Sotsialistik iqtisodiy tizim, unning tarkibiga kiruvchi Kommunizm bilan birga, kapitalizmga zid turadi. Sotsialistik g'oyalarning ko'pchiligi XIX asrda paydo bo'ldi. Sotsialistlar liberal maktabning qarashlariga, ya'ni kapitalistik iqtisodiy tizimga qarshi qattiq kurashdilar. Sotsializmning kuchli yuzaga kelishi jamiyatning kapitalizm ostida ko'rgan zulmi hamda uning ko'plab noto'g'ri va yetarsiz tomonlari tufayli bo'ldi. Sotsialistik fikr maktablarini ko'rib chiqsak, ular boshqa iqtisodiy maktablardan ajratib turadigan uch masalada bir-biri bilan kelishishini ko'ramiz.

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. Ma'lum bir turdagi haqiqiy tenglikka erishish.

1. Achievement of a type of actual equality.

2. Xususiy mulkchilikni to‘liq yoki qisman bekor qilish.

2. Abolition of private property either completely or partially.

3. Mahsulot va xizmatlarni ishlab chiqarish va taqsimlashning barcha xalq vositasida tashkil etilishi.

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

Ammo, ushbu uch masalada ularning kelishuviga qaramay, ular ko'plab masalalarda jiddiy farqlarga ega bo'lib, ulardan eng muhimlari quyidagilardir:

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

Birinchidan: Sotsialistik oqimlar erishmoqchi bo'lgan oxirgi tenglik shakli bo'yicha bir-biridan farq qiladi. Bir guruh arifmetik tenglikni ma'qullaydi, ya'ni foydali bo'lgan har bir narsada tenglik, shunga ko'ra har bir kishiga bir xil miqdor beriladi. Yana bir guruh umumiy tenglikni taklif qiladi, ya'ni ishni taqsimlashda har bir kishining qobiliyatini hisobga olish va mahsulotlarni taqsimlashda har bir shaxsning ehtiyojiga qarash. Ularning nazarida tenglik quyidagi tamoyil qo'llanganda qaror topadi: “Har kimdan o'z kuchi, ya'ni qobiliyati bo'yicha (bununla u bajargan ish nazarda tutiladi), har kimga esa ehtiyoji bo'yicha (bununla ishlab chiqarishni taqsimlash nazarda tutiladi).” Uchinchi guruh ishlab chiqarish vositalarida tenglikni qabul qiladi, chunki resurslar barcha shaxslarning ehtiyojlarini qondirish uchun yetarli emas, shu sababli taqsimot asosi quyidagicha bo'ladi: “Har kimdan o'z kuchi, ya'ni qobiliyati bo'yicha, har kimga esa o'z mehnati bo'yicha.” Shunday qilib, har bir kishi boshqalar bilan bir xil darajada ishlab chiqarish vositalaridan foydalanish imkoniyatiga ega bo'lganda tenglik erishiladi.

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.

Ikkinchidan: Sotsialistik oqimlar xususiy mulkning qanchasini bekor qilish kerakligi bo'yicha bir-biridan farq qiladi. Bir guruh xususiy mulkni butunlay bekor qilishni qabul qiladi, bu Kommunizmdir. Yana bir guruh ishlab chiqarish vositalariga oid xususiy mulkni bekor qilishni taklif qiladi, ular kapital deb ataladi, ya'ni zavodlar, temir yo'llar, konlar va shunga o'xshashlar. Shunday qilib, ular ishlab chiqarishda foydalaniladigan har qanday mahsulotga egalik qilishni taqiqlaydi. Demak, kishi ijaraga berish maqsadida uy, zavod yoki yer uchastkasiga egalik qila olmaydi, ammo ular iste'mol qilish maqsadida ma'lum turdagi mulkka ega bo'lishi mumkin. Ular iste'mol qiladigan hamma narsaga egalik qilish ularga ruxsat etilgan: masalan, yashash uchun uyga, yer va zavodlar ishlab chiqargan narsalarga egalik qilishlari mumkin, ammo yerning yoki zavodning o'zига emas. Bu Kapital Sotsializmi deb ataladi. Yana bir guruh qishloq xo'jaligi yeriga oid mulkdan tashqari xususiy mulkni bekor qilishni targ'ib qilmaydi; bular Agrar sotsialistlar (Agrar islohotchilar)dir. Yana bir guruh esa jamoat manfaati xususiy mulkni jamoat mulkiga aylantirishni talab qilgan har bir holatni o'rganish kerakligini aytadi. Ular foiz va ijara uchun eng yuqori chegara, ish haqi uchun eng past chegara qo'yuvchi qonunlar orqali xususiy mulkka ko'p sohalarda cheklangan egalik qilishga chaqiradi va ishchilarga kapitalda ulush berishga intiladi. Bu Davlat Sotsializmi deb ataladi.

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.

Uchinchidan: Sotsialistik maktablar o'zlarining maqsadlarini amalga oshirish uchun qo'llaydigan vositalar jihatidan bir-biridan farq qiladi. Shunday qilib, inqilobiy sotsializm (inqilobiy sindikalizm) ishchi kuchini o'zi "bevosita harakat" deb ataydigan yo'l bilan, ya'ni ishchi kuchining o'z sa'y-harakatlari bilan ozod etishga tayanadi: buzg'unchi ish tashlashlar, mashinalarni sabotaj qilish va ishchilar orasida umumiy ish tashlash g'oyasini targ'ib qilish kabi usullar bilan. Ular ishchilarni shu g'oya atrofida safarbar qilish ustida ishlaydilar, to umumiy ish tashlashni amalga oshirish imkoniyati tug'ilguncha; shunda iqtisodiy faoliyat falajlanadi va oxir-oqibat hozirgi iqtisodiy tizim barbod bo'ladi. Marksistik sotsialistlarga kelsak, ular jamiyatda tabiiy evolyutsiya qonuniga ishonadilar va faqat shu narsa hozirgi tizimni yo'q qilish uchun yetarli, deb hisoblaydilar; shundan so'ng u sotsializmga asoslangan boshqa tizim bilan almashtiriladi.

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.

Davlat (hukumat) sotsializmi tarafdorlarining o‘z g‘oyalarini amalga oshirish vositasi qonun chiqarishdir. Shu tariqa, qonunlar chiqarish orqali ular jamoat manfaatlarini saqlashni va mehnat kuchining ahvolini yaxshilashni ta’minlashni maqsad qilishadi. Bundan tashqari, soliqlar, xususan kapital va meros ustidan bosqichma-bosqich joriy etiladigan soliqlar orqali ular xususiy mulklar o‘rtasidagi tafovutni bartaraf etishni taklif qilishadi.

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.

To'rtinchidan: Sotsialistik fikr maktablari sotsialistik tizimda loyihalarni boshqarish uchun zarur bo'lgan tuzilma borasida bir-biridan farq qiladi. Masalan, kapital sotsialistlar ishlab chiqarish va taqsimotni tashkil etishni davlatga (Davlat) topshirishni xohlaydilar, sindikalistlar esa boshqaruvni o'z rahbarlari boshchiligidagi uyushgan mehnat guruhlariga berishni xohlaydilar (Gildiya sotsializmi).

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).

Sotsialistik nazariyalar ichida eng mashhur va ta'sirli bo'lganlari nemis Karl Marksning nazariyalaridir. Uning nazariyalari sotsialistik dunyoda hukmronlik qildi va ularga asoslanib Rossiyada Kommunistik partiya hamda Sovet Sotsialistik Respublikalari Ittifoqi (SSSR) tashkil etildi. Uning nazariyalari bugungi kungacha katta ta'sirini davom ettirmoqda.

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.

Karl Marxning eng mashhur nazariyalaridan biri qiymat nazariyasi bo'lib, uni u kapitalizm mutafakkirlaridan olgan va aynan shu nazariya asosida kapitalizmga hujum qilgan. Angliyadagi Liberal maktabning yetakchisi hisoblanadigan va siyosiy iqtisodning, ya'ni kapitalistik iqtisodiy tizimning asoschisi deb qaraladigan Adam Smit qiymatni shunday ta'riflagan: «Har qanday tovarning qiymati uni ishlab chiqarishga sarflangan mehnatning miqdoriga (hajmiga) bog'liq.» Shunga ko'ra, ishlab chiqarilishi ikki soat talab qiladigan tovarning qiymati, ishlab chiqarilishi atigi bir soat talab qiladigan tovar qiymatidan ikki baravar ko'pdir. Adam Smitdan keyin kelgan Rikardo o'zining mehnat nazariyasini bayon qilar ekan, qiymatni shunday ta'riflagan: «Tovar qiymatini belgilovchi narsa faqat uni ishlab chiqarishga to'g'ridan-to'g'ri sarflangan mehnat miqdori emas, balki ishlab chiqarish jarayonida foydalaniladigan asboblar va mashinalarni o'tmishda tayyorlashga sarflangan mehnat ham shunga kiradi.» Bu shuni anglatadiki, Rikardo tovar qiymati ishlab chiqarish jarayonida qilingan xarajatlarga bog'liq deb hisoblagan. U bu xarajatlarni bitta elementga, ya'ni mehnatga bog'lagan.

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.

Shundan so'ng, Karl Marks Rikardoning qiymat nazariyasini "Kapital" asarida xususiy mulkka va butun kapitalizmga qarshi qurol sifatida ishlatdi. U qiymatning yagona manbai ayrim tovarni ishlab chiqarishga sarflangan mehnat ekanligini aytdi. Kapitalist moliyachi esa ishchining mehnat kuchini uni tirik va ishlashda davom eta oladigan holatda saqlash uchun zarur bo'lgan chegaradan oshmaydigan ish haqi evaziga sotib oladi. Shundan so'ng moliyachi ishchini shunday tovarlarni ishlab chiqarishga majbur qilib, uning kuchidan foydalanadi, bu tovarlarning qiymati ishchiga to'lanadigan miqdordan ancha ortiq bo'ladi. Karl Marks ishchi ishlab chiqargan narsa bilan unga haqiqatda to'lanayotgan narsa o'rtasidagi farqni "artiqcha qiymat" deb atadi. U bu qiymat yer egalari va tadbirkorlar daromad, foyda yoki kapitalga qaytim nomi ostida ishchining huquqlaridan o'zlashtirgan narsani ifodalaydi, deb aniqladi, bu esa u tomonidan to'g'ri deb tan olinmagan masala edi.

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 fikriga ko'ra, undan oldingi sotsialistik maktablar o'z g'oyalarining muvaffaqiyati insonning tabiatiga, ya'ni uning adolatga bo'lgan muhabbatiga va mazlumlarni qo'llab-quvvatlashiga bog'liq deb tasavvur qilgan. Bu maktablar o'zlari ishongan yangi usullarni jamiyatda qo'llash uchun qabul qilar edilar va bu g'oyalarini hukmdorlarga, tadbirkorlarga hamda ma'rifatli kishilarga taqdim etib, ularni o'z g'oyalarini amalga oshirishga chaqirar edilar. Biroq Karl Marx o'z maktabini bu g'oyaga asoslamadi va bu yo'ldan bormadi. U o'z fikriy maktabini Tarixiy evolyutsiya nazariyasi, ya'ni Dialektik nazariya deb ataluvchi falsafiy ta'limotga asoslab qurdi. U jamiyatda yangi tizimning qaror topishini iqtisodiy qonunlarning funksional ishlashi va jamiyatdagi evolyutsiya qonuni natijasida tasavvur qildi, bunda na boshqaruvchining, na qonun chiqaruvchining va na islohotchining aralashuvi bo'lmaydi. Karl Marx bu turdagi sotsializmni undan oldingi, "utopik sotsializm" deb atalgan sotsialistik usullardan farqlash uchun "ilmiy sotsializm" deb atadi. Karl Marxning sotsialistik nazariyasi quyidagicha xulosalanadi:

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:

Har bir davrdagi jamiyat tizimi iqtisodiy vaziyatning natijasidir. Bu tizimga ta'sir qiluvchi o'zgarishlarning barchasi o'z moddiy ahvolini yaxshilash uchun olib borilgan sinfiy kurashning natijasida yuz beradi. Tarix shuni ko'rsatadiki, bu kurash soni ko'proq va ahvoli yomonroq bo'lgan sinfning, soni kam bo'lgan boyroq sinf ustidan g'alabasi bilan yakunlanadi. U buni ijtimoiy taraqqiyot qonuni deb atadi. Bu qonun o'tmishga qanchalik tegishli bo'lsa, kelajakka ham shunchalik tegishlidir. Shunday qilib, avvalgi davrlarda bu kurash erkin odamlar va qullar o'rtasida, so'ngra zodagonlar va raiyatlar o'rtasida, keyinroq esa zodagonlar va serflar (dehqonlar) o'rtasida, mazhablar tartibida esa yetakchilar va boshliqlar o'rtasida mavjud bo'lgan. Bu kurash har doim soni ko'p bo'lgan ezilgan sinfning, soni kam bo'lgan zolim sinf ustidan g'alabasi bilan tugagan. Ammo g'alabadan keyin ezilgan sinf o'zi konservativ zolim sinfga aylanib qolgan. Frantsuz inqilobidan beri bu kurash o'rta sinf (burjua) va ishchi sinf o'rtasida davom etmoqda. Birinchi sinf iqtisodiy loyihalarning egalari, kapital egalari bo'lib, konservativ bo'lib qoldi. Unga qarshi esa kapitalga hech narsaga ega bo'lmagan, ammo soni ancha ko'p bo'lgan ishchi sinf turardi. Natijada bu vaziyat ikki sinf o'rtasida manfaatlar to'qnashuviga olib keldi, uning asosi iqtisodiy sabablarga borib taqaladi. Bugungi ishlab chiqarish uslubi mulkchilik tizimiga mos kelmaydi. Ishlab chiqarish o'tmish davrlardagidek yakka tartibdagi, ya'ni faqat bir shaxs tomonidan amalga oshiriladigan shaklda qolmadi, balki birgalikdagi, ya'ni shaxslar tomonidan birgalikda olib boriladigan shaklga aylandi. Shu bilan birga, mulkchilik tizimi o'zgarmadi. Shunday qilib, yakka tartibdagi mulkchilik davom etmoqda va hozirgi jamiyatda tizimning asosi bo'lib qolmoqda. Natijada, ishlab chiqarishda qatnashadigan ishchi sinf kapital egaligida ulushga ega bo‘lmaydi va ishlab chiqarishda o‘zi bevosita qatnashmaydigan kapitalistlarning (kapital egalarining) rahmi ostida qoladi. Kapitalistlar mehnat kuchini ekspluatatsiya qiladi, unga faqat yashash uchun zarur bo‘lgan ish haqini to‘laydi, ishchilar esa o‘z kunlarini o‘tkazish uchun mehnatdan boshqa hech narsaga ega bo‘lmagani sababli bunga rozi bo‘lishga majbur bo‘ladilar. Marks ortiqcha qiymat deb ataydigan mahsulot qiymati bilan mehnat haqi o‘rtasidagi farq kapitalist o‘zlashtiradigan foydani tashkil etadi, holbuki adolat bu farqning ishchilarning ulushi bo‘lishini talab qiladi.

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.

Shunday qilib, bu ikki sinf o‘rtasidagi kurash mulkchilik tizimi ishlab chiqarish tizimiga mos kelguncha, ya’ni mulkchilik sotsialistik yoki jamoaviy bo‘lguncha davom etadi. Bu kurash ishchi sinfining g‘alabasi bilan yakunlanadi, chunki u jamiyatdagi evolyutsiya qonuniga ko‘ra ezilgan sinf hisoblanadi va soni jihatidan ko‘pchilikni tashkil etadi.

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.

Ishchi sinfning muvaffaqiyatga erishish usuli va bu muvaffaqiyatning sabablari haqida gap ketganda, bu jamiyatdagi evolyutsiya qonuniga asoslanadi. Hozirgi iqtisodiy hayot tizimi o'zida kelajakdagi jamiyatning urug'larini saqlaydi va bu tizim o'ziga bo'ysundirilgan iqtisodiy qonunlarning ta'siri natijasida yo'qoladi. Bir vaqtlar o'rta sinf zodagonlarni yengib, iqtisodiy hayotda muhim rol o'ynagan, chunki u kapitalning egasi bo'lib qolgan edi. Biroq, bu fikrga ko'ra, uning roli tugagan va u o'z o'rnini ishchi sinfga berish vaqti kelgan. Buni unga majbur qiladigan narsa – konsentratsiya qonuni va erkin raqobat jarayonidir. Konsentratsiya qonunining ta'sirida kapitalistlar (kapital egalari) soni kamayadi, ishchi sinf soni esa ortadi. Erkin raqobatning ta'sirida ishlab chiqarish har qanday chegaradan oshib ketadi va ishlab chiqarilgan mahsulot miqdori ishchi sinf iste'molchilarining past ish haqi bilan sotib olishi mumkin bo'lganidan ortiq bo'ladi. Bu esa inqirozga olib keladi, natijada ayrim egalar kapitalidan mahrum bo'lib, mehnat bozoriga kiradi. Tizim rivojlanishi bilan inqirozlarning kuchi ortadi, ularning yuzaga kelish oralig'i qisqaradi va kapitalistlar soni asta-sekin kamayadi. Shunda oldingi barcha inqirozlardan kuchliroq bir inqiroz yuz beradi, u shunchalik katta ko'lamda bo'ladiki, kapitalistik iqtisodiy tizimning ustunlarini yemiradi va uning xarobalari ustida sotsializm tizimi o'rnatiladi. Marks kommunizmning paydo bo'lishini tarixiy evolyutsiyaning so'nggi bosqichi deb hisoblagan, chunki u xususiy mulkni yo'q qiladi va shu tariqa sinflar o'rtasidagi farqlar yo'qolgani uchun jamiyatda sinflar kurashi uchun boshqa sabab qolmaydi.

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 ko‘rsatib berdiki, konsentratsiya qonuni kapitalistik iqtisodiyotning bir qismidir. Qisqacha aytganda, ish kuchi va kapitalning ayrim loyihalardan boshqalariga ko‘chishi sodir bo‘ladi, shuning uchun ba’zilari o‘sadi, boshqalari esa kamayadi. Bularning barchasi ishlab chiqarishda konsentratsiyaning yuz berishini ko‘rsatadigan holatlardir. Agar ishlab chiqarishning bir tarmog‘idagi, masalan, shokolad fabrikalaridagi loyihalar sonini tekshirilsa, loyihalar soni vaqt o‘tishi bilan asta-sekin kamayib borganini, lekin har bir loyihadagi ishlab chiqarish ishchilarining o‘rtacha soni esa ortganini ko‘rish mumkin bo‘ladi. Bu tarmoqda konsentratsiya yuz berganining dalilidir, chunki kattaroq hajmdagi ishlab chiqarish kichikroq ishlab chiqarishni almashtiradi. Shunday qilib, agar fabrikalar soni, masalan, o‘nta bo‘lsa, vaqt o‘tishi bilan ular to‘rtta yoki beshta yirik fabrikaga aylanadi, qolganlari esa yo‘qoladi.

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.

Marksning erkin raqobat haqidagi ta’rifi mehnat erkinligi tamoyilini anglatardi, ya’ni har bir inson o‘zi xohlagan narsani o‘zi xohlagan usulda ishlab chiqarish huquqiga ega.

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.

Marksning fikricha, iqtisodiy inqirozlar iqtisodiy muvozanatga ta'sir qiladigan har qanday keskin buzilishni qamrab oladi. Xususiy inqiroz ishlab chiqarishning muayyan tarmog'iga yuz beradigan barcha turdagi inqirozlarni o'z ichiga oladi, bu ishlab chiqarish va iste'mol o'rtasidagi nomutanosiblik tufayli yuzaga keladi. Bu hodisa ortiqcha ishlab chiqarish yoki kam ishlab chiqarish, yoki ortiqcha iste'mol yoki kam iste'mol tufayli sodir bo'ladi.

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.

Takrorlanuvchi (davriy) yirik inqiroz esa iqtisodiy tizimning ustunlarini silkitadigan keskin larzalar shaklida namoyon bo'ladi va iqtisodiy yuksalish davri bilan iqtisodiy tanazzul davrini ajratuvchi chegaraga aylanadi. Yuksalish davrlari uch yildan besh yilgacha davom etadi, tanazzul davrlari ham shunday. Takrorlanuvchi, yirik inqirozlarning o'ziga xos xususiyatlari bor, ular uchta asosiy sifatga kiradi: Birinchidan, umumiylik sifati. Bu shuni anglatadiki, bir mamlakatda inqiroz iqtisodiy farovonlikning barcha jabhalariga, yoki kamida ko'pchiligiga ta'sir qiladi. Bu umumiy inqiroz avval hukmronlik qilgan bir mamlakatda paydo bo'ladi, so'ngra doimiy aloqalar bilan bog'langan boshqa yetakchi sanoat mamlakatlariga tarqaladi. Ikkinchidan, takrorlanuvchanlik sifati. Bu inqirozning takroriy va davriy tarzda yuz berishini anglatadi. Bir inqiroz bilan keyingisi orasidagi davr yetti yildan o'n bir yilgacha o'zgarib turadi. Takrorlanuvchi bo'lsa-da, uning yuz berishi belgilangan vaqtga bog'liq emas. Uchinchidan, ortiqcha ishlab chiqarish sifati. Bunda yirik loyihalar egalari o'z mahsulotlarini sotishda katta qiyinchilikka duch keladi, shu sababli ko'plab mahsulotlar bo'yicha taklif talabdan oshib ketadi va bu inqirozga olib keladi.

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 hisoblagan, bu yirik inqirozlar ba'zi odamlarni kapitalidan mahrum qiladi, shu sababli egalarning soni kamayadi va ishchilarning soni ortadi. Aynan shu hodisalar oxir-oqibat jamiyatdagi eski tizimni yo'q qiladigan yirik inqirozga olib keladi.

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.

Ushbu xulosadan ko'rinishicha, sotsializm, shu jumladan uning bir shakli sifatida kommunizmni o'z ichiga olgan sotsialistik oqimlar individlar o'rtasida haqiqiy tenglikka erishishga intiladi: foyda tengligi, ishlab chiqarish vositalari tengligi yoki mutlaq tenglik. Bunday har qanday tenglikka erishish mumkin emas, u faqat gipotetik taxmindir. U amalga oshmaydi va shuning uchun imkonsizdir. Sababi, tenglikning o'zi haqiqatda mavjud emas va shuning uchun amalga oshmaydi. Odamlar yaratilgan tabiatlariga ko'ra jismoniy va aqliy qobiliyatlarida farq qiladilar hamda ehtiyojlarini qondirishda ham turlicha bo'ladilar. Shuning uchun ular o'rtasida tenglikka erishib bo'lmaydi. Hatto mollar va xizmatlarning teng ulushlarini odamlar o'rtasida zo'rlik bilan taqsimlab chiqilganda ham, bu boylikdan ishlab chiqarishda yoki foydalanishda ular teng darajada foydalana olmasliklari aniq. Shuningdek, o'z ehtiyojlarini qondirish uchun kerak bo'ladigan miqdor jihatidan ham ular teng bo'la olmaydilar. Demak, ular o'rtasidagi tenglik spekulyativ va gipotetik masaladir.

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.

Bundan tashqari, kuch-qudrati turlicha bo'lgan odamlar o'rtasidagi tenglikning o'zi sotsialistlar erishishga intilayman deb da'vo qiladigan adolatdan ancha uzoqdir. Odamlar o'rtasidagi mulk egaligi va ishlab chiqarish vositalaridagi tafovut muqarrar va juda tabiiydir. Tenglikka erishishga qaratilgan har bir urinish muvaffaqiyatsizlikka mahkumdir, chunki u odamzot o'rtasida mavjud bo'lgan tabiiy tafovutga zid keladi.

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.

Xususiy mulkni butunlay bekor qilish inson tabiatiga zid keladi, chunki mulkdorlik omon qolish instinktining namoyonidir, bu instinkt insonda albatta mavjud. U insonda tabiiy, uning bir qismi va tabiiy kuchining namoyoni bo'lgani uchun, instinktiv bo'lgani sababli uni yo'qotib bo'lmaydi. Insonda instinktiv bo'lgan har qanday narsani, u tirik ekan, undan yo'qotib bo'lmaydi. Xususiy mulkni bekor qilishga qilingan har qanday urinish insonning tabiiy instinktlarini bostirishdan boshqa narsa emas va faqat tashvishga olib kelishi mumkin. Shuning uchun bu instinktni yo'q qilishga urinishdan ko'ra, uni tartibga solish tabiiyroqdir.

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.

Mulkchilikning qisman bekor qilinishiga kelsak, bu masala o‘rganilishi lozim. Agar bu bilan mol-mulkning miqdoriga yuqori chegara qo‘yish nazarda tutilsa, bu miqdor jihatidan cheklash bo‘ladi, bu esa noto‘g‘ri, chunki u insonning faoliyatini cheklaydi, uning sa’y-harakatlariga to‘siq bo‘ladi va ishlab chiqarishini kamaytiradi. Odamlarni ma’lum darajadan ortig‘iga egalik qilishdan man etish, amalda ularni shu chegarada to‘xtatib qo‘yadi, shaxslarni faoliyatidan uzoqlashtiradi va shu tariqa jamiyatni bu shaxslarning faoliyatidan foydalanish imkoniyatidan mahrum qiladi.

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.

Ammo, agar tovarlar va xizmatlarga egalik qilish ma'lum bir usul bilan cheklangan bo'lsa, lekin egalik qilinadigan miqdor cheklanmagan bo'lsa, bu maqbul hisoblanadi, chunki u insonning faoliyatiga to'sqinlik qilmaydi. Bu yondashuv mulkka egalik qilishni shaxslar o'rtasida tartibga soladi va ularni ko'proq mehnat qilishga hamda faoliyatni oshirishga undaydi.

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.

Agar xususiy mulkchilikning qisman bekor qilinishi shaxsning ayrim mol-mulkka egalik qilishdan man etilishini anglatsa, boshqa mol-mulkka esa miqdor cheklovisiz egalik qilish mumkin bo'lsa, bu masala tekshirilishi kerak. Agar bunday mol-mulkning foydali xususiyatidan jamoat uni tortib olinmasa, faqat shaxsning o'zi foydalana olmasa, u holda shaxsni o'sha mol-mulkka yakka tartibda egalik qilishdan man etish tabiiydir; masalan, ommaviy yo'llar, shahar maydonlari, daryolar, dengizlar va shunga o'xshashlar. Cheklov mol-mulkning tabiati bilan belgilanadi. Demak, jamoaviy foyda keltiradigan bunday mol-mulkka xususiy egalikni taqiqlashda hech qanday noto'g'rilik yo'q, chunki bu egalik mol-mulkning o'zi tabiati bilan belgilangan.

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.

Agar mulkning tabiati shaxsiy mulkchilikni taqiqlashni talab qilmasa, shunga qaramay qo'shimcha tahlil o'tkazilishi kerak; agar mulk birinchi turga, ya'ni shaxsiy mulkka aylanishi jamiyatni undan mahrum qiladigan mulklarga, masalan suv va ma'dan boyliklariga kiritilishi mumkin bo'lsa, unda ularning shaxsiy mulkligini taqiqlashda hech qanday noto'g'rilik yo'q. Bu turdagi mulkni birinchi turga kiritadigan masala shundaki, o'z tabiatiga ko'ra, agar u shaxsiy tarzda egalik qilinsa, jamiyatni undan mahrum qilar edi. Biroq, agar mulkka egalik qilish jamiyatni undan mahrum qilmasa, uning mulkchiligiga hech qanday cheklov qo'yilmasligi kerak. Aks holda, mulkchilikni asossiz ravishda cheklash bo'lar edi. Bu miqdor bo'yicha mulkchilikni cheklashga o'xshaydi, bu esa faqat insonning faoliyatini cheklaydi, uning mehnatini to'xtatadi, ishlab chiqarishini kamaytiradi va u belgilangan mulk chegarasiga yetganda uni ishlashdan to'xtatadi.

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.

Sotsializmda mulkchilikning qisman bekor qilinishi mulkchilik usullari va vositalari bo‘yicha emas, balki miqdori bo‘yicha cheklashdir. U o‘z tabiati va kelib chiqishi tabiatiga ko‘ra shaxsiy mulk bo‘lishi kerak bo‘lgan ayrim mulklarga egalik qilishni taqiqlaydi. Sotsializm yo mulkchilikni hajm jihatidan cheklaydi, masalan, yerga egalikni ma’lum maydon bilan chegaralaydi, yoki ayrim mulklarga, masalan, ishlab chiqarish vositalariga egalikni cheklaydi. Bu turdagi mulklarning ko‘pchiligi o‘z tabiatiga ko‘ra shaxslar tomonidan egalik qilinishi mumkin. Bunday mulkka nisbatan egalik cheklovlari faoliyatni cheklaydi — bu cheklov qonun bilan oldindan belgilangan bo‘ladimi, masalan, meros olishni, konlar, temir yo‘llar yoki zavodlarga egalik qilishni taqiqlash bo‘ladimi, yoki davlatga ommaviy manfaat talab qilgan har bir holatda alohida hal qilish huquqi berilib, mulkka egalik qilishni taqiqlash bo‘ladimi, farqi yo‘q. Bularning barchasi shaxslar faoliyatining cheklanishidir, chunki bu mulklar o‘z tabiatiga ko‘ra shaxslar tomonidan egalik qilinishi mumkin.

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.

Ishlab chiqarish va taqsimotni odamlar orqali tashkil etish, odamlar orasida g‘alayon va tashvish qo‘zg‘atish yoki ular o‘rtasida nafrat uyg‘otish orqali amalga oshirilishi mumkin emas (va amalga oshirilmasligi kerak). Bunday yo‘l tartibga emas, balki anarxiyaga olib keladi. Bundan tashqari, jamiyatda ishlab chiqarishni tashkil etish ishchi sinfni biznesmenlarning zulmini his qildirish orqali tabiiy ravishda amalga oshishi mumkin emas, chunki biznesmenlar ishchi kuchining ehtiyojlarini qondirish uchun yetarlicha aqlli va topqir bo‘lishi mumkin, xuddi Qo‘shma Shtatlardagi zavod ishchilari holatida bo‘lganidek. Shunday ekan, ishchi sinf o‘z mehnatining mevalari ekspluatatsiya qilinayotganini his qilmaydi. Shu tariqa ishlab chiqarish va taqsimotni yaxshiroq tashkil etadigan taraqqiyot yuz bermaydi. Bu tashkilot to‘g‘ri qonunlar va muammolarning haqiqiy mohiyatini hisobga oladigan aniq asosga qurilgan yechimlar orqali kelishi kerak. Sotsializm ishlab chiqarish va taqsimotni tashkil etishga tayanadi: yo ishchi sinf o‘rtasida keskinlik va g‘alayon qo‘zg‘atish orqali, yo jamiyatdagi tabiiy evolyutsiya qonuni orqali, yo aniq asos yoki e’tiqoddan kelib chiqmagan, insonlar tomonidan yaratilgan (Wadh’iya) qonunchilik va qoidalar orqali. Shuning uchun bu tashkilot o‘z asosidan noto‘g‘ridir.

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.

Bu sotsializmning xatolarini bayon qiladi. Xususan Karl Marksning sotsializmiga nisbatan uning xatosi uch jihatda namoyon bo‘ladi:

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

Birinchidan: Uning qiymat nazariyasi bo'yicha fikri xato bo'lib, haqiqatga zid. Tovar qiymatining yagona manbai uni ishlab chiqarishga sarflangan mehnat, degan fikr haqiqatga zid, chunki sarflangan mehnat tovar qiymatining manbalaridan biri, lekin yagona manbai emas. Mehnatdan tashqari, tovar qiymatiga kiradigan boshqa unsurlar ham bor. Bular – mehnat qilinadigan xom ashyo yoki tovarning foydasiga bo'lgan talab. Xom ashyo o'zi tovar qiymatini oshiradigan foydaga ega bo'lishi mumkin, uni olishga sarflangan mehnatdan ham ko'p foyda bo'lishi mumkin, masalan ovchilikda. Tovar foydasiga bozorda talab bo'lmasligi, hatto u eksport qilishga taqiqlangan bo'lishi mumkin, masalan musulmonlar uchun sharob. Shuning uchun mehnatni qiymatning yagona manbai deb hisoblash noto'g'ri bo'lib, tovarning haqiqiy holatiga mos kelmaydi.

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.

Ikkinchidan: Uning fikricha, har bir davrda mavjud bo‘lgan ijtimoiy tuzum iqtisodiy vaziyatning mahsulidir va bu tizimga yuz beradigan turli o‘zgarishlarning barchasi bitta sababga, ya’ni sinflarning moddiy ahvolini yaxshilash maqsadidagi kurashiga bog‘liqdir. Bu fikr xato, asossiz bo‘lib, shubhali va farazga asoslangan taxminga qurilgan. Uning xatosi va voqelikka zid ekanligining sababi tarixiy voqealar va hozirgi vaziyatdan ayon bo‘ladi. Biz ko‘ramizki, Rossiyaning sotsializmga aylanishi moddiy evolyutsiya natijasida ham, tizim o‘zgarishiga olib kelgan sinfiy kurash natijasida ham yuz bermagan. Aksincha, bir guruh qonli inqilob orqali hokimiyatni egallab, o‘z g‘oyalarini xalqqa tatbiq etishga kirishdi va tizimni o‘zgartirdi. Xuddi shunday, sotsialistik Xitoyda ham yuz berdi. Sharqiy Germaniyada va G‘arbiy Germaniyada emas, balki Sharqiy Yevropada va G‘arbiy Yevropada emas, sotsialistik sotsializmning joriy etilishi biror sinfiy kurash natijasida yuz bermadi. Aksincha, bu mamlakatlar sotsialistik davlat tomonidan bosib olinib, o‘z tizimini bosib olingan xalqlarga majburan joriy etgan orqali sodir bo‘ldi. Kapitalistik davlatlar, Islom davlati va boshqa har qanday tizim bilan ham shunday bo‘ldi. Bundan tashqari, bu qonun sinfiy kurash orqali tizimini o‘zgartiradi deb bashorat qilgan mamlakatlar, ya’ni Germaniya, Angliya va Amerika Qo‘shma Shtatlari, barchasi kapital egalari va ishchilar ko‘p bo‘lgan kapitalistik davlatlardir. Ular chor Rossiyasi yoki Xitoy emas edi, ular sanoat emas, balki qishloq xo‘jaligi mamlakatlari bo‘lib, bu yerda kapital egalari va ishchilar soni G‘arbga nisbatan ancha kam edi. G‘arbiy Yevropa va Amerika Qo‘shma Shtatlarida bu ikki sinfning ko‘pligiga qaramay, ular sotsializmga aylanmadi va bugungi kungacha hammasi kapitalizmni qo‘llab kelmoqda. Bu ikki sinfning (ya’ni kapital egalari va ishchilarning) mavjudligi ularning tizimiga hech qanday ta’sir ko‘rsatmadi. Shu o'zi bilan bu nazariyani uning asosidan rad etish uchun yetarli.

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.

Uchinchi xato Karl Marksning nazariyasida ijtimoiy taraqqiyot qonuni haqidagi fikrida namoyon bo'ladi. U iqtisodiy hayot tizimi o'zini boshqaradigan iqtisodiy qonunlar ta'sirida yo'q bo'lib ketishga mahkum ekanini aytgan, shuningdek, zodagonlar sinfi, ya'ni kapital egalari ustidan g'alaba qozongan o'rta sinf, konsentratsiya qonuni tufayli oxir-oqibat o'z o'rnini mehnat sinfiga bo'shatib berishi kerakligini ta'kidlagan. Marksning ishlab chiqarishning konsentratsiyasi haqidagi nazariyasi, unga ko'ra ishchilar sonining ortishi va kapital egalari sonining kamayishi asoslanadi, noto'g'ri. Bu nazariya noto'g'ri, chunki ishlab chiqarish konsentratsiyasi o'tib keta olmaydigan chegara mavjud. U ma'lum bir chegaraga yetib to'xtaydi va shu tariqa Marks tasavvur qilgan taraqqiyotda endi katalizator bo'lmaydi. Bundan tashqari, ishlab chiqarishning asosiy tarmoqlaridan biri, ya'ni qishloq xo'jaligida ishlab chiqarish konsentratsiyasi umuman mavjud emas. Unday bo'lsa, jamiyatda taraqqiyot qonuni qanday ro'y berishi mumkin? Bundan tashqari, Karl Marks ishlab chiqarish konsentratsiyasi boylik (resurslar) konsentratsiyasiga olib keladi, bu esa moliyachilar sonining kamayishiga va hech narsaga ega bo'lmagan ishchilar sonining ortishiga olib keladi, deb ta'kidlaydi. Bu qarash xato, chunki ishlab chiqarish konsentratsiyasi kapital egalari sonining ortishiga olib kelishi mumkin va ishchilar sinfi kapital egalariga aylanishi mumkin. Yirik korporatsiyalar tomonidan amalga oshiriladigan yirik loyihalarda odatda ishchilar sinfidan bo'lgan aksiyadorlar bo'ladi, bu esa ushbu nazariyani rad etuvchi misoldir. Bundan tashqari, zavodlardagi ishchilarning ko'pchiligi, masalan, muhandislar, kimyogarlar va menejerlar yuqori maosh oladi, shu sababli ular maoshlarining katta qismini jamg'arishi va mustaqil loyihalar tashkil etmasdan turib o'zlari investorga aylanishi mumkin. Demak, Karl Marks ishchilar va taraqqiyot haqida ilgari surgan fikrlar ularga nisbatan qo'llanilmaydi.

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.

Bu kapitalistik va sotsialistik iqtisodiy tizimlar, shuningdek ulardan kelib chiqqan kommunistik tizim asoslangan tamoyillarning qisqacha tahlilidir. Ushbu tahlildan bu tamoyillarda mavjud bo‘lgan xatolar ravshan bo‘ladi. Bir tomondan shu; ikkinchi tomondan, ikkala tizim ham muammolarni hal qilishdagi islomiy usulga zid bo‘lib, islomning o‘ziga ham ziddir.

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.

Islomning muammolarni hal qilish usuliga ularning ziddiyati haqida shuni aytish mumkinki, iqtisodiy muammoni hal qilishda Islom usuli Islomning insoniyat muammolarining boshqa har qanday turini hal qilishda qo'llaydigan usulning o'zidir. Islomning umumiy yondashuvi iqtisodiy muammoning haqiqatini o'rganish, uni tushunish va shundan so'ng, ushbu matnlarni o'rganib, ular aynan shu muammoga tegishli ekanligiga ishonch hosil qilgan holda, muammoning yechimini Shariat matnlaridan chiqarib olishdir. Bu Kapitalistik va Sotsialistik usuldan farq qiladi. Kapitalizmda muammolardan kelib chiqqan vaziyat yechimlar uchun manba sifatida ishlatiladi (pragmatizm). Sotsializmda esa yechimlar muammoda mavjud deb taxmin qilinadigan gipotetik farazlardan olinadi va yechimlar shu farazlarga muvofiq qo'yiladi. Bu ikki usulning har biri Islom usulidan farq qiladi, shuning uchun musulmonga ularni qabul qilish joiz emas.

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.

Kapitalistik va Sotsialistik, undan kelib chiqqan Kommunistik iqtisodlarning Islomga zidligi shundaki, Islom o‘z yechimlarini qonuniy manbalardan kelib chiqadigan ilohiy hukmlar (Ahkom Shari’ah) sifatida qabul qiladi, Kapitalistik va Sotsialistik iqtisodiy yechimlar esa ilohiy hukmlar emas, balki kufr tizimidan kelib chiqqan. Ularga ko‘ra hukm chiqarish Alloh nozil qilgan narsadan boshqa narsa bilan hukm qilish demakdir, bu esa har qanday musulmon uchun uni qandaydir tarzda qabul qilishi joiz emas. Agar uni qabul qiluvchi unga ishonmasa, uni qabul qilishi ochiq gunoh (Fisq) hisoblanadi. Ammo agar u ularni to‘g‘ri qoidalar deb ishonsa va Islom hukmlari zamonaviy asrga mos kelmaydi hamda hozirgi iqtisodiy muammolarga yechim bermaydi deb hisoblasa, bu kufrdir — Alloh (SWT) bizni undan asrasin.

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.