It became evident following the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, which had embraced communism, that capitalism, alongside its political counterpart, liberalism, achieved an overwhelming success as the sole system promising progress and prosperity for societies while safeguarding freedoms and human rights. However, this success rapidly diminished due to two factors. First, the emergence of several anti-globalization movements, most notably the World Social Forum, established in January 2001 in Porto Alegre as a response to the World Economic Forum in Davos. Second, theoretical critiques of capitalism have surfaced in recent literature, highlighting its negative impacts on the economy, politics, and the environment. The following lines will explore some of capitalism’s social and human consequences.

Critics of capitalism, despite their differences, agree that since the 1970s, it has become more ruthless than ever. It abandoned what was known as market ethics, giving free rein to the stronger to crush the weaker, reducing resources allocated to programs designed to protect and care for the most vulnerable in society, and deepening social inequalities. This was facilitated through what is termed the "merit principle."

This principle asserts that individuals who achieve more wealth than others deserve it due to their intelligence, skills, and competence—attributes they are born with—while those labeled as failures, lazy, or unintelligent are deemed so due to personal shortcomings. This notion portrays social disparities as a natural result of inherent differences among individuals, rather than the outcome of economic and social policies that fail to ensure equal opportunities. Consequently, change is considered unnecessary, and redistributing wealth is seen as immoral, as it deprives the deserving of their rightful rewards to benefit those who are not entitled to them. ⁽¹⁾

Class disparity is not the sole social impact of capitalism; it also fosters consumerism—one of its most prominent features. Consumerism entails the idea that increasing the consumption of goods and services is always desirable and that human well-being and happiness depend primarily on acquiring consumer goods and material possessions. Modern economic thought supports this notion, arguing that spending drives the economy. Encouraging consumers to spend and consume more goods and services fuels economic growth.

To reinforce consumerism, capitalism has created new needs, dividing them into two categories: essential natural needs, such as necessary food, shelter, and medicine, which have been excessively expanded beyond necessity, and non-essential artificial needs invented by capitalism, convincing people of the need to fulfill them, such as entertainment products, cinemas, theaters, and various beauty products.

To achieve this, an advertising industry was created to entice consumers with products from the consumer economy. Various media outlets—print, radio, television, and online platforms—were utilized to solidify consumerism. Consequently, consumer culture has become ingrained, leading to a consumer economy that has eroded anything related to values or spirituality.

Most critics of capitalism focus their critiques on consumerism, asserting that it leads to materialistic societies that disregard values and spirituality. It also diverts individuals from their existential purpose of seeking truth and meaning, turning them into beings solely focused on consuming more products and satisfying insatiable desires. ⁽²⁾

Dr. Abdelwahab Elmessiri posits that consumerism shares many characteristics with imperialism. Like imperialism, consumerism is expansionist, aiming to transform the human self into a market where goods can be sold. However, consumerism differs from imperialism in that its domain is the human psyche—emotions, perceptions, and aspirations. Instead of direct military invasion and material interventions through deploying armies to colonize lands, plunder resources, and open new markets, modern tools such as media, cinema, and fashion invade and dominate the individual, transforming them into a voracious consumer.

This inclination toward excessive consumption has led to another social phenomenon known as "reification." Coined by Hungarian critic Georg Lukács, it refers to human relationships becoming akin to relationships between objects—mechanical and impersonal. People are treated as commodities in a system of exchange. While such exchanges are natural and beneficial for life’s continuation, they become harmful when they dominate human interactions.

According to Elmessiri, reification involves humans becoming fixated on objects, centering their dreams around them, and remaining confined to the material surface of life. A reified individual, characterized by one-dimensionality, can deal with objects due to their simplicity but struggles with the complexity of human relationships. ⁽³⁾

Reification generally leads to an increased fascination with goods and an alignment of human behavior with market movements, creating a perception that everything is up for sale, including human beings themselves.

Thus, market values and relationships dominate individual behaviors, interactions, and societal dynamics. Consequently, an increasing number of areas, including medicine, education, arts, and politics, become subject to commodification, even when doing so appears unethical.

The flaws of reification are not limited to the societal distortion caused by transforming it into a market society. This phenomenon can also lead to intellectual stagnation among reified individuals. When someone is overly focused on the sensory world, they neglect the intellectual and spiritual realms. When they think, objects become their cognitive tools, rather than abstract concepts or values. They perceive these values as rigid and immutable, incapable of being developed or used to generate new ideas. This rigidity can lead to intellectual intolerance and possibly extremism. ⁽⁴⁾

To mitigate the rise of reification in capitalist societies, some propose reforming education to reduce the transformation of interpersonal relationships into acute conflicts, especially when moral or religious concepts are at stake.

-------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wahid Abdel Meguid, The Future of Global Capitalism: Trends of Revision and Their Opportunities, Afaaq Mustaqbalia (Futures Horizons), Issue 2, January 2022.

(2) Abdelilah Belkeziz, The Consumer Society or the Capitalization of Values, Bidayat, Issue 32, 2021.

(3) Abdelwahab Elmessiri, Reification and Postmodernism, Kuwait: Al-Arabi Magazine, Issue 464.

(4) Wahid Abdel Meguid, Capitalism and the Phenomenon of Reification in Modern Societies, Cairo: Social Horizons, August 2021.

Read this Article in Arabic

Islam has formulated some rules and established certain limits with the intention of the economic life of the individual on the path of truth and justice so that the system of production and the movement of wealth as a whole can proceed according to the limits drawn for it. Islam does not devote its concern to the methods of producing wealth and the forms of its movement and distribution, for such methods develop with every age and change with the progress of civilization and culture and are automatically established according to human necessities and circumstances. But what Islam aims at is that whatever the form that human economic affairs take in different ages and circumstances, the principles that Islam spreads should occupy their eternal place in it, and all the limits that it has established must be adopted and observed.

The earth Created for mankind

Allah created the earth and all that is in it for mankind - this is what the Islamic point of view says - and therefore - the right of birth - grants every individual the right to strive to earn his livelihood from this land to which he came, and all people share in this right equally, and it is not permissible to deprive one person of this right, nor is it permissible to favor one person over another in it. Islamic law tends to not allow the erection of any obstacle in the way of an individual, race or class that would deprive some people of their right to benefit from certain means of living or close the doors of any profession in their faces. The law also does not approve of any discrimination that would enable a particular class, race, or lineage to monopolize a means of living. It is the right of all people equally to toil and seek whatever means they can of earning a living that Allah has made available to His servants on His earth, and opportunities should remain open and equal for every individual in this struggle.

 The Lawgiver, Glory be to Him, has permitted people to benefit from everything in nature, provided that no effort or energy has been spent in preparing it or making it ready for use. Every individual is authorized to benefit from such things to the extent required by his needs. River and spring water, forest wood, fruits of native trees, natural grass, and fodder, air and water, animals in the thickets, and mines on the surface of the earth, all of that and what is similar to it cannot be monopolized by an individual, just as it is not permissible to place any obstacles that prevent people from meeting their needs without paying anything. However, it is natural that those who seek to benefit from these things on a large scale for trade are required to pay a tax on that to the state.

No Monopoly in Islam

It is not right to have things created by Allah for the benefit of all people come into the possession of some people and then remain as they are without benefit. Either a person benefits from them himself, or he leaves them for the benefit of others. Based on this principle, Islamic law stipulates that no one can take possession of land without cultivating it for more than three years. If he does not use it for agriculture or construction or benefit from it in any other way, then this land is treated after three years as abandoned land. Anyone who uses it is safe from being exposed to legal objections in the future, and the Islamic government has no right to hand it over to anyone else.

Anyone who takes possession of any of the treasures of nature directly and makes it suitable for use acquires the rights of ownership. If there is uncultivated land, for example, that no one owns and someone else takes possession of it and begins to exploit it for a lawful purpose, then this land cannot be taken away from him. The rights of ownership are created in this manner according to the Islamic theory. When human beings first appeared on this earth, everything was within the reach of every human being. Whoever possessed something lawfully and prepared it for use in any way became its owner, in other words, he obtained the right to use it specifically for his own benefit and the right to collect compensation from others for using it if they wished.

Natural basis of the economic affairs

This is the natural basis of economic affairs related to human beings and this basis should be preserved soundly. The rights of ownership that every individual can obtain in this world through a lawful project are rights worthy of respect in any case. However, controversy may arise regarding whether ownership in a particular case is legally sound or not. If ownership is not valid from this point of view, it must be put to an end without dispute. However, the state or its legislative authority may not go beyond that to legally valid properties, stripping their owners of them or interfering in their legitimate rights. It is not permissible for a system to be established that overthrows the rights guaranteed by the Shari’a under the pretext of working for the public good of the masses. It is unjust to reduce the limits by which the Shari’a has preserved the rights of individual ownership for the sake of the public good of the group, just as it would be unjust to increase these limits and restrictions. The Islamic state must protect the legitimate rights of individuals and monitor their performance of the obligations imposed on them by the Shari’a. - To be continued