Dangane da tsarin tattalin arziƙi na Gurguzanci (Socialism), wanda Kwaminisanci (Communism) wani ɓangare ne na shi, ya saɓa da Jari-hujja (Capitalism). Yawancin ra'ayoyin Gurguzanci sun bayyana ne a ƙarni na sha tara. Masu Gurguzanci sun yi gwagwarmaya mai tsanani da ra'ayoyin makarantar tunanin 'yanci (liberal), watau sun yi gwagwarmaya da tsarin tattalin arziƙin Jari-hujja. Ƙarfin da Gurguzanci ya samu ya samo asali ne daga zalunci da al'umma ke fama da shi a ƙarƙashin Jari-hujja, da kuma kurakurai da gazawarsa masu yawa. Idan aka duba makarantun tunanin Gurguzanci, a bayyane yake cewa sun yarda a kan batutuwa uku, waɗanda ke bambanta su da sauran makarantun tunanin tattalin arziƙi.

As for the Socialist economic system, with Communism being a part of it, it contradicts Capitalism. Most of the Socialist ideas appeared in the Nineteenth century. The Socialists fought fiercely against the opinions of the liberal school of thought i.e. they fought the Capitalist economic system. The powerful emergence of Socialism was due to the iniquity which the society suffered under Capitalism and owing to its many fallacies and inadequacies. By reviewing the Socialist schools of thought, it appears that they agree on three issues, which distinguish them from other economic schools of thought.

1. Samun wani nau'i na daidaito na zahiri.

1. Achievement of a type of actual equality.

2. Soke dukiyar mutum gaba ɗaya ko a wani bangare.

2. Abolition of private property either completely or partially.

3. Tsara samar da kayayyaki da ayyuka da rarraba su ta hanyar dukan mutane.

3. The organisation of production and distribution of the commodities and services by means of all of the people.

Duk da haka, duk da yarjejeniyarsu akan waɗannan abubuwa uku, suna da manyan sabani kan maki da yawa, mafi muhimmancinsu sune:

However, despite their agreement over these three issues, they have fundamental differences over many points, the most important of which are:

Da farko: Makarantun gurguzu sun bambanta a cikin irin daidaiton ƙarshe da suke son cimmawa. Wani rukuni yana goyon bayan daidaiton lissafi, wato daidaito a cikin dukkan abin da ke da amfani, don haka kowane mutum ana ba shi adadi iri ɗaya. Wani rukuni kuma yana ba da shawarar daidaiton gama-gari, wato lura da ƙarfin kowa lokacin raba aiki, da duba buƙatun kowane mutum lokacin raba kayayyaki. A ganinsu, daidaito yana tabbata ne idan aka yi amfani da wannan ƙa'ida: "Daga kowa bisa ga ƙarfinsa, watau iyawarsa (ma'ana aikin da yake yi), kuma ga kowa bisa ga buƙatarsa (ma'ana raba abin da aka samar)." Rukuni na uku yana karɓar daidaito a cikin hanyoyin samarwa, tun da albarkatun ba su isa su biya buƙatun dukkan mutane ba, don haka tushen rabon ya zama: "Daga kowa bisa ga ƙarfinsa, watau iyawarsa, kuma ga kowa bisa ga aikinsa." Saboda haka, ana samun daidaito idan kowane mutum an ba shi damar samun hanyoyin samarwa daidai da sauran mutane.

Firstly: The Socialist schools of thought differ in the form of the eventual equality they aim to achieve. One group advocates arithmetic equality which means equality in every thing of benefit, thus each person is given an identical amount. Another group suggests common equality, which means observing the ability of everyone when distributing work and looking at the needs of every individual when distributing products. Equality in their view is established when the following principle is applied: “From each according to his strength i.e. his ability (meaning by this the work which He performs), and to each according to his need (meaning the distribution of production).” A third group adopts equality in the means of production, since the resources are not sufficient to meet the needs of all individuals, the basis of distribution becomes: “From each according to his strength i.e. his ability, and to each according to his work.” So equality is achieved when each person is facilitated of the means of production the same as others.

Na biyu: Makarantun gurguzu (Socialism) sun bambanta game da adadin dukiyar mallakar mutum da ya kamata a kawar. Ƙungiya ɗaya ta amince da kawar da dukiyar mallakar mutum gaba ɗaya, wannan shi ne Kwaminisanci (Communism). Wata ƙungiya kuma tana ba da shawarar kawar da dukiyar mallakar mutum wacce ke da alaƙa da hanyoyin samarwa, wadda ake kira jari (capital) watau masana'anta, layin dogo, ma'adinai da makamantansu. Don haka suna hana mallakar duk wani kaya da ake amfani da shi wajen samarwa. Saboda haka, mutum ba zai iya mallakar gida domin haya ba, ko masana'anta, ko filin noma, amma suna iya riƙe wasu nau'ikan dukiya domin amfani da su. An yarda su mallaki duk abin da suke amfani da shi, misali za su iya mallakar gida domin zama a ciki, da abin da filin da masana'anta suka samar, amma ba filin ko masana'antar kanta ba. Wannan ana kiransa Gurguzun Jari (Socialism of Capital). Wata ƙungiya kuma ba ta ba da shawarar kawar da dukiyar mallakar mutum sai dai wacce ta shafi filayen noma; waɗannan su ne Masu Gurguzun Noma (Agrarian Socialists, Agrarian Reformers). Wata ƙungiya kuma tana cewa duk inda maslahar jama'a ta buƙaci a mayar da dukiyar mutum ta zama ta jama'a, dole a yi nazari a kan hakan. Suna kira da a takaita mallakar dukiyar mutum a fannoni da dama ta hanyar sanya dokoki na iyakar riba da haya, da mafi ƙarancin albashi, kuma suna ƙoƙarin ba ma'aikata rabo a cikin jari. Wannan ana kiransa Gurguzun Gwamnati (State Socialism).

Secondly: The Socialist schools of thought differ in the quantity of private property which is to be abolished. One group adopts the abolition of private property completely, which is Communism. Another suggests the abolition of private property related to the means of production which is called capital i.e. factories, railways, mines and the like. Thus they prohibit the possession of any commodity which is used for production. Hence, one cannot own a house for the purpose of leasing it, nor a factory, nor a piece of land, but they may keep certain types of property for the purpose of consuming them. It is allowed for them to own everything they consume, so for example they can own a house to live in, and what the land and factories produce but not the land/factory itself. This is called Socialism of Capital. Another group does not advocate the abolition of private property except that which is relevant to agricultural land, these are the Agrarian Socialists (Agrarian Reformers). Yet another group says that every case in which public interest invites the transforming of a private property to public property, has to be studied. They call for restricted ownership of private property in many areas by putting laws for the maximum limit of interest and rent, a minimum limit for wages, and strive to give workers a share in the capital. This is called State Socialism.

Na uku: Makarantun Gurguzu (Socialism) sun bambanta a hanyoyin da suke bi wajen cimma manufofinsu. Saboda haka, Gurguzun juyin-juya-hali (Revolutionary Syndicalism) ya dogara ne wajen 'yantar da ma'aikata ta hanyar abin da ake kira aikin kai tsaye (direct action), watau kokarin ma'aikatan kansu, kamar yajin aiki da ke tarwatsa aiki, lalata injina, da yada ra'ayin yajin aiki na gama-gari (General Strike) a tsakanin ma'aikata. Suna aiki wajen tara su a kan wannan ra'ayi, har lokacin da zai zo da za su iya aiwatar da yajin aiki na gama-gari, ta yadda za a dakatar da harkokin tattalin arziki, wanda a karshe zai kai ga rushe tsarin tattalin arzikin da ake da shi yanzu. Amma masu Gurguzu na Marx kuwa, suna imani da dokar halitta ta ci-gaba a cikin al'umma, kuma suna ganin cewa wannan kadai ya isa wajen rushe tsarin da ake da shi a yanzu, wanda daga nan za a maye gurbinsa da wani tsari da aka gina bisa Gurguzu.

Thirdly: The Socialist schools of thought differ in respect of the means they adopt to implement their objectives. Thus, revolutionary Socialism (Revolutionary Syndicalism) depends upon liberating the labour force by what it calls direct action i.e. the efforts of the labour force themselves, such as disruptive strikes, sabotage of machinery, and propagating the ideas of a General Strike amongst workers. They work to mobilise them around this idea, until the time comes when they are able to implement a General Strike, thus paralysing economic activity, which would eventually result in the demolition of the present economic system. As for the Marxist Socialists, they believe in the natural law of evolution in society and believe that this alone is sufficient to destroy the current system, which will then be replaced by another system built on Socialism.

Game da masu goyon bayan Gwamnati mai Tsarin Gurguzu (Socialism), hanyar da suke bi wajen aiwatar da tunaninsu ita ce ta doka. Don haka, ta hanyar fitar da dokoki, suna tabbatar da kiyaye muradun al'umma da inganta yanayin ma'aikata. Bugu da kari, ta hanyar karbar haraji, musamman haraji mai tsari a kan jari da gado, suna nuna cewa za su rage gibin da ke tsakanin dukiyoyin mutane.

As for the advocates of State (Government) Socialism, their means to implement their thoughts is through legislation. So, by issuing canons they warrant the preservation of public interests and improvement in the conditions of the labour force. Additionally, by levying taxes, particularly phased-in taxes on capital and inheritance, they suggest that they will close the gap between private properties.

Na huɗu: Makarantun gurguzu sun bambanta game da tsarin da ake buƙata don gudanar da ayyuka a tsarin gurguzu. Misali, masu gurguzun jari-hujja suna son bai wa gwamnati (Gwamnatin Jiha) alhakin tsara samarwa da rarraba kayayyaki, yayin da masu tsarin kungiyoyin ma'aikata (Syndicalists) suna son mika gudanarwa ga kungiyoyin ma'aikata da aka shirya, waɗanda shugabanninsu ke jagoranta (Guild Socialism).

Fourthly: The Socialist schools of thought differ with respect to the structure which is needed to administer the projects in the Socialist system. For example the Capital Socialists want to assign the organisation of production and distribution to the government (State), while the Syndicalists want to confer management to organised groups of labour, headed by their chiefs (Guild Socialism).

Daga cikin ra'ayoyin gurguzu (Socialism) mafi shahara kuma mafi tasiri akwai na Bajamushe, Karl Marx. Ra'ayoyinsa sun mamaye duniyar gurguzu, kuma bisa ga su ne aka kafa Jam'iyyar Kwaminisanci (Communist Party) da Tarayyar Jamhuriyyun Gurguzu ta Tarayyar Soviet (USSR) a Rasha. Ra'ayoyinsa suna ci gaba da yin babban tasiri har zuwa yau.

The most famous and influential among Socialist theories are those of the German, Karl Marx. His theories have dominated the Socialist world, and upon them the Communist Party and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in Russia were established. His theories continue to have a great impact until today.

Ɗaya daga cikin shahararrun ra'ayoyin Karl Marx ita ce ka'idar daraja (value), wadda ya karɓa daga masana tunanin Jari-hujja (Capitalism), kuma ya yi amfani da ita wajen kai hari ga Jari-hujja. Adam Smith, wanda ake ɗaukarsa shugaban Makarantar Tunanin Sassaucin Ra'ayi (Liberal School of Thought) a Ingila, kuma ana kallonsa a matsayin mutumin da ya aza tushen tattalin arziƙin siyasa, watau tsarin tattalin arziƙin Jari-hujja, ya bayyana daraja yana cewa: ‘Darajar kowace kaya ta dogara ne da girman (yawan) ƙoƙarin da aka kashe wajen samar da ita.’ Don haka darajar kayan da samar da shi ke buƙatar awa biyu ta ninka darajar kayan da samar da shi ke buƙatar awa ɗaya kawai. Ricardo, wanda ya zo bayan Adam Smith, ya bayyana ka'idarsa ta aiki lokacin da ya bayyana daraja yana cewa: ‘Abin da ke ƙayyade darajar kaya ba yawan aikin da aka kashe kai tsaye wajen samar da ita kaɗai ba ne, har ma da aikin da aka kashe a baya wajen samar da kayan aiki da injunan da ake amfani da su a tsarin samarwa.’ Wannan na nufin Ricardo ya yi imani cewa darajar kaya ta dogara ne da kuɗaɗen da ake kashewa yayin samarwa. Ya danganta waɗannan kuɗaɗen ga abu ɗaya, wato aiki.

One of the best known theories of Karl Marx is the theory of value, which He took from the thinkers of Capitalism, and upon which He attacked Capitalism. Adam Smith, who is considered the leader of the Liberal School of Thought in England and is viewed as the person who put the basis of the political economy i.e. the Capitalist economic system, defined value by saying: ‘The value of any commodity depends on the magnitude (quantity) of effort spent in its production.’ So the value of the commodity whose production needs two hours is worth twice the value of the commodity whose production needs only one hour. Ricardo who came after Adam Smith, explained his theory of work, when He defined value, saying: ‘What determines the value of the commodity is not only the quantity of work spent directly in its production, but also the work spent in the past, in producing the tools and machines used in the production process as well.’ This means that Ricardo believed that the value of the commodity depends on the expenses incurred during production. He referred these expenses to one element, which is the work.

Bayan haka, Karl Marx ya yi amfani da ka'idar darajar Ricardo da ke cikin littafin Capitalism a matsayin makami don kai hari kan ra'ayin mallakar dukiya ta mutum da kuma tsarin Capitalism gaba ɗaya. Ya ce tushen daraja shi kaɗai ne aikin da aka yi wajen samar da kaya, kuma cewa mai kuɗin Capitalist yana sayen ƙarfin ma'aikaci da albashin da bai wuce iyakar da ake buƙata don ya rayu ya ci gaba da aiki ba. Sai mai kuɗin ya yi amfani da ƙarfin ma'aikacin ta hanyar sa shi ya samar da kayayyaki, waɗanda darajarsu ta fi girma sosai fiye da abin da ake biyan ma'aikacin. Karl Marx ya kira bambancin tsakanin abin da ma'aikaci ya samar da abin da ainihin ake biyansa da "ƙarin daraja" (surplus value). Ya tabbatar da cewa wannan daraja tana wakiltar abin da masu gidaje da 'yan kasuwa suke kwacewa daga haƙƙin ma'aikaci, da sunan riba, fa'ida ko ƙimar dawowa daga jari, al'amarin da bai amince da shi a matsayin halal ba.

After this, Karl Marx used Ricardo’s theory of value in Capitalism as a weapon to attack the concept of private property and Capitalism as a whole. He said that the only source of value is the work spent in a commodity’s production, and that the Capitalist financier buys the energy of a worker with a wage that does not exceed the limit necessary to keep Him alive and able to continue working. The financier then exploits the energy of the worker by making Him produce commodities, whose value greatly exceed that which is paid to the worker. Karl Marx called the difference between what the worker produces and what He is actually paid, the ‘surplus value’. He determined that this value represents what the landlords and the business people usurp from the worker’s rights, in the name of revenue, profit or rate of return on capital, a matter which He did not acknowledge as valid.

Karl Marx ya yi ra'ayin cewa makarantun Gurguzu da suka zo kafin sa sun yi hasashen nasarar akidunsu ta dogara ne da dabi'ar ɗan Adam a cikin ƙaunarsa ga adalci da goyon bayan waɗanda ake zalunta. Waɗannan makarantu sukan ɗauki sababbin hanyoyi da suka yi imani da su, don amfani da su a cikin al'umma, kuma sukan gabatar da waɗannan ra'ayoyi ga masu mulki, 'yan kasuwa, da masu wayewa, suna roƙon su da su aiwatar da ra'ayoyinsu. Sai dai Karl Marx bai gina makarantarsa a kan wannan ra'ayi ba, kuma bai bi wannan hanya ba. Ya gina makarantarsa ne a kan wata akida ta falsafa da aka sani da Ka'idar Juyin Halittar Tarihi, wadda ake kira Ka'idar Dialectic. Ya tsara kafa sabon tsari a cikin al'umma ta hanyar aiki na dokokin tattalin arziki, da sakamakon dokar juyin halitta a cikin al'umma, ba tare da shigar wani manaja, mai yin doka, ko mai gyara ba. Karl Marx ya kira wannan nau'in Gurguzu da 'Gurguzu na Kimiyya', don bambanta shi da hanyoyin Gurguzu da suka gabace shi, waɗanda ake kira 'Gurguzu na Tunanin Kamala' (Utopian Socialism). Ka'idar Gurguzu ta Karl Marx ana taƙaita ta kamar haka:

Karl Marx was of the opinion that the Socialist schools which came before Him had envisioned the success of their ideas to be dependent upon the inherent nature of the human being in his love for justice and support for the oppressed. These schools used to adopt new methods which they believed in, for their application upon society, and they presented these ideas to the governors, business people, and the enlightened people, urging them to implement their ideas. Karl Marx however, did not build his school of thought on this idea nor did He follow this approach. He built his school of thought on the basis of a philosophical doctrine known as the Theory of Historical Evolution, which is referred to as the Dialectic Theory. He conceived the establishment of the new system in society through the functional operation of the economic laws, and as a result of the law of evolution in society, without the intervention of a manager, a lawmaker, or a reformer. Karl Marx called this type of Socialism ‘Scientific Socialism’, to differentiate it from the Socialist methods that came before it and which were called ‘Utopian Socialism’. The Socialist theory of Karl Marx is summarised as follows:

Tsarin al'umma a kowane zamani sakamakon yanayin tattalin arziki ne. Sauye-sauyen da ke shafar wannan tsarin duk suna zuwa ne sakamakon gwagwarmayar aji don inganta yanayin rayuwarsu ta zahiri. Tarihi ya nuna mana cewa wannan gwagwarmaya tana ƙarewa da nasarar ajin da ya fi yawa kuma ya fi muni yanayi, a kan ajin mawadata wanda ya fi ƙanƙanta a yawa. Ya kira wannan dokar ci gaban al'umma. Tana shafar nan gaba kamar yadda take shafar baya. Don haka, a zamanin da, wannan gwagwarmaya ta kasance tsakanin 'yantattu da bayi, sannan tsakanin manyan mutane da talakawa, daga baya kuma tsakanin manyan mutane da bayin ƙasa (manoma), da kuma tsakanin shugabanni da sarakuna a tsarin ƙungiyoyin addini. Wannan gwagwarmaya koyaushe tana ƙarewa da nasarar ajin da aka zalunta, wanda ya fi yawa, a kan ajin mai zalunci, wanda ya fi ƙanƙanta. Amma bayan nasararsa, ajin da aka zalunta ya koma ya zama ajin mai zalunci mai kiyaye tsoffin al'amura. Tun juyin juya halin Faransa, wannan gwagwarmaya ta kasance tsakanin ajin matsakaita (Bourgeoisie) da ajin ma'aikata. Aji na farko ya zama masu mallakar ayyukan tattalin arziki, masu mallakar jari, kuma ya zama mai kiyaye tsoffin al'amura. Akasin sa akwai ajin ma'aikata wanda ba shi da komai na jari, amma ya fi yawa sosai. Saboda haka, wannan yanayi ya haifar da rikicin muradu tsakanin ajin biyu, wanda tushensa dalilai ne na tattalin arziki. Salon samarwa a yau, bai dace da tsarin mallaka ba. Samarwa ba ta ƙara zama ta mutum ɗaya ba, watau wanda mutum shi kaɗai yake yi, kamar yadda take a zamanin baya, sai dai ta zama ta haɗin gwiwa, watau wanda daidaikun mutane tare suke gudanarwa. Amma a lokaci guda, tsarin mallaka bai canja ba. Don haka mallakar mutum ɗaya tana ci gaba da zama, kuma ita ce tushen tsarin al'ummar yau. Sakamakon haka, ma'aikata masu aiki a samarwa ba su da rabo a mallakar jari, sai dai su kasance a ƙarƙashin jinƙan Masu Jari (masu mallakar jari), waɗanda su kansu ba sa shiga samarwa. Masu Jari suna cin zarafin ƙarfin aiki, suna biyansa albashi kawai na abin rayuwa, kuma ma'aikata suna tilasta karɓar hakan tunda ba su da komai sai ƙwazonsu don rayuwa. Bambancin da ke tsakanin darajar samfurin da albashin aiki, wanda Marx ya kira ƙarin daraja (surplus value), shi ne ribar da Mai Jari ke mallakewa shi kaɗai, alhali adalci na buƙatar ya zama rabon ma'aikata.

The system of the society in any age is a result of the economic situation. The transformations which affect this system all come as a result of a class struggle to improve their material situation. History tells us that this struggle ends with the victory of the class which is greater in number and worse in condition, over the wealthier class which is fewer in number. He called this the law of social evolution. It applies to the future as well as the past. So, in previous ages this struggle existed between the freemen and the slaves, then between the nobles and the subjects, then later on between the nobles and the serfs (peasants), and between the leaders and chiefs in the order of sects. This struggle always ended with the victory of the oppressed class, which was greater in number, over the oppressor class, which was smaller in number. But after its victory the oppressed class turned to become a conservative oppressor class. Since the French revolution this struggle existed between the middle class (Bourgeoisie) and the working class. The first class became the masters of the economic projects, the owners of the capital, and became conservative. Facing it was the working class which owned nothing of the capital, but was much greater in number. Consequently, this situation led to a conflict of interest between the two classes, the origin of which was based on economic reasons. The production fashion today, does not conform to the system of ownership. Production no longer remains individualistic i.e. being performed by the person alone, as it was in past ages, but rather has become associative i.e. conducted by individuals together. At the same time however, the system of ownership has not changed. So individual ownership continues and is still the basis of the system in current society. As a result of this the working class, which participates in production, does not have a share in the ownership of the capital, and remains under the mercy of the Capitalists (the owners of the capital), who do not by themselves participate in production. The Capitalists exploit the labour force, paying it only subsistence wages, and the workers are compelled to accept it since they have nothing but their efforts to sustain themselves. The difference between the value of the product and the labour wage, which Marx calls the surplus value, constitutes the profit which the Capitalist monopolises, while justice assumes it should be the share of the workers.

Don haka rikici zai ci gaba tsakanin waɗannan aji biyu har sai tsarin mallaka ya dace da tsarin samarwa, watau lokacin da mallaka ta zama ta gurguzu ko ta gama-gari. Wannan gwagwarmaya za ta ƙare da nasarar ajin ma'aikata bisa ga dokar juyin halitta a cikin al'umma, domin shi ne ajin da ake zalunta kuma shi ne mafi yawan jama'a.

So the conflict would continue between these two classes until the system of ownership conforms with the system of production i.e. when ownership becomes Socialist or collective. This struggle will end with the victory of the working class according to the law of evolution in society, since it is the oppressed class and is greater in number.

Fear the manner in which the working class will succeed, and the reasons for its success, this is based on the law of evolution in society. Hmm, I should translate faithfully instead. Here is the translation: Dangane da hanyar da aji mai aiki zai yi nasara, da dalilan nasararsa, wannan yana bisa dokar ci gaba (juyin halitta) a cikin al'umma. Tsarin tattalin arziki na yanzu yana ɗauke da irin tsaba na al'ummar da za ta zo nan gaba, kuma wannan tsarin zai ƙare sakamakon tasirin dokokin tattalin arziki da ke sarrafa shi. Akwai lokacin da aji na tsakiya ya ci nasara a kan masu sarauta, kuma ya taka muhimmiyar rawa a rayuwar tattalin arziki, domin ya zama mai mallakar jari. Sai dai, kamar yadda hujjar ta ce, rawar da yake takawa ta ƙare, kuma lokaci ya yi da zai miƙa matsayinsa ga aji mai aiki. Abin da ya tilasta shi yin hakan shi ne dokar tattarawa da kuma tsarin gasa cikin 'yanci. Sakamakon dokar tattarawa, adadin Masu-jari (masu mallakar jari) yana raguwa, adadin ajin ma'aikata kuma yana ƙaruwa. Ta hanyar tasirin gasa cikin 'yanci, samarwa yana wuce kowane iyaka, kuma yawan abin da ake samarwa ya zarce abin da masu sayayya daga ajin ma'aikata za su iya saya da ƙarancin albashinsu. Wannan yana kai ga rikici, wanda ke sa wasu daga cikin masu mallaka su rasa jarinsu, su shiga kasuwar aiki. Yayin da tsarin ke ci gaba, tsananin rikice-rikice yana ƙaruwa, tazarar da ke tsakanin faruwarsu tana raguwa, adadin Masu-jari kuma yana ragewa a hankali. Sannan ba a daɗe ba sai wani rikici mafi girma fiye da duk rikicin da ya gabata ya faru, mai girma har ya rushe ginshiƙan tsarin tattalin arziki na Jari-hujja, sannan a kafa tsarin Gurguzu (Socialism) a kan kufan Jari-hujja. Marx ya yi tunanin cewa bayyanar Kwaminisanci ita ce mataki na ƙarshe a juyin halittar tarihi, domin yana rushe mallakar kadarori na kai, don haka babu sauran dalilin rikicin aji a cikin al'umma, saboda babu bambance-bambance tsakanin su.

Regarding the manner in which the working class will succeed, and the reasons for its success, this is based on the law of evolution in society. The current system of economic life bears within itself the seeds of the forthcoming community, and this current system will vanish due to the effects of the economic laws to which it is subjected. There was a time when the middle class conquered the nobles and played an important role in economic life, since it became the owner of the capital. However, as the argument goes, its role has ended, and the time has come for it to relinquish its position to the working class.What obliges it to do so is the law of concentration and process of free competition. By the effect of the law of concentration the number of Capitalists (owners of the capital) diminishes, and the number of the working class increases. Through the effects of free competition, production surpasses every limit, and the quantity of production exceeds that which the consumers of the working class can buy with their low level of wage. This leads to a crisis causing some of the owners to lose their capital and enter the labour market. As the system progresses the intensity of crises increases, the gap between their occurrences closes, and the number of Capitalists decreases gradually. Then it is not long before a crisis greater than all the preceding crises occurs, of such major proportions that it demolishes the pillars of the Capitalist economic system, with the system of Socialism to be then established upon the Capitalist ruins. Marx conceived the emergence of Communism to be the last stage in the historical evolution, because it demolishes private property, and hence no more reason exists for the conflict of the classes in society, due to the absence of differences between them.

Karl Marx ya bayyana cewa dokar tattarawa (concentration) wani bangare ne na tattalin arzikin Jari-hujja. A takaice, ana samun ƙaura na aiki da jari daga wasu ayyuka zuwa wasu, ta yadda wasu ke ƙaruwa yayin da wasu ke raguwa. Duk wadannan al'amura suna nuna cewa tattarawa tana faruwa a samarwa. Idan mutum ya bincika yawan ayyuka a wani reshe na samar da masana'antu, misali masana'antun cakulan, zai ga cewa yawan ayyukan ya ragu a hankali a kan lokaci, yayin da matsakaicin yawan ma'aikata a kowane aiki ya karu. Wannan shaida ce da ke nuna cewa tattarawa ta faru a wannan reshen samarwa, domin samarwa mai girma tana maye gurbin karamar samarwa. Don haka idan masana'antun sun kasance goma, a lokaci guda za su zama manyan masana'antu hudu ko biyar, sauran kuma su bace.

Karl Marx illustrated that the law of concentration was a part of the Capitalist economy. In summary, there is a migration of work and capital from some projects to others, so that some increase while others decrease. All these are scenarios which show the occurrence of concentration in production. If one investigated the number of projects in one branch of industrial production, such as chocolate factories for example, one would find that the number of projects had diminished gradually, over time, while the average number of the production work force increased in every project. This is an evidence that concentration occurred in this branch of production, since the greater sized production replaces the smaller production. So if the number of factories were for example, ten, they will in time become four or five large factories, and the rest will disappear.

Ma'anar 'yancin gasa' a cikin tunanin Marx ita ce ƙa'idar 'yancin aiki, wato kowane mutum yana da 'yancin ya samar da duk abin da ya so, ta hanyar da ya so.

Marx’s determination of free competition meant the principle of the freedom to work, which means that every person has the right to produce whatever He likes in the way He likes.

Rikicin tattalin arziki, a cewar Marx, ya shafi duk wata tangarda kwatsam da ke shafar daidaiton tattalin arziki. Rikicin musamman ya hada da dukkan irin rikicin da ke faruwa ga wani bangare na samarwa, sakamakon rashin daidaito tsakanin samarwa da amfani. Wannan lamari yana faruwa ko dai saboda yawan samarwa ko rashin isasshen samarwa, ko kuma saboda yawan amfani ko rashin isasshen amfani.

The economic crises, according to Marx, apply to every sudden disturbance that affects the economic equilibrium. The specific crisis includes all the kinds of crises which befall a particular branch of production, due to the imbalance between production and consumption. This incident occurs either due to overproduction or underproduction, or due to over-consumption or under-consumption.

Dangane da rikicin tattalin arziki na lokaci-lokaci (na maimaituwa) mai girma, yana bayyana ne a cikin girgizar tashin hankali wadda ke girgiza ginshiƙan dukkan tsarin tattalin arziki, kuma yana zama mahadar rabuwa tsakanin lokacin bunƙasar tattalin arziki da lokacin koma-bayan tattalin arziki. Lokutan bunƙasa suna bambanta tsakanin shekara uku zuwa biyar a tsawo, haka ma lokutan koma-baya. Rikice-rikice masu maimaituwa da girma suna da halaye na musamman da ke bambance su. Waɗannan halaye sun faɗa ƙarƙashin manyan halaye guda uku, waɗanda sune: Na farko, halin yaduwa (generalisation). Wato a cikin ƙasa guda, rikicin yana shafar dukkan fannonin wadatar tattalin arziki, ko aƙalla yawancinsu. Wannan rikici gabaɗaya yana bayyana da farko a ƙasa ɗaya inda yake mamaya, sannan yana yaduwa zuwa wasu manyan ƙasashe masana'antu waɗanda suke da alaƙa ta dindindin da juna. Hali na biyu shi ne cewa yana maimaituwa. Wato rikicin yana faruwa a lokuta masu maimaituwa da zagaye. Lokacin da ke raba tsakanin rikici ɗaya da wani yana canzawa tsakanin shekara bakwai zuwa goma sha ɗaya. Faruwarsa ba ta kasance a kan lokaci ƙayyadadde ba, duk da cewa yana maimaituwa. Hali na uku shi ne yawan samarwa fiye da kima, har ta kai ga masu manyan ayyuka suna fuskantar babbar wahala wajen sayar da kayayyakinsu, don haka wadatar kayayyaki ta zarce buƙata a kayayyaki da yawa, wanda ke haifar da rikicin.

As for the recurrent (periodic) major crisis, it appears in the form of violent convulsions which shake the pillars of the whole economic system, and becomes the point of separation between the period of economic boom and the period of economic depression. The periods of boom vary between three to five years in length, as do the periods of depression. Recurrent, major crises have special characteristics which distinguish them. These characteristics fall under three main qualities, which are: Firstly, the quality of generalisation. This means that in one country, the crisis hits all aspects of economic prosperity, or at least most of them. This general crisis appears at first in one country where it dominates, and then spreads to other leading industrial countries which were linked together by some permanent relations. The second quality is that it is recurrent. This means that the crisis occurs in repetitive and cyclical periods. The period which separates between one crisis and another fluctuates between seven and eleven years. Its occurrence is not over a fixed time although it is recurrent. The third quality is that of excessive production, such that the owners of the large projects face great difficulty in disposing of their products, so the supply exceeds demand for many products leading to the crisis.

Karl Marx ya yi la'akari da cewa waɗannan manyan rikice-rikice suna tilasta wasu mutane su rasa jarinsu, don haka adadin masu mallaka yana raguwa, adadin ma'aikata kuma yana ƙaruwa. Waɗannan al'amura su ne za su kai ƙarshe ga babban rikici a cikin al'umma wanda zai rushe tsohon tsarin.

Karl Marx considered that these major crises force some people to lose their capital, so the number of owners diminishes and the number of workers increases. These occurrences are what will lead finally to the major crisis in the society which demolishes the old system.

Wannan taƙaitaccen bayani ne game da Gurguzanci, har da Kwaminisanci a matsayin wani nau'insa. Daga wannan taƙaitaccen bayani ya bayyana cewa makarantun tunanin Gurguzanci, ciki har da Kwaminisanci, suna neman cimma daidaito na gaskiya tsakanin mutane; ko dai daidaito a amfani, ko daidaito a hanyoyin samar da abubuwa, ko kuma cikakken daidaito. Irin wannan daidaito ba zai yiwu a cimma shi ba, kuma ba komai ba ne face zato na hasashe. Ba shi da amfani a aikace, saboda haka ba zai yiwu ba. Wannan saboda daidaito a kansa ba gaskiya ba ne, don haka ba ya yiwuwa a aikace. Mutane, bisa ga yanayin da aka halicce su da shi, sun bambanta a iyawarsu ta jiki da ta tunani, kuma sun bambanta wajen biyan bukatunsu. Don haka daidaito tsakaninsu ba zai yiwu a cimma shi ba. Ko da an raba kayayyaki da ayyuka daidai-daidai tsakanin mutane da karfi, ba zai yiwu su zama daidai ba wajen amfani da wannan dukiya a samarwa ko a amfani da ita. Kuma ba zai yiwu su zama daidai ba dangane da yawan abin da kowannensu yake bukata don biyan bukatunsa. Saboda haka, daidaito tsakaninsu abu ne na hasashe da zato kawai.

This is a summary of Socialism including Communism as one of its forms. From this summary it appears that the Socialist schools of thought including the Communists, strive to achieve real equality amongst the individuals; either equality in benefits, equality in the means of production, or absolute equality. Any kind of such equality is impossible to achieve, and it is nothing but a hypothetical assumption. It is impractical and therefore impossible. This is because equality in itself is unreal, and thus impractical. People by the very nature with which they were created vary in their physical and mental capabilities, and they vary in the satisfaction of their needs. So equality amongst them cannot be achieved. Even if one distributed equal shares of commodities and services among the people by force, it would be impossible for them to be equal in using this wealth in production or utilisation. And it would be impossible for them to be equal in terms of the quantity they need to satisfy their respective needs. Therefore, equality between them is a speculative and hypothetical concern.

Haka kuma, daidaito a tsakanin mutane shi kaɗai, alhali suna bambanta da ƙarfi/iko, ana ɗaukarsa nesa da adalcin da masu aƙidar Gurguzu (Socialists) ke ikirarin suna nema. Bambancin da ke tsakanin mutane ta fuskar mallaka da kuma hanyoyin samar da kayayyaki ba makawa ne kuma abu ne da ya zama na al'ada gaba ɗaya. Duk wani yunƙuri na neman daidaito yana ƙarewa ga gazawa, domin yana saɓawa da bambancin halitta da ke tsakanin ɗan Adam.

Moreover, equality by itself amongst people, while they are different in strength/power, is considered far from the justice which the Socialists claim they try to achieve. The disparity between people in terms of ownership, and in the means of production, is inevitable and quite normal. Every attempt at achieving equality is destined for failure as it contradicts with the natural disparity existent amongst human beings.

Dangane da cikakken soke mallakar mutum (na sirri), wannan yana karo da yanayin ɗan Adam, domin mallaka tana bayyana ɗabi'ar neman rayuwa (ƙwaƙwalwar tsira), wadda tabbas tana cikin mutum. Tunda tana cikin halittarsa, sashe ne na jikinsa, kuma bayyanar makamashinsa na halitta, ba zai yiwu a kawar da ita ba, domin ɗabi'a ce ta asali. Duk abin da yake ɗabi'a ce ta asali a cikin mutum ba za a iya cire shi daga gare shi ba muddin yana raye. Duk wani yunkuri na soke mallakar mutum ba komai ba ne face murƙushe ɗabi'un ɗan Adam na halitta, kuma hakan na iya haifar da damuwa kawai. Saboda haka, ya fi dacewa a tsara wannan ɗabi'a maimakon ƙoƙarin kawar da ita.

Regarding the complete abolition of private property, this contradicts with man’s nature, because ownership is a manifestation of the survival instinct, which is definitely existent in man. Being natural in him, a part of him, and a manifestation of his natural energy, it is impossible to be eliminated since it is instinctive. Anything that is instinctive in man cannot be eliminated from Him as long as He is alive. Any attempt to abolish private property is nothing but a suppression of the human beings natural instincts, and can only lead to anxiety. Therefore, it is natural to organise this instinct rather than trying to eliminate it.

Fa'idar rage wa mallakar mutum a wani bangare, dole a yi nazari a kanta. Idan abin da ake nufi da wannan shi ne a sanya iyaka ga adadin kayayyakin da mutum zai iya mallaka, to wannan takura ce ta yawa, kuma hakan ba daidai ba ne, domin yana takaita aikin mutum, yana hana kokarinsa, kuma yana rage samarwarsa. Idan aka hana mutane mallakar abin da ya wuce wani matsayi, hakan yana tsayar da su a wannan iyaka, yana katse daidaikun mutane daga ayyukansu, ta haka kuma yana hana al'umma amfana da ayyukan wadannan mutane.

With regard to the partial abolition of ownership, it has to be studied. If what is meant by this is to put a ceiling on the magnitude of commodities that can be owned, then this would be a limitation in quantity, which is wrong, since it limits the activity of man, obstructs his efforts, and reduces his production. By preventing people from owning that which exceeds a certain level, this effectively stops them at that limit, interrupting the individuals from their activities, and thereby depriving the community from benefitting from the activities of these individuals.

Sai dai idan mallakar kayayyaki da ayyuka aka takaita ta wata hanya, ba tare da takaita adadin da mutum zai mallaka ba, to wannan abu ne mai karbuwa, domin ba ya hana aikin mutum. Wannan hanya tana tsara mallakar dukiya tsakanin daidaikun mutane, kuma tana karfafa musu gwiwar yin kokari sosai da kara aiki.

However, if ownership of commodities and services is restricted to a certain manner without restriction in the quantity owned, this would be acceptable, as it does not obstruct the activity of man. This approach organises the ownership of property among individuals, and encourages them to expend more effort and increase activity.

Idan rashin mallakar mutum gabaɗaya ya kasance a wani ɓangare kawai, wato an hana mutum mallakar wasu dukiyoyi, yayin da za a iya mallakar wasu dukiyoyi ba tare da iyakance yawansu ba, to wannan lamari yana bukatar a yi nazari a kansa. Idan amfanin wadannan dukiyoyi ba zai yiwu mutum ɗaya ya ji daɗinsa shi kaɗai ba, sai ta hanyar hana jama'a wannan dukiya, to yana da kyau a hana mutum mallakar wannan dukiya a matsayin mallakar kansa; kamar tituna na jama'a, filayen gari, koguna, teku, da makamantansu. Haka nan, ƙayyadewar tana bisa yanayin dukiyar kanta. Don haka babu laifi a hana mallakar mutum ɗaya ga dukiyoyin da amfaninsu na gama-gari ne, domin wannan mallakar an ƙaddara ta ne ta yanayin dukiyar kanta.

If the partial abolition of ownership means that the individual is prevented from owning certain properties, whilst other properties can be owned without any limit over the quantity, this has to be examined. If the beneficial nature of these properties cannot be enjoyed by the individual alone, except by depriving the public of that property, then it is natural to prevent the individual from owning that property individually; such as public roads, town squares, rivers, seas, and the like. The restriction is decided by the nature of the property. There is, therefore, nothing wrong in banning the individual ownership of those properties which are of associative benefit, because this ownership was determined by the nature of the property itself.

Idan yanayin dukiya bai buƙatar haramta mallakar mutum ɗaya ba, har yanzu ya zama wajibi a ci gaba da bincike. Idan dukiyar tana iya shiga cikin nau'in farko, watau dukiyoyin da mallakar mutum ɗaya a kansu zai hana al'umma amfani da su, kamar ruwa da ma'adanai, to babu laifi a haramta mallakar mutum ɗaya a kansu. Dalilin da ya sa wannan nau'in dukiya ke shiga cikin nau'in farko shi ne cewa ta yanayinta, idan aka mallake ta ɗaiɗai, hakan zai hana al'umma samunta. Sai dai idan mallakar dukiyar ba ta hana al'umma samunta ba, to bai kamata a sanya takura a kan mallakarta ba. Yin haka zai zama takura marar adalci ba tare da dalili ba. Wannan zai zama kamar takaita mallaka da yawa, abin da zai haifar kawai da hana ayyukan mutum, katse ƙoƙarinsa, rage samarwarsa, da hana shi aiki idan ya kai ga iyakar mallakar da aka ƙayyade.

If the nature of the property does not require prohibition of individual ownership, further analysis should still be conducted; if the property can be included under the first type i.e. properties whose individual ownership would deprive the community, such as water and mineral resources, then there is nothing wrong in banning their individual ownership. The issue which makes this type of property included under the first type is that by its nature if it was owned individually it would deprive the community of it. However, if owning the property does not deprive the community of it, then there should be no restriction on its ownership. To do so would unfairly limit ownership for no reason. This would be like limiting the ownership by quantity which will only result in restricting man’s activities, interrupting his efforts, reducing his production, and stopping Him from work when He reaches the set limit of ownership.

Haramcin mallaka a Gurguzanci wani ɓangare ne na iyakance mallaka ta ɓangaren yawa, ba ta hanyoyi da tsarin mallaka ba. Yana hana mallakar wasu dukiyoyi, waɗanda bisa ga yanayinsu da asalin samuwarsu ya kamata a mallake su ta mutum ɗaya. Gurguzanci ko dai yana iyakance mallaka ta girma, kamar iyakance mallakar ƙasa zuwa wani yanki da aka ƙayyade, ko kuma yana iyakance mallakar wasu dukiyoyi kamar kayan aikin samarwa. Yawancin waɗannan dukiyoyi, bisa ga yanayinsu, za a iya mallakar su ta mutane ɗaya-ɗaya. Takunkumin mallaka irin wannan nau'in dukiya yana takaita aikin mutane, ko an riga an ƙayyade takunkumin a cikin doka, kamar hana gado, da mallakar ma'adinai, layukan jirgin ƙasa, ko masana'antu; ko kuma an bar wa Gwamnati ta yanke hukunci, a kowane hali, don hana mallaka duk inda maslahar jama'a ta bukaci hakan. Duk wannan takaita aikin mutane ne, domin waɗannan dukiyoyi a yanayinsu za a iya mallakar su ta mutane ɗaya-ɗaya.

The partial abolition of ownership in Socialism is a limitation of ownership by quantity, rather than by the ways and means of ownership. It prevents ownership of some properties, which by their nature and by the nature of their origin should be individually owned. Socialism either limits ownership in magnitude, such as limiting ownership of land up to a certain area, or it limits ownership of certain properties such as the means of production. Many of these properties, by their nature, could be owned by individuals. Ownership restrictions of this type of property restricts activity whether the restriction was pre-specified by the law, such as preventing inheritance, ownership of mines, railways, or factories; or if it were left to the State to decide, on a case by case basis, to prevent possession wherever public interest requires it to do so. All this is restriction of the activity of individuals, for these properties by their very nature can be owned by individuals.

Tsara da rarrabawar kayayyaki da ayyuka ta hanyar mutane ba za a iya cimma ta ta hanyar tada hargitsi da fargaba a tsakanin mutane, ko ta hanyar tada ƙiyayya a tsakaninsu ba, kuma bai kamata a yi haka ba. Wannan zai iya kai wa ga rashin doka da tsari, maimakon tsari mai kyau. Haka kuma, ba za a iya cimma tsarin samarwa a cikin al'umma ta halitta ta hanyar sa ma'aikata su ji zaluncin 'yan kasuwa ba, domin 'yan kasuwa na iya zama masu wayo da hazaka wajen biyan bukatun ma'aikata, kamar yadda lamarin yake ga ma'aikatan masana'antu a Amurka. Don haka ma'aikata ba sa jin zalunci ta fuskar a yi amfani da ɗan ƙoƙarinsu. Ta haka ne juyin halitta da zai inganta tsarin samarwa da rarrabawa ba zai faru ba. Ya kamata wannan tsari ya zo ta hanyar dokoki da mafita masu kyau da aka gina bisa tushe tabbatacce wanda ke magance ainihin yanayin matsalolin. Gurguzanci ya dogara ne da tsara samarwa da rarrabawa, ko dai ta hanyar tada tashin hankali da hargitsi a tsakanin ma'aikata, ko ta hanyar dokar juyin halitta ta al'umma, ko kuma ta hanyar dokoki da ƙa'idodin da mutum ya ƙirƙira (Wadh'iya) waɗanda ba su samo asali daga tushe ko akida tabbatacciya ba. Saboda haka, wannan tsari ba shi da gaskiya tun daga tushensa.

The organisation of production and distribution through people cannot (and should not) be achieved by inciting disturbances and anxiety amongst people, or by inciting hatred between them. This can only lead to anarchy, rather than organisation. Furthermore, the organisation of production in the community cannot be achieved naturally by making the working class feel the oppression of business people, since the business people could be smart and ingenious enough to satisfy the needs of the labour force, as is the case with the factory workers in the United States. So the working class do not feel the oppression in terms of having the fruits of their efforts exploited. In this way the evolution which would better organise production and distribution would not occur. This organisation should come through proper laws and solutions which are built on a definite basis that deals with the real nature of the problems. Socialism relies on organising the production and distribution, whether by inciting tension and disturbances amongst the working class, or by the natural law of evolution in society, or through manmade (Wadh’iya) legislation and canons that do not emanate from a definite basis or creed. Therefore this organisation is false from its basis.

Wannan yana bayyana kuskuren akidar Gurguzu (Socialism). Dangane da Gurguzu ta Karl Marx musamman, kuskurenta ya bayyana ta fannoni uku:

This outlines the fallacies of Socialism. With regard specifically to the Socialism of Karl Marx, its fallacy appears in three aspects:

Na farko: Ra'ayinsa game da ka'idar darajar kaya kuskure ne kuma ya saba da hakikanin abubuwa. Ra'ayin da ke cewa aikin da aka yi wajen samar da kaya shi ne kadai tushen darajarta, ya saba da hakikanin abubuwa, domin aikin da aka yi shi ne tushe guda daya na darajar kayan, amma ba shi kadai ba ne tushen ta. Akwai wasu abubuwa, banda aiki, da ke shiga cikin darajar kayan. Akwai kayan farko da aka yi aiki a kansu, ko kuma bukatar amfanin kayan a kasuwa. Kayan farko na iya kunshe da amfani da ya fi aikin da aka yi wajen samunsa girma, kamar a farauta misali. Amfanin kayan na iya rashin bukata a kasuwa, kuma a haramta fitar da shi, kamar giya ga Musulmi. Don haka sanya aiki a matsayin kadai tushen daraja kuskure ne, kuma bai dace da hakikanin kayan yadda yake ba.

Firstly: His opinion on the theory of value is erroneous and disagrees with reality. The opinion, stating that the only source for the value of the commodity is the work spent in its production, disagrees with reality since the spent work is only one but not the only source of its value. There are other elements, besides the work, that enter in the value of the commodity. There is the raw material upon which the work was carried out, or the demand for the benefit of the commodity as well. The raw material could contain a benefit that exceeds the work spent in its procurement such as in hunting for example. The benefit of the commodity could have no demand in the market, and be forbidden for export, such as wine for Muslims. So putting work as the only source of value is incorrect, and does not conform to the reality of the commodity as it is.

Na biyu: Ra'ayinsa ya bayyana cewa tsarin zamantakewar da ke wanzuwa a kowane lokaci samfuri ne na halin tattalin arziki, kuma sauye-sauyen da ke faruwa ga wannan tsarin duk suna faruwa ne saboda dalili guda, wato gwagwarmayar azuzuwa don cimma burin inganta yanayin rayuwarsu ta zahiri. Wannan ra'ayi kuskure ne, ba shi da tushe, kuma an gina shi ne bisa zato mai shakka da hasashe. Dalilin kuskurensa da rashin dacewarsa da gaskiya a bayyane yake daga abubuwan da suka faru a tarihi da kuma halin da ake ciki yanzu. Muna ganin cewa canjin Rasha zuwa Gurguzanci bai faru ba saboda juyin halitta na kayan aiki, haka kuma bai faru ba saboda gwagwarmayar azuzuwa da ta kai ga canza tsarin. Maimakon haka, wata ƙungiya ce ta karɓi mulki ta hanyar juyin juya hali mai zubar da jini, ta fara aiwatar da tunaninta a kan jama'a, kuma ta canza tsarin. Haka ya faru a kasar Sin ta Gurguzu. Aiwatar da Gurguzanci a Gabashin Jamus maimakon Yammacin Jamus, da kuma a Gabashin Turai maimakon Yammacin Turai, bai faru ba sakamakon wata gwagwarmayar azuzuwa. Maimakon haka, ya faru ta hanyar mamayar wadannan kasashe da wata Jiha ta Gurguzu wacce ta sanya tsarinta a kan al'ummomin da aka ci da yaki. Haka ya faru ga kasashen Jari-hujja, da Jihar Musulunci, da duk wani tsari. Haka kuma, kasashen da wannan doka ta yi hasashen cewa za su canja tsarinsu ta hanyar gwagwarmayar azuzuwa, wato Jamus, Ingila, da Amurka, duk kasashen Jari-hujja ne inda masu jari da ma'aikata suka yi yawa. Ba kasashe ne kamar Rashan Tsar ko Sin ba, wadanda suka fi dogaro da noma fiye da masana'antu, kuma inda yawan masu jari da ma'aikata ya yi kadan idan aka kwatanta da Yamma. Duk da yawaitar wadannan azuzuwa biyu a Yammacin Turai da Amurka, ba a canza su zuwa Gurguzanci ba, kuma har yau duk suna aiwatar da Jari-hujja. Kasancewar wadannan azuzuwa biyu (wato masu mallakar jari da ma'aikata) bai yi wani tasiri a kan tsarinsu ba. Wannan kaɗai ya isa ya ƙaryata wannan ra'ayin daga tushensa.

Secondly: His opinion states that the social order existing at any time, is a product of the economic situation, and that the various transformations which befall this system are all due to one reason, which is the struggle of the classes for the objective of improving their material situation. This opinion is erroneous, baseless, and built upon a doubtful and hypothetical assumption. The reason for its error and disagreement with reality is obvious from historical events and the current situation.We see that the transformation of Russia into Socialism did not occur due to a materialistic evolution, nor due to a class struggle that led to the change of the system. Rather, a group took over through a bloody revolution, and started to apply its thoughts upon the people, and changed the system. The same happened in Socialist China. The application of Socialism in East Germany rather than West Germany, and Eastern Europe rather than Western Europe did not occur as a result of any class struggle. Rather it occurred through the conquering of these countries by a Socialist State which imposed its system upon the conquered nations. The same occurred with the Capitalist states, with the Islamic State, and with any other system. Furthermore, the countries which this law predicted would change their system through class struggle, namely Germany, England, and the United states, are all Capitalist countries where the owners of capital and workers are many. They were not Czarist Russia or China, which were agricultural rather than industrial, and where the number of owners of capital and workers were much fewer in comparison to the West. Despite the overwhelming presence of the two classes in Western Europe and the United states, they were not converted to Socialism, and they all still apply Capitalism till this day. The presence of these two classes (i.e.capital owners and workers) did not have any effect on their system. This alone is enough to refute this theory from its basis.

Na uku na kuskuren ka'idar Karl Marx ya bayyana a cikin abin da ya fada game da dokar juyin halittar al'umma, cewa tsarin rayuwar tattalin arziki yana kan hanyar bacewa saboda tasirin dokokin tattalin arziki da ke sarrafa shi, kuma cewa matsakaitan ajin da ya ci yaƙi a kan ajin masu sarauta, watau masu jari, a ƙarshe za su bar matsayinsu ga ajin ma'aikata, saboda dokar tattarawa. Ka'idar Karl Marx game da tattarawar samarwa, wadda ya gina a kanta karuwar adadin ma'aikata da raguwar adadin masu jari, ƙarya ce. Wannan ka'ida ƙarya ce domin akwai iyaka da tattarawar samarwa ba ta iya wucewa ba. Don haka tana kai wani matsayi ta tsaya, kuma ba za ta ƙara zama abin motsa juyin halitta da Marx ya hasashe ba. Bugu da ƙari, tattarawar samarwa ba ta wanzu kwata-kwata a ɗaya daga cikin manyan fannonin samarwa, wato noma. To ta yaya dokar juyin halitta za ta faru a cikin al'umma? Haka kuma, Karl Marx ya tabbatar da cewa tattarawar samarwa tana biye da tattarawar dukiya (albarkatu), wanda hakan ke haifar da raguwar adadin masu kuɗi, da ƙaruwar adadin ma'aikata waɗanda ba su mallaki komai ba. Wannan ra'ayi kuskure ne, domin tattarawar samarwa na iya haifar da karuwar adadin masu jari, kuma yana iya sa ajin ma'aikata su zama masu riƙe da jari. Manyan ayyukan da manyan kamfanoni ke gudanarwa, sukan kasance da masu hannun jari daga ajin ma'aikata, wanda hakan misali ne da ke karyata wannan ka'ida. Bugu da ƙari, yawancin ma'aikata a masana'antu suna da manyan albashi, kamar injiniyoyi, masana sinadarai da manajoji, don haka suna iya ajiye babban ɓangare na albashinsu, su zama masu saka hannun jari da kansu, ba tare da buƙatar kafa ayyuka masu zaman kansu ba. Saboda haka, abin da Karl Marx ya gabatar game da ma'aikata da juyin halitta, ba ya shafar su.

The third appearance of error in Karl Marx’s theory appears in what He said about the law of social evolution, that the system of economic life is destined for extinction by the effect of the economic laws which control it, and that the middle class which won the battle against the class of the nobles i.e. the owners of the capital will ultimately evacuate their place for the labour class, due to the law of concentration. The theory of Karl Marx concerning concentration of production, on which He builds the increase in the number of the workers and the decrease in the number of the owners of capital, is false. This theory is false because there is a limit which concentration of production cannot overstep. So it arrives at a certain limit and stops and thus will no longer be a catalyst in the evolution imagined by Marx. Moreover, concentration of production does not exist at all in one of the main branches of production, namely agriculture. How then can the law of evolution occur in society? Besides, Karl Marx asserts that concentration of production is followed by concentration of wealth (resources), which results in a reduction in the number of financiers, and an increase in the number of workers, who own nothing. This view is erroneous, since the concentration of production could result in an increase in the number of capital owners, and could result in the working class becoming capital holders. The major projects, which are conducted by the large Corporations, usually have shareholders from the working class, which is an example that refutes this theory. Moreover, many of the working class in the factories have high salaries, such as engineers, chemists and managers, thus being able to save a great part of their salaries, and becoming investors themselves, without the need to establish independent projects. Therefore, what Karl Marx propounded about workers and evolution does not apply to them.

Wannan ɗan bincike ne kaɗan kawai a kan ƙa'idojin da tsarin tattalin arziƙin Jari-hujja (Capitalist) da na Gurguzu (Socialist), wanda daga cikinsa ne tsarin Kwaminisanci (Communist) ya fito, aka gina su a kai. Daga wannan bincike ne kuskuren da ke cikin waɗannan ƙa'idojin ya bayyana a fili. Wannan shi ne a gefe ɗaya; a ɗayan gefen kuma, dukkan tsarin biyu sun saɓa wa hanyar Musulunci wajen magance matsaloli, kuma sun saɓa wa Musulunci kansa.

This is but a brief examination of the principles upon which the Capitalist and Socialist, from which came the Communist, economic systems are established. From this examination the fallacies present in these principles are apparent. This is on the one hand; on the other hand, both systems are contradictory to the Islamic method in addressing the problems and contradictory to Islam itself.

Dangane da sabanin su da hanyar Musulunci wajen warware matsaloli, mutum zai ga cewa hanyar Musulunci wajen warware matsalar tattalin arziki ita ce irin wannan hanya da Musulunci yake amfani da ita wajen warware kowace irin matsalar ɗan Adam. Hanyar da Musulunci ya saba amfani da ita ita ce nazarin gaskiyar matsalar tattalin arziki, fahimtarta, sannan a samo mafita daga nassosin Shari'ah bayan an yi nazari a kan waɗannan nassoshi, tare da tabbatar da cewa sun dace da wannan matsala ta musamman. Wannan ya bambanta da hanyar Jari-hujja da ta Gurguzu. A Jari-hujja, yanayin da matsalolin suka haifar ana amfani da shi a matsayin tushen mafita (pragmatism). A Gurguzu kuwa, ana ɗaukar mafita daga zato-zato na hasashe waɗanda ake tunanin suna nan a cikin matsalar, sannan ana sanya mafitar bisa waɗannan zato. Kowace ɗaya daga cikin waɗannan hanyoyi biyu ta bambanta da hanyar Musulunci, saboda haka bai halatta ga Musulmi ya karɓe su ba.

As to their contradiction to the Islamic method of solving the problems, one finds that the Islamic method in solving the economic problem is the very same method Islam uses in solving any of the other human problems. The common approach of Islam is to study the reality of the economic problem, understand it, and then deduce a solution for the problem from the Shari’ah texts after studying these texts, and to ensure that they apply to that particular problem. This is different from the Capitalist and Socialist method. In Capitalism, the situation which resulted from the problems, is used as a source for the solutions (pragmatism). In Socialism the solutions are taken from hypothetical assumptions which are imagined to be existent in the problem, and the solutions are put according to these assumptions. Each of these two methods is different to the method of Islam, so it is not allowed for a Muslim to adopt them.

Saɓanin tsakanin tattalin arzikin Jari-hujja da na Gurguzu, da kuma tattalin arzikin Kwaminisanci wanda ya samo asali daga gare su, da Musulunci, shi ne cewa Musulunci yana ɗaukar mafitarsa a matsayin hukunce-hukuncen Shari'a na Allah (Ahkam Shari'ah) da aka samo daga madogarar shari'a, alhali mafitar tattalin arzikin Jari-hujja da ta Gurguzu ba hukunce-hukuncen Allah ba ne, face daga tsarin kafirci suke. Yin hukunci da su yana nufin yin hukunci da abin da Allah bai saukar ba, abin da ba a halatta wa kowane Musulmi ya karɓe shi ta kowace hanya ba. Karɓar su zunubi ne bayyananne (Fisq) idan wanda ya karɓe su bai yi imani da su ba. Amma idan ya yi imani da cewa su ne ƙa'idodi masu dacewa, kuma hukunce-hukuncen Musulunci ba su dace da zamani na yau ba, ba kuma su bayar da mafita ga matsalolin tattalin arziki na yanzu ba, to wannan kafirci ne, Allah (SWT) ya kiyaye mu daga gare shi.

The contradiction of the Capitalist and Socialist, and from it the Communist, economies to Islam is that Islam adopts its solutions as divine rules (Ahkam Shari’ah) derived from the legislative sources while the Capitalist and Socialist economic solutions are not divine rules, but are from a system of Kufr. Judging on things according to them means ruling with other than what Allah has revealed, which is not allowed for any Muslim to adopt in any way. Their adoption is an open sin (Fisq) if their adopter does not believe in them. But if He believed that they are the proper rules and that Islamic rules do not suit the modern age and do not offer solutions to the current economic problems, then this is kufr, may Allah (swt) protect us from it.