Kapitalizmning ta'rifining asosida "xususiy mulkchilik" yotadi. Merriam-Webster lug'atida kapitalizm "kapital tovarlarning xususiy yoki korporativ mulkchiligi bilan tavsiflanadigan iqtisodiy tizim" sifatida ta'riflangan. Iqtisod bo'yicha Nobel mukofoti sovrindori Milton Fridman kapitalizmni erkin xususiy tadbirkorlik va ixtiyoriy almashuv orqali tashkil etilgan jamiyatning amaldagi modeli sifatida ta'riflagan, ayirboshlash iqtisodiyoti sifatida. Romanchi va faylasuf Ayn Rendning fikricha, kapitalizm sharoitida barcha mulk xususiy egalikda bo'ladi. Xuddi shunday, iqtisodchi Jorj Raysman kapitalizm xususiy mulkchilikka asoslangan ijtimoiy tizim ekanligini tasdiqlaydi. Encyclopedia Britannica quyidagicha ta'rif beradi: "Kapitalizm, shuningdek erkin bozor iqtisodiyoti yoki erkin tadbirkorlik iqtisodiyoti deb ham ataladi: feodalizm parchalanganidan beri G'arb dunyosida hukmron bo'lgan iqtisodiy tizim bo'lib, unda ishlab chiqarish vositalarining aksariyati xususiy mulk hisoblanadi, ishlab chiqarish esa asosan bozorlar faoliyati orqali yo'naltiriladi va daromad taqsimlanadi." Avtomobil sanoati yoki moliya institutlari kabi ishlab chiqarish vositalariga davlat yoki jamoat mulkchiligi kapitalizm asosiga to'g'ridan-to'g'ri zid keladi. The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary kapitalizm ta'rifida davlat mulkchiligini aniq rad etadi: bu "davlat emas, balki xususiy mulkka asoslangan, erkin raqobat va foyda olishga yo'naltirilgan iqtisodiy tizim" bo'lib, unda biznes, zavodlar va transport xizmatlari xususiy egalikda bo'ladi. Kapitalistik jamiyatda davlatning roli sanoatni o'zi egallashdan ko'ra, uni tartibga solishda namoyon bo'ladi. Beqaror iqtisodni barqarorlashtirish uchun davlatning sanoatning bir qismini o'z qo'liga olishi kapitalizm nuqtai nazaridan asosli qadam bo'lmaydi. Aksincha, bu kapitalizm nazariyasidagi sezilarli kamchilikni ochib beradi, chunki u faqat bitta mulkchilik shaklini, ya'ni xususiy mulkchilikni tan oladi.

At the root of the definition of capitalism is “private ownership.” In Merriam-Webster dictionary, capitalism is defined as “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods.” Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, characterized capitalism as a working model of a society organized through voluntary exchange and free private enterprise exchange economy121. According to novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, all property is privately owned under capitalism121. By the same token, economist George Reisman confirms the fact that capitalism is a social system based on private ownership122. Encyclopedia Britannica has the following definition: “capitalism, also called free market economy, or free enterprise economy: economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most of the means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.” Public or state ownership of the means of production such as auto industry or financial institutions is in direct conflict of the foundation of capitalism. The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary explicitly rejects state ownership in its definition of capitalism as “an economic system based on private, rather than state, ownership of businesses, factories, and transport services, etc., with free competition and profit-making.” The role of the state in a capitalist society is more applicable to regulations of industry than owning it. The fact that government intervention to own part of the industry may lead to the stabilization of a turbulent economy does not make this intervention a valid move from the perspective of capitalism. On the contrary, this reveals a notable defect in the theory of capitalism which allows only one form of ownership, that is, the private ownership.

Moliyaviy va iqtisodiy inqiroz shunday darajaga yetganda, davlat aralashib, inqirozga uchragan ayrim muassasalarni o'z qo'liga oladi va iqtisodiyotning keng miqyosda qulashining oldini olishga harakat qiladi, u holda kapitalizmning bir tizim sifatida ahvoli shubhali bo'lib qoladi. Shu yerda quyidagi ikkilanish paydo bo'ladi. Agar kapitalizm o'zining erkin bozor, erkin tadbirkorlik va o'z-o'zini saqlash nazariyalari va tamoyillari asosida ishlashiga qo'yib berilsa, moliyaviy muassasalarning qulashi va undan keyin butun iqtisodiy tizimning barbod bo'lishi muqarrar bo'lib qolishi mumkin. Agar hukumat aralashib, xususiy mulkchilikni davlat va jamoat mulkiga aylantirsa, u holda kapitalizm tizimining asosi xavf ostida qoladi.

When financial and economic crisis reaches a point where the state interferes and takes over some of the failing institutions to prevent a wide-scale collapse of the economy, then the plight of capitalism as a system is questionable. The following dilemma emerges. If capitalism is left to operate under its own theories and principles of free market, free enterprise, and self-maintenance, then a collapse of the financial institutions followed by a failure of the entire economic system may become inevitable. If the government interferes and transfers the private ownership to state and public ownership, then the foundation of the system of capitalism is in jeopardy.

Federal Rezerv raisi Bernanke kapitalizmning ikkilanishini aniq ko'rsatib berdi, u shunday degan edi: "Agar Bear Stearns bankrot bo'lishiga yo'l qo'yilganida, defoltning salbiy ta'siri faqat moliya tizimi bilan cheklanib qolmas edi, balki aktivlar qiymatiga va kredit olish imkoniyatiga ta'siri orqali real iqtisodiyotda keng miqyosda sezilgan bo'lar edi"47.

Federal Reserve chief Bernanke clearly identified the dilemma of capitalism when he said, “If Bear Stearns had been allowed to fail, the adverse impact of a default would not have been confined to the financial system but would have been felt broadly in the real economy through its effects on asset values and credit availability”47.

So'nggi moliyaviy inqiroz paytida AQSH hukumati bir qancha tarmoqlar va moliya institutlarining egaligini o'z qo'liga oldi. U yirik ipoteka kompaniyalari Fannie Mae va Freddie Mac ustidan nazoratni o'z zimmasiga oldi. Bu tadbir "o'nlab yillardagi xususiy moliya bozorlaridagi eng keng qamrovli davlat aralashuvlaridan biri" deb ta'riflandi,124 va u "xususiy kompaniyalarga nisbatan tarixdagi eng katta va eng qimmat davlat yordami bo'lib qolishi mumkin"125. 5 trillion dollardan ortiq to'lanmagan ipoteka bilan ta'minlangan qimmatli qog'ozlar mavjud bo'lgani sababli, bu kompaniyalarning inqirozga uchrashi uy-joy iqtisodiyoti, Amerika iqtisodiyoti va jahon iqtisodiyoti uchun halokatli bo'lardi126.

In the most recent financial crisis, the US government took over the ownership of several industries and financial institutions. It took over control of giant mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The takeover action has been described as “one of the most sweeping government interventions in private financial markets in decades,”124 and one that “could turn into the biggest and costliest government bailout ever of private companies”125. With over $5 trillion outstanding mortgage backed securities, the failure of these companies would have been disastrous for the housing economy, the American economy, and the world economy126.

AQSh hukumati dunyodagi eng yirik sug‘urta kompaniyalaridan biri bo‘lgan American International Group Inc (AIG)ni 85 milliard dollarlik bitim asosida o‘z nazoratiga oldi. Bu qadam uning qulashi moliya tizimiga keltirishi mumkin bo‘lgan xavf haqidagi jiddiy tashvishlarini ko‘rsatdi. Ushbu o‘zlashtirish davlatni xususiy kompaniya ustidan nazoratga ega qilib qo‘ydi, bu esa kapitalizm olamida tarixiy voqea hisoblanadi.

The US government seized control of American International Group Inc (AIG), one of the world’s biggest insurers, in an $85 billion deal that signaled the intensity of its concerns about the danger a collapse could pose to the financial system123. This takeover puts the government in control of a private company, which marks a historic development in the world of capitalism.

Hukumat avtomobil sanoatiga ham o‘z mulkdorligini kengaytirdi. Bankrotlik sudlarida muvaffaqiyatsizlikka uchragan avtomobil sanoatining taqdiri ustida kelishuvlar olib borilgach, AQSh hukumati General Motors aktsiyalarining 60 foizini va Chrysler aktsiyalarining deyarli 10 foizini egallab oldi. Avtomobil sanoatini egallash uchun keltirilgan bahona moliya institutlarini egallash uchun keltirilgan bahona bilan bir xil: Amerika iqtisodiyotining va jahon iqtisodiyotining halokatga uchrashining oldini olish.

The government extended its property ownership to the auto industry. After negotiating the fate of the failing auto industry in bankruptcy courts, the US government acquired 60% of GM shares and almost 10% of Chrysler. The pretext for the takeover of the auto industry is the same as the pretext for acquiring financial institutions: avoid disaster to the American economy and the world economy.

Agar moliyaviy inqiroz biror ahamiyatli narsani isbotlagan bo'lsa, u shuni isbotladiki, yakka shaxslar va korxonalarning xususiy mulkchiligi o'z-o'zidan iqtisodiy barqarorlikni ta'minlay olmaydi. Faqat xususiy mulkchilik bir qutbli iqtisodiy tuzilmani vujudga keltiradi, bu tuzilma o'z og'irligi ostida qulashga mahkumdir. Iqtisodiyot juda katta hajmga yetib, uning og'irligi bitta qutbda ushlab turishga zo'r kelmay qolganda, bu holat yanada yaqqolroq namoyon bo'ladi. Umumiy halokatning oldini olish uchun hukumatlar bu tuzilmani ikkita qo'shimcha qutb bilan, ya'ni davlat va jamoat mulkchiligi bilan mustahkamlashga shoshiladi. Kapitalizm, mohiyatan, bir qutbli iqtisodiy tuzilmadir (bitta qutbga ega tuzilma). Ajablanarlisi shundaki, kapitalizm iqtisodiyot hajmini juda tez o'sishi uchun sharoit yaratadi. Natijada kapitalizm inqirozi tobora kuchayib portlashda davom etadi va kapitalistik iqtisodlarni ichkaridan parchalanib ketish xavfi bilan tahdid qiladi.

If the financial crisis had proved anything of significance, it proved that private ownership of individuals and enterprises cannot sustain the economic stability by itself. Private ownership alone creates a unipolar economic structure which is bound to fail as a result of its own weight. This becomes more evident as the economy grows to virtually large sizes and its weight becomes too heavy to survive on a single pole. In order to prevent a total collapse, the governments rush to support the structure with two additional poles: state and public ownership. Capitalism, essentially, is a unipolar economic structure (a structure with a single pole). The irony is that capitalism creates an environment where the size of the economy grows at a very rapid rate. As a result, the crisis of capitalism continues to explode, threatening the capitalist economies to implode from within.

Xususiy mulkchilikni davlat va jamoat mulki bilan vaqti-vaqti bilan to‘ldirish faqat qisqa muddat uchun samarali bo‘lishi mumkin. Bu to‘liq inqirozning oldini olmaydi. Sababi shundaki, davlat mulki tizimga inqiroz bosimi ostida kiritiladi, iqtisodiyotning ayrim sohalarida davlat va jamoat mulkining zarurati va ahamiyatini ochib beradigan puxta o‘ylangan strategiya natijasida emas. Inqiroz bosimi ostida davlat, bu harakatning hech qanday nazariy yoki mafkuraviy asosi bo‘lmasa ham, iqtisodiyotning biror sohasiga qisman yoki to‘liq egalik qilishga majbur bo‘ladi. Iqtisodiyotning biror sohasini milliylashtirish iqtisodiy tizimni uning odatdagi yo‘lidan chetga suradi, lekin iqtisodiyot uchun yangi yo‘l yoki yo‘nalishni belgilamaydi. Natijada aniq xarakterga ega bo‘lmagan iqtisod vujudga keladi: na kapitalizm, na sotsializm. U islomiy ham emas, bu haqda kitobning keyingi qismida batafsil bayon etiladi.

The sporadic augmentation of private ownership with state and public ownership can prove effective only for a short period of time. This will not prevent a total collapse. The reason is that state ownership is added to the system under the pressure of the crisis and not as a result of a well-thought strategy which reveals the necessity and importance of state and public ownership of certain segments of the economy. Under the pressure of the crisis, the state is forced to partially or completely own a segment of the economy without the least theoretical or ideological justification of the move. The nationalization of a particular segment of the economy pushes the economic system away from its regular course without defining a new path or course for the economy to pursue. The end result is an economy without a well-defined character: neither capitalism nor socialism. It is not Islamic either, as will be explained in the next part of this book.

Tarixiy ma'lumot sifatida qiziq bo'lgan narsa shuki, Sovet sotsializmi ham qishloq xo'jaligi sohasida kolxozlarga xususiy mulk kiritilganda o'z odatiy yo'lidan shunga o'xshash og'ishni boshdan kechirgan. Bu Stalin hukmronligining so'nggi davrida va Xrushchyov davrida oziq-ovqat ta'minotida jiddiy tanqislikning oldini olish hamda dehqonlar mehnat unumdorligini oshirish maqsadida amalga oshirilgan. Gorbachyovning perestroyka rejalari doirasida bu yo'nalishda yana islohotlar joriy etildi. Bu yerda bahs bu o'zgartirishlar va islohotlarning foydali yoki foydasiz ekanligi haqida emas; asosiy fikr shuki, bu iqtisodiy tizimning asl yo'lidan jiddiy og'ish hisoblanadi. Bunday o'zgartirishlar tizimni uning asosiy xususiyatidan mahrum qiladi. Sotsializm sifatida eski Sovet Ittifoqi va Sharqiy Yevropa mamlakatlarida butunlay muvaffaqiyatsizlikka uchradi. Muvaffaqiyatsizlikning asosiy sabablaridan biri uning odatiy harakat yo'lidan chetga chiqish bo'ldi.

For the sake of historical reference, it is interesting to note that Soviet socialism experienced similar deviation from its normal course when private ownership was introduced to the collective farms within the agricultural industry. This was introduced during the late Stalin and Khrushchev eras to increase the productivity of farmers and avoid a serious shortage of food supplies. More reforms in this direction were introduced under the Gorbachev perestroika plans. The argument here is not whether these modifications and reforms are useful or not; the main argument is that this constitutes a major deviation from the original course of the economic system. Such modifications cause the system to lose its main characteristic. Socialism as a system failed altogether in the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Europe countries. One major reason for the failure was the deviation from its normal course of action.

Shunga o'xshab, bugungi kapitalizm o'z yo'nalishini o'zgartirish va harakat tarzini qayta ko'rib chiqish zarurati bilan og'rimoqda, bu esa tizimga davlat va jamoat mulkini kiritish orqali amalga oshirilmoqda, garchi bu tizimli bo'lmagan tarzda bo'lsa-da. Erkin bozor qoidalari endi boylikning oqimini va tovarlar hamda xizmatlar ishlab chiqarishni boshqaradigan yagona qoidalar emas. Nisbiy kamyoblik va narx mexanizmi tamoyillari davlatning iqtisodiyotga vaqti-vaqti bilan aralashuvi natijasida xiralashib, noaniq bo'lib qolmoqda. Kapitalistik iqtisodiyotning uzoq yillar davomida saqlanib kelgan xususiyatlari, ayniqsa o'sish va bashoratlilik, erkin bozor iqtisodiyotini boshqaruvchi formulalarga yangi sub'ektiv omillarning kiritilishi tufayli endi saqlanib qololmaydi. Bugungi kunda erkin bozor qoidalari ko'chmas mulk sohasida bir yo'nalishga ishora qilayotgan bo'lsa, yirik ipoteka kompaniyalarining davlat mulkida bo'lishi ko'chmas mulk narxlarini boshqa yo'nalishga majburlamoqda.

By the same token, capitalism today suffers from the urgent need to change its route and modify its course of action by introducing state and public ownership to the system, although in a nonsystematic manner. The rules of the free market are no longer the only rules that control the flow of wealth and the production of goods and services. The principles of relative scarcity and the price mechanism tend to blur and become vague in the wake of government sporadic intervention in the economy. The long-lived characteristics of capitalist economy, especially growth and predictability, can no longer be sustained due to the inclusion of new subjective factors in the formulas governing free market economy. Today, free market rules point to one direction in the real estate industry, while the government ownership of major mortgage companies force the prices in the real estate to point in another direction.

Xulosa qilib aytganda, kapitalistik iqtisodiyotning ikkita asosiy muvaffaqiyatsizlik belgisi bor: real iqtisodiyot ustida virtual iqtisodiyotning yaratilishi va xususiy mulk bilan birga davlat va jamoat mulkini joriy etish orqali erkin bozor qoidalaridan chetga chiqish. Virtual iqtisodiyot iqtisodiyotda shunday xayolni yaratadiki, u umumiy boylikni uning haqiqiy qiymatidan ancha katta ko'rinishga keltiradi. Bu xayol fond bozori savdolari tufayli mumkin bo'ldi, ular narsalarning nisbiy qiymatlaridan foydalanadi, pulning foiz/ribo orqali o'sishiga yo'l qo'yadi, pulni oltin zaxirasidan ajratadi va pulni mamlakatning iqtisodiy kuchidan uzib qo'yadi. Virtual iqtisodiyot albatta qulaydi va iqtisodiyotning me'yoriy qiymatlariga qaytadi.

In summary, the two major signs of failure of the capitalist economy are the creation of virtual economy on top of the real economy and the deviation from the rules of free market by introducing state and public ownership alongside the private ownership. Virtual economy creates an illusion in the economy which allows the total wealth to appear much larger than its real worth. This illusion was made possible by the stock market trades, which exploit the relative values of things, by allowing money to grow through interest/usury, by detaching money from the gold base, and by disassociating the money from the economic strength of a country. The virtual economy is bound to crash and return to the normal values of the economy.

Davlat mulkchiligini joriy etish erkin bozor qoidalarining chalkashishiga olib keladi va kapitalizmning dastlabki yo‘lidan jiddiy chetga chiqishga sabab bo‘ladi.

The introduction of state ownership leads to the confusion of the free market rules and to a serious deviation from the original course of capitalism.