are inherently capitalist and liberal. The #slami.ation of social science pro6ect thus creates the danger of submerging. #slam ithin Western theoretical and policy discourses and practices and ought therefore to be re6ected. #.1. Islami" 2"!n!mi"s and Maulana Ta5i Usmani The initiati%e to pro%ide an #slamic economic 6ustification for capitalism dates back to the early 1;?Es. #ts leading e'ponents in those days ere 4a6atullah Siddi/ui at the !entre for #slamic 2conomics 3eddah) >hurshid Ahmad %isiting professor at the >ing Abdul A.i. Gni%ersity and Gmar !hapra of the Saudi Arabian &onetary Agency. The sub discipline of #slamic 2conomics as in%ented to 6ustify Saudi polices. #n the 1;CEs) *rince &uhammad al :aisal led the #slamic banking mo%ement to 6ustify Arab integration into the imperialist financial system. The #&: and the World -ank ere closely associated ith the *rince’s initiati%e. Sami at 5ar%ish) a 5irector of the World -ank became the first *resident of :aisal’s) 5aral &aal al #slami. #&: researchers ( &ohsin >han and Abbas &erakhor ( started pro%iding apologies for #slamic finance in the professional literature. Within *akistan) Qiauddin Ahmad and :ahim >han played a similar role. #slamic economics represents an attempt at legitimi.ing the ethics and institutions of capitalism. This becomes abundantly clear hen e e'amine the technical ritings of the #slamic economists. #n%ariably these scholars ork ithin the neo classical paradigm. The “#slamic” consumerFproducerFpublic policy maker is a elfare ma'imiser +like his neo classical compatriot, and the definition of his utility function is a task usually left to the fa/ihs +the neoclassical economists also depend upon the philosophers of utilitarianism to define indi%idual and community elfare functions,. Although the constraints ithin hich utility ma'imi.ation is sought by the #slamic economists are claimed to be uni/uely #slamic this is of %ery little significance. :or) the #slamic economists claim also that in the long run the elimination of interest) the introductions of Qakat etc. are necessary for the ma'imi.ation of efficient production. The #slamic constraints thus appear in the guise of procedures hich constrain short term utility ma'imi.ation so that long term utility may be ma'imi.ed. The #slamic economists are rule utilitarian and short term constraints turn out to be no constraints at all in the long run. This methodological similarity necessitates that the ethics of capitalism ( ac/uisiti%eness) competition) primacy of material ell being) freedom) e/uality ( are all endorsed by #slamic economics. #slam is seen not as a distinct ci%ili.ation but as a means of reforming capitalism. !apitalism is critici.ed not for the ends it sets itself but for failing to achie%e a “balance” in the attainment of legitimately conflicting ends +ac/uisiti%eness %s cooperation) freedom %s e/uality etc, #slam can achie%e such a balance if e formally eliminate interest and introduce Qakat. 4o the ruling elites of the &uslim orld reali.e that the introduction of Qakat and the introduction of Shariah compliant financial contracts replicating interest based transactions ithin capitalist financial markets represent no more than marginal policy changes. 0ften this is a small price to pay for co7opting potentially trouble some #slamic parties and for di%erting re%olutionary energy into reformist politics. 4imeri) Qiaul Hu/ and &ahathir ha%e used this tactic ith ad%antage and all three ha%e found #slamic economists to be good and faithful ser%ants. $eneral &usharraf is probably not unsympathetic to the #slamic economists.


#n most &uslim countries ( Afghanistan) Algeria) #ndonesia) the #ndo *ak subcontinent) #ran ( the resistance to imperialism during the 1;th and 8Eth centuries as led by #slamic groups and scholars. These groups kept aloof from the reformist and apologist mo%ements because there as an instincti%e reali.ation on their part that the difference bet een #slam and Western sa%agery as /ualitati%e in nature. #slam as not a means for reforming capitalism but for annihilating it. The #slamic groups thus de%eloped into popular mo%ements ith a capacity to challenge the continued dominance of the West and the Western educated elites that inherited po er after independence. The social pro6ect of the #slamic mo%ements as to de%elop an alternati%e to capitalism and to highlight the in6ustices that could not be redressed ithin this system. #slamic economics has pro%ed to be an important means for changing this social orientation of the #slamic parties. #n *akistan) the Arab orld) Turkey) &alaysia and #ndonesia many #slamic groups are no firmly allied to %arious factions of the politically dominant Western oriented elite. The economic platform of many #slamic parties is dominated by #slamic economic themes. #ntroduction of Shariah compliant financial contracts and the effecti%e introduction of Qakat are increasingly seen as the main measures to be ad%ocated. The reformed capitalism of #slamic economics theory is increasingly accepted as the ideal #slamic economy. #slamic parties in *akistan) Turkey and the Arab orld ha%e ne%er taken the task of defining their economic problemati/ue %ery seriously. #slamic economics has become a ma6or conceptual hurdle in the attempt to define both ideal types and the social processes through hich o%er time these ideal types are to be appro'imated. The #slamic ghost of neo classical economic man con6ured up by #slamic economics bears hardly any resemblance to the historical reality of indi%idual economic moti%ation at the time of the *rophet +SAW,. Gtility and profit ma'imi.ation as the concern neither of the indi%idual consumerFproducer nor the purpose of social organi.ation. #slam articulated a religious ethic hich firmly subordinated economic endea%our to the indi%idual and social /uest for spiritual upliftment. 2conomic acti%ity as a means for achie%ing spiritual e'cellence and as strictly limited to ensure that it aided spiritual progress ( the *rophet +SAW, did not sa%e) in%est or be/ueath property. The %alues of Quhd and :a/r ere strongly emphasi.ed by #slam. Similarly) the #slamic conceptions of property and of 6ustice are rooted in a metaphysics that is at odds ith the metaphysical conceptions underlying capitalism. Thus 1a ls +the leading liberal political philosopher of modern times, builds his theory of 6ustice on the >antian conception of the indi%idual as a self7determining being. 3ustice) ithin the 1a lsian system entails the creation of a social order in hich indi%iduals can pursue their autonomously defined ends and constraints in this pursuit of indi%idual ends are 6ustified on only t o grounds. +a, That they are necessary to preser%e the similar liberty of other indi%iduals and +b, That they are re/uired to compensate the most socially disad%antaged group +the so called difference principle,. #t follo s that in the 1a lsian system all indi%idually %alued ends are of e/ual social legitimacy. To gi%e an e'ample from 1a ls himself the system of 6ustice as fairness must treat as of e/ual %alue the conception of the good put for ard by an indi%idual ho finds fulfillment solely in the counting of blades of grass ands the conception of the good put for ard by an indi%idual ho finds fulfillment in fighting drug abuse. Diberal conceptions of 6ustice hether >antian) or 1a lsian ha%e no coherent argument for the ordering of %alues. All autonomously defined ends by self determining indi%iduals are of e/ual %alue. 4o all the higher religions and most emphatically #slam re6ect the metaphysical conception of the indi%idual as a self determining being +the conception of man as $od, #slam insists that human fulfillment lies in a %oluntary surrender +the ord #slam means surrender, of the capacity of self determination. The capacity of self7determination is not denied but the authentication of ends ith reference to this capacity


leads one to >ufr and to frustration since such authentication cannot concei%ably pro%ide a basis for the ordering of %alues. The ordering of %alues and the authentication of ends cannot be achie%ed through an e'ercise of man’s rational faculty. 1eason can identify means for achie%ing gi%en ends but it cannot pro%ide a basis for %aluing ends. The #slamic conception of 6ustice can assign intrinsic %alue only to the religious norms #man) #slam) Ta/ a and #hsan. #slamic theorists thus face the task of conceptuali.ing a social and economic order in hich the practice of the religious %irtues +not elfare) not utility, are enhanced. 2conomic institutions ha%e to be e'amined and their potential for inducing indi%iduals to accord priority to the attainment of spiritual progress must be identified. The factory) the system of land tenure) the family as consuming unit) the distributi%e and marketing channels) the ba..ar) the policy making and e'ecuting offices) sa%ing and in%estment institutions all must be redesigned to facilitate the gro th of %irtue. This is essential to de%elop an economic system the purpose of hich is the promotion of the religious %irtues. #slamic economics cannot of course raise such /uestions. #t is a branch of neo classical economics and assumes the %alue neutrality of capitalist institutions. Adding on Qakat and introducing Shariah compliant financial contracts and other marginal ad6ustments such as reducing the ma'imum si.e of land holdings and guaranteeing trade union rights etc. ould suffice for the achie%ement of #slamically sanctioned elfare ma'imi.ation. #slamic economics is methodologically incapable of e'ploring the relationship bet een institutional structure) indi%idual moti%ation and %alue change. #n the #slamic economics paradigm the indi%idual consumer) producer) policy maker is assumed to be #slamically moti%ated and the problem of the impact of economic acti%ity on indi%idual moti%ation is thus assumed a ay. #nstead of addressing this %ital issue #slamic economists accept capitalist %alues) structures and organi.ation forms as natural. This becomes clear hen e look at the ork of &aulana Ta/i Gsmani on #slamic finance. Since the 1;;Es) a group of 5eobandi Glema led by &oulana Ta/i Gsmani) Iice *resident 5ar7ul7Gloom >arachi has presented arguments 6ustifying capitalist practices on #slamic grounds. This initiati%e en6oys the support of American and 2uropean banks hich ha%e established #slamic financing subsidiaries under the guidance of these 5eobandi ulema in se%eral Arab countries. “#slam Aur 3adeed &aeeshat7o7Ti6arat” has been published by 5ar7ul7Glum >arachi and ritten by &oulana Ta/i Gsmani. Se%eral editions ha%e appeared since 1;;@. The book as ritten for the purpose of “pro%iding Glema and :u/aha ith a kno ledge of modern economic and commercial concepts so that they can issue fata a on economic and commercial issues” +p.A,. The #slamic authenticity of this book is much greater than that of the #slamic economics literature produced by 4a6atullah Siddi/ui) 0mar !hapra and *rof. >hurshid. While these te'ts gather dust on the bookshel%es &oulana Gsmani’s slim %olume has become compulsory reading for higher le%el +dar6a takhasus, students in many madaris all o%er *akistan and #ndia. The Smithian roots of Gsmani’s thinking is e%ident in his conception of the nature and scope of economics. “All economic thinking accepts that resources are limited and human needs unlimited and the central /uestion is ho to fulfill unlimited needs ith limited resources” +p.1;,. Thus according to Gsmani) scarcity is the fundamental economic problem as Smith teaches “2conomics is concerned ith the ma'imum satisfaction of needs and the fundamental problems of all economic systems are +a, determination of priorities +b, allocation of resources +c, distribution of income +and, +d, gro th” +Gsmani 1;;@ p8E781,. The natural la philosophy hich underlies Smith’s conception of the economic problem +presented in the Theory of &oral Sentiments, is thus implicitly endorsed by Gsmani. The endorsement of natural la philosophy is also e%ident in Gsmani’s conception of the “la s” of supply and demand. “There are many natural la s operati%e in the uni%erse hich al ays produce similar results ( one such natural la is the la of supply and demand” +Gsmani p88,. #f the “la of demand and


supply” is accepted as natural) the Smithian +originally *hysiocrat, conception of the harmony of indi%idual and social ell being is inescapable. “Although e%ery indi%idual orks for his o n profit but the natural la s of supply and demand force him to fulfill the needs of society. The la s of supply and demand determine priorities and the pattern of resource allocation” +Gsmani p8@,. This leads Gsmani to a 6ustification of preferences as %alue determinants +on the basis of a manifestly absurd marriage centric discourse +p @87@@,, and an implicit re6ection of the subordination of preferences to moral %alues +p@8,. #n essence) Gsmani’s book pro%ides a holesale endorsement of capitalism. “The basic philosophy underlying capitalism is correct in that it identifies the la of supply and demand and the profit moti%e as the mechanisms for +effecti%ely, addressing the fundamental economic problem +of scarcity,)because this reflects natural human propensities” +Gsmani p @<,. Dike Smith) Gsmani’s only criticism of capitalism is the emergence of monopoly. “&onopoly obstructs the functioning of the natural la of supply and demand. The price system is distorted and the fundamental economic problems +allocation) distribution) gro th, are not addressed in a manner hich reflect social needs and priorities” +Gsmani p@A,. The book argues that “economic problems should mainly be sol%ed by the la of supply and demand +but, the operation of the profit moti%e should be limited by considerations of hallal and haram) +refusal, to constrain indi%idual profit + ith reference to, hallal and haram renders the natural la s of supply and demand non operational” +Gsmani p @?, and leads to the emergence of monopoly. According to the book) “#slam does not possess an economic system of its o n. The Luran and hadith ha%e not articulated any economic philosophy or economic system in the sense in hich e comprehend these concepts today. #slam endorses the market forces and accepts that the natural la of supply and demand should be the basis for addressing the economic problem +of allocation) distribution and gro th,” +Gsmani p@C,. “#slam also fully endorses the profit moti%e as a basis for economic beha%ior” +Gsmani p@;,. State inter%ention in the economy is also 6ustified on the Smithian grounds of correcting market failure. “The go%ernment has the right to restrict acti%ity hich disturbs +price, e/uilibrium in the public interest” +Gsmani p=1,. This ill pre%ent the gro th of monopoly and allo a person “to sometimes e'press a preference for gain in the hereafter” +Gsmani p=@,. Ho e%er) “the Shariah has not gi%en any mandatory order obliging him to do so” +Gsmani p=@,. Hence) the determining principle ith reference to allocation) distribution and gro th ill remain the profit moti%e as articulated in the operationali.ation of the “natural” la s of supply and demand. #slam endorses the profit moti%e on gro th stimulation grounds +Gsmani p=C,. According to Gsmani it also recogni.es the classical factors of production and 6ustifies their remuneration in accordance ith market principles +Gsmani p=A7<1,. This leads to a holesale and comprehensi%e +almost totally un/ualified, endorsement of the capitalist property form. This endorsement takes the form of an apology for most stock market practices currently pre%alent in *akistan. • The legal fiction of corporate personality is endorsed. The Wakf) sections of the -ait7ul7&all) Tarka and >haltaash Shio are theori.ed as capitalist legal personalities. “the concept of legal personality is not forbiddenJ nor is this a strange conception for #slamic Sharia7only this terminology is ne ” +Gsmani pC1,. The concept of limited liability is 6ustified ith reference to the principles of modaraba and the practice of “abd ma .um fit ti6arah” ( the company is like the sla%e ho trades on behalf of his master and liability is limited to the sale price of the sla%e +Gsmani pC17C8,. Share trading is 6ustified on the basis of the %ie that share %alues represent the %alue of the tangible assets of the companies hose shares are being traded. Trade in shares is 6ustified hen

• •


• •

share %alue e'ceeds face %alue ( this e'cess %alue is presumed to represent the %alue of non7 financial assets of the company +Gsmani pC17C?,. 5ealing in shares of companies in%ol%ed in 1iba transactions is 6ustified pro%ided the share holder protests against such transactions at the annual general meeting of the company hose shares be holds +Gsmani pC?7CC,. This 6ustification holds e%en if there is not the remotest possibility that this protest can e%er be effecti%e +Gsmani pCC,. Accepting di%idend income is 6ustified pro%ided the amount of di%idend attributable to the interest income of the company is gi%en as sada/a + ithout niyyah of sa ab,. Speculati%e transactions are 6ustified on the grounds that moti%es should not be in%ol%ed in considering the permissibility of transactions. “Anything considered permissible for trade cannot be proscribed merely on grounds of transactional moti%es ( speculation is not haram ( it is in%ol%ed in all transactionsJ All spot transactions are permissible hether or not the moti%e is speculation” +Gsmani p;E7;1,.

As far as money market transactions are concerned the book adds little to the con%entional isdom of the Saudi inspired #slamic economists ( 4e6atullah) !hapra and *rof. >hurshid. &oreo%er) there are serious factual errors in this section ( the #&: is described as the orld’s central bank +Gsmani p1EE, and the #-15 is seen to be the World -ank ( not one of its constituents +Gsmani p1E8,. The creditFmoney creation process is described ithout reference to the reser%e operations of the central bank +Gsmani p18@718A,. Gsmani’s book calls for an e'pansion of the #slamic financing instruments ( profit sharing) &odarbas) leasing) murabaha) rent sharing etc. #t is sho n that most asset and liability side transactions can be restructured on the basis of #slamic financing contracts) ithin an interest based system +Gsmani p18A7 1<C,. The need for a systemic abolition of interest is not seen as a prere/uisite for the #slamisation of bank depository or lending practices ( indeed the book does not call for an abolition of the money market but basis its recommendations essentially on the e'isting practices of #slamic banks hich + ith the partial e'emption of #ran, function e'clusi%ely ithin interest based financial systems. The compatibility of such financial restructuring ith capitalist practice is e'plicitly recogni.ed by Gsmani. 4o resistance is e'pected from foreign lenders ( “+foreign, lenders are concerned ith profit not ith ho these profits are reali.ed H.. The #&: and the World -ank are conducting research on #slamic financing and supporti%e research papers are being published. The #nternational :inance !orporation +#:!, is no %oluntarily structuring transactions ith #slamic banks ithin #slamic financing modes. #n this situation) #slamic countries can easily conduct international financial transactions on the basis of #slamic financing principles. This ill not be difficult at all” +Gsmani p1?E71?1,. There are se%eral harmful conse/uences of legitimi.ing capitalist practice in this manner. :irst the grotes/ue distortion of capitalist reality) hich such #slamic 6ustification pro6ects is ideally suited to ser%e imperialism’s ideological needs. !apitalism’s claims to be a natural spontaneously e%ol%ed +Hayekian, system are fully endorsed. 2conomic 6ustice is seen to be a function of the operation of competiti%e markets reflecting rational +utility F profit ma'imi.ing, choices of isolated indi%iduals hose beha%iour is determined by the “natural” commitment to the profit moti%e and utility ma'imi.ation. This abstractsFe'tracts capitalist rationality from its %icious) corrupt) un6ust and morally debased historical conte't. !apitalism has not e%ol%ed spontaneously in response to the unfolding of natural la s go%erning human beha%iour. 4atural la philosophy has been discredited centuries ago. There are no non7physical natural la s go%erning human beha%iour (there are only la s re%ealed by Allah or la s made by man. #mam $ha.ali has conclusi%ely demonstrated this in his chapter on kno ledge in the #hya.


The la of demand and supply is not a “natural la ”. 1esearchers in price history ha%e consistently failed to find e%idence for the e'istence of this la in pre7capitalist times +Agleitta research on se%enteenth) century :rance for e'ample,. &arket e/uilibrium is a fiction as mathematical chaos theory has demonstrated. !haos theorists ha%e sho n that in the real orld markets do not ad6ust to create a uni/ue stable e/uilibrium of price and output configurations. The concept of market clearance and uni/ue stationary market e/uilibrium has been re6ected e%en by >enneth Arro . He has sho n that e%en ithout e'ternal disturbances permanent large patternless oscillations are the norm in competiti%e markets. 4eo classical theory sur%i%es today only because it ser%es the ideological needs of capitalism ( the 9la s’ of supply) demand) e/uilibrium are the :ather) the Son and Holy $host of the ontology underlying capitalist economics. &en are not no ( nor ha%e they e%er been (naturally profit moti%ated or utility ma'imi.ing. !apitalism deliberately promotes the %ices of a%arice and co%etousness to uni%ersali.e profit and utility ma'imi.ing beha%ior. To accept such beha%ior as natural is to misunderstand the epistemological status of economics +and political economy,. 2conomics is not a 9science’ but the religion of capitalism based on the absurd doctrine of the unlimitedness of ants. Anti capitalist authors) such as &aulana &aududi ha%e de%eloped their criti/ue of capitalism on a re6ection of this doctrine. #n his #nsan >a &a’ashe &asala aur uska #slami hal +first published in 1;=1,. &aulana &aududi sho s that limiting human ants is necessary for the promotion of the #slamic ay of life and of #slamic %irtues such as fa/r) .uhd) istighna and infa/. Gnlike the apologists &aulana &aududi insists that #slam is a fully articulated economic system intrinsically incompatible ith capitalism +&aududi 1;=1 p.1?7@1) =87AE,. Accepting the doctrine of the unlimitedness of ants is first and foremost an attack on #slamic spirituality ( it is natural that #slamic economics originally en6oyed the patronage of the Saudis) ho se%erely constrain spiritual practice. Accepting ants as unlimited is 6ustifying capitalism’s terrible history7 its anton slaughter of fifteen million 1ed #ndians) its re%olt against theology) its shocking moral depra%ity and se'ual anarchy) its abuse and neglect of children) omen and specially the elderly ( as natural. #t is to deny the rele%ance of moralFspiritual e%aluation of economic practices. The attempt to #slamise capitalist finance takes a huge step in this direction. #t thus pa%es the ay for de spirituali.ation of economic life and the esterni.ation of commercial culture in &uslim countries. Secondly) the #slamic finance mo%ement also pa%es the ay for the subordination of the #slamic orld to global capital. This is achie%ed by the legitimi.ation of capitalist property. #slamic finance does not recogni.e that capitalism) like socialism abolishes pri%ate property ( socialism does this through the state) capitalism through the financial markets. Degal personhood) limited liability) the separation of o nership from control) determination of %alues on the basis of speculation) distancing of finance from production) the use of the interest rate as the key refinance price ( all these are moments in the circuit of capital hich necessitate the abolition of pri%ate property and the subordination of all agents ( managers) orkers) rentiers ( to capital itself. The functioning and institutional structuring of capital and money markets ensures that capital accumulation becomes an end in itself7the raison d’etre of all economic acti%ity. !ontrary to &aulana Gsmani’s assumption) share %alues do not reflect asset orth +he 6ustifies share transactions on this basis,) asset prices are determined by the speculati%e acti%ity that o%er helmingly determines share %alues. #n practice the company is not a sla%e +abd ma .um fit ti6arah, but a representati%e of capital) the real master ruthlessly subordinating all economic agents ( managers) orkers) rentiers ( to its ill. 2stablishing the hegemony of capital is a necessity for capitalism. #t is necessary for the uni%erslai.ation of the %ices of a%arice and co%etousness +takkathur,. #slamic finance legitimi.es the uni%ersali.ation of these %ices by misrepresenting the price formation process in capitalist markets. #t does not recogni.e that remo%ing moral restraint on indi%idual beha%iour ( legitimi.ing accumulation ( turns competition into an


instrument for the promotion of oligopoly. Today prices in %irtually all ma6or commodities and factor markets are administered prices ( supply and demand are routinely managed and administered by the handful of companies hich dominate these markets. 4on monopolistic competition e'ists only in markets) hich are as yet untouched by capitalist finance and property. The standard economics te't books set out the perfect competiti%e model as an ideal to hich monopolistsFoligopolists are supposed to aspire. This is a deliberate) ideological distortion of the historical reality hereby competiti%e markets once freed of moral restraints become instruments for the domination of capital ( the 6ust price can be formed only in a market regulated to ensure the dominance of the ill of $od and the promotion of the #slamic %irtues. 2ndorsing capitalist price formation processes and property forms legitimates the incorporation of &uslim business in imperialist corporate structures. The #slamic finance initiati%es of *rince :aisal subordinated 2uropean based #slamic banks to imperialist finance. Today a merger and ac/uisition a%e is s eeping through the financial and the telecommunication and media +T&T, sectors. -anks such as A-4 Amro) !itibank and Standard !hartered are skillfully using #slamic finance techni/ues to subordinate $ulf finance institutions and to capture a potentially lucrati%e niche market. *ri%ati.ation initiati%es in this region ill also in%ol%e the use of #slamic finance instruments. Glema on the board of multinational banks and firms ill ser%e a useful purpose by legitimi.ing &uslim business subordination to imperialist finance on #slamic grounds. Thirdly) subordination is of course not to be limited to the pri%ate sector. Degitimi.ing capitalist finance pro%ides an ideological basis for subordinating &uslim states to America. !utting back of state e'penditure) sale of precious national assets to foreigners at rock bottom prices) dismantling trade policies) opening information floodgates to the imperialist media) all this ill be a natural conse/uence of the #slamic legitimi.ation of subordination to imperialist finance. 4o onder the #&: and the World -ank ha%e al ays been enthusiastic supporters of the #slamic finance mo%ement. #slamic finance seeks to enlist the support of the Glema for capitalism. This attempt ill not succeed for the #slamic re6ection of capitalism is based on moral ( not materialist ( premises. Accepting the unlimitedness of ants negates the mainstream orthodo' stance in #slamic thought and history #slam ( unlike socialism7recogni.es capitalism as intrinsically e%il. !apitalism is e%il because of the goal it sets for itself7uni%ersal freedom7not because it fails to achie%e this goal. • • Summary: Islami" 2"!n!mi"s and Capitalism #slamic economics is a Saudi pro6ect +4e6atuallah) >hurshid) !hapra) ere Saudi employees., #slamic economics legitimises capitalist ethics and institutions. #slamic economists ork ithin the neo classical paradigm. *olicies are 6ustified in terms of utilityFprofit ma'imi.ation ithin #slamic constraints but these constraints are seen as necessary for ma'imi.ing long run utilityFprofit #slamic economists are ride utilitarians. #slamic economics endorses ac/uisiti%enessFcompetition and critici.es capitalism for not achie%ing a balance bet een freedom and e/uality. #slam is seen as a means for reforming capitalism through introduction of Qakat and Sharia compliant financial contracts. This can co7opt #slamic) mo%ements into liberal capitalist regimes. #slamic economics legitimi.es abandonment of the re%olutionary struggle to o%erthro capitalism. The economic agenda of the #slamic parties has become indistinguishable from that of liberal and social democratic parties. This agenda does not recogni.e that the sahaba did not seek profit or utility ma'imi.ation. #slamic policy subordinates economic to spiritual ends) .uhd) ta akkal and :a/r are strongly emphasi.ed by #slam. #slamic conception of 6ustice +unlike 1a ls, does not recogni.e all moral ends as of e/ual %alue. 2nds are not authenticated ith reference to self determination but in terms of the promotion of


• •

• •

• • • • • • •

religiously sanctioned %irtues. 2conomic institutions and practices are %alued on this basis and not on the basis of utilityFprofit ma'imi.ation. #slamic economics cannot do this for it’s methodology is incapable of e'plaining the relationship bet een institutional structure) indi%idual moti%ation and %alue change as it is committed to utilityFprofit ma'imi.ation. #slami.ation of capitalist %alues and institutions is reflected in Ta/i Gsmani’s ork. Smithian roots of Gsmani’s ork reflected in acceptance ofJ  Scarcity and unlimitedness of ants  4atural la +i.e. la s of demand and supply,  Social interests are ser%ed by indi%iduals seeking self interest  Ialues should be determined on the basis of indi%idual preferences  “-asic philosophy underlying capitalism is correct”  0nly critici.es monopoly According to Gsmani #slam does not possess an economic system. *references should be taken as gi%en Shariah does not re/uire man to ha%e specific preferences. Gsmani legitimi.es the capitalist property form  !orporate personality and limited liability is 6ustified.  Share trading) +the %alue of the shares are e'pected to be e/ual to the %alue of the assets of the company, is also 6ustified.  5ealing in shares of company in%ol%ed in 1iba transactions is legitimi.ed.  Accepting riba based di%idends is 6ustified.  Speculati%e transactions on a spot basis hate%er the moti%e of the trade are permissible. Gsmani does not suggest the abolition of the money market but seeks to sho that interest free banks can ork in an interest based system !iti) World -ankF#&: support this stance. Such an approach distorts capitalist reality. !apitalism has not e%ol%ed spontaneously but through the %iolent sei.ure of po er by e%il men. This approach accepts natural la s and natural la philosophy. #mam $ha.ali sho s there are no natural la s ( only la s re%ealed by $od or la s made by man. Da s of demandFsupply not natural &arkets do not produce e/uilibrium +!haos theory, capitalism promotes a%ariceF6ealousy. Accepting ants as unlimited is re6ecting spirituality. #slamic economics legitimi.es the %alues of capitalism #slamic subordination to global capital. #t is legitimi.ing capitalist property gro th in the &uslim orld and submergence of the &uslim orld ithin global capitalism. #slamic economics legitimi.es a%ariceFco%etousness and fails to recogni.e that price formation in markets dominated by a%ariceF6ealousy is necessarily oligopolistic administered by a handful of companies. -y ad%ising multinational firmsFbanks Glema are 6ustifying &uslim subordination to imperialist finance and to the public order of global capital ( i.e. America.

#.2. Islami" C!nstituti!nalism and Maulana Maududi The greatest impact of modern political science on #slamic scholarship has been in the area of constitution making. # shall in this section briefly outline &aulana &aududi’s legitimi.ation of liberal theories and practices on #slamic grounds. &aulana &aududi is a seminal figure in contemporary #slamic thought. His critically important contributions areJ  His de%elopment of Shah Waliullah’s conception of #slam as a complete) closed system and as the only uni%ersal ci%ili.ation. #t is on this basis that &aulana &aududi makes a distinction bet een #slam and 3ahiliya;@


 His conceptuali.ation of 3ihad as a permanent re%olutionary strategy and re6ection of the %ie that 3ihad is a defensi%e ar for national liberation.  His total re6ection of Western epistemology and insistence on the position that no ne interpretation of #slam is needed to deal ith contemporary problems and challenges ;= 5espite this insistence on #slam’s completion and uni/ueness &aulana &aududi endorses the use of liberal discourses and institutions as a political technology. His conception of “#slamic democracy” is of a political order in hich “e%ery indi%idual is an e/ual participant in >hilafat and +in hich, all indi%iduals en6oy e/ual status as citi.ens” +&aududi 1;;E p1=, ;<. #n #slamic order “e%ery indi%idual is >halifa. All +indi%idual, >hilafa delegate their po ers of >hilafat to the formal ruler for administrati%e purposes” +1;;E p1=E,. &aulana &aududi also finds room for personal autonomy ithin #slamic political order “ ithin legal constraints e%ery indi%idual has full freedom to choose his ay of life” +1;;E p1=1,. 2ndorsement of liberal %alues ( autonomy and e/uality ( leads to an endorsement of liberal institutions. “The *resident of the state must be elected by the &uslimsH the election must reflect the free uncoerced ill of the &uslims” +1;;E p@@?)@=E,. &aulana &aududi argues that a ell defined and permanent shoora representati%e of the &uha6areen) the Ansar and allied tribes e'isted in the time of the *rophet +Salal Allah (o7Alehe7 a sallam, “+&embers of the Shura of the *rophet) sallah Allah7o7alahe a sallam, ere choosen by a natural electoral process. They ere true representati%es of the &uslim tribes. Had elections of the modern type based on uni%ersal franchise ;A been held the same people ould ha%e been electedH.Had %oting taken place there as no one else in the society ho ould ha%e en6oyed the confidence of the &uslims. They thus 6oined the ma6lis7e7Shura through a process of natural elections. Thus in the era of the *rophet +Salla Allah7o7alahe7 a salam, the institution of the ma6lis7#7Shura had been established and the constitutional pro%isions for its continuous e'istence had also been formulated” +&aududi 1;;E p@=A,. &aulana &aududi stresses the importance of representational democracy in the #slamic state. “The *resident must not consult any one be likes but only those ho are the representati%es of and en6oying the confidence of the ordinary citi.ensH. #t is e%ident that the method for determining the representati%eness of the members of the Shura that as applied in the time of the *rophet Salal Allah o alahe a salam is no longer practicalH. #n the modern age +adult franchise based, electrons are a permissible ay for determining the representati%e character +of the members of the &a6li7#7Shura,” +1;;E p@==,. According to &aulana &aududi ordinary citi.ens of the #slamic state “ha%e the right to elect the *resident and to be members of its parliament” +1;;E p@<8,. He endorses the hole array of liberal and social democratic rights ( life) property) consciousness) association) elfare ;? +1;;E p@<<7@<C,. &aulana &aududi does not recogni.e human rights as a negation of hu/u/7ul7ibad ( i.e. as duties of a capitalist state to foster capitalist indi%iduality and ci%il society and uni%ersali.e a%arice and co%etousness. #n &aulana &aududi’s %ie #slamic democracy is based upon “popular %iceregency” +1;;E p@?1, and “this necessarily implies that go%ernment be established by the ill of the people and remains in po er only hile it en6oys popular support” +1;;E p@?1,. Thus kingship +mulukyat, cannot be legitimate in any circumstances +1;;E p@?=, and a constitution sanctioning human rights pro%ides the legal frame ork for the practice of 9popular %icereging +1;E p@?<,. *opular %iceregents’ ( i.e. the elected representati%es of the citi.ens ha%e the right “to legislate ithin the constraints of the Shariah” +1;;E p==1,. “The legislator should ha%e specific characteristics;C but “he does not need to pro%e that he possesses them” +1;;E p==<,. Such legislation and the e'istence of a legislature +*arliament, is seen as necessary for establishing the #slamic legitimacy of the state +&aududi 1;;E p@=A,.


The #slamic state is thus not a re6ection of modern liberal democracy “but an intermediate stage and system of la and culture bet een theocracy and Western secular democracy” +&aududi 1;;E p=?;,. Dike liberal democracy #slam accepts the principle that “establishment and change of go%ernment should be based on the ill of the citi.ensH the state belongs to the ordinary citi.en. #t is run by a legislature elected on the basis of popular representation and en6oying the right to enact la s through consensus or ma6ority decisions” +1;;E p=C1,. The #slamic re%olution culminates in the establishment of the authority of such a legislature go%erning the state. #n sum &aulana &aududi pro%ides legitimation for the establishment of a constitutional democracy in hich >hilafat resides in a citi.enry of indi%iduals en6oying e/ual human and representational rights and go%erned by a parliament hich legislates through consensual and ma6ority decisions. This is certainly a ne interpretation of #slamic political thought and it is not legitimated by references to the ork of classical #slamic political thinkers such as #mam &a ardi) #mam &uhammad) #mam #bne >huldun) #mam $ha.ali and Shah Waliullah +may Allah re ard them and e'alt their hea%enly status,. Luite the contrary &aulana &aududi’s political thought seems to dra upon the ork of al :arabi a neo Aristotelian ho sa democracy as pro%iding opportunities for the de%elopment of the sciences and arts necessary for the establishment of the 9%irtuous regime’ +&ahdi 8EE1 p1==71=A,. A more direct inspiration of course is the ork of Docke and 1ousseau. #t is Docke ho pro%ides the key statement 6ustifying representational liberal go%ernance in opposition to the religious state established by the saintly Dord 0li%er !rom ell. 1ousseau’s” conception of the general ill is strongly influenced by Docke’s treatise on representati%e go%ernment. 1ousseau’s conception of the general ill as necessarily good in that it can not ill e%il dra s upon Docke’s %ie that di%ine la sanctions representational go%ernance;;. #n the Dockean conception there can be no contradiction in the articulation of the commands of $od and the directi%es of the ill of the citi.ens. This is based on Docke’s assertion that $od does not mandate a particular political order and di%ine ill in this respect had no particular content. The general ill can be seen as an instrument for articulating di%ine ill in a particular conte't1EE. 5i%ine ill can thus be interpreted as sanctioning the practical so%ereignty of the citi.en1E1 7 though as Docke recogni.es this cannot be pro%ed by direct reference to the -ible. #n &aulana &aududi’s %ie the general ill of the people of *akistan sanctions the supremacy of the di%ine ill in the country’s political order. #n the *akistani state di%ine ill legitimately circumscribes the general ill and makes it subser%ient to and constrained by the Shariah. #n this conception di%ine ill is not empty +as it is in Docke’s thought,. #t legitimates the structuring of legitimate obediences and defines moral and social %alues. This concurrence bet een the dictates of di%ine ill and those of the general ill of the people of *akistan is not theori.ed by &aulana &aududi in the sense that he does not sho its necessity but takes it as an empirically obser%able fact. #t is this fortuitous coincidence bet een the general ill of the people of *akistan and di%ine ill hich makes democracy an appropriate instrument for the #slamisation of *akistan’s political system. Sustaining concurrence bet een the general ill of the people of *akistan and di%ine ill is a crucial problem for &aulana &aududi) for di%ine ill as articulated in Shariah has a specific content 1E8. &aulana &aududi does not 6ustify his o n scheme for the particular articulation of the general ill ithin *akistan in the form of a political system ith reference to the historical e'periences of the &uslims of the #ndian subcontinent. #nstead &aulana &aududi presents an abstract model based on his interpretation of some sources of the Shariah ( he does not e%en 6ustify his abstract model ith reference to classical #slamic political thought. The institutions &aulana &aududi sanctions ( citi.enship) human rights) the constitution) parliament ( are not rooted in #slamic or #ndian &uslim history. This implies that the political paractice of the &uslims


of #ndia has failed to articulate authentic #slamic norms and institutions and e are no able to do so only because of &aulana &aududi’s theori.ing1E@. 2lectoral defeats since the *un6ab elections of 1;<1 ha%e sho n that the people of *akistan do not endorse the conceptuali.ation of #slamic order as concei%ed by &aulana &aududi. The %ictory of the A ami Deague nationalists and the *** secularists in 1;?E sho ed clearly that there as no coincidence bet een the general ill of the people of *akistan and the di%ine ill +at least as articulated in &aulana &aududi’s thought, hence democracy could not be concei%ed as an instrument for the articulation of the pre e'isting concurrence bet een the t o. Therefore the democratic process has since 1;?1 been seen as the process by hich people can be con%inced of the need to formulate a general ill hich is in concurrence ith +&aulana &aududi’s interpretation of, the di%ine ill. To achie%e this reformulation of the general ill the 3ama’at has sanctioned the politics of rights ( the implementation of #slamic political order ould lead to the pro%ision of human and elfare rights and increased prosperity and progress. #slamic political struggle as thus reconceptuali.ed as a /uest for this orldly progress and elfare +not a /uest for sacrifise and shahdat,. #n pre imperialist #ndia struggling for rights as entirely alien to &uslim political culture. The *akistan mo%ement and the post 1;?E political practise of the 3ama’at7#7#slami has pro%ided legitimation for the politics of rights and effecti%ely closed the gap bet een politics of &uslim nationalism and the politics of #slamic re%i%al. Degitimation of the politics of rights has meant an endorsement of the %alues of competition +co%etousness, and accumulation +a%arice, and a do ngrading of the need to foster the religious %irtues through political struggle. The mo%ement for establishing an #slamic state has effecti%ely become a mo%ement for reforming the liberal capitalist state. This illustrates that the strategy for using the democratic process as a means for creating a concurrence bet een the general ill and di%ine ill is practically a strategy for redefining the substanti%e content of the di%ine ill in a manner hich is acceptable to the people. The emphasis on human and elfare rights necessitates that the commands of the Shariah be implemented in a manner and to the e'tent acceptable to the people and an endorsement of capitalist %alues ( competition +co%etousness, and accumulation +a%arice, ( makes a reorientation of the general ill impossible. The practise of democratic politics thus does not lead to a transformation of the general ill but to a reinterpretation of the di%ine ill for legitimating the politics of rights. !apitalist de%elopment ine'orably seculari.es society and fundamentalist mo%ements +Hindu) !hristian) #slamic, can pro%ide legitimation for this seculari.ation as both -inder +1;C@, and 2uben +1;;;, ha%e argued. :undamentalist mo%ements sanctioning the politics of rights are self destructi%e for they accept autonomous +i.e. capitalist, indi%iduality as natural and not a product of the triumph of 2nlightenment philosophy. Such religious mo%ements thus do not seek a transcendence of capitalist indi%iduality) ci%il society or of the capitalist state. They seek instead a reconciliation bet een the substanti%e content of religious teachings on the one hand and the arbitrarily illed preferences of the capitalist indi%idual and the norms and structures of the capitalist system on the other. Such religious mo%ements reinterpret capitalism and seek to sho that religious practices are effecti%e means for the reali.ation of capitalist norms and for the redressing of capitalist structural imbalances 1E=. While &aulana &aududi seeks to constrain capitalist and democratic practices by Shariah in6unctions the political discourse of the 3ama’at presents Shariah in6unctions as effecti%e means for the achie%ement of progress and the flourishing of human rights1E<. The essential significance of &aulana &aududi’s ork in contemporary &uslim thought emerges from his insistence on #slam as a complete system) his recognition of the West as 6ahiliya and his re6ection of the need for a ne interpretation of #slam to deal ith contemporary issues and challenges. &aulana &aududi’s) political ritings ho e%er pro%ide grounds for legitimating capitalist and liberal political %alues and structures and this frustrates the /uest for systemic transformation and the transcendence of capitalist order. Thus &aulana &aududi’s reinterpretation of capitalist political order must be re6ected


and the analyses of classical &uslim political thinkers ( #mam &a ardi) #man #bn7e7>huldun and Shah Waliullah in particular ( must be re%i%ed for achie%ing #slamic political hegemony and the comprehensi%e and final annihilation of capitalist order. • Summary: Islami" C!nstituti!nalism and Capitalism &aulana &aududi presents an #slamic legitimation of liberal norms and practices despite.  his insistence that #slam is a complete) closed system and the only uni%ersal ci%ili.ation.  his conceptuali.ation of 6ihad as a permanent re%olutionary strategy.  his re6ection of the West as 6ahiliya khalisa  his %ie that no ne interpretation of #slam is re/uired to deal ith contemporary challenges 5espite this &aulana &aududi endorses liberal discourses and institutions as a technology. He endorses  concept of e/ual citi.enship. 2%ery indi%idual is a participant in >hilafat.  the Amir is the delegate of the true >hilafa +citi.ens,  autonomy ( e%ery indi%idual can choose his life pattern  election of *resident and legislature by all citi.ens  the legislature must consist of representati%es of the citi.ens. According to &aulana &aududi such a representati%e parliament e'isted in the time of the *rophet +Sallal Allah7o7alahi7 as7 Sallam, and the >hulafa7i71ahideen. &embers of the Shura ere naturally elected and ould ha%e been elected if there had been adult franchise. !onstitutional pro%isions for the establishment of parliament ere formulated in the time of the *rophet +Salal Allah7o7allahi7 as Sallam,. According to these pro%isions consultation must be limited to representati%es of the ordinary people elected through a process e/ui%alent to adult franchise. &aulana &aududi endorses the hole array of liberal rights ( life) property) conscience) association) elfare. He does not recogni.e human rights as negation of hu/u/7al7ibad and duties of a capitalist state to sustain capitalist indi%iduality and ci%il society. #slamic democracy is “popular %iceregency”. This implies that go%ernment be established and retain po er only by the ill of the people. A constitution recogni.ing human rights pro%ides the legal frame ork for popular %iceregency. 1epresentati%es of the people ha%e the right to legislate ithin the constraints of the Shariah. #deally the legislator must be a fa/ih but he does not need to pro%e that he has the characteristics of a fa/ih to legislate. The #slamic state is “an intermediate stage” bet een theocracy and liberal democracy. The #slamic re%olution is the establishment of a representati%e go%ernment and legislature hich can enact la by ma6ority ith the citi.enry en6oying e/ual human rights. This is certainly a ne interpretation of #slamic political teachings and is not legitimated by reference to the ork of our classical political thinkers. #t has some affinity ith the political thought of al :arabi ho sa democracy as making possible the de%elopment of the sciences and the arts re/uired for the establishment of a %irtuous regime. #t also dra s hea%ily upon the thought of Docke and 1ousseau. Docke 6ustified representational regimes in opposition to religious regimes. 1ousseau’s conception of the general ill as necessarily good dra s upon Docke’s %ie that $od ills representati%e go%ernment and there is correspondence bet een di%ine ill and the ill of the citi.ens. The general ill pro%ides the substanti%e content of the di%ine ill hich is empty ( $od ills no political order.

• •

• • • • • • • • •

• •


• • •

• •

• • • • •

#n &aulana &aududi’s %ie there is concurrence bet een the ill of the people and di%ine ill. 5i%ine ill is not empty. #t has content and legitimately constrains the general ill. This concurrence has been achie%ed fortuitously. This makes democracy an appropriate instrument for #slamisation. &aulana &aududi presents a general scheme for the articulation of the general ill so as to sustain its concurrence ith di%ine ill. This scheme is not based on the historical e'periences of &uslim #ndia. He presents an abstract model based on his interpretation of political practise of the first #slamic state. This model legitimates citi.enship uni%ersal suffrage e/ui%alence) a representati%e parliament an elected e'ecuti%e and human rights. This model is not 6ustified ith reference to classical &uslim thought or #slamic history. This means that &uslim #ndia has failed to articulate #slamic political norms and practices hich ha%e no been disco%ered by &aulana &aududi. -ut elections since 1;<1 sho that the *akistani people do not endorse this conception of political order and democracy has therefore been %ie ed as a process for con%incing people to endorse &aualana &aududi’s conception of political order. 5emocracy could no longer be concei%ed as an instrument for articulating consensus bet een the general ill and di%ine ill. The general ill thus has to be formulated. #n practice this has in%ol%ed an endorsement of the politics of rights. #slamic political struggle is reconceptuali.ed as a means for orldly progress and elfare +not a /uest for sacrifise F shadat,. *olitics of #slamic re%i%al and &uslim nationalist politics ha%e come close by endorsing the politics of rights hich has historically been alien to &uslim politics. #slamic re%i%alism thus endorses capitalist %alues ( competition) accumulation. #slamic re%i%alism has become a mo%ement for reforming liberal capitalism. This sho s that using the democratic process as an instrument for achie%ing a concurrence bet een the general ill and di%ine ill is practically a pro6ect for redefining the substanti%e content of the di%ine ill according to people’s ishes. An endorsement of capitalist %alues makes a reformulation of the general ill impossible and the implementation of the Shariah becomes sub6ect to popular endorsement. -inder and 2uben argue that fundamentalist mo%ements hich endorse the politics of rights legitimi.e seculari.ation of society on religious grounds. Such fundamentalist mo%ements are self destructi%e for they accept capitalist indi%iduality as natural) not a product of 2nlightenment thought. Such religious mo%ements reinterpret capitalism and seek to sho that religious practices are effecti%e means for reali.ing capitalist norms and redressing capitalist structural imbalances Shariah is sho n to be an effecti%e means for the achie%ement of human rights and economic progress. &aulana &aududi’s reinterpretation of capitalist political order cannot pro%ide a basis for transcending capitalism and establishing #slamic political hegemony. This re/uires that e return to classical &uslim political thought.

#. . The S!"i!l!.y !1 Islam and $llama Shariati This section discusses the ork of 5r. Ali Shariati a committed #slamic re%olutionary trained as a sociologist at the Gni%ersity of *aris during the early 1;AEs) Shariati applied sociological theories ( specially based on the orks of &ar') :anon) Toynbee) G.gan and the authors of the :rench analytical and critical school of sociology ( to #slamic themes. He concei%es of #slam as “a median school” intermediate bet een capitalism and socialism +Algar 1;?C p1;,. Sahriati as also deeply influenced by his father. A/ai Ta/i Shariati ho sought to de%elop a “scientific and progressi%e” approach to theological /uestions and rote a modern tafseer +Tafsir 4a%een, challenging the interpretations of the traditionalist ulema. Ali Shariati inherited this approach and


de%eloped it into a third ordlist /uasi. &ar'ist interpretation of #slamic social thought and practise. #t is this insistence on &ar'ist themes hich has enabled the &u6ahideen7#7khal/ to accept Shariati as their most important theoretician. Shariati re6ects #slamic history) consensus +i6mah, and theology as a source of #slamic social thought and practise. Shariati rites “ e still do not kno our religion H e ha%e not ritten a single orth hile book concerning Ali and his companions H after fourteen centuries Ali has been made kno n to us by a !hristian. $eorges 3ourda/” +1;?; p@,. Shariati ad%ocates a re6ection of the entire corpus of #slamic kno ledge accumulated through the centuries “ e must begin by kno ing our religion +through a ne interpretation of the Luran, hich +enabled me, to e'tract from the Lura’an a hole series of ne H..themes relating to H. sociology and the ne sciences. A philosophical theory and a theory of sociology and history opened themsel%es before me and hen # checked them against sociology and history # found them to be fully correct” +1;?;7pA, ( the Lura’an) according to Shariati) fully endorses modern sociological methodologies. “Though applying the special terms of the Luran it is possible to disco%er se%eral ne topics H. in sociology” +1;?; p?, for the Luran endorses do'ological methodology. 1eflection on the Luran leads Shariati to the conclusion that “the *rophet +Sallal Allah o alaihe as sallam, is not recogni.ed as the acti%e cause of fundamental change in human history and de%elopment. He is depicted +merely, as the bearer of a message” +1;?; p1@,. Shariati identifies “the masses as constitute+ing, the fundamental effecti%e factor of social change” +1;?; p1=,. Shariati defines “al nass as the hole people” +1;?; p1=,. 1eflection on the Luran also leads Shariati to accept the /uasi Spensserian F /uasi Damarkian idea that “a society is like a li%ing beingH it has scientifically demonstratable and immutable la sH. society is ans erable for its deeds before the !reator” +1;?; p1A71?,. Shariati describes “#salm as a scientific schools of sociology + hich recogni.es, man as e/ui%alent to ill and society as e/ui%alent to norm) the combination of these t o represent the median position H. &an is free but obliged to follo the la s of nature to reali.e this freedom” +1;?; p1;,. *rophets do not create) they merely recogni.e pre e'isting social norms and “make use of their freedom to ad%ance their aim” +1;?; p8E,. Shariati is contemptuous of the &iddle Ages hich failed to recogni.e that “Spirit had to de%elop in freedom” +1;?; p81,. He is full of praise for the “multifaceted and re%olutionary 2uropean a akening in science) art) literature and all areas of human and social concern + hich, H resulted in the birth of the ci%ili.ation and culture of today’s orld” +1;?; p88,. Gnderstanding hy this “re%olution in thought” took place is according to Shariati “the most important /uestion that science must ans er” +1;?; p88,. According to Shariati there ere t o fundamental causes underlying this re%olution) +a, the replacement of Aristotelian method of analogical reasoning by mechanistic F empiricist methodology and +b, the transition from feudalism to capitalism +1;?; p88,. -oth of these transitions ere a product of #slam’s contact ith 2urope +1;?; p8@,. Therefore e must follo in the footsteps of 2urope and adopt the scientific method “Today is no time for the orship of hat e do not kno H belief is no %irtue. We must learn the scientific methods of 2urope. #n the in%estigation of religion ne paths must be follo ed and a ne method choosen) the method of sociology must be used” +1;?? p=,. Shariati laments that “the study of the Luran and the study of #slamic history are %ery eak as they no e'ist in our corpus of #slamic studies” +1;?; p8A,. He applauds the efforts of the re%isionist &uhammad Abduh in pioneering #slamic modernism +1;?; p8A,. According to Shariati the application of the sociological method +he calls it typology, sho s that the “*rophet of #slam) +Sallal Allah alaihe a salam, struggle+ed, against the aristocracy) sla%e o ners and


merchants” +1;?; p8CE, and that #mam Hussain stood for “life and liberty) thought and learning) po er and liberty” +1;?; p@8,. This role of the *rophet +Sallal Allah alaihe a salam, and of #mam Hussain “ as not clearly understood at the time of their appearance +but, has HH become comprehensible ith the de%elopment of human thought and science +Shariati 1;?C p?8,”. “#slam is true humanism” +Shariati 1;?C p?<, for “man is not merely the %iceregent of $od upon earth but also His relati%eH The spirits of $od and man both possess an e'cellence deri%ing from the possession of ill. &an can act like $odH. to a certain degree” +1;?C p??,. The “names” that Adam learnt are “the truths of science” inherent in the orld “+1;?C p?C,”. “#n #slam man is not humbled before $od. He is the partner of $od” +1;?C pCE7C1,. Shariati’s humanism is presented in detail in his most ell kno n book Islamshinasi +1;C=,. The central theoretical concept elaborated here is tauhid defined as a “ orld %ie regarding the uni%erse as a unity +combining, this orld and the hereafter +possessing, a single form) a single li%ing mechanism) ill) intelligence) feeling and purpose. +The uni%erse, is like a %ast and absolute man. Take a man endo ed ith a areness) creati%ity and purposeH.. enlarge Him to the utmost degree and e ill ha%e before us the orld “+1;C? p=A7=?,. “$od is the light of hich the lamp is the orld” $od) nature and man) the origin of all three is the same. All ha%e the same direction) the same ill) the same spirit “+1;?C p=A7=?,. >no ledge of the orld its signs and 9norms’ is re%ealed by phenomenology) by physics) chemistry and psychology +1;?C p=?7=C,. “The manner of regarding the “signs” or phenomena of the orld is closer to the approach of modern science than to that of mysticism H. i.e. ta hid7i7 u6udH. Ta hid is to be interpreted as a unity of $od ith the orld and ith &an. Ta hid depicts a total harmonious li%ing and self a are system + hich, besto s upon &an independence and dignity” +1;C= p<87<@) p<A,. #t is ob%ious that this understanding of tauhid is entirely alien to orthodo' #slamic ontology and cosmology as de%eloped by the Sunni and Shia ulema and muhadthiseen. #t is a complete denial of man’s abdiyat and of Allah’s so%ereignty. Shariati follo s *ascal in his interpretation of human nature +1;C= p<?, and Hegel in describing man “as dialectic reality” +1;C= p<?,. &an en6oys freedom because “he is a are of all the secrets of nature” +p<C, Shariati’s con%oluted description of the struggle bet een good and e%il is littered ith Hegeian terminology ( thesis) anti thesis) synthesis) opposites etc. He re6ects the notion of “fi'ed standards of morality” for “&an is a choice) a struggle) a constant becoming H. religion is a path) a means not an aim or an end. All the misfortunes that ha%e appeared in religious society anse from the fact that religion has become an end” +1;C= pA<,. *rayer also is a means not an end +pA<,. That is hy “non &uslims are better situated in today’s orld than &uslims H.. Worshippers of co s ha%e outpaced orshippers of $od and our pious belie%ers are not e%en a are of this” +1;C= pAA,. These /uasi Heideggerian) /uais Sartrean formulations graphically illustrate the unbridgeable gap bet een Shariati’s thought and orthodo' #slam. The greatest influence on Shariati is that of &ar' Shariati accepts historical materialism as a scientific fact. Shartiati finds room for this in his absurd reconstruction of the story of !ain and Abel “History like man consists of a dialectical process” +1;C= pA;,. The struggle bet een !ain and Abel is a history of the clash of t o modes of production) pastoral and agrarian) the later characteri.ed by pri%ate property. *ri%ate property alone produced “a ne man) an e%il and po erful man” +1;C= p?1,. *ri%ate property has been created e'clusi%ely by force. *ri%ate property destroyed the unity of the tribe and nurtured greed and ac/uisiti%eness. #t transformed society into arring camps ( the possessors ho “needed the labour of others” +1;C= p?@, and the dispossessed depri%ed of all access to means of production and subsistence. -ecause of the carrion of pri%ate property the ties of kinship +1;C= p?A,. ere replaced by the bonds of ser%itude”

The only thing hich separates !ain from Abel is the difference in the mode of production. +1;C= p?A7 ?;,. The mode of production is the infrastructure of society according to both Shariati and &ar'. The orthodo' understanding of the Luranic %erses relating the !ain ( Abel conflict are “superficial and o%er


simplified. The story concerns the end of primiti%e communism the disappearance of man’s original system of e/uality and brotherhood H. #t confirms the scientific fact that life) society and history are based on contradiction and struggle and that contrary to the belief of the idealists the fundamental factors in all three are economics and se'uality hich dominate religious faith” +1;C= pCE7C1,. At this point Shariati cites &arcuse in support of his argument. According to Shariati abolishing pri%ate property ill usher in the ideal society “#n a society here all possess in common the bounties of life all ill necessarily be e/ual and brothers and the spirit of kindness and solidarity and goodness ill be culti%ated” +1;C= pC@, “ hat makes !ain e%il is an anti human social system a class society) a system of pri%ate o nership” +1;C= pC<,. !lass struggle is the motor of history according to both Shariati and &ar'. #t is “the permanent ar of historyH the banner of !ain has al ays been held high by the ruling classes and the desire to a%enge the blood of Abel has been inherited by succeeding generations of sub6ected people H the eapon of !ain has been religion and the eapon of Abel has also been religion” +Shariati 1;C= pC<,. “We belie%e in the freedom of the indi%idual” rites Shariati. “History ad%ances on the bases of a uni%ersal and scientifically demonstrable process H “#” as an indi%idual must choose hether to mo%e for ard ith history and accelerate its determined course H. 0r to stand ith ignorance) egoism) opportunism in the face of history” +1;C= pC?,. !ould any orthodo' &ar'ist ob6ect to this formulation of the essence of historical materialism" #n Shariati’s %ie there can e'ist only t o social structures) one characteri.ed by common o nership and the other by pri%ate property +1;C= pCA,. The system of pri%ate property is defended by the rulers +*haroah, the rich +Laran, 9and the long bearded’ priests. The three classes are constantly engaged in dominating) e'ploiting and decei%ing the people” +1;C= p;E,. Shariati e/uates $od and the people ( Allah and al 4ass) “ hene%er in the Luran social matters are mentioned Allah and Al7nass are %irtually synonymous) interchangeable and yield the same meaning. The ord Al nass and Allah belong together. When it is said that “1ule belongs to $od” the meaning is that rule belongs to the people) not to those ho present themsel%es as representati%e of $od. When it is said that “property belongs to $od” it means that capital belongs to that people as a hole. When it is said “1eligion belongs to $od the meaning is that the entire structure and content of religion belongs to the people” +1;C= p;=7;A,. The hole people can make of religion hat they ill for Shariati clearly re6ects the idea of fi'ed standards. 1eligion in Shariati’s conception is merely an e'pression of 1ousseau’s “general ill”. The people must abolish pri%ate property and re7establish communism +the system of Abel,. The ideal man ho ill accomplish this task is “one ho understands the beauty of science and the beauty of $od. He listens to the ords of *ascal and 5escartes” +1;C= p;?,. He is like -uddha) Dao T.e) !onfucius) Spartcus) 3esus and &oses +p;?,. He “endures hardship for the sake of liberty and ell being.. He is free of the compulsion of nature and history) the compulsion of society. $uided by science and technology he has freed himself from these prisons +i.e. nature) history and society,. His character is liberated from the norms and con%entions of his society” +1;C= p;C,. :or all intents and purposes this liberated) scientific modern man is $od for Shariati can riteJ “The path that leads to $od is the path that leads to Him by becoming Him” +1;C= p;C,. Sharieati as a sincere and committed #slamic re%olutionary. He sacrifised his life for #slam. Set #slam sur%i%es in his thought merely as polemic and terminology. He has nothing but contempt for the glorious intellectual traditions of #slamic #ran and of Shiaism. His call for a “return to the Luran” is in practise a complete re6ection of the traditions and the history of #slam. #t is the history of modern 2urope hich he


regards as authentic. He authenticates 2uropean cosmology) ontology and epistemology. His presuppositions) concepts) modes of analysis) policy prescriptions and ideals ( all are deri%ed from 2nlightenment thought. They ha%e literally nothing to do ith #slam. His interpretation of Luranic teachings and of the character of Syedna Ali) and #mam Hussain are entirely alien to orthodo'. #slam ( both Shia and Sunni ( that is hy he cannot cite the Glema in support of his bi..aire misinterpretations. His application of sociological methodologies for the analysis of #slamic concepts distorts these concepts beyond recognition. His acceptance of the presuppositions and %alue neutrality claims of socio logical methodologies signals his acceptance of the need for an absorbtion of #slamic ci%ili.ation into the Western ay of life ( i.e. into capitalism. Shariati misunderstands capitalism. !apitalism’s ontological presuppositions are >antian F Humean. #t seeks transcendence in this orld through freedom) Shariati’s conception of tauheed ultimately denies the possibility of the finititude of this orld by postulating the “unity” of this orld and the hereafter and the similarity of the nature of man and $od. Shariati denies man’s ser%itude and thus necessarily endorses freedom F capital Shariati’s is a this orldly spirituality hich sees religion as merely a means for the achie%ement of freedom. Shariati fails to understand that accumulation of capital re/uires the abolishing of pri%ate property. Diberalism accomplish this through the financial markets and socialism through the dictatorship of the proletariat. !iti.ens of communist states are as free and e/ual as stakeholders +shareholders and bank depositors, in a market economy. -oth these forms of capitalist organi.ation prioriti.e freedom F accumulation of capital) Shariati’s re%olution is merely the substitution of one form of capitalist organi.ation +despotism of the market, by another +democratic proletarian dictatorship,. -y promoting freedom in both these forms capitalism necessarily seeks the destruction of #slamic indi%iduality and order) an indi%iduality and on order e'plicitly re6ecting freedom F capital and celebrating) ser%itude +abdiyat, to Allah under the authority and guidance +hidayat, of the ulema) the guardians of #slamic tradition +Sunnah, and consensus +i6ma,. #t is no onder that Shariati’s most de%oted follo ers ( the &u6ahideen7#7>hali/ ( ha%e al ays been the bitterest opponents of the ulema and the #slamic state. They ( and the communist parties of #ran) #ra/) Syria) Sudan and the !entral Asian 1epublics ( are enthusiastic agents of American imperialism) for America is their natural ally. America and the communists stand together for the uni%ersali.ation of freedom and for the destruction of #slamic indi%iduality and #slamic order +abdiyat and hidayat,. #t is acceptance of the %alue neutrality claims of sociological) methodology and theory hich led a sincere #slamic re%olutionary to commit such serious errors of analysis. We must re6ect the presuppositions) methodologies and policies of the social sciences and attempt to address contemporary issues on the basis of orthodo' #slamic traditions authenticated by i6mah and silsilah. We pray to Allah to forgi%e and o%erlook Allama Shariati’s errors and mistakes. These errors ere made ith all sincerity by a scholar from a pious and noble family. Allama Shariati sacrificed his life for #slam. He had great lo%e for the *rophet +Sallal Allah7o7alahai a salam, his companions and the holy Ahl7i7 -ait. He sought to promote unity bet een Shias and Sunnis. &ay Allah re ard him and assign to him a high station in hea%en. Summary: Islami" S!"i!l!.y and Capitalism  Shariati applied the sociological theories and methods of &ar') :anon and the riters of the :rench analytical school to #slamic themes.  He sa #slam as “a median school intermediate bet een capitalism and socialism. Shariati presents a third ordlist /uasi. &ar'ist interpretation of #slamic social practise.


 Shariati re6ects #slamic history) consensus +i6ma, and theology as a source of #slamic social theory. He recommends an abandonment of all #slamic kno ledge accumulated o%er the centuries. He argues that the Luran should be reinterpreted to enhance the scope of the ne human and social sciences. The Luran according to Shariati fully endorses sociological methodologies.  1eflecting on the Luran leads Shariati to the %ie that the acti%e force in history is the mass +Al7 4ass, and to the acceptance of the /uasi. Spenserian F Damarkian %ie that society is like a li%ing organism ans erable for its deeds and ith definite immutable la s of change. Shariati endorses the >antian conception of human freedom +autonomous understanding of mature and its la s,. 2nlightenment epistemology is accepted by Shariati and its ontological presupposition as true. &echanistic F empiricist methods are accepted as %alue neutral.  #n Shariati’s %ie the scientific method is inspired by #slam and e should hasten to follo in the footsteps of the 2nlightenment in applying the sociological method to the study of religion. He applauds Abduhu’s #slamic modernism.  According to Shariati the application of the sociological methods sho s that the *rophet +SAW, initiated a class ar against the aristocrats and merchant. He as engaged in a ar of liberation. This role of the *rophet +SAW, and #mam Hussain has not been understood by the Glema and the #slamic tradition. #t has become comprehensible only ith the de%elopment of the social sciences hich sho us that “#slam is the true humanism”.  Shariati belie%es that “man is $od’s relati%e ho can act like $od. The “names” taught by Allah to Adam are the “truths of science”. Science confirms the unity of $od) man and the uni%erse +ta hid7i7 a6ud,. According to Shariati the truths regarding this unity are re%ealed by phenomenology) physics and chemistry) not by mysticism. This conception of tauhid is a complete denial of abdiyat and a re6ection of classical #slamic ontology and cosmology. Shariati’s conception of human nature and of man’s position in the uni%erse is deri%ed from *ascal) Spencer and Hegel. His conception of the struggle bet een good and e%il is a reinterpretation of Hegelian dialectics. He re6ects the e'istence of fi'ed unchanging norms and standards of morality. 1eligion and prayers are seen merely as means for the achie%ement of human freedom. “Worshippers of co s” ha%e understood this better than the “ orshippers of $od” according to Shariah.  Shariati accepts historical materialism as a scientific fact. He accepts the &ar'ist claim that changes in the mode of production are the fundamental determinants of change in morality and social organi.ation. The e'istence of pri%ate property is the source of all e%il according to Shariati. !lass struggle bet een the possessed and the dispossessed is the motor of history and “economics and se'uality dominate religious faith”.  Shariati does not recogni.e that capitalism abolishes pri%ate property through the financial markets. He belie%es that abolishing pri%ate property ill lead to the creation of the ideal indi%idual and ideal society. “Dong bearded” priests are accused of decei%ing the people by legitimating pri%ate property.  Shariati e/uates $od and the people. Allah and Al74ass carry the same meaning in the Luranic %erses referring to social affairs according to Shariati. “When it is said that rule belongs to $od the meaning is that rule belongs to the people rites Shariati) “as does capital and religion”. 1eligion is merely a “path to freedom” a manifestation of 1ousseau’s general ill according to Shariati. The people must free themsel%es by abolishing pri%ate property. They are free of and master of nature) history and society. $uided by science and technology the people seek progress and abundance.  Shariati as a committed #slamic re%olutionary. He 6oined the ranks of the holy martyrs of the #slamic re%olution in #ran. Set #slam sur%i%es in his analysis merely as rhetoric and symbol. He totally re6ects #slamic ontology) historical tradition and orthodo' social practise. He accepts 2uropean history as authentic and uni%ersal. He authenticates 2nlightenment ontology) epistemology and social discourse. His application of sociological methodologies to #slamic


concepts distorts them beyond recognition. He is an uncritical disciple of Spenser and *ascal and &ar'. His acceptance of the %alue neutralist claims of the sociological methodologies signal his endorsement of the pro6ect to subsume #slam ithin the capitalist ay of life. Shariati re6ects man’s ser%itude to $od and by accepting freedom as an end in itself) he is accepting accumulation. Accumulation re/uires the abolition of pri%ate property hether through the financial markets or through the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dike the &ar'ists all Shariati seeks is a restructuring of capitalist order for the achie%ement of greater freedom) e/uality and abundance. The promotion of freedom F accumulation necessarily destroys #slamic indi%iduality. #t destroys the legitimacy of the leadership of the ulema and challenges the authenticity of #slamic history and tradition. #t de%alues the %irtues of abdiyat and hidayat and creates a this orldly spiritually proclaiming the eternity of the orld and man’s participation in $od’s so%ereignty. #t is natural that Shariati’s closest follo ers the &u6ahideen7i7>hal/ ha%e al ays been the bitterest enemies of the ulema and of the #slamic state. They and the communists are American imperialism’s closest allies in the struggle to destroy #slamic indi%iduality and create secular order in the &uslim orld. #t as the uncritical acceptance of the %alue neutrality claims of sociological theories hich lead such a sincere #slamic re%olutionary as Ali Shariati to make such serious errors. The #slamic response to contemporary challenges must be based on the classical #slamic branches of learning authenticated by silsilah and i6ma.


Chapter 6 Overthr!7in. Capitalism8 $ %ha/alian -erspe"tive The foundations for such a re6ection of the Western ay of life as laid by Ha.rat Shaikh al &ashaikh #mdadullah &uha6ir &akki+may Allah bless him, the Amir of the 1C<? 6ihad. Ha.rat Lutub7ul Alam +may Allah bless him, insisted that the pro6ect for constructing an #slamic state as ine'tricably interlinked ith the pro6ect of totally re6ecting the Western ay of life. There are t o essential elements in the #slamic re%olutionary response to the West) :irst e must articulate a principled and practical re6ection of capitalism as a ay of life ( its norms) regulation procedures and transaction forms. This in%ol%es the construction and consolidation of a religious society encompassing the cultural) economic and political life of the &uslims. Authority at all le%els must be concentrated in the hands of the Glema and the mos/ue and the madrassah must be de%eloped as central institutional modes for organi.ing the #slamic systemic resistance to capitalism. #n a country such as *akistan there are ample opportunities for doing this. A %ery large proportion of businesses are outside the capitalist order ( they do not transact ith financial markets and their o ners do not seek profit ma'imi.ation. #t is entirely possible to de%elop a mos/ue F madrassah based system of tam eel for establishing a counter capitalist economy and for mobili.ing the po er of the ba..ar for the o%er thro of capitalist order. This has been done in #ran and the #slamic mo%ements of #ndonesia and &alaysia ha%e de%eloped se%eral institutional initiati%es to achie%e this end. Similarly #slamic mo%ements can utili.e the po er of the trade unions for delegitimating capitalist property. Gnions under the leadership of the ulema should abandon the struggle for orkers rights and higher ages ithin the capitalist system. They must seek the transcendence of capitalist order through an abolition of capitalist money and finance and the utili.ation of state resources for deconstructing capitalist property and delinking from globali.ed capitalist markets. The #slamic mo%ements aim at creating a uni%ersal state. We e'plicitly re6ect the possibility of car%ing and a niche for a &uslim state ithin capitalist order through struggles for national liberali.ation. We seek not liberation but humanity’s total submission to the ill of $od. An #slamic state is necessarily a 3ihadi state. The democratic process may be a mean for the construction of such a state. -ut the #slamic state is committed to the total destruction of democracy and republicanism in all forms. This is because e re6ect the possibility of %alidating norms and practices ith reference to 9general ill’ or 9the ill of all’. We regard the /uest for autonomy as a /uest for e%il. #slam is the submission of the ill of man to the ill of $od ( all truth claims are %alidated ith reference to $od’s ill) and to it alone. #slam is a reassertion of the pre Augustinian commitment. “Thy kingdom come) Thy ill be done on earth as it is in hea%en”. Such a comprehensi%e social and political struggle against capitalist order has to be firmly rooted in #slamic epistemology. The fifteenth century of the #slamic era is one of accelerated disintegration of the capitalist ay of life throughout the orld. Western sa%agery can no longer sustain the pretense that it is a ci%ili.ation. Today the 2nlightenment pro6ect has all but collapsed. As Wendy -ro n argues “the West is still grie%ing the loss of belief in progress) rights) freedom) reason. Set it still holds these ideals to be irreplaceable” +8EE1 p 1E@,. :oucault and $adamar and $ray and 1orty and Taylor ha%e sho n that it is /uite impossible to theoretically 6ustify capitalist norms and practices. The #slamic assault on capitalism and on Western sa%agery is gaining momentum because of the inherent incoherences of modernist and post modernist discourses.


1einterpreting 2nlightenment epistemology and the pro6ects built upon this epistemology makes no sense in these circumstances. As the pre%ious chapter has sho n #slamising social sciences produces only apologies for capitalist practices and liberal policies. This subordinates #slamic scholarship and the political strategy of #slamic mo%ements to human rights imperialism at a time hen the imperialist system is beginning to implode. &oreo%er legitimating capitalist norms and institutions makes the construction and sustenance of #slamic indi%iduality) society and state more and more difficult. Degitimation of capitalist norms and practices by !hristianity led to the de%elopment of an indi%iduality incapable of surrender to $od’s ill and dominated by the passions of a%arice and 6ealousy. &arketisation of society has led to a shocking decline of se'ual morality and a disintegration of family and community. :inally the liberal state has imposed capitalist oppression throughout the orld slaughtering hundreds of millions of people in America) Australia) sub Saharan Africa) Iietnam) #ra/) Afghanistan) *alestine and Datin America for the subordination of these countries to global capital. 1e6ecting 2nlightenment epistemology is necessary to a%oid and to o%ercome moral decadence and physical destruction throughout the orld. 1e6ecting social science in particular must in%ol%e a recognition of the contingent character of capitalist indi%iduality and rationality. #t is not necessary that a%arice and co%etousness dominate human consciousness. Similarly the dedication of thought and practice to the pursuit of freedom and the ma'imi.ation of po erFpleasure is neither ine%itable nor desirable. #mam $ha.ali +may Allah sho er H#S choicest blessings on our master, pro%ides a frame ork for demonstrating the incoherence of all un#slamic metaphysical and epistemological discourses. Gnlike the &uta.ila our #mam did not try to incorporate alien discourses into the #slamic system of kno ledge. He de%eloped a criti/ue of $reek thought on the basis of #slamic principles ( and demonstrated its incoherence in order to refute it and o%ercome and destroy it. This ensured that #slam as not submerged ithin an alien system of thought and practices but sought and achie%ed its total destruction in the &uslim orld. The $ha.alian approach e'plicitly refutes the claim that the West is a superior or uni%ersal epistemological and moral ci%ili.ation. #t re6ects the possibility of a dialogue ith the West 1EA. The $ha.alian approach does not see any of the streams of Western thought and practice as a continuation of #slam. The $ha.alian approach seeks the destruction of modernity and post modernity and of Western hegemony. #t tries to pa%e the ay for the deconstruction of all Western kno ledge and practise by highlighting its incoherences. This can be done both by de%eloping an internalist and an e'ternalist criti/ue of Western kno ledge and practice +1i.%i 8EE8) 8EE@,. The internalist criti/ue of Western philosophy and of the social sciences is an attempt at demonstrating the incoherences of the presumptions underlying this analysis) their methodological incoherences their concealed meanings and implications and their lack of correspondence to reality. This has in a rudimentary and %ery preliminary manner been attempted in of this book 1E?. Such an internal criti/ue can be de%eloped by #slamic re%olutionary orkers familiar ith Western thought. Such internalist criti/ue must be accompanied by the de%elopment of an e'ternalist $ha.alian criti/ue of Western philosophy and the social sciences. *resumptions) methodologies and practices and policies produced by social sciences must be criti/ued from an #slamic epistemological perspecti%e. This e'ternalist $ha.alian criti/ue can be de%eloped only by the orthodo' 1EC Glema and Soofia. #t cannot be undertaken by &uslims ho ha%e not been methodically educated in the classical #slamic branches of kno ledge. :ollo ing in the footsteps of our master #mam $ha.ali e ill insha Allah de%elop this internalist and e'ternalist criti/ue to sho the inherent incoherence of Western thought and practise and to destroy the


intellectual and political hegemony of the West. This is essential for the triumph of #slam as the only uni%ersal ci%ili.ation through transcending capitalism. The incorporation of social sciences methodologies and associated rationalities and practices ithin the classical #slamic branches of learning is impossible because of a fundamental dichotomy in the presumptions underlying #slamic and 2nlightenment epistemologies 1E;. #slamic learning is grounded in belief in tauheed manifested in a recognition of the metaphysical and a'iological ultimacy of Allah +subhanahu a ta’ala,. This is the perception and assertion of the follo ing truths. • • • • • There e'ists a transcendent !reator and historical creatures separated by an unbridgeable ontological gap. The !reator’s ill constitutes the creatures’ “ought to be” e'pressed in terms of both Shariati and Tari/a +s, as articulated in the continuing history of the ummah authenticated by silsilah and i6ma. Human beings are necessarily re/uired to submit to the ill of the !reator. Human beings are capable of moral actions but actions are moral only to the e'tent to hich they articulate man’s surrender to $od’s ill. The 9normati%eness of the oughts’ and the moral capability of human beings entail the necessity of 6udgment of intentions and action in the hereafter. Attainment of $od’s pleasure and of re ards in the hereafter are the ob6ecti%es of all human thought and action. >no ledge is essentially a areness of $od’s ill ith respect to human being and human conduct.

2nlightenment epistemology is an outright re6ection of these primary truths 11E. Similarly thee is no room for freedom) e/uality) self determination) human rights) tolerance) elfare and progress in #slamic epistemology and our classical branches of learning. Apologetic attempts at pro%iding space for these concepts ithin #slamic epistemology are elements of the imperialist strategy to subordinate #slam to Western sa%agery. We re6ect Western philosophy and the social sciences because • methodologies underlying them are not %alue neutral. Their purpose is to 6ustify and pro%ide technologies of go%ernance for capitalist order • their conception of being and of the orld sees man as creator) sustainer and so%ereign • 2nlightenment philosophy and social science holds that man imposes order upon on the natural orld through a process of self reflection. This makes empirical en/uiry possible and the purpose of both self reflection and e'perimental en/uiry is the actuali.ation of human freedom and autonomy. The commands of the self cannot be e%aluated e'cept formally +on the basis of uni%ersalisability,. 1eason here is a means for obeying the uni%ersalisable commands of the un7 kno able self • The self 6udges and cannot itself be the sub6ect of 6udgment. There is no room in Western philosophy and the social sciences for the recognition of $od as so%ereign la gi%er. • the social sciences are the practical methodologies articulating the philosophy of mechanism and utilitarianism. • the social sciences are committed to the flourishing and the satisfaction of the passions and not to the elimination of %ice. • the social sciences legitimate and facilitate the functioning of capitalist order hich seeks the uni%ersalisation of the passion to make money. The purpose of social en/uiry in #slam is the formation and sustenance of an indi%iduality and of a society hich %oluntarily submits to $od’s ill. Such an indi%iduality and society recogni.es freedom as e%il. :reedom is essentially al -agh) +rebellion,. :reedom is the choice of choice itself ( the assertion of man’s +fictitious, authority and capability to sub6ect the orld to his arbitrarily illed +uni%ersalisable,


preferences. The theoretical preference for preference is in practise the preference for capital ( for in secular orders capital alone is uni%ersalisable and in principle limitless. That is hy the social sciences legitimate and pro%ide technologies for the creation and sustenance of capitalist indi%iduality ci%il) society and capitalist states. Attempts at practicing social science methodology ithin the constraints of the Shariah ( as reflected in the ritings of &aulana &aududi on #slamic go%ernment ( legitimate capitalist practices at both the indi%idual and the institutional le%el 111. They do not contest capitalist rationality but instead accommodate. #slam ithin capitalist order. 4ineteenth century clergymen and modern !hristian apologists ithin the !hristian 5emocratic parties of 2urope ha%e presented similar arguments for reconciling capitalist practices ith the 9spirit of !hristianity’ 2uben +1;;;, argues that modern !hristian and #slamic fundamentalism may be seen as attempts at “re7enchanting” the 2nlightenment rather than as anti 2nlightenment mo%ements because they limit and do not in principle re6ect 2nlightenment rationality and the associated goals of freedom and progress 118. The practise of Shariah constrained ideologies and technologies in #ran and Saudi Arabia illustrates ho this opens up these societies to capitalist penetration. 1eligious indi%idualities and Shariah constraints on market and state institutions become delegitimised and political authority is transferred from the ulema to the agents and representati%es of national and global capital. Social science is a product of 2nlightenment philosophy and a technology for the legitimation and practise of capitalist go%ernmentality. #slam is committed to the o%erthro of capitalism as a ay of life and re6ecting social science rationalities is therefore necessary #slamic social en/uiry must focus attention on creating rationalities and methodologies hich can foster the gro th of #slamic indi%iduality and the flourishing of the #slamic %irtues ithin the conte't of the contemporary challenge ith hich the #slamic re%olutionary mo%ements11@ are confronted. #slamic social en/uiry seeks the transcendence of capitalist order through the uni%ersalisation of the practise of #slamic %irtues in the life of the indi%idual) the society and the state. The flourishing of these %irtues and the contractual and institutional structures hich sustain them has been the concern of the classical #slamic branches of learning. These branches of learning pro%ide an appropriate paradigm for addressing contemporary issues ith reference to the sustenance of #slamic indi%iduality and society. 0ur social theori.ing must be conte'tuali.ed by and located ithin the traditional #slamic episteme. The ulema and soofia ha%e .ealously preser%ed the epistemological heritage of #slam. #n the subcontinent the ulema of -arrailly and 5e band ha%e in e'tremely difficult circumstances comprehensi%ely defeated the modernists and re%isionists ho sought to corrupt traditional #slamic learning by its incorporation ithin Western epistemes11=. This magnificent achie%ement of the ulema and soofia makes it possible to continue Ha.rat Lutab7al7Alam #madullah &uha6ir &akki’s pro6ect of integrating the /uest for spiritual re%i%al and the re%itali.ation of #slamic learning ith the organi.ation of a mo%ement of 6ihad against the West 11<. The de%elopment of an #slamic criti/ue of the presuppositions and methodologies of the social sciences +the de%elopment that is of an e'ternalist $ha.alian criti/ue of Western philosophy and the social sciences, is an indispensable step in the deconstruction of 2nlightenment and post 2nlightenment epistemes and in conceptuali.ing contemporary issues on the basis of the assumptions and methodologies rooted in #slamic epistemology and in our classical branches of learning. The de%elopment of an e'ternalist $ha.alian criti/ue of 2nlightenment philosophy of the social sciences pro%ides a basis for the e'pansion of the scope of the classical #slamic branches of learning. #n particular the scope of :i/h) #lm7i7>alam and Gsul7u7deen need to be broadened to enable us to analy.e contemporary problems and issues on the basis of #slamic ontological assumptions and ithin the conte't of #slamic epistemological methodologies. This broadening of scope must entail a construction on the basis of our inherited isdom and an elaboration of the teachings on hich there is general consensus. Theories articulated ithin this conte't must confirm to the ma/asid7e7Sharia and be deri%ed on the basis


of methods and mechanisms sanctioned by the usul7#7fi/h for theori.ing and for articulation of policy based on legitimately constructed theories. The i6tihad this entails is ta/leedi7i6tihad ( an i6tihad hich confirms) elaborates and %indicates the i6mah of the Gmmah 11A. Such i6tihad pro%ides grounds for asserting #slam’s claims as uni%ersal history and as the orld’s only ci%ili.ation +Lutb 1;?= p<17AE,. #t pro%ides an indispensable epistemological basis for transcending Western philosophy and social sciences and aging permanent 6ihad against Western sa%agery 11?. 0ur commitment to undertake permanent 6ihad against Western sa%agery reflects our principled re6ection of the rule of capital. The West has re6ected !hristianity and embraced capitalism as a deen. #t has rearticulated. *haraoh’s age old claim ( ana rub kum al ala. +# am your great Dord,. The rule of capital re6ects the so%ereignty of $od and proclaims the false doctrine of freedom +human autonomy and self determination,. The theoretical preference for preference is in practise the uni%ersal dominance of the %ices of a%arice and co%etousness. Western man is possessed by the de%ils of co%etousness and lust. He has filled the orld ith se'ual %ice ( pornography) nudity) fornication) homose'uality) lesbianism) A#5S. He has corrupted economic life by infusing riba and gharrar in all production and e'change transactions. He continues to slaughter hundreds of million of innocent %ictims ( 1ed #ndian) Iietnameses) !ambodians) *alestinian) >ashmiri) #ra/is and Afghans ( in a ne%er to be satisfied blood lust for freedom and plentitude. Western philosophy and social science 6ustifies man’s rebellion against $od) the e'plosion of se'ual %ice) institutionali.ed economic e'ploitation and human rights imperialism. A carefully crafted re%olutionary strategy to build an anti7imperialist) anti capitalist uni%ersal state in the &uslim orld has reasonable chances of success in these circumstances. 0ur chances of achie%ing the o%erthro of capitalist order are impro%ed in countries such as *akistan due to the incoherence of modernist discourse as articulated by the local supporters of American imperialism +see Appendi' 1,. *erhaps e are in the 4arodnik stage of our re%olution or in its 1CC@ + hen *lekhano% set up the party, or in its 1;E8 + hen 9What #s To -e 5one” appeared, or in its 1;E<. -ut its 1;1? seems a distinct possibility because of liberalism’s inherent incoherences and %ulnerability) its inability to 6ustify the rule of capital) the moral degeneration that is its ine%itable conse/uence and the continuing eakening of the client states. The socialist re%olution as defeated because socialism did not re6ect enlightenment ontology ( the orship of man remained as central to socialism as to liberalism and capital cannot be transcended ithout re6ecting man orship. The #slamic re%olution is essentially a re%i%al of the pre Augustinian commitment. “Thy >ingdom come) Thy ill be done on earth as it is in hea%en”. #slam represents an internal ( not an e'ternal ( threat to capitalism. #t is capitalism’s definiti%e criti/ue and not simply another attempt to re7enchant the capitalist orld as the 3e ish political theorist 1o'ana 2uben fantasi.es +1;;;,. Today #slam threatens Washington as !hristianity threatened 1ome in the = th century. The priority concern at present must be to mobili.e the masses to resist American hegemony and to raise the costs of American occupation of #ra/ and Afghanistan and American support of the Qionist enemy. This must be accompanied by the struggle to de7legitimate capitalist and liberal norms and institutions and to struggle for the establishment of a non7national >halifat. The coming together of all #slamic forces on the basis of #slam’s orthodo' doctrines and practices ith the mas/ue as the organi.ational focus and in resolute opposition to the rule of la of capital is possible and should be our goal.





@ = <

A ? C ;


11 18 1@ 1= 1< 1A 1? 1C 1; 8E 81

88 8@ 8= 8< 8A 8? 8C 8;


@1 @8 @@ @=

@< @A

@? @C @; =E

=1 =8

=@ == =<

!apitalism and democracy may take the form of socialist and totalitarian orders by the contracting indi%iduals ceding their autonomy to the general ill creating an +autonomous, De%iathan state. We shall be concerned ith the indi%idual self as the ob6ect of our en/uiry in contemporary +non totalitarian, democracy and +non socialist, capitalism. The self is not transcendent in the sense of being beyond or outside of e'periencing or conceptuali.ing the orld. This is precisely hat Hume denies. #t is in this sense that >ant describes belief in $od as another “postulate of pare practical reason”. #t is difficult to separate this from that other “postulate of pure practical reason” the belief in freedom for >ant often argues that $od’s di%ine plan is actually unfolding in contemporary history. #t is but a short step from here to Hegel’s deification of history. # seek Allah’s pardon and His refuge for the blasphemies e'pressed in this paragraph. 5ialectics deri%es from the $reek ord for con%ersation 4ot negati%e freedom for the indi%idual but positi%e freedom for the language community. The 2urocentricism of Hegel’s fundamental concepts has often been commented upon. He famously derided oriental thought for “its arbitrariness) sa%agery and dimness of passions”. He as also deeply contemptuous of !atholicism. Schopenhauer takes the concept of the Will from Augustine’s conception of $od ho Augustine sees as ha%ing manifestations in time and space but possessing a transcendent e'istence. &ore than a hundred years before :reud Schopenhauer spoke of unconscious moti%es. #n Schopenhauer’s orld the ill dominates us through se' and the end of lo%e is only disillusionment and suffering. >ierkegaard rites often of the parado'es of !hristian dogma and the inherent absurdity of a !hristian commitment. #n the sense in hich Hegel concei%es of moral progress through history. And absurdly e%en Shariati and >hatami +See Sec. =.= belo , All ob6ects need not e'ist as all ideas need not be true Heidegger also as to ha%e a shot at this later. 0ne of the most important influences on #/bal. -ergson recogni.es that such acts may be e'ceptional but says that this does not mean that human acts are predetermined. The other great Western influence on #/bal. The main difference bet een >ant and Husserl is that in Husserl’s thought the transcendental 2go and the essential categories of consciousness are not logical deductions +as in >ant, but directly intuited +disco%ered,. :reud’s libido is only a slightly personali.ed %ersion of Schopenhauer’s “ ill”. #.e. the tendency of an organism to stabili.e itself and di%est itself of energy altogether 7 :reud also called this 9the 4ir%ana principle’. 2'cept in the form of tautologies and mathematical e/uations. “0utside of logic e%erything is accidental” +1;88 A.@,. Gnlike the >antian transcendental ego Heidegger calls this concernedness “ontological” and says this is hat distinguishes 1iffat from other beings in the orld. 2'cept that the choice to choose freedom itself is necessary This is !amus’ formulation. #t is this conception of all human relationships being inherently confliction hich lies at the root of de -ea%iour’s portrayal of gender relationships +1;A=,. &uch feminist thought re%ol%es around this theme. Structuralists do of course do ngrade the importance of meaning. This is a necessary conse/uence of the disappearance of the sub6ect. #f there is no sub6ect there can be no meaning 7 it is as if the uni%ersal mind can only dictate relations and identify the elements of a system. Structuralism is concerned ith identifying all possible permutations of the elements of a system and this is not :oucault’s concern. 0f $od and the orld and the self as an inner certainty. #.e. of agreement of the meaning of inherently meaningless discourse. #.e. the transformation of personal into capitalist property and the replacement of the natural by the legal +the company, person as the main free and e/ual contractor in the market +Hegel 1;<8 paras 1<C 7 1A;,. Although this can be read as a arning against the marketi.ation of family F friendship relations. As Sogoff +1;C@, argues social cost benefit analysis presumes the dominance of market %aluation processes hen seeking to assign costs and benefits to practices) hich are outside the market domain +due to 9market failure’,. Assignment of %alue to these practises thus reflects preferences of moneyed indi%iduals and not political 6udgments. +See also >eat 1;;=,. Weber called it the “*rotestant ethic” Thus Ta/i Gsmani +1;;?, has recently sought to pro%ide #slamic legitimation for corporate personhood +Sec. =.8 belo ,. Written into the GS constitution by the :ifth Amendment Socialism accepts the doctrine of the eternity of the orld and endorses the priority of the /uest for freedom. #t argues ho e%er that market dominance restricts freedom and market generated distributional ine/ualities are transcendable. We speak of *akistan in the third section. As argued abo%e a pri%ate life is impossible in mature capitalism but there is the need to con%ince 1iffat to prioritise the desire of freedom o%er all other desires in her pri%ate e%aluations. !apitalism seeks to persuade her to make this immoral choice personally. 2specially for economics hich is a study of e/uilibria and is methodologically incapable of taking time seriously. We speak of America in the fourth section. All figures are based on estimates presented in G4 +1;;;,


The #slamic parties are instincti%ely anti7imperialist but lack of clarity about the nature of democratic practice and its relationship to global capitalist hegemony. This makes it difficult for them to adopt a coherent counter imperialist economic strategy. =? #t is often not reali.ed that the #slamic 5e%elopment -ank is tightly controlled and super%ised by the World -ank. #t pro%ides no loans in the absence of #&: appro%al. =C A detailed #slamic analysis of globali.ation and locali.ation is presented in a special issue of Sahil 3une 8EEE) 8?CF1? :ederal - Area >arachi. =; Sub6ect only to the limitation that she cannot ill that hich is not uni%ersalisable 7 her commitment to e/ual freedom and to the recognition of the human other as an end in himself. <E :igures in this paragraph are taken from *eterson +1;;;, pp. =87=;. <1 As Saudi Arabia funded America’s in%asion of the $ulf in 1;;1 and >u ait) 0man) Latar) Saudi Arabia and the GA2 continue to finance American occupation of the $ulf region today. <8 4e ton is said to ha%e been pleased to note that the la of gra%ity did not ade/uately sustain the %ie tha the uni%erse as a self regulated system. There as thus a gap in his theory hich could be filled by recogni.ing di%ine inter%ention. This pleased 4e ton for he as a de%out *rotestant) author of se%eral apologetic) religious tracts +1oberts 1;;? pAAE,. <@ The self is not transcendent in the sense of being outside the orld +i.e. beyond e'periencing or conceptuali.ing it,. <= This is precisely hat Hume denies << This “ orld ide plentitude” ould ensure that orld politics need not be conducted as a .ero sum game and many Scottish 2nlightenment thinkers +including Smith, belie%ed that an e'pansion of capitalism orld lead to an e%entual elimination of ar +Hunt and #ganteiff 1;C@,. <A :or a brief #slamic e%aluation of capitalist order see Ansari +8EE8 p<7==,. :or a detailed un#slamic e%aluation see &es.oros +1;;<,. <? !apital may be defined as takkathur hich is rendered into 2nglish by &aulana &uhammad &armaduke *ickthall as “ri%alry in orldly increase”. This definition captures the t in features of capital ( co%etousness +“ri%alry”, and a%arice +“ orldly increase”,. !apital is a %ice ( the ne%er ending /uest for more through continued intensification of ri%alries. <C 1eckten ald +1;?@, makes a similar claim for :rancis Luesnay +1A;=71??=, ho according to 1eckten ald “by 1?<C had formulated the principals of the ne science” +1;?@ p?,. The Tableau 2conomi/ue as printed that year. The early editions of the Tableau ho e%er contain only about 8E78 pages Luesnay started teaching economics in 1?A?. <; #.e. the transformation of “religious” society into “ci%il” society AE We ill return to this point belo A1 0f labourers and the landed gentry in the case of Smith and labourers and capitalists in the case of 1icardo A8 As Docke sho s labour po er is capitalist property and must be regarded as such for the rational man must dedicate his body to capital accumulation. See belo . A@ 4ote that this is not the substance but only the form of capital. The substance of capital is a%arice and co%etousness. !apital is takkathur. A= Actually e'isting socialism +1ussia) !hina and 2ast 2urope, sho s that the practice of freedom at the collecti%e le%el +based on class or national interest ma'imi.ation, does not eliminate a%arice and co%etousness at the indi%idual le%el. Socialist systems therefore collapse and increasing space has to be found for the practice of freedom through the construction of markets) specially financial markets. Socialism does not repudiate freedom as an ideal and the Hegel7&ar' tradition is as legitimate an inheritor of 2nlightenment thought as the Hume7>ant7Smith tradition. A< After all the 1oman 2mpire) a licentious and materialistic order had been o%erthro n by a !hristian mo%ement espousing the ideals of lo%e) charity and po%erty. AA The defeat of the >eynesians and the intellectual dominance of the 4e !lassical school in the last /uarter of the 8E th century is a reassertion of the continued supremacy of the marginalist school ithin economics. A? An introductory description of these is to be found in Ansari et al +8EE=, !hps. 1 and 8 AC 0n this sec. Hi +8EEE, A; An inspiration for the ork of both Schumpeter and Hayek ?E The claims that &achia%elli +1;?@, as its founding father reflects some similarities bet een his ork and that of the 2ncyclopediests ith reference to a re6ection of !hristian metaphysics and reliance an empiricism. ?1 :or a detailed discussion of the method of the 2ncyclopediests see Wade +1;??,. ?8 #n this respect it bears strong resemblance to neo classical economics. ?@ #.e. hile a theory cannot be %erified it can be falsified by one discenable e%ent contrary to its prediction. ?= As against the realm of necessity hich is the sphere of production and e'change. ?< Also he separates truth from po er ?A There is of course pre 2nlightenment political theory but no pre 2nlightenment political science. ?? 1a ls endorses this conception of the self as e argue belo J 1ational choice theory and utilitarianism also endorse this conception of the self as a ma'imi.er of utility deri%ed from arbitrarily illed preferences. #t is on this basis that Sandel +1;C8, points to the close affinity bet een 1a ls and utilitarianism. ?C Which itself is accepted as natural and ine%itable ?; This position is analy.ed in some detait in 1i.%i +8EE@, CE :oucault +1;?@, pro%ides the basis for understanding the social sciences as 9 orld producti%e’ epistemes. C1 #.e. the reali.ation of freedom through rational en/uiry and the disco%ery of uni%ersalisable moral la s. C8 Although he recogni.es that hich must be subordinated and silenced for the functioning of this truth.


#n authors such as Hegel and :ukyama this thought leads to the %ie that through liberal democracy e ha%e already arri%ed at perfect freedom ( e are at the end of history. C= This necessary disa%o al of otherness is re/uired for dra ing the boundaries of the self. C< -rought together in 5erida’s concept of differentiation +1;?A, CA Similar positions ha%e been ad%anced by post modern anti racist and anti colonialist authors see. e.g. -habha +8EE1,. C? !harles Taylor +1;;?, and 3ohn $ray +1;;<, present broadly similar arguments for 6ustifying hat they refer to as “post liberalism”. CC The classical statement 6ustifying this “marketisation of indi%iduality” is of course Smith’s Theory of &oral Sentiments C; This is an aspect of the uni%ersali.ation of capitalist property hich +a, makes non aged subsistence impossible for the %ast ma6ority of the population and +b, makes non age income +obtained through profit) interest and rent, dependent on the performance of orkers and managers) both aged agents of capital. ;E Some authors such as Dash and Grry +1;C;, argue that the atomi.ation of labour +through human resource management practices, is also a re/uirement for the uni%ersali.ation of capitalist property and the dominance of financial markets in capitalist order cannot be achie%ed ithout such atomi.ation. ;1 #n underde%eloped capitalist orders such as *akistan the e'perts may include secular religious professionals ho sho that facilitating capital accumulation is $od’s ill. ;8 #t is not clear that the need for formal go%ernance decreases ith the maturing of capitalist order. Social democracy ( the institutionali.ation of national insurance and collecti%e bargaining ( may be seen as a ay of increasing self go%ernance. -ut increased conflict bet een trade union bureaucracies and shop floor acti%ists seem to belie this hope. Human resources management practices also do not seem to e'pand the scope for self go%ernance. ;@ Syed Lutb uses these concepts in &a’alin fit Tari/ and both &aulana &aududi and Syed Lutb described Western ci%ili.ation as 3ahiliyat7#7>halisa Syed Lutb de%elops the argument that ci%ili.ation is necessarily #slamic and #slamic ci%ili.ation confronts not other ci%ili.ations but sa%agery +1;?@ p?C7C1,. &aulana &uhammad &armadukh *ickthall makes a similar point +1;AE p1C=,. ;= This separates &aulana &aududi’s thought not only from 6adidis and inno%ators such as Amir Ali) >halifa Abdul Hakim and $hulam Ahmad *er%ai. but also from that of #slamic modernists such as Allama #/bal) ho argue that some 2nlightenment schools of thought ( in #/bal’s case) empiricism ( are inspired by #slam and therefore pro%ide a basis for inter7ci%ili.ation dialogue. ;< &aulana &aududi recogni.es eminence +fa.ilat, on grounds of personal ability and character +1;;E p1=E, but suggests no procedures and institutions for articulating this pre7eminence of the able and the pious in #slamic political order. ;A Gni%ersal franchise is unreser%edly endorsed by &aulana &aududi. He rites “the electoral system must be so de%ised that the hole nation and e%ery indi%idual can participate in it” +1;;E p@?E,. ;? He also endorses due process of la +1;;E p@C;,. ;C &aulana &aududi recogni.es that “legislation ithin the constraints of the Shariah” re/uires legislatures” ho ha%e the follo ing characteristics. a, -elief in the Shariah) sincere ish to obey the commands of Allah and re6ect all other sources of legislation. b, >no ledge of Arabic grammar and literature. c, !omprehensi%e kno ledge of the Luran and Sunnah and of #slam as a complete) closed system of beliefs and practices. d, >no ledge of the ork of the established fu/aha and schools of fi/h and intention to “legislate” in a manner hich ensures continuity of the legal tradition of #slam +1;;E p==<,. ;; As e ha%e argued abo%e Docke could not substantiate this %ie by reference to the -ible. 1EE This %ie also re/uired the assumption that there as no authentic interpretation of the di%ine ill. The *rotestant re%olt against !atholicism as premised on the argument that the !hurch had no right to insist on the authenticity of its interpretation of the -ible and e%ery !hristian had the right to independently interpret scripture. As a de%out *rotestant Docke as thus on sound grounds hen he re6ected the traditional interpretation of -iblical teachings. 1E1 5i%ine ill can also be interpreted as ha%ing no content hatsoe%er. 1E8 This is not a problem for Docke for in his conception di%ine ill is empty and its substanti%e content is necessarily pro%ided by the general ill. 1E@ #t also implies that classical &uslim political philosophy misconcei%ed political order. 1E= 1a ls +1;C<, recogni.es this and belie%es that such mo%ements can be part of his o%erlapping consensus. 1E< Thus 2uben +1;;;, argues that #salmic fundamentalist mo%ements seek a 9re7enchantment’ of liberal order and therefore the ork of Syed Lutb and &aulana &aududi should be %ie ed in the same perspecti%e as the orks of mainstream communitarians +&ac#ntyre) Taylor) 1orty etc., 1EA This is not a re6ection of the possibility of #slamic da ah to indi%idual 2uropeans or Americans. As #slamic da’ee e in%ite them to re6ect the ontological and epistimological presumptions and participate in the task of destroying Western sa%agery. We re6ect the possibility of dialogue in the sense that e do not recogni.e the West as a ci%ili.ation and re6ect the possibility of peaceful coe'istence ith it. 1E? :or an e'cellent e'ample of such an internalist $ha.alian criti/ue of modernist and post modernist liberal thought see 1i.%i +8EE@) 8EE=,. 1EC i.e. rasikh7ul7a/eeda 1E; The incorporation of #slamic themes ithin the social science paradigm is also impossible for the same reason. 11E The 9#slamisation of social sciences’ pro6ect glosses o%er this basic dichotomy. 111 See abo%e 118 See specially the last chapter of this book here this argument is fully de%eloped


both mo%ements of 6ihad and mo%ements of khuroo6J These mo%ements and not the ummah) or &uslim states or other formations are the agents of change in the struggle against capitalist order. 11= 0n the other hand Hindu intellectual and spiritual leadership failed to preser%e such incorporation. &odern Hindu fundamentalism thus poses no challenge to capitalism and Western sa%agery and the Hindu religion has been o%er helmed by nationalism in the same ay that classical 3udaism has been destroyed by Qionism. 11< Ha.rat &uha6ir &akki as not only a scholar and a reno ned sufi saint he as also the Amir of the 1C<? 6ihad. 11A The i6tihad undertaken by -arel%i and 5e bandi ulema in the 1; th and 8Eth century is ta/leedi i6tihad. 11? #t is to be stressed that the tasks of de%eloping an e'ternalist $ha.alian criti/ue and of e'panding the scope of the classical #slamic branches of learning to address contemporary issues can only be undertaken by the ulema and soofia. # ha%e not attempted this since it cannot be undertaken by Western educated &uslims.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful