Iqtisodiy inqiroz, moliyaviy inqiroz, xususiy korxonalarni davlat tomonidan o‘z qo‘liga olinishi va virtual iqtisodiyotning parchalanishi erkin tadbirkorlik va o‘zini o‘zi qilgan shaxsiylik (rugged individualism) asosidagi siyosiy-iqtisodiy modelni barbod qilganini ko‘rsatmoqda. Hozirgi siyosiy-iqtisodiy modelga fundamental o‘zgarish kiritish zarurligi deyarli barcha tomonidan bir ovozdan tan olinmoqda. Bu o‘zgarish ommaviy axborot vositalarida turli shakl va shiorlarda aks etdi. Shulardan biri Obamaning so‘zlaridan olingan “Amerikani qayta yaratish” (remaking America) iborasi bo‘lib, u New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times va boshqa ko‘plab gazetalarning birinchi sahifalarida takrorlandi127.

The economic meltdown, the financial crisis, the government takeover of privately owned enterprise, and the implosion of the virtual economy render the entire politico-economic model of free enterprise and rugged individualism a broken one. There is almost unanimous agreement that a fundamental change to the current politico-economic model is urgently needed. This change appeared in the media in various forms and slogans. One of these slogans was borrowed from Obama’s words, “remaking America,” which was repeated in the front pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, and many more127.

Bu ohang kapitalizmning eng sof erkin bozor shaklidagi tarixiy iqtisodiy taraqqiyotning eng oliy va yakuniy nuqtasi ekanligi haqidagi e'tiqodni rad etdi. Bu e'tiqod 1991 yilda Sovet sotsializmi qulagan paytda o'zining cho'qqisiga chiqqan edi. "Tarixning oxiri va so'nggi odam" kitobida erkin bozor ustunligi g'oyasini ilgari surgan Frensis Fukuyama 2008 yilda bu e'tiqodni rad etdi, o'shanda u "Amerika, Inc.ning qulashi" maqolasini yozdi. 2008 yil 4 oktyabrda Newsweek nashrida chop etilgan bu maqola kapitalizmning hozirgi shakli muvaffaqiyatsizlikka uchraganini e'lon qildi; Fukuyamaning so'zlari bilan aytganda, "kapitalizmning muayyan qarashi barbod bo'ldi". Yangi qarash zarur.

This tone has revoked the belief that capitalism in its purest free market form was the ultimate and highest point of historic economic evolution, a belief which climaxed as the Soviet brand of socialism collapsed in 1991. Francis Fukayama, who advocated the notion of free market superiority in his book End of History and the Last Man,33 revoked that belief in 2008 when he wrote, “The Fall of America, Inc.” The article which appeared in the Newsweek edition on October 4, 2008, declared that the current version of capitalism has failed; in Fukayama’s words, “a certain vision of capitalism has collapsed.” A new vision is required.

“Yangi shakldagi kapitalizm buzilgan mamlakatni qayta tiklay oladi” — bu sarlavha 2009-yil 22-yanvarda “Independent” kunlik gazetasida chop etilgan yana bir maqolaning nomi, u 127-betda joylashgan. Maqolada kapitalizmning yangi taraqqiyot bosqichi taklif qilinadi, bu bosqich hukumat bilan xususiy tadbirkorlik o‘rtasidagi kengroq hamkorlik uchun namuna bo‘lishi mumkin.

“A New Form of capitalism Can Remake Broken Country” is the title of another article which appeared in the Independent Daily newspaper on January 22, 2009,127. The article suggests a new evolution of capitalism that could serve as model for broader collaboration between government and private enterprise.

Yangi kapitalizm shakllari uchun taklif etilgan nomlar kapitalizm tasvirining jamoatchilik nazarida qanchalik obro'sizlanganini ko'rsatadi. Bir nashr yangi kapitalizm shakllari uchun quyidagi muqobil nomlarni keltiradi: "Bubble Capitalism" (Pufak kapitalizmi), "Ponzi Capitalism" (Ponzi kapitalizmi), "Crony Capitalism" (Yaqinlar kapitalizmi) va "Geonomic James Arthur Ray, "New York Times" eng ko'p sotilgan mualliflaridan biri, "HuffPost Social News" nashrida chop etilgan "A New Form of Capitalism: Dealing with the Cause Versus the Effect" ("Kapitalizmning yangi shakli: sabab va oqibat bilan ishlash") maqolasini yozgan. Ushbu maqolada James Arthur sotsializm va/yoki kommunizm kapitalizmga yaroqli muqobil bo'la olmasligini, chunki sotsializmning o'zi muvaffaqiyatsizlikka uchraganini ta'kidlaydi. U xulosa qilib shunday deydi: "Men kapitalizm yagona yaroqli variant ekanligini taklif qilaman. Shunga qaramay, men Ongli kapitalizm deb ataydigan yangi turdagi kapitalizm qabul qilinishi kerak." Ongli kapitalizm hozirgi erkin bozor kapitalizmining muvaffaqiyatsizligi ortidagi axloqiy omilga murojaat qiladi.

The names that have been suggested for a new form of capitalism show how the image of capitalism has been tarnished in the eyes of the public. One of the publications128 presents the following alternative names for new forms of capitalism: “Bubble Capitalism,” “Ponzi Capitalism,” “Crony Capitalism,” and “Geonomic James Arthur Ray, New York Times best-selling author, wrote “A New Form of Capitalism: Dealing with the Cause Versus the Effect,” which appeared in the HuffPost Social News129. In this article, James Arthur argues that socialism and/or communism cannot be a viable alternative to capitalism because socialism itself has failed. He concludes, saying, “I submit capitalism is the only viable option. Yet a new type of capitalism must be adopted, a type that I call Conscious Capitalism.” Conscious capitalism addressed the moral factor behind the failure of current free market capitalism.

2008 yildagi Davos yillik yig'ilishida Bill Gates "Yaratuvchi kapitalizm" deb atagan yangi kapitalizm shakliga bo'lgan ehtiyoj haqida so'zladi. Bill Gates dunyoga bugun "texnologik innovatsiyadan ko'ra ko'proq tizimli innovatsiya" kerakligini ta'kidladi. Bill Gates fikricha, yaratuvchi kapitalizm shaxsiy manfaatni ko'zlashdan kelib chiqadigan unumdorlikdan foydalanishi kerak, shu bilan birga foyda olish imkoniga ega bo'lmaganlarga ham naf keltirishi lozim. Mohiyatan, Bill Gates narx mexanizmi va bozor kuchlaridan boshqa boylikni taqsimlash mexanizmiga chaqirmoqda.

In the Davos Annual Meeting 2008, Bill Gates addressed the need for a new form of capitalism, which he called “Creative Capitalism”130. Bill Gates stated that the world today needs more “system innovation than technology innovation.” Creative capitalism, according to Bill Gates, should harness the productivity generated by the pursue of self-interest, while at the same time it benefits the ones who do not have access to the profit. In essence, Bill Gates calls for a mechanism for wealth distribution other than the price mechanism and the forces of the market.

Richard M. Ebeling, Foundation for Economic Education prezidenti, "kapitalizm" degan narsaning mavjud emasligini ta'kidlaydi. Aksincha, hukumatlar va jamiyatlar tanlashi mumkin bo'lgan kapitalizmning turli xil ko'rinishlari bor131. Ebelingning fikricha, sotsialistik yoki fashistik kapitalizm turlari faqat ushbu so'zlar bilan bog'liq lingvistik va mafkuraviy ma'nolar tufayli rad etiladi.

Richard M. Ebeling, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, argues that there is no such thing as “capitalism.” Rather there are different types of capitalism from which governments and societies may choose131. According to Ebeling, the socialist or fascist brands of capitalism are dismissed only because of the linguistic and ideological connotation associated with these words.

Haqiqiy masala kapitalizmni qanday qayta nomlashda emas. Agar gap faqat nomda bo‘lganida, katta xalqaro tanlov e’lon qilib, sovrinli mukofot evaziga turli nomlarni taklif qilish yoki mutlaqo yangi nom o‘ylab topishni so‘rash mumkin edi. Turli nashrlarda tilga olingan ba’zi nomlarni sanab o‘tsak: Liberal kapitalizm, Ijtimoiy kapitalizm, Fashistik kapitalizm, Milliy kapitalizm, Ijodiy kapitalizm, Jamoaviy kapitalizm, Raqobatlashuvchi kapitalizm, Ongli kapitalizm, Pufak kapitalizmi, Ponzi kapitalizmi, Do‘stona (aloqador) kapitalizm, Geonomik kapitalizm va yana boshqa shunga o‘xshash kapitalizm turlari.

The real issue here is not how to rename capitalism. If this was the issue, a world contest could be organized with a nice prize to choose from a wide range of names or to come up with a totally new name. To list a few of the names that have been tossed around in one or another publications, here is a short list: Liberal Capitalism, Social Capitalism, Fascist Capitalism, National Capitalism, Creative Capitalism, Collective Capitalism, Competing Capitalism, Conscious Capitalism, Bubble Capitalism, Ponzi Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Geonomic Capitalism, and What-Have-You capitalism.

Kapitalizmning turi haqidagi, kapitalizmning kelajagi haqidagi, kapitalizmni qayta nomlash haqidagi, kapitalizmning evolyutsiyasi va kapitalizmning muvaffaqiyatsizligi haqidagi munozaralar iqtisodiy tizimni qayta qurishni ko'rib chiqishda e'tiborga olinishi shart bo'lgan uchta asosiy omilni ochib beradi. Birinchi va eng muhim omil tizimning axloqiy jihatiga bog'liq. Deyarli barcha tomonlar bir ovozdan kelishib olganki, erkin bozor siyosiy-iqtisodiy modelining qulashidan oldin uni qo'llab-quvvatlovchi axloqiy tuzilmaning qulashi yuz bergan. Bu omilni e'tirof etib, James Arthur o'zi "Ongli kapitalizm" deb atagan tushunchani taklif qildi. Yangi tizim, qanday nomlanishidan qat'i nazar, ...

The discussions on the brand of capitalism, the future of capitalism, the renaming of capitalism, the evolution of capitalism, and the failure of capitalism reveal three major fundamental factors which must be taken into consideration when considering a restructuring of the economic system. The first and foremost has to do with the moral aspect of the system. It is almost unanimously agreed across the board that the collapse of the free market politico-economic model was preceded by a collapse of the moral structure that supports it. Recognizing this factor, James Arthur proposed what he called the “Conscious Capitalism.” The new system, no matter Capitalism.”.

u shaxs nomi qanday bo‘lishi kerak: u axloqiy modelni o‘z ichiga olishi kerak. Axloqiy model tizim bilan mahkam bog‘langan va undan ajralmas bo‘lishi kerak. Axloqiy model ixtiyoriy variant yoki qo‘shimcha qiymat bo‘la olmaydi; u tizimning ajralmas qismi bo‘lishi shart.

what name it bears, must incorporate a moral model. The moral model must be tightly coupled with and inseparable from the system. The moral model cannot be an option, or an extra added value; it has to be an integral part of the system.

Ikkinchi omil boylikni taqsimlashga taalluqli bo'lib, uning maqsadi shuki, jamiyatdagi eng kam imtiyozga ega va eng kambag'al kishilar shaxsiy manfaatni ko'zlashning kuchi bilan yaratilgan katta miqdordagi foydadan bahra olish imkoniyatiga ega bo'lsin. Umumiy boyligi 100 trillion dollardan oshadigan dunyoda aholisining 20 foizi (bir milliarddan ortiq kishi) kuniga 1 dollardan kam yashaydigan holatda yashashi mutlaqo qabul qilib bo'lmaydigan holdir. Yangi tizim qanday nom bilan atalishidan qat'i nazar, yaratilgan boylikning turli sabablarga ko'ra aholining ayrim qatlamlariga yetib bormasligini e'tiborga oladigan taqsimot mexanizmini o'z ichiga olishi shart. Taqsimot mexanizmi tizimning ajralmas qismi bo'lishi kerak, siyosatchilar mahalliy yoki jahon sharoitlariga qarab qo'shishi yoki olib tashlashi mumkin bo'lgan ixtiyoriy band bo'lmasligi lozim. Taqsimot mexanizmi shunchalik aniq belgilangan bo'lishi kerakki, sud tizimi va siyosiy tizim uni qonun kuchi bilan ijro etishi mumkin bo'lsin.

The second factor has to do with wealth distribution such that the least privileged and the poorest in a society may have the chance to benefit from the large sums of profits generated by the power of self-interest pursuit. It is simply unacceptable to live in a world with accumulative wealth exceeding $100 trillion and 20% of its population (more than one billion) lives under $1 a day. The new system, no matter what name it bears, must incorporate a distribution mechanism which recognizes the fact that the produced wealth may not reach a segment of the population for all types of reasons. The distribution mechanism must be an integral part of the system and not an option that can be added or removed by politicians based on local or world conditions. The distribution mechanism must be explicit to the extent that the judicial system and political system can enforce it with the power of law.

Uchinchi omil davlat va jamoat mulkchiligining xususiy mulkchilik bilan birga mavjud bo'lishi zarurligi bilan bog'liq. Bu zarurat ko'plab iqtisodchilar va siyosatchilar tomonidan tan olingan va Buyuk Britaniyalik Jon Meynard Keynsga nisbatan Keynscha kapitalizm turi deb atalgan. Keyns davlat bozorni barqarorlashtirish uchun aralashishi kerakligini ta'kidlagan. Bu zarurat Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari va boshqa ko'plab Yevropa mamlakatlaridagi eng so'nggi amaliyotlar orqali yanada tasdiqlandi, bu yerda hukumatlar banklar, sug'urta kompaniyalari, avtomobil sanoati va boshqalarning mulkiga egalik qilishga o'tdi.

The third factor has to do with the need for state and public ownership to coexist with private ownership. This necessity has been recognized by scores of economists and politicians and had been known as Keynesian brand of capitalism (in reference to John Maynard Keynes of Great Britain). Keynes argued that the government must intervene to stabilize the market. This necessity has been further asserted through the most recent practices in the United States and score of other European countries, where governments moved to acquire the ownerships of banks, insurance companies, auto industries, and others.

Lekin davlat mulkchiligini faqat ehtiyoj asosida va "juda katta, shuning uchun bankrot bo'lishga ruxsat berib bo'lmaydi" shiori ostida qo'llash mumkin emas. Davlat mulkchiligi yanada asosiyroq tarzda belgilanishi kerak: u xususiy mulk, davlat mulki va jamoat umumiy mulkining doirasini belgilaydigan tizimning ajralmas qismi bo'lishi lozim. Kim nimaga egalik qilishi siyosiy va iqtisodiy sharoitlarga hal qildirilmasligi kerak. Bu masalani inqiroz uyga kelib urguncha qoldirib, keyin siyosatchilarni qaysi mulkni saqlab qolish va qaysini tugatish haqida qaror qabul qilishga majburlab bo'lmaydi. "Juda katta, shuning uchun bankrot bo'lishga ruxsat berib bo'lmaydi" tamoyili esa qo'llash uchun juda noaniq.

But state ownership cannot be applied on a need only basis and under the slogan of “too big to fail.” State ownership should be more fundamentally defined; it should be an integral part of the system which defines the scope of private ownership, the state ownership, and the public common ownership. Who owns what should not be left to the political and economic conditions to dictate. It should not be left until crisis hit home and then force politicians to decide on which property to own and which property to dissolve. “Too big to fail” is too vague of a principle to apply.

Amerika hukumati "juda katta, bankrot bo'lishga yo'l qo'yib bo'lmaydi" tamoyili bilan General Motors, Chrysler, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae va Bear Stearns'ning katta qismini o'z qo'liga olishga kirishdi. Endi hukumat qanday avtomobillar ishlab chiqarilishi va uy sotib oluvchilar uchun qanday ipoteka kreditlari mavjud bo'lishi ustidan ulkan vakolatga ega. Agar Wal-Mart qiyinchilikka duch kelib, "juda katta, bankrot bo'lishga yo'l qo'yib bo'lmaydi" deb topilsa, hukumat uning bir qismini ham o'z qo'liga olarmidi? Va hukumat odamlar qanday kiyim kiyishini ham belgilaydimi? Sovet Ittifoqi sotsialistik davrda aynan shunday ish yuritgan. Davlat mulki iqtisodiy tizimning bir qismi bo'lishi kerakligi haqiqat, lekin u tizimning asosiy tamoyillariga asoslanib aniq belgilanishi lozim. U tanlov yoki tizimga qo'shimcha qiymat sifatida qaralmasligi kerak. Davlat va jamoat mulki xuddi xususiy mulk kabi qonun bilan himoya qilinishi kerak. Xususiy mulk hech qachon davlat yoki jamoat mulkiga aylantirilmasligi kerak; xuddi shunday, davlat va jamoat mulki hech qachon xususiylashtirish obyekti bo'lmasligi kerak. Ularning chegaralari va hududi tizim tomonidan aniq belgilanishi lozim, sharoitlar va siyosatchilarga bu chegaralarni belgilashni qoldirmasdan.

The US government moved to own a significant portion of General Motors, Chrysler, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Bear Stearns using the principle of “too big to fail.” Now the government has an overwhelming power of deciding what cars will be produced and what mortgages will be available for home buyers. Would the government move to own part of Wal-Mart if it ever experiences hardship and be deemed as too big to fail? And the government would decide on what type of clothes the people would wear? This is how the Soviet Union operated during the socialist era. It is true that state property should be part of the economic system, but it should be well defined based on integral principals of the system. It cannot be an option or an added value to the system. State and public property should be protected by law in the same manner private property is protected. Private property should never be transferred into state or public property; by the same token, state and public property should never be subject for privatization. The limits and boundaries of each must be clearly defined by the system and not left for the conditions and politicians to set these limits.

Bu uchta omil: axloqiy model, boylikni taqsimlash mexanizmi va mulkchilik chegaralarini belgilash, kapitalizm ichidagi inqirozning mohiyatidir. Bu inqirozga yechim kapitalizmni shunchaki boshqa nom bilan atashda emas. Tizimga ayrim o'zgartirishlar kiritish orqali ham yechim topib bo'lmaydi. Agar bu uch omil tizimga singdirilsa, kapitalizmning asosiy tamoyillari shunchalik o'zgarib ketadiki, kelajak avlodlar uni umuman kapitalizm sifatida tanimaydi. Tizim tamoyillarining tubdan o'zgarishi evolyutsiya masalasi emas.

These three factors: the moral model, the wealth distribution mechanism, and the property ownership boundary limits, are the essence of the crisis within capitalism. The solution to this crisis is not simply a renaming of capitalism. Neither can a solution be obtained by augmenting the system with some modifications. When the three factors are integrated into the system, the fundamentals of capitalism would have changed in a manner that the future generations would not recognize capitalism at all. Fundamental changes to the principals of a system are not a matter of evolution.

Sotsialistlar sotsializmda jiddiy kamchiliklar borligini nihoyat anglab yetganlarida, ular boshqa yo'lga o'tishga qaror qilishdi: tizimni butunlay almashtirishdi. Uni tuzatishning, yangi xususiyatlar qo'shishning yoki uni kapitalistik sotsializmga, liberal sotsializmga, zamonaviy sotsializmga, milliy sotsializmga, ongli sotsializmga, ijodiy sotsializmga yoki boshqa qandaydir sotsializmga aylantirishning ma'nosi yo'q edi. Gorbachyovning qayta qurish siyosati sotsializmni butunlay bekor qildi. O'sha paytda ruslar uchun muqobil kapitalizm edi. Ular kapitalizmga to'liq kuch bilan o'tdilar.

When the socialists finally realized that there were major defects within socialism, they decided to move on; they replaced the system altogether. There was no sense in mending it, adding new features, or evolving it into a capitalist socialism, liberal socialism, modern socialism, national socialism, conscious socialism, creative socialism, or what-have-you socialism. The perestroika of Gorbachev abolished socialism altogether. The alternative for the Russians at the time was capitalism. They moved to capitalism with full force.

Kapitalizmga bugungi kunda muqobil nima? Albatta, sotsializm variant emas. Sotsializm yetmish yildan ortiq sinovdan o‘tganidan keyin muvaffaqiyatsizlikka uchradi. Kitobning keyingi qismida men Islom yashashga yaroqli muqobil ekanini asoslayman. U aniq belgilangan mulkchilik tizimini taqdim etadi, bunda xususiy, davlat va jamoat mulki o‘rtasidagi aniq farq mavjud; u kambag‘allikni yo‘qotadigan, shu bilan birga unumdorlikni va boylik yaratishni oshiradigan taqsimot mexanizmini o‘z ichiga oladi; hamda u mustahkam va amaliy axloqiy model taqdim etadi.

What is the alternative to capitalism today? Of course socialism is not an option. Socialism failed after it has been tested for more than seventy years. In the next part of this book, I argue that Islam provides a viable alternative. It provides a system that integrates a well-defined property ownership with clear distinction between private, state, and public; it incorporates a wealth distribution mechanism which eliminates poverty while it boosts productivity and wealth generation, and it provides a sound and practical moral model.

Mening bu kitobdagi argumentim shundan iboratki, Islom siyosiy-iqtisodiy model haqida keng qamrovli tasavvur beradi. U har qanday iqtisodiy tizim tayanishi kerak bo'lgan asosiy tamoyillarni yoritadi. U mulkchilik tushunchasini tizimli ravishda bayon etadi; boylikning taqsimlanishini ham tizimli ravishda hal qiladi, shunda boylik faqat boylarga qarab oqmaydi.

My argument in this book is that Islam provides a comprehensive view of the politico-economic model. It addresses the basic principles upon which any economic system must stand. It systematically details the concept of property ownership; it systematic ally addresses the wealth distribution such that wealth does not flow in the direction of the rich only; .

U bu, ishlab chiqarish va iste'mol jarayonidan ochko'zlik va xudbinlikni bartaraf etishga tizimli ravishda chaqiradigan axloqiy asosni taqdim etadi.

it provides a moral foundation which systematically calls for the removal of greed and selfishness from the process of production and consumption.

Ushbu kitobda Islom modelini taqdim etishdan maqsad iqtisodiy tizimlar haqidagi muhokama va tahlilni hozirgi ikki xarakterli (kapitalizm va sotsializm) doirasidan uch xarakterli (kapitalizm, sotsializm va Islom) doiraga kengaytirishdir. Mening maqsadim o'quvchini Islom tizimining tafsilotlari bilan ishontirish emas. Asosiy maqsad esa dunyoda odamlar ishlarini tartibga solishga, moliyaviy va iqtisodiy operatsiyalarni boshqarishga hamda insonlar o'rtasidagi munosabatlarni yo'lga qo'yishga qodir yana bir tizim mavjudligini xulosa qilishdir. Bu tizim Islom tizimidir. Keyingi qismda (2-qismda) ushbu tizim tanishtirilgach, 3-qismda men musulmon bo'lmagan o'quvchini doimo qiziqtirib kelayotgan savolga javob izlayman: Islom jahon hamjamiyati uchun tahdidmi yoki foydami?

The presentation of the Islamic model in this book is meant to broaden the discussion and analysis of economic systems from the current dual character (capitalism and socialism) to a tri-character (capitalism, socialism, and Islam). My objective is not to persuade the reader with the details of the Islamic system. The main objective, however, is to conclude that yet there is one more system in the world capable of organizing the affairs of people, managing the financial and economic transactions, and conducting the relations between people. This system is the Islamic system. After introducing this system in the next part (part 2), I will then move to part 3 to address the ever-burning question to the non-Muslim reader: is Islam a threat to the world community or a benefit?