End Outsourcing and Bring American Jobs Home - Please Sign Petition

CAPITALISM IS USURY
Posted By: tenavision
Date: Friday, 13-Sep-2002 01:28:08

This exactly describes the world right now. Read it and weep. Subject: Curse of Ignorance There is a widespread misconception with regards to the true nature of capitalism, which has largely been bought about by an uncritical acceptance of Marxist-Socialist terminology, itself not only untrue, but intended to be misleading. The essential characterstic of capitalism is not that it permits private ownership of means of production, distribution and exchange, be it land, building, machinery, etc. The personal ownership of all these factors have been since the beginning of mankind a part of natural law. Even the earliest barbarians who owned a stone axe and a bow, and arrows, or the primitive plough and other tools, were not capitalists. Neither were men of feudal times capitalists even if they were great lords. And not even a miser who had accumulated a hoard of gold a capitalist. They all were, and in similar circumtances still are, owners of property. http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...cgi?read=23036 ISLAM AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP Is private ownership a natural propensity?Communists and their likes insist that it is not. They claim that there was no private property in the earliest societies where the "first communism" prevailed. All things, they say, were public property shared by all people who were guided by a spirit of affec­tion, co-operation and brotherhood. They sadly regret that such “an angelic era" did not last because the discovery of agriculture involved disputes over the cultivated land and the means of pro­duction. This inevitably led to war. The Communists allege that humanity can put an end to this dreadful evil only by returning more to “the first Communism" where no one had a property or one's own and all production was equally shared by all people. They believe that this is the only way to restore peace, affection and harmony to the world. On the other hand, psychologists and sociologists do not agree upon a clear distinction between natural and acquired human emotions, concepts and manners. Likewise they differ regarding private ownership. Some psychologists and sociologists maintain that private ownership is a natural propensity born with man re­gardless of the conditions of his environment. Others believe that it is acquired through man's environment. A child, they say, refuses to part with any of his toys either because they are too few or because he fears that another child may take them. When there is just one toy for ten children, quarrel is sure to break out, but, they say, where there are ten toys for ten children everyone will have a toy of his own and there will be no conflict.Our answer to the arguments put forward by communists and other psychologists and sociologists is as follows:-­1. No scientist has been able to prove beyond all doubt that private ownership is not the outcome of a natural instinct. All that the leftists could say in this regard is that there is no conclusive evidence available that it is the outcome of a natural instinct. But that is another question.2. The example-about children and their toys-which the communists give in support of their stand cannot lead to the con­clusions they aim at. That quarrels do not break out when ten children are given ten toys does not rule out the existence of a natural desire for ownership. It means that the desire for ownership may, in healthy cases, be satisfied by absolute equality. The aforesaid example does not rule out the existence of such desire but it may help to define its nature. Besides, no one can deny that many children would not hesitate to usurp the toys of their friends unless they are prevented from doing so for reasons beyond their control.3. As to "the angelic era" which the communists suppose to have accompanied the earliest societies, it may be said that there is no real evidence that such an era did really exist. Even if there had been such an era, there could have been no means of production at the time. How could disputes arise over something that did not exist? At that time people got their foodeasily and directly from trees. When they went hunting they had to go in groups for fear of wild animals. It was impossible to store slain animals for they would soon go bad. So they had to be eaten up as soon as possible. The absence of conflict in that case does not rule out the existence of a natural desire for ownership. As a matter of fact, absence of conflict is due to absence of anything worth the strife. This is why the discovery of agriculture brought about conflict. The said discovery stimulated a hitherto dormant tendency which till then lacked the incentive for action. http://www.islambasics.com/view.php?bkID=157&chapter=5 Debate: Sheikh Anjem Choudary & Dr Naseem on Shariah for UK part 5 Uploaded by almuhajiroun on Dec 6, 2009A recent debate that took place in December 2009, focusing on the implementation of Shariah in Britain. www.islam4uk.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXVZJkz2C5o