1.3 Mfumo wa Kiuchumi wa Ujamaa

1.3 Mfumo wa Kiuchumi wa Ujamaa - Mfumo wa Kiuchumi wa Uislamu | Quran Course

Kwanza: Madhehebu za Kijamaa hutofautiana katika aina ya usawa wa mwisho wanaotaka kuufikia. Kundi moja linapendekeza usawa wa kihesabu, yaani usawa katika kila kitu chenye manufaa, hivyo kila mtu hupewa kiasi kinachofanana. Kundi jingine linapendekeza usawa wa kawaida, yaani kuzingatia uwezo wa kila mtu wakati wa kugawa kazi na kuangalia mahitaji ya kila mtu wakati wa kugawa bidhaa. Kwa mtazamo wao, usawa huanzishwa pale kanuni ifuatayo inapotumika: “Kila mtu kwa kadiri ya nguvu zake, yaani uwezo wake (kwa maana ya kazi anayoifanya), na kila mtu apewe kwa kadiri ya mahitaji yake (kwa maana ya mgawanyo wa uzalishaji).” Kundi la tatu linakubali usawa katika njia za uzalishaji, kwa kuwa rasilimali hazitoshi kukidhi mahitaji ya watu wote, hivyo msingi wa mgawanyo unakuwa: “Kila mtu kwa kadiri ya nguvu zake, yaani uwezo wake, na kila mtu apewe kwa kadiri ya kazi yake.” Hivyo usawa hupatikana pale kila mtu anapowezeshwa kupata njia za uzalishaji sawa na wengine.

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.

Pili: Madhehebu ya Ujamaa hutofautiana kuhusu kiasi cha mali binafsi ambacho kinapaswa kufutwa. Kundi moja linakubali kufutwa kabisa kwa mali binafsi, na hili ndilo Ukomunisti. Kundi jingine linapendekeza kufutwa kwa mali binafsi inayohusiana na njia za uzalishaji, ambazo huitwa mtaji, yaani viwanda, reli, migodi na mfano wake. Kwa hiyo wanakataza umiliki wa bidhaa yoyote inayotumika kwa uzalishaji. Hivyo mtu hawezi kumiliki nyumba kwa ajili ya kuikodisha, wala kiwanda, wala kipande cha ardhi, lakini wanaweza kuwa na aina fulani za mali kwa ajili ya kuzitumia. Inaruhusiwa kwao kumiliki kila kitu wanachotumia; kwa mfano wanaweza kumiliki nyumba ya kuishi, na yale ardhi na kiwanda vinavyozalisha, lakini si ardhi wala kiwanda chenyewe. Hili huitwa Ujamaa wa Mtaji. Kundi jingine halitetei kufutwa kwa mali binafsi isipokuwa ile inayohusu ardhi ya kilimo; hawa ni Wanaujamaa wa Kilimo (Wanamatengenezo ya Kilimo). Kundi jingine bado linasema kwamba kila kesi ambayo maslahi ya umma yanahitaji kubadilisha mali binafsi kuwa mali ya umma, lazima ichunguzwe. Wao hutaka umiliki wa mali binafsi uwekewe mipaka katika maeneo mengi kwa kuweka sheria za kiwango cha juu cha riba na kodi, kiwango cha chini cha mishahara, na hujitahidi kuwapa wafanyakazi sehemu katika mtaji. Hili huitwa Ujamaa wa Serikali.

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.

Moja ya nadharia zinazojulikana zaidi za Karl Marx ni nadharia ya thamani, ambayo aliichukua kutoka kwa wanafikra wa Ubepari, na ambayo kwayo alishambulia Ubepari. Adam Smith, ambaye anachukuliwa kuwa kiongozi wa Shule ya Kiliberali ya fikra nchini Uingereza na anatazamwa kama mtu aliyeweka msingi wa uchumi wa kisiasa, yaani mfumo wa kiuchumi wa Kibepari, alifafanua thamani kwa kusema: ‘Thamani ya bidhaa yoyote inategemea kiasi (ukubwa) cha juhudi iliyotumika katika uzalishaji wake.’ Kwa hiyo thamani ya bidhaa ambayo uzalishaji wake unahitaji saa mbili ni sawa na mara mbili ya thamani ya bidhaa ambayo uzalishaji wake unahitaji saa moja tu. Ricardo, aliyekuja baada ya Adam Smith, alieleza nadharia yake ya kazi alipofafanua thamani, akisema: ‘Kinachoamua thamani ya bidhaa si kiasi cha kazi kilichotumika moja kwa moja katika uzalishaji wake pekee, bali pia kazi iliyotumika zamani katika kutengeneza zana na mashine zinazotumika katika mchakato wa uzalishaji.’ Hii ina maana kwamba Ricardo aliamini kuwa thamani ya bidhaa inategemea gharama zinazotumika wakati wa uzalishaji. Alizirejesha gharama hizi katika kipengele kimoja, ambacho ni kazi.

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.

Karl Marx alikuwa na maoni kwamba shule za Ujamaa zilizotangulia yeye zilikuwa zimedhania kwamba mafanikio ya mawazo yao yanategemea asili ya ndani ya binadamu katika upendo wake wa haki na kuwaunga mkono wanaodhulumiwa. Shule hizi zilikuwa zikipitisha mbinu mpya ambazoziliziamini, ili ziweze kutumika katika jamii, na zilikuwa zikiwasilisha mawazo hayo kwa watawala, wafanyabiashara, na watu wenye elimu, zikiwasihi wayatekeleze. Karl Marx hata hivyo, hakujenga shule yake ya mawazo juu ya wazo hili wala hakufuata mbinu hii. Alijenga shule yake ya mawazo juu ya msingi wa fundisho la kifalsafa linalojulikana kama Nadharia ya Mageuzi ya Kihistoria, ambayo hujulikana kama Nadharia ya Dialektiki. Alidhania kuanzishwa kwa mfumo mpya katika jamii kungetokea kupitia utendaji kazi wa sheria za kiuchumi, na kama matokeo ya sheria ya mageuzi katika jamii, bila uingiliaji wa msimamizi, mtunga sheria, wala mrekebishaji. Karl Marx aliita aina hii ya Ujamaa 'Ujamaa wa Kisayansi', ili kuutofautisha na mbinu za Ujamaa zilizotangulia na ambazo ziliitwa 'Ujamaa wa Kiutopia'. Nadharia ya Ujamaa ya Karl Marx inafupishwa kama ifuatavyo:

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:

Mfumo wa jamii katika zama yoyote ile ni matokeo ya hali ya kiuchumi. Mabadiliko yanayoathiri mfumo huu yote yanatokea kama matokeo ya mapambano ya kitabaka ili kuboresha hali yao ya kimaada. Historia inatuambia kwamba mapambano haya huishia kwa ushindi wa tabaka lenye idadi kubwa zaidi na hali mbaya zaidi, dhidi ya tabaka tajiri lenye idadi ndogo. Yeye aliliita hili sheria ya mageuzi ya kijamii. Sheria hii inatumika kwa siku zijazo pamoja na zilizopita. Hivyo, katika zama zilizopita mapambano haya yalikuwepo kati ya watu huru na watumwa, kisha kati ya wakuu na raia, baadaye kati ya wakuu na wakulima (wakulima wa mashamba), na kati ya viongozi na wakuu wa madhehebu. Mapambano haya daima yalimalizika kwa ushindi wa tabaka lililodhulumiwa, ambalo lilikuwa na idadi kubwa zaidi, dhidi ya tabaka la wadhalimu, lenye idadi ndogo. Lakini baada ya ushindi wake, tabaka lililodhulumiwa liligeuka na kuwa tabaka dhalimu la kihafidhina. Tangu Mapinduzi ya Ufaransa, mapambano haya yamekuwepo kati ya tabaka la kati (Bourgeoisie) na tabaka la wafanyakazi. Tabaka la kwanza likawa mabwana wa miradi ya kiuchumi, wamiliki wa mitaji, na likawa la kihafidhina. Likikabiliana nalo ni tabaka la wafanyakazi ambalo halimiliki chochote cha mtaji, lakini lina idadi kubwa zaidi. Kwa sababu hiyo, hali hii imesababisha mgongano wa maslahi kati ya matabaka haya mawili, ambao chimbuko lake limejengwa juu ya sababu za kiuchumi. Mtindo wa uzalishaji wa leo hauendani na mfumo wa umiliki. Uzalishaji haubaki tena wa kibinafsi, yaani unaofanywa na mtu mmoja peke yake, kama ilivyokuwa katika zama zilizopita, bali umekuwa wa kishirikia, yaani unaofanywa na watu wakiwa pamoja. Wakati huo huo, hata hivyo, mfumo wa umiliki haujabadilika. Hivyo umiliki wa kibinafsi unaendelea na bado ni msingi wa mfumo katika jamii ya sasa. Kutokana na hili, tabaka la wafanyakazi, linaloshiriki katika uzalishaji, halina sehemu katika umiliki wa mtaji, na linabaki chini ya huruma ya Wakapitalisti (wamiliki wa mtaji), ambao wenyewe hawashiriki katika uzalishaji. Wakapitalisti wanawanyonya nguvu kazi, wakiilipa ujira wa kujikimu tu, nao wafanyakazi wanalazimika kukubali kwa sababu hawana chochote isipokuwa juhudi zao za kujitegemeza. Tofauti kati ya thamani ya bidhaa na ujira wa kazi, ambayo Marx anaiita thamani ya ziada, ndiyo faida ambayo Mkapitalisti anaimiliki peke yake, ilhali haki inadhania kwamba inapaswa kuwa sehemu ya wafanyakazi.

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.

Kuhusu namna ambavyo tabaka la wafanyakazi litafanikiwa, na sababu za mafanikio yake, hili linatokana na sheria ya mabadiliko (evolution) katika jamii. Mfumo wa sasa wa maisha ya kiuchumi una ndani yake mbegu za jamii itakayokuja, na mfumo huu wa sasa utatoweka kutokana na athari za sheria za kiuchumi ambazo umewekwa chini yake. Kulikuwa na wakati ambapo tabaka la kati lilishinda watukufu (nobles) na kucheza nafasi muhimu katika maisha ya kiuchumi, kwa kuwa likawa mmiliki wa mtaji. Hata hivyo, kama hoja inavyoeleza, nafasi yake imeisha, na wakati umefika kwake kuachia nafasi yake kwa tabaka la wafanyakazi. Kinacholazimisha jambo hilo ni sheria ya mkusanyiko (law of concentration) na mchakato wa ushindani huru. Kwa athari ya sheria ya mkusanyiko, idadi ya Wakapitalisti (wamiliki wa mtaji) inapungua, na idadi ya tabaka la wafanyakazi inaongezeka. Kwa athari za ushindani huru, uzalishaji unavuka kila kikomo, na kiasi cha uzalishaji kinazidi kile ambacho wateja wa tabaka la wafanyakazi wanaweza kununua kwa mishahara yao midogo. Hili linaleta mdororo wa kiuchumi (crisis) unaosababisha baadhi ya wamiliki kupoteza mitaji yao na kuingia sokoni kutafuta ajira. Mfumo unavyoendelea, ukali wa midororo huongezeka, pengo kati ya kutokea kwao hupungua, na idadi ya Wakapitalisti hupungua taratibu. Kisha haichukui muda mrefu kabla ya mdororo mkubwa kuliko yote yaliyotangulia kutokea, wa ukubwa unaoporomosha nguzo za mfumo wa kiuchumi wa Kikapitalisti, na mfumo wa Ujamaa kisha utaanzishwa juu ya magofu ya Ukapitalisti. Marx aliona kuwa kuibuka kwa Ukomunisti ndiyo hatua ya mwisho katika mageuzi ya kihistoria, kwa sababu unaondoa umiliki binafsi, na hivyo hakuna sababu tena ya mgongano wa matabaka katika jamii, kwa kukosekana kwa tofauti kati yao.

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.

Kuhusu mgogoro mkubwa unaojirudia (wa mzunguko), unajitokeza kwa namna ya mtikisiko mkali unaotikisa nguzo za mfumo mzima wa kiuchumi, na unakuwa kiini cha kutenganisha kipindi cha ustawi wa kiuchumi na kipindi cha kudorora kwa uchumi. Vipindi vya ustawi hutofautiana kwa urefu kati ya miaka mitatu hadi mitano, kama ilivyo pia kwa vipindi vya kudorora. Migogoro mikubwa inayojirudia ina sifa maalum zinazoitofautisha, na sifa hizo zinaangukia katika makundi makuu matatu, ambayo ni: Kwanza, sifa ya kuenea kwa jumla. Hii inamaanisha kwamba katika nchi moja, mgogoro huathiri vipengele vyote vya ustawi wa kiuchumi, au angalau vingi vyake. Mgogoro huu wa jumla huanza kujitokeza kwanza katika nchi moja ambako unatawala, kisha husambaa hadi nchi nyingine kuu za viwanda ambazo zimeunganishwa pamoja na mahusiano ya kudumu fulani. Pili, sifa ya kujirudia. Hii inamaanisha kwamba mgogoro hutokea katika vipindi vinavyorudiwa na vya mzunguko. Muda unaotenganisha mgogoro mmoja na mwingine hubadilika-badilika kati ya miaka saba hadi kumi na moja. Kutokea kwake hakufungwi katika muda maalum, ingawa ni wa kujirudia. Tatu, sifa ya uzalishaji kupita kiasi, kiasi kwamba wamiliki wa miradi mikubwa wanakabiliwa na ugumu mkubwa wa kuuza bidhaa zao, hivyo ugavi unazidi mahitaji kwa bidhaa nyingi, jambo linalosababisha mgogoro.

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.

Muhtasari huu unaonyesha kwamba shule za fikra za Kisoshalisti, zikiwemo za Kikomunisti, zinatafuta kufikia usawa halisi kati ya watu binafsi; ama usawa katika manufaa, usawa katika njia za uzalishaji, au usawa kamili. Usawa wa aina yoyote kati ya hizo hauwezi kufikiwa, na ni dhana ya kinadharia tu. Hauwezekani kivitendo, na hivyo hauwezekani. Hii ni kwa sababu usawa wenyewe hauko katika uhalisia, na hivyo hauwezekani kivitendo. Watu, kwa asili ya uumbaji wao, hutofautiana katika uwezo wao wa kimwili na kiakili, na hutofautiana katika kukidhi mahitaji yao. Kwa hiyo usawa kati yao hauwezi kufikiwa. Hata kama mtu angegawa kwa nguvu sehemu sawa za bidhaa na huduma kwa watu, haingewezekana kwao kuwa sawa katika kutumia utajiri huo katika uzalishaji au matumizi. Na isingewezekana kwao kuwa sawa katika kiasi wanachohitaji ili kukidhi mahitaji yao husika. Kwa hiyo, usawa kati yao ni jambo la kubahatisha na la kinadharia.

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.

Mpangilio wa uzalishaji na usambazaji kupitia watu hauwezi (na hautakiwi) kufikiwa kwa kuchochea fujo na wasiwasi miongoni mwa watu, au kwa kuchochea chuki baina yao. Hilo linaweza tu kuleta machafuko, badala ya mpangilio. Zaidi ya hayo, mpangilio wa uzalishaji katika jamii hauwezi kupatikana kiasili kwa kuifanya tabaka la wafanyakazi lihisi dhulma ya wenye biashara, kwa sababu wenye biashara wanaweza kuwa werevu na wabunifu wa kutosha kukidhi mahitaji ya nguvu kazi, kama ilivyo kwa wafanyakazi wa viwandani nchini Marekani. Hivyo tabaka la wafanyakazi halihisi dhulma kwa maana ya matunda ya juhudi zao kunyonywa. Kwa njia hii, mabadiliko yanayoweza kupanga vizuri uzalishaji na usambazaji hayatatokea. Mpangilio huu unapaswa kupatikana kupitia sheria na suluhisho sahihi zilizojengwa juu ya msingi thabiti unaoshughulikia asili halisi ya matatizo. Ujamaa unategemea kupanga uzalishaji na usambazaji, iwe kwa kuchochea mvutano na fujo miongoni mwa tabaka la wafanyakazi, au kwa sheria ya asili ya mabadiliko katika jamii, au kupitia sheria na kanuni zilizotungwa na binadamu (Wadh’iya) ambazo hazitokani na msingi au itikadi thabiti. Kwa hiyo mpangilio huu ni wa uongo tangu msingi wake.

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.

Pili: Pamoja na hayo, maoni yake yanasema kwamba mfumo wa kijamii uliopo wakati wowote ule ni matokeo ya hali ya kiuchumi, na kwamba mabadiliko mbalimbali yanayoupata mfumo huu yote yanatokana na sababu moja, nayo ni mapambano ya matabaka kwa lengo la kuboresha hali yao ya kimaada. Maoni haya ni yenye makosa, hayana msingi, na yamejengwa juu ya dhana yenye shaka na ya kinadharia. Sababu ya kosa lake na kutokubaliana kwake na uhalisia iko wazi kutokana na matukio ya kihistoria na hali ya sasa. Tunaona kwamba mabadiliko ya Urusi kuelekea Ujamaa hayakutokea kwa sababu ya mageuzi ya kimaada, wala kwa sababu ya mapambano ya kitabaka yaliyopelekea mabadiliko ya mfumo. Badala yake, kundi moja lilichukua madaraka kupitia mapinduzi ya umwagaji damu, likaanza kuyatekeleza mawazo yake kwa watu, na kubadilisha mfumo. Jambo hilo hilo lilitokea katika China ya Ujamaa. Kutumika kwa Ujamaa Ujerumani Mashariki badala ya Ujerumani Magharibi, na Ulaya ya Mashariki badala ya Ulaya ya Magharibi hakukutokana na mapambano yoyote ya kitabaka. Badala yake, ilitokana na kuvamiwa kwa nchi hizi na Dola ya Kisoshalisti iliyolazimisha mfumo wake juu ya mataifa yaliyoshindwa. Jambo hilo hilo lilitokea kwa mataifa ya Kibepari, kwa Dola ya Kiislamu, na kwa mfumo wowote mwingine. Zaidi ya hayo, nchi ambazo sheria hii ilitabiri kwamba zingebadilisha mfumo wao kupitia mapambano ya kitabaka, yaani Ujerumani, Uingereza, na Marekani, zote ni nchi za Kibepari ambako wamiliki wa mitaji na wafanyakazi ni wengi. Hazikuwa Urusi ya Kifalme wala China, ambazo zilikuwa za kilimo badala ya viwanda, na ambako idadi ya wamiliki wa mitaji na wafanyakazi ilikuwa ndogo zaidi ikilinganishwa na Magharibi. Licha ya kuwepo kwa wingi mkubwa wa matabaka hayo mawili Ulaya Magharibi na Marekani, hayakugeuzwa kuwa Ujamaa, na bado yote yanatumia Ubepari hadi leo. Kuwepo kwa matabaka hayo mawili (yaani wamiliki wa mitaji na wafanyakazi) hakukuwa na athari yoyote kwenye mfumo wao. Hii peke yake inatosha kuutupilia mbali nadharia hii tangu msingi wake.

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.

Kosa la tatu katika nadharia ya Karl Marx linaonekana katika alichosema kuhusu sheria ya mageuzi ya kijamii, kwamba mfumo wa maisha ya kiuchumi umepangwa kutoweka kwa athari ya sheria za kiuchumi zinazoudhibiti, na kwamba tabaka la kati lililoshinda vita dhidi ya tabaka la wakuu, yaani wamiliki wa mtaji, hatimaye litaachia nafasi yake kwa tabaka la wafanyakazi, kutokana na sheria ya mkusanyiko. Nadharia ya Karl Marx kuhusu mkusanyiko wa uzalishaji, ambayo anaijengea ongezeko la idadi ya wafanyakazi na kupungua kwa idadi ya wamiliki wa mtaji, si sahihi. Nadharia hii si sahihi kwa sababu kuna kikomo ambacho mkusanyiko wa uzalishaji hauwezi kukivuka. Kwa hiyo unafika kiwango fulani na kusimama, na hivyo hautakuwa tena kichocheo cha mageuzi aliyoyawaza Marx. Zaidi ya hayo, mkusanyiko wa uzalishaji haupo kabisa katika tawi mojawapo kuu la uzalishaji, yaani kilimo. Basi sheria ya mageuzi inawezaje kutokea katika jamii? Aidha, Karl Marx anadai kwamba mkusanyiko wa uzalishaji unafuatiwa na mkusanyiko wa mali (rasilimali), jambo linalopelekea kupungua kwa idadi ya wenye fedha na kuongezeka kwa idadi ya wafanyakazi wasiomiliki chochote. Mtazamo huu ni wa makosa, kwa kuwa mkusanyiko wa uzalishaji unaweza kupelekea kuongezeka kwa idadi ya wamiliki wa mtaji, na kuifanya tabaka la wafanyakazi kuwa wamiliki wa mtaji. Miradi mikubwa inayoendeshwa na mashirika makubwa mara nyingi huwa na wanahisa kutoka tabaka la wafanyakazi, jambo ambalo ni mfano unaokanusha nadharia hii. Zaidi ya hayo, wengi wa wafanyakazi katika viwanda wana mishahara mikubwa, kama vile wahandisi, wanakemia na mameneja, hivyo wanaweza kuweka akiba sehemu kubwa ya mishahara yao, na kuwa wawekezaji wenyewe bila haja ya kuanzisha miradi huru. Kwa hiyo, yale aliyoyaeleza Karl Marx kuhusu wafanyakazi na mageuzi hayawahusu wao.

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.