Combining Democracy and Socialism
It can be said that a system capable of combining democracy and socialism within a single governance framework is a pressing need for humanity today. Western capitalism has failed in this regard. It clings to an outdated understanding, claiming that individual freedom necessarily includes the right to individual ownership, even of production resources. It refuses to evolve toward socialism except under slow, reluctant pressure exerted by the threat of communism and the fear of sweeping communist revolutions. As a result, the West sacrifices socialism while deceiving itself that it is democratic. In truth, no democracy that neglects socialism can be anything more than ink on paper.
On the other hand, Marxist-Leninist communism has also failed to combine democracy with socialism. It resorts to distorting democracy, claiming that Western democracy is invalid because it is a democracy of capital and feudalism. Communism introduces its own form of democracy that confiscates the freedoms of capital and feudalism, granting rights instead to workers, farmers, and patriotic intellectuals. It calls this "true democracy." In reality, it is a falsification of democracy; it is merely a dictatorship of patriotic intellectuals over workers and farmers.
The great intellectual fallacy of these advocates lies in their assumption that democracy is inherently flawed because of the West's poor implementation. A sound perspective recognizes that democracy itself is faultless, and the flaw lies in its improper application. The solution to misapplication is not to distort democracy but to correct its implementation.
In truth, Marxism can only implement a distorted democracy - a dictatorship falsely labeled as democracy. This distortion stems from Marxism's short-sightedness in denying spiritual values, which prevents it from providing an alternative to the traditional production incentives it has dismantled.
Under feudalism and capitalism, the traditional incentive for production was that the surplus of one’s production belonged to oneself, to be saved for future needs after paying a financial obligation. Socialism, however, relies on taking the surplus of your production and mine to provide for those unable to produce but capable of consuming. While we may accept this arrangement temporarily, hoping to reach communism where we all enjoy abundance, produce what we can, and take only what we need, the reality is different.
Years have passed, and Marxism has yet to transition beyond socialism. After more than half a century since its implementation in Russia, Marxism is now retreating to capitalist incentives to increase and improve production. Soviet economist Liberman’s policies illustrate this retreat. Liberman and other Marxists argue that production incentives based on material rewards align with socialism and are not necessarily capitalist. However, this claim is refutable. When these incentives follow their logical conclusion, they reveal themselves as a regression to capitalism - a regression Marxism was forced into because of its failure to account for spiritual values.
What happened in the Soviet Union was a natural outcome. Humans act or refrain from action primarily for self-serving purposes. When the state tells its people to produce at their full capacity and to sacrifice their surplus production during the present phase because they are building a socialist system that is merely a transitional stage toward communism, and when the state promises that once communism is achieved - thanks to their sacrifices during the socialist phase - they will be rewarded with everything they need, along with fewer working hours, people will initially comply. They will produce out of disdain for the feudal and capitalist systems of the past and out of trust in the new system that promised to liberate them and opened for them the door to the earthly paradise.
However, when the promised reward takes too long to materialize, it is natural for trust in the new system to weaken, especially among the older generations who experienced the suffering of the old system and initially placed their hopes in the new one.
As for the younger generations, who have not experienced much of the suffering under the old system, they do not comprehend the meaning of such sacrifices. Instead, they expect immediate returns for their efforts. And if there is any delay, it should only be a short one, given that life itself is short, and the time for enjoying its blessings is even shorter.
The natural consequence, both for the older generations and the younger ones, is dissatisfaction, rebellion, and suppressed disobedience. This discontent finds no outlet for expression under the state's tyranny and centralized power, except through deliberate underproduction.
In such a situation, the Marxist state faces three possible courses of action: It must either create a new incentive to replace the traditional incentive for production that it dismantled, resort to continuous and meticulous surveillance and espionage on producers, or collapse.
The first option is unavailable to Marxism, and the third option – collapse - is naturally undesirable. Therefore, the only remaining option is the second: continuous and precise surveillance, which is precisely what Marxism implemented in the Soviet Union. In truth, this surveillance and espionage have been integral to Marxism since its inception. Initially, these measures were directed against those labeled as enemies of the new regime - figures from the old order, such as feudal lords and capitalists. Over time, however, surveillance and espionage became inherent features of Marxist implementation. As time passed, the enemies of the new regime began to include some of its own former supporters - veterans of the old system and members of the younger generation - who lost hope in the Marxist project, as previously discussed.
This secret policing and surveillance reached its peak during Stalin's reign. The result was a series of bloody purges, which Khrushchev, in one of his speeches against Stalin, claimed had caused the deaths of as many as five million citizens.
When Stalin's era ended, and his successors took power - with Khrushchev being the most prominent - Marxism entered a period of decay. The oppressive force that Stalin wielded weakened, and trust in the regime began to erode after so much time had passed without even a distant glimpse of communism on the horizon.
Production began to decline, and the modern state in Russia found itself in need of a new incentive to drive productivity, one that could replace the fear imposed by Stalin. However, that fear was no longer sustainable under his successors. Marxism-Leninism failed to provide its followers with any new motivating incentive, leading them to revert to capitalist incentives.
Thus, they were deemed apostates in the eyes of their Chinese rivals. And indeed, they are apostates. But Marxism itself failed to offer them any safeguard against this apostasy, nor will it offer anything to Mao Zedong. In fact, Marxism's failure under Mao is unfolding even faster than it did under the Russians. The chaos now engulfing China, ironically dubbed the "Cultural Revolution," serves as evidence. It is led by juveniles and adolescents against university professors and Marxist philosophers such as Liu Shaoqi.
Marxism inherently carries the seeds of its own failure. This point will be elaborated upon in our forthcoming book, Islam: Democratic and Socialist. However, we can assert the following with confidence: only a submissive follower, deceived by Marxism, or a so-called intellectual unworthy of the title - narrow-minded and shallow in thought - would fail to grasp this truth.
The fundamental flaw of Marxism lies in what it ignorantly and falsely boasts of as "science" - atheism. Atheism can never be considered science unless intellects are dulled and abandon their purpose. As the saying goes: "Nothing can be deemed logical if daylight itself requires proof."
This is where Islam steps in to address the shortcomings of Marxism by introducing the spiritual dimension that Marxism denies. By incorporating spirituality, values are elevated to two levels: the material and the spiritual. In this framework, material existence serves the spiritual purpose, as expressed in the words of Jesus: "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from God." Similarly, the Infallible said: "This world is a vehicle to the Hereafter."
This perspective compensates for the loss of the traditional production incentive that must be dismantled to pave the way for socialism. As previously stated, the surplus of your production is taken to support those unable to produce, providing them with the means to consume. This redistribution is one of socialism's virtues, as it reveals the humanity within us. It is through this humanity that value is found, both for individuals and society.
By willingly striving to increase production, economizing in consumption, and dedicating your effort, sweat, time, and intellect to bring happiness to others - children, women, the elderly, and the disabled - you attain a deeper sense of inner peace, satisfaction, and expansion of your own humanity, leading to your personal happiness.
Islam places significant emphasis on this, framing its acts of worship as a form of moral education designed to prepare you and me to become righteous and beneficial to others in life. Islam teaches: "Religion is proper interaction" (Al-din al-mu‘amalah). It also teaches: "All creation is God’s dependents, and the most beloved to God are those who are most beneficial to His dependents." And it teaches: "He who cheats us is not one of us." It further states: "A Muslim is someone from whom others are safe from his tongue and his hand."
In its moral training, Islam makes your conscience your overseer, sparing you from the need for external surveillance - whether from a production unit manager or the secret police, which Marxism relies on and cannot do without to protect its system. When your conscience is your overseer, you are truly free. And when citizens are free, socialism can be implemented under the umbrella of democracy.
This is why we assert that Islam alone has the capacity to unite democracy and socialism within a single governance system.
Let no one assume that Islam refrains from enforcing socialism through legal means, leaving it solely to individual consciences. Such an assumption would be erroneous. Islam employs the law as one of its many tools for moral training, alongside other methods within its system of worship. For those who transcend the need for law due to their moral upbringing, they embody true freedom. For others who require the law's application, it serves as a tool to aid their moral development, not merely as a means of deterrence.
