Video I did a few days prior:
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqtisaduna (Links to the books in the link)
Started reading a bit, and looked through the table of contents of the books...
From Book 2, part 2, here is a sample/example:
THE THEORY OF POST-PRODUCTION
He (an-Najafī) also quotes another jurist who claims: The green crop and the young bird belong to the usurper because the usurped seed and egg are considered to have been nothing (at first). So the green crop and the young bird are new things which the usurper, as the result of his labour, owns them.
In the same book it is mentioned: If someone usurps a land and cultivates it or plants trees on it, then the crops and plants will belong to the planter, and I do not find any disagreement (on this point) among the (Muslim) jurists, on the contrary I find consensus in the book of at-Tanqīh. But the farmer has to pay rent of the land to the owner of the land (from whom he usurped).
This rule has been confirmed by some traditions. Here is one report of the tradition on the authority of ‘Uqbah ibn Khālid who says: “I asked Imām as-Sādiq (a.s.) about a person who had made use of a piece of land to raise crop on it without obtaining the consent of the owner of it. When the crop has ripen the owner of the land came along and told the man who raised the crop ‘You have raised crop on my land without my consent, so the crop you have raised on my land is mine, and I will pay you a remuneration for the labour you have expended on it.’ “ ‘Uqbah says: “Then I asked the Imām: ‘Will the crop be his or not?’ The Imām replied: ‘The crop belongs to the man who raised it, and the owner of the land will have rent for the use of the land.’
Inducement of the Theory from the Upper-structure:
Now after having presented the most striking difference between the two theories, Islamic and Marxist, of post-production distribution, as we conceive and suppose it, it is possible for us to put our finger specifically on the roots of this difference, and their justification from the upper structure we have advanced, as has been our method in the discovery of the theory from its above clearly expressed legislative explication.
All the quoted extracts from the upper-structure partake of one phenomenon. It is this that the material used in the act of production of the new commodity remains the property of a particular person, on account of this all the quoted extracts affirm the fact of the material continuing to remain the property of its previous owner even after its transformation in the process of production into a new commodity.
The commodity which its owner delivers to a hired man, to do work on it and changes it, remains, as stated in the first extract, his property. The hired man will not become its owner on the ground of his work on it even if he transforms it into a new commodity and creates a new value, of it and this because of the fact that it is an already owned property.
The worker (farmer) who usurps the land of another person and sows his seeds on it, will own the yield accruing therefrom as stated in the third quoted extract and the owner of the land will have no share of the yield, and that, because of the fact that the farmer is the owner of the seed and the seed is a constituent factor of the basic material which was transferred into the crop (yield) in the course of the tilling operation. As for the land, as a material force participating in the production, is regarded in the Islamic economic theory of post-production distribution a servant of the tiller-man, so he has to pay remuneration in respect of it to its owner. Islam, then, differentiates between the seed and the land and gives the ownership of the crop to the owner of the seed and not to the owner of the land notwithstanding the fact that both of them – the seed and the land – constitute capital in the economic sense and forces participating in the production. This clearly reveals the fact which we have already stated that the owner of the raw material which the production makes use of and transforms it, only owns the material after its transformation because it is the very material which he owns and not because it bears the capitalist character in the productive operation. If that were not so, then, Islam would not have made a distinction between the seed and the land and would not have denied to the owner of the land the ownership of the crop while it has conferred it upon the owner of the seed in spite of the fact both the land and the seed partaking in the bearing of capitalist character in the general sense of the term capital which includes all the material forces in the production operation.
The fourth and fifth quoted extract agree in establishing the principle which the third quoted extract establishes. It is that the ownership of the crop or the produce is conferred upon the one who owns the seed and it is not conferred upon the owner of the land or the owner of any other factors which give their share in the productive operation and bear the character of being capital in the productive operation.
And the last quoted extract confers the ownership of the profit to the owner of the capital when mudārabah (partnership) contract is made null and void and does not permit its ownership or partaking of its ownership with him, because this profit even though it is mostly the result of the effort and labour which the working partner expended in selling and bringing the commodity before its consumers in a manner which made possible its disposal of it at a higher price. However this effort is only like the effort of the spinner or the weaver of the wool which the shepherd owned and has no effective force according to the theory as long as the material in working partnership contract, wool happens to be a previously owned property.
Now there remains the second quoted extract in the upper-structure, for us to point out in particular. It is an extract which talks of a person who usurps an egg from another person and utilizes it to produce from it a living thing or a quantity of seed which he fructifies into a farm product. The extract states that according to one prevalent juristic opinion the produce – chicken or crop (grain) – is the property of the owner of the egg or the seed and according to another juristic opinion, the produce is the property of the usurper who carries out the labour of its production.
We see from that the extract which presents these two opinions that both of them arise juristically from the difference between the jurists as to the determination of the relation which subsists between the egg and bird 27
that comes out of its entrails, and likewise between the seed and the crop which is produced from it. The jurist believes that both the things are same, and that the difference between them is one of the degrees – like the difference between the wooden plank and the bed-stead made out of it will adopt the first opinion and will consider the person from whom the egg or the seed is usurped as the owner of the produce – the chicken or the crop. But the jurist who holds the opinion that the material – the egg or the seed – got consumed – destroyed – in the production operation and the thing produced is, in the general common sense, a new thing which arises from the destruction of the primary material on account of the work and labour of the usurper which he expended during his production operation (hatching or tilling) in the opinion of this jurist will be the owner of the produce (chicken or the crop) is the usurper because the produce is a new thing which the owner of the egg or the crop did not possess before this. Hence it is within the right of the one who produced it by his effort, to appropriate the produce in spite of his being a usurper.
Basically what I've always believed - that capitalism is unfair and what caused my depression as a young teenager from the start. Producing such a negative mindset towards life and not caring. I see it a lot in teenagers to this day still and in the general populace quite a lot, especially at the lower socio-economic level. - Not to be judgemental or overtly negative of others, but, just a "sad" or lowered kind of ambitions in life. I still suffer from it today - negative thinking towards the world at large. Kind of a sad state of affairs...if you think about it.
Is better to keep busy...and not think on such things, I suppose...
Continue...Book 1 Page 30:
IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM
Let us now study historical materialism in a new light — in
the light of historical materialism itself. It might appear strange at
a first sight of it that the theory should be made the means of
pressing judgement upon itself, except that we shall find it from
what follows that the historical materialism above will be
sufficient for passing judgement upon itself in the field of
When historical materialism is a philosophy of the formation
and development of the society, it will treat the subject of human
ideas and human knowledge in general as a part of the formation
of human society and give its opinion regarding the condition of
the formulation of the human knowledge and its development just
in the same way as it will give its opinion in respect of the condition
of development and evolution of political religious and such
other formations . . . And when the (socio-) economic formation,
according to the views of historical (materialism) is the basic
reality for all the sides of society then it is but natural that it
should explain ideas and knowledge on the basis of it. On this
account we find the historical materialism stressing that human
knowledge is not born only of the functional activity of the brain
but only conceals its original source, in the economic formation.
Hence man's thought is a rational reflection of the economic
formation and the social relation which exists therein and it is
augmented and develops in accordance with the development of
those formations and relations.
It is on the basis of this that Marxism has built up its theory
of knowledge and professes the doctrine of evolutionary relativity. If the theory of knowledge, as long as it is constrained to be born of the socio-economic circumstances it would be of relative value, confined within the bounds of those circumstances,
and developing in accordance with them and as such there exists no absolute reality but realities are disclosed in relative shape within the orbit of the social relations and to the extent these relations permit.
This is the conclusion to which Marxism has arrived at by its
analysis of societies, and this was conclusion which it could not
but arrive at in keeping with its method of understanding of the
society and history.
Though Marxism arrived at this conclusion yet in spite of it,
it refused to apply this conclusion to its theory of history itself, declared historical materialism as an absolute truth and made its inexorable laws as eternal laws, which admit of neither change nor modification nor do they suffer from any thing of impairment or
lack of strength during the entire long course of history of the humanity.
So much so that the Marxist understanding of history is the ultimate point of the entire human knowledge. Marxism, however, did not put itself to the trouble of asking the question,
whence did arise this Marxist understanding of history? Or to have
subjected it to its general theory of knowledge — (yes,) if it had
put itself to the trouble of doing a little of this, incumbent upon it
would have been forced to say that historical materialism as a
definite theory arose within the socio-economic relations, and that
it too like all other theories, follows from the objective circumstance in which it existed.
It is in this way that we find how historical materialism can
pass judgement upon itself from the side from which it considers
all every theory as a reflexion limited to the objective reality in
which it exists
and that it also in its turn does not exceed from being a theory which crystallized in the human mind in a definite socio-economic milieu in which it existed, so it is necessary that it
should be a reflexion limited to that milieu and should develop in
accordance with it. As such it cannot be an eternal truth of history.
Though we do not believe that the socio-economic relations
are the only cause or source of the birth of theories and ideas, yet
we do not deny their influence on the formation of many of the
ideas and theories. We take for this, the material conception of
history. I mean Marx's revolutionary conception of history. Marx
behind the confrontation of the capitalist society or any other
society (for that matter) will not come to an end except by
revolutionary contest, between the two basic classes, to the
bourgeois-class and the proletariat class. And from this it was led
to regard revolution as the most general laws which governs the
entire human history.
It doesn't entirely align but really interesting. I've always just thought our economic system is very unfair and real work is so undervalued and underpaid compared to owning and the priveledges that wealth grants....people/the wealthy (themselves).