لنستخرج كنوزا من المعرفة و الإبداع و العلم و الأفكار
Tripp (2006) gives an opportunity to unite
the Islamic economic and modern capitalism
into a bowl of economy. Unity of Islamic and
non-Islamic economic have been a step to ensure
the progress of civilization of the world economy
because of its inability to distinguish
between right and wrong. Economic unity also
shows both of them are able to complement each
other to solve problems of future social and
economic life.
COMMENTS AND CRTITICS: FALLACY
AND EQUIVOCAL ARGUMENTS
This subsection reveals the results of the
study by the author. The study results are based
on the denominators of the science that has been
studied universally at the university. The results
of the study are as follows.
First, Tripp (2006) argues capitalism and
socialism are economic concepts adopted by
states or social order to prosper the society.
Capitalism is adopted by America and Europe.
On the other hand, socialism leads to the concept
of Islamic economic, Christian socialist and
Utopian socialist adopted by the Islamic
countries in the Middle East, South and
Southeast of Asia. This concept has an odd or
vague meaning. Furthermore, science has
actually been formulated as an exact and
unequivocal so that capitalism and socialism is
a continuum point that should stand on the
opposite side, and both of them should belong
to each other or cannot be removed. State or
social order has no ability to choose a point or
adopt a concept definitively.
A sound concept and practice indicates that
the state and social order are getting closer to
choose a point. However, the chosen point is
always unable to solve the social and economic
problems. Consequently, the choice is indefinite,
due to the state and social order that should shift
to the opposite continuum point. It can be
referred to capitalism adopted by the U.S., which
requires companies to run a corporate social
responsibility in order to distribute five percent
of its profit to increase income and to build
public facilities. The U.S. acknowledges that
adopting capitalism might create individual income
gap. In other words, the U.S. recognizes
the market failure concept. In addition, the U.S.
still allocates a portion of their budgets to support
the poor, homeless and so forth. Therefore,
the U.S. with its capitalism takes part to shift the
position of capitalism into socialism. This proves
that between capitalism and socialism is not an
option of paradigm or definitive concept as both
of them are just continuum point.
Second, Tripp (2006) suggests that
capitalism is rooted on individual behavior
concept that is shaped on self-interest explicitly.
However, he often defines and considers that
capitalism is always rooted on selfish individual
behavior implicitly. The result of the study
presents that Tripp (2006) formulates an odd and
equivocal definitions, this can be referred as a
misnomer instead.
Reviewer noted that the philosophy of
science, economic and business ethic theorized
the individual behavior in the real world is
graded on the state of altruism, self-interest and
selfish. Likewise, individual acts inconsistently
and not persistently in the paradigm for altruism,
self-interest and selfish. In other word, individual
changes the behavior based on the facts and
context of the life he faces. Self-interest becomes
a choice and an assumption on the economic
concept, because individual is considered to act
for the sake of his/her welfare with social
welfare. In addition, economic dismisses altruism
which assumes that individual is willing to
sacrifice for the sake of other individuals, and is
selfish, which assume that individual achieves
his own welfare at the expense of others.
Tripp (2006) presumes that capitalism is always
identical to the behavior of individualselfish.
Similarly, capitalism has framed
imaginatively and practically that individual
always does this. The point that becomes odd
and vague is that individual who embraces
capitalism, Islamic socialism, Utopian socialism
and Christian socialism is more likely to act
altruism, self-interest and selfish since every
individual has a moral hazard. Individual action
should be based on morality and ethics that have
been rooted in every nation and all around the
world. Reviewer dismisses the suggestions
from Tripp (2006). Instead, the so-called
conventional and modern capitalist nations have
been helping many Asian and African nations
that are being hit by drought, poverty and
tsunami.
