The Ideal Man as a Foundation of the National Economy in Sa’adeh’s Perspective

Bashir al-Murr

Sa’adeh's views on economic matters diverge significantly from those of his contemporary economic schools, both in form and content. Unlike the liberal school, which greatly restricted the role of the state, and the socialist school, which expanded it, Sa’adeh did not place direct emphasis on state intervention. Furthermore, he did not singularly focus on identifying optimal economic policies as the Classical and Keynesian schools did. Instead, Sa’adeh recognized that these policies could shift in response to structural and situational conditions, as well as changes in time and place.

However, the most significant contribution of Sa’adeh lies in his approach to content, where he established the principles that underpin the national economy to ensure both economic efficiency and social justice. This is something that other economic theories have yet to achieve, particularly in bridging the gap between advanced theory and practical application. Most of Sa’adeh's ideas were not confined to theoretical frameworks within specialized research references; instead, they are disseminated through lectures, articles, and speeches delivered across various venues and occasions. Each time, he addressed a critical issue in shaping the interactions within and between societies, aligning with the realities of human existence and contemporary intellectual development. Most of Sa’adeh's presentation does not align directly with conventional economic concepts and terminology. Instead, it highlights the foundational facts necessary for building a robust political, social, and economic framework to achieve national sophistication, well-being, and progress. These foundations are rooted in Sa’adeh's insights into human existence, which govern the interests of nations, their relationships, and the pursuit of individual benefits.

In order to achieve the fourth reform principle of his movement — “Abolishing feudalism and organizing the national economy based on production, fairness in work, and preserving the nation’s and state’s interests”—it is crucial to fully understand the essence of existence. This principle, which some may mistakenly believe encompasses the entirety of Sa’adeh’s vision for a national economy, rests on foundational pillars of humanity, with the most important being the truth of the ideal human life.

In Sa’adeh’s concept, society—rather than the individual—represents the most complete human entity. Individuals are seen as potentials who contribute to societal wealth to improve both their own lives and the lives of others. From this philosophical perspective, the interest of society, shaped by the interaction of generations with their environment through the ages, takes precedence over that of the individual. Societal freedom and rights are considered superior to individual ones, as individuals are merely custodians of personal capabilities, property, and material wealth, which they must manage responsibly to serve society's interests. Society ultimately holds a permanent right to these resources. In this way, individual benefits do not clash within the national economy. Instead, they align with societal duties and converge to achieve the primary goal of benefiting society in both spiritual and material aspects. Individual success, driven by the spiritual, psychological, and material resources provided by one's environment, ultimately contributes back to those who have rights over these resources. Freedom and individual initiative do not, in this way, lead to moral liberation and personal wealth at the expense of society, resulting in unfair income disparities. Instead, they contribute to societal advancement through a process of production that allows for the distribution of wealth rather than poverty. However, if freedom and individual initiative are not rooted in the principle that society as a whole is more important than the individual, they will inevitably result in the greed of the powerful, leading to conflicts between personal gains and wasted resources. As for freedom and individual initiative directed towards benefiting society, it must not permit abusive behavior that exploits personal capabilities for immediate individual gains at the expense of the group. Instead, it should foster collective economic activity by stimulating determination and consolidating individual talents, encouraging cooperation and integration to elevate the overall quality and quantity of collective performance. This approach ensures the enhancement of the total production process and maximizes its output for the benefit of society as a whole.

With awareness of this fact, it is possible to develop appropriate policies and procedures to address every emergency defect in the current situation while ensuring respect for this fact and its practical application. Policies and procedures are not for general use, nor do they have goals and results that are predetermined. Each situation that deviates from the principle that "the interest of society outweighs individual benefit" requires tailored treatment according to the cause, size, and nature of the defect. Policies and procedures are vital only when they offer effective solutions that inspire individuals to utilize their skills and potentials to benefit society. This ensures that all people and future generations can enjoy the natural resources and goods, alongside what has been collectively produced. In this shared production process, each person contributes according to their abilities and potential, receiving the rewards of their work in proportion to their contributions to the group. The fourth reform principle, which centers on abolishing feudalism and organizing the national economy based on production, fairness in labor, and preserving the interests of the nation and state, was adopted by Sa’adeh to achieve both economic effectiveness and social justice. This objective can only be realized by respecting this fundamental truth and understanding the relationship between collective and individual perspectives. As depicted by Sa’adeh in the sixth lecture at the cultural symposium: "The issue is society's concern, not that of an individual. Each person's problems differ from those of others. The real focus is on societal well-being, societal destiny, the progress or decline of the community, and the beauty of society's life as a whole."

Historical facts confirm the failure of the classical school in relying on the market to correct the inequities resulting from not adhering to the principle of wealth distribution based on production. Sa’adeh also points out that the assumption of a perfectly competitive market is unrealistic when human individualism forms the foundation of the national economy. The excessive freedom granted to individuals fosters exploitation, greed, and monopolistic practices, leading to a non-competitive market that neglects the principles of the right to work, production, and fair wealth distribution. This creates significant income disparities, undermining both economic efficiency and social justice. Although the Keynesian school advocated for state intervention to regulate markets, and its neoclassical counterpart endorsed limited state involvement only when market mechanisms failed to achieve optimal conditions, neither school fully succeeded in accomplishing its goals. Despite their foundational propositions, these two emerging schools within the global capitalist system also upheld Man-individual as a core principle, which shifted the focus to promoting the individual's role in benefiting society by granting absolute freedom and enabling wealth accumulation. This allowed individuals to own and manage global companies that secured domestic interests by dominating international markets. However, this approach often overlooked the equitable distribution of income, raising issues of social justice both within and between societies.

Marxism failed in comparison to these two schools because it relied entirely on state intervention to prevent class conflict arising from capitalism’s exploitation of the working class. This approach stifled individual initiative, maintained bureaucratic control, positioned the wealthy in state power, and managed state affairs to serve their own interests exclusively. The failure of all these schools, despite their differing methods and objectives, stems from their theoretical distance from human reality and their purely materialistic perspective, which prioritizes the individual over society. Thus, the individual has become the cornerstone in an equation where it is challenging to achieve the benefits of everyone simultaneously. Even within a framework where the individual aims to achieve personal gains through participation in collective decisions—whether via voting allowed by the democratic system or by supporting class positions as recognized by Marxism—the personal or class benefits often take precedence. This prioritization occurs during the process of seizing control of resources and managing public affairs in a way that serves the narrow interests of the individual's class, thus ensuring one’s personal benefits. Although this may come at the expense of social stability and economic progress, these schools didn't fully address the reality of human development. In society, the aim is often to create the perfect human being—a well-rounded personality shaped by interactions with the environment over time. This development endows individuals with abilities and capabilities beneficial to society as a whole. From this perspective, the individual's benefit transcends personal desires, shifting focus away from merely accumulating wealth to secure a future out of fear of the unknown. This often comes at the expense of others, perpetuating societal conflict and exhausting its people's energies in individual struggles and class battles. Rather, the individual's benefit is inherently linked to the interest of society. Understanding this connection allows one to appreciate the importance of their dependence on societal support. Consequently, society must equip individuals with the necessary elements of strength to succeed. This success, in turn, plays a critical role in a nation's ability to preserve its rights and wealth, as strength is a decisive factor in achieving or losing these assets.

Yes, these schools did not succeed in curbing individual greed, whether by applying democracy to ensure equality among citizens, implementing precise tax systems, or prioritizing a balance of power between classes to bridge income and wealth gaps. They relied on the individual as the basis for economic analysis. The Marxist school grouped individuals into classes that work to achieve common goals, while the classical school viewed society's members as individual prototypes. These prototypes were analyzed with the assumption that all other individuals behaved similarly. With these views, the individual's personhood remained separate from the societal personality, focused solely on achieving personal goals within a theoretically competitive market. Freedom, whether in the name of democracy or authority via class struggle, ultimately favored the powerful. This led to unfair competition either through the free market or class conflict, as a result of which greed and monopolies prevailed, with individuals being praised for achieving personal gains at the expense of others. None of these schools, despite their significance, considered the interests of society alongside those of the individual. Instead, they prioritized the individual alone, ignoring the community that supports and empowers them. Sa’adeh reversed this equation, focusing attention on society as a whole. He integrated individual benefits into societal interests, emphasizing that if society's welfare is ignored or marginalized, individual benefits will diminish and capabilities will be scattered. This can occur through internal conflicts among individuals and classes or through the defeat of society in global competitions for interests, wealth, and influence. Thus, according to Sa’adeh, the well-being of the individual is intrinsically linked to the interest of the nation. If one is absent, the other cannot thrive. This idea is self-evident within this framework: an individual's happiness depends on the welfare of society. Consequently, true individual benefit lies at the core of societal interest, ultimately supporting his abilities, protecting his rights, and ensuring one’s livelihood.