This post is under construction.
Please see this related post.
http://atruthsoldier.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/libya-and-gaddafi-the-truth-you-are-not-supposed-to-know/
Below you will find the complete text of the three part Green book and links to download it for free.
You will also see a video about the real (former) Lybia and their real prosperous free democracy that you were never told about.
Now Lybia has been robbed, destroyed and a mass genocide of killings under taken covertly by the USA..
The illuminati Exposed By Muammar Gaddafi
Uploaded on Feb 13, 2012
The truth is here! FULL LENGTH Muammar Gaddafi was fighting against the illuminati and the reason why he was killed is here!
This site presents the complete text of all three parts of
the GREEN BOOK by Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi.
Select the book you want to read by clicking on its cover …
This translation was published by the Public Establishment for Publishing, Advertising and Distribution in Tripoli, Libya.
Absolute fidelity to the original text, including page and line numbers, has been maintained in this on-line version.
Or, click here to download the Green Book
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/
Go here to download this small book for free and this book will absolutely amaze you to a real democracy and Lybia.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/readgb.htm
——————————————————
At the link (below) you will find an archived website about Muammar Gaddafy.
“I would like to seize the opportunity today and declare before you …
that Libya is determined and committed to play a leading role in achieving world peace.”
– Col. Qadhafi in Brussels, 27 April 2004
This website has not been updated since : 3.6.2009
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/mylinks1.htm
**************************************************
Complete text of the Green Book by Libyan leader Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi
Part One
“The Solution of the Problem of Democracy — The Authority of the People” (1975)
This translation was published by the Public Establishment for Publishing,
Advertising and Distribution in Tripoli, Libya.
Absolute fidelity to the original has been maintained, including page and line numbers.
———————————————–
CONTENTS
1. The Instrument of Governing
2. Parliaments
3. The Party
4. Class
5. Plebiscites
6. Popular Congresses and People’s Committees
7. The Law of Society
8. Who Supervises the Conduct of Society?
9. How Does Society Readjust its Direction
in Case of Deviation from its Law?
10. The Press
———————————————–
THE INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNING
‘The Instrument of Governing is the prime political problem which faces human communities.’
Even the conflict within the family is,often, the result of this problem.
‘This problem has become serious since the emergence of modern societies.’
Peoples, nowadays, face this persistent problem and communities suffer from various risks and grave consequences to which it leads.
They have not yet succeeded in solving it finally and democratically.
The GREEN BOOK presents the final solution to the problem of the instrument of governing.
All political systems in the world today are the product of the struggle for power between instruments of governing.
The struggle may be peaceful or armed, such as the conflict of classes, sects, tribes, parties or individuals.
The result is always the victory of an instrument of governing — be it an individual, group, party or class and the defeat of the people, i.e. the defeat of genuine democracy.
[5]
Political struggle that results in the victory of a candidate with 51 per cent of the votes leads to a dictatorial governing body disguised as a false democracy, since 49 percent of the electorate is ruled by an instrument of governing they did not vote for, but had imposed upon them.
This is dictatorship.
Besides, this political conflict may produce a governing body that represents only a minority, for when votes are distributed among several candidates, one of them polls more than any other candidate.
But if the votes polled by those who received less are added up, they can constitute an over whelming majority. However, the candidate with fewer votes wins and his success is regarded as legitimate and democratic!
In actual fact, dictatorship is established under the cover of false democracy. This is the reality of the political systems prevailing in the world today. They are dictatorial systems and it seems clear that they falsify genuine democracy.
[6]
PARLIAMENTS
No representation in lieu of the people
Parliaments are the backbone of traditional democracy as it exists today.
A parliament is a misrepresentation of the people and parliamentary governments are a misleading solution to the problem of democracy. A parliament is originally founded to represent the people, but this in itself, is undemocratic as democracy means the authority of the people and not an authority acting on their behalf.
The mere existence of a parliament means the absence of the people, but true democracy exists only through the participation of the people, not through the activity of their representatives.
Parliaments have been a legal barrier between the peoples and the exercise of authority, excluding masses from power while usurping sovereignty in their place.
Peoples are left with only false external appearance of democracy manifested in long queues to cast their votes in the ballot boxes.
[7]
Representation is a denial of participation
To lay bare the character of the parliament, we have to look to the origin of such a parliament. The parliament is either elected from constituencies or a party or a coalition of parties, or is formed by some method of appointment. But all these procedures are undemocratic, for dividing the population into constituencies means that one member of parliament represents thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of people, depending on the size of population.
Representation is a falsification of democracy
It also means that the member keeps no popular organisational link with the electors since he, like other members, is looked upon as a representative of the whole people.
This is what the prevailing traditional democracy requires. The masses, therefore, are completely isolated from the representative and he, in turn, is totally separated from them. For immediately after winning their votes he himself
usurps their sovereignty and acts instead of them.
The prevailing traditional democracy endows the member of a parliament with a sacredness and immunity denied to other individual members of the people.
[8]
That means that parliaments have become a means of plundering and usurping the people’s authority. Hence the people have the right to struggle, through the popular revolution, to destroy instruments which usurp democracy and sovereignty and take them away from the masses.
They also have the right to utter the new principle, no representation in lieu of the people. If, however, the parliament emerges from a party as a result of winning an election, it is a parliament of the party and not of the people. It represents the party and not the people, and the executive power assigned by the parliament is that of the winning party and not of the people.
The same is true of the parliament in which each party holds a number of seats. For the members of the parliament represent their party and not the people, and the power established by such a coalition is the power of the combined parties and not of the people. Under such systems the people are victims fooled and exploited by political bodies.
[9]
The people stand silently in long queues to cast their votes in the ballot boxes the same way as they throw other
papers into the dustbin.
This is the traditional democracy prevalent in the whole world, whether the system is one-party, two-party, multiparty or non-party. Thus it becomes clear that representation is fraud. Assemblies formed by a method of appointment or hereditary succession do not fall under any form of democracy.
Moreover, since the system of elected parliaments is based on propaganda to win votes, it is a demagogic system in the real sense of the word. and votes can be bought and falsified. Poor people fail to compete in the election campaign and it is always the rich — and only the rich — who come out victorious.
Philosophers, thinkers and writers advocated the theory of representative government at a time when the peoples, without realizing it, were driven like sheep by kings, sultans and conquerors.
The ultimate aspiration of the people of those times was to have someone to represent them before such rulers. Even that aspiration was nullified.
[10]
Peoples went through long and bitter struggles to attain what they aspired to. After the successful establishment of the era of the republics and the beginning of the era of the masses, it is unreasonable that democracy should mea the electing of only a few representatives to act on behalf of great masses. This is an obsolete theory and an outdated experience.
The whole authority must be the people’s.
The most tyrannical dictatorships the world has known have existed under the shadow of parliaments.
[11]
THE PARTY
The party system aborts democracy
The party is the contemporary dictatorship. It is the modern dictatorial instrument of governing. The party is the rule of a part over the whole. It is the latest dictatorial instrument. As the party is not individual it exercises a sham democracy through establishing parliaments and committees and through the propaganda of its members. The party is not a democratic instrument at all because it is composed of people who have common interests, a common outlook or a common culture; or who belong to the same locality or have the same belief.
To make a party you split society.
They form a party to achieve their ends, impose their outlook or extend the hold of their belief on the society as a whole. A party’s aim is to achieve power under the pretext of carrying out its program. And yet, democratically, none of these parties should govern the whole people because of the diversity of interests, ideas, temperaments, localities and beliefs, which constitute the people’s identity.
[12]
The party is a dictatorial instrument of governing that enables those with one outlook and a common interest to rule the people as a whole. Compared with the people, the party is a minority.
The purpose of forming a party is to create an instrument to rule the people; namely to rule over non-members of the party. For the party is, fundamentally, based on an arbitrary authoritarian theory . . . i.e. the domination of the members of the party over the rest of individual members of the people. The party presupposes that its accession t power is the way to attain its ends, assuming that its objectives are the objectives of the people.
That is the theory of the justification of party dictatorship, which is the basis for any dictatorship. No matter how many parties there are, the theory remains one and the same.
But the existence of many parties escalates the struggle for power and this results in the destruction of any achievements of the people and of any socially beneficial plans. Such destruction is seized upon by the opposition party as a justification to undermine the position of the ruling party so that it may take over from them.
[13]
The parties in their struggle resort, if not to arms, which rarely happens, then to denouncing and stultifying the actions of each other. This is a battle which is inevitably waged at the expense of the higher and vital interests of the society.
Some, if not all, of those higher interests will be victims of the power struggle of instruments of governing.
For the destruction of those interests supports the opposition party or parties in their argument against the ruling party.
The opposition party, as an instrument of governing, has to oust the ruling body in order to have access to authority. To prove the unfitness of the instrument of governing, the opposition party has to destroy its achievements and to cast doubt on its plans, even if those plans are beneficial to the society. Consequently the interests and programs of the society become victims of the parties’ struggle for power.
Such struggle is, therefore, politically, socially and economically destructive to the society, despite the fact that it creates political activity.
[14]
Besides, the struggle results in the victory of another instrument of governing, i.e., the fall of one party and the rise of another. But it is a defeat for the people, a defeat for democracy.
Furthermore, parties can be bought or bribed either from inside or outside.
Originally, the party is formed to represent the people. Then the leading group of the party represents its members and the supreme leader of the party represents the leading group.
It becomes clear that the party game is a deceitful farce based on a sham form of democracy which has a selfish content based on maneuvers, tricks and political games.
All these emphasize that the party-system is a dictatorial, yet modern, instrument.
The party system is an overt, not a covert, dictatorship.
The world has not yet passed beyond it and it is rightly called ‘the dictatorship of the modern age’.
The parliament of the winning party is indeed a parliament of the party, as the executive power assigned by this parliament is the power of the party over the people.
[15]
Party power, which is supposed to be for the good of the whole people, is actually a bitter enemy of a part of the people, namely the opposition party or parties and their supporters.
So the opposition is not a popular check on the ruling party, but is itself seeking a chance to replace the ruling party. According to modern democracy, the legal check on the ruling party is the parliament, the majority of whos members are from that ruling party.
That is to say, checking is in the hands of the ruling party and rule is in the hands of the checking party. Thus
become clear the deceptiveness, falsity and invalidity of the political theories dominant in the world today, from which contemporary traditional democracy emerges.
The party is only a part of the people, but the sovereignty of the people is indivisible.
The party governs on behalf of the people, but the principle is no representation in lieu of the people.
The party system is the modern tribal and sectarian system.
The society governed by one party is exactly like that which is governed by one tribe or one sect.
[16]
The party, as stated above, represents the outlook of a certain group of people, or the interests of one group of the society, or one belief or one locality.
Such a party must be a minority compared to the whole people just as the tribe and the sect are.
The minority has common interests or a sectarian belief. From such interests or belief, the common outlook is formed.
Only blood-relationship distinguishes a tribe from a party and even at the foundation of a party there may be blood relationship.
There is no difference between party struggles and tribal or sectarian struggles for power. And if tribal and sectarian rule is politically rejected and disavowed, then the party system must similarly be rejected and disavowed.
Both of them tread the same path and lead to the same end. The negative and destructive effect on the society of the
tribal and sectarian struggles is identical to the negative and destructive effect of the party struggle.
[17]
CLASS
The class political system is the same as the party, the tribal, or sectarian system, i.e. a class dominates the society in the same way that a party, tribe or sect does. The class, like the party, sect and tribe, is a group of people from the society who share common interests.
Common interests arise from the existence of a group of people bound together by blood relationship, belief, culture, locality or standard of living. Also class, party, sect and tribe emerge from similar factors leading to similar results, i.e. they emerge because blood relationship, belief, standard of living culture and locality create a common outlook to achieve a common end.
Thus emerges the social structure in the forms of class, party, tribe or sect that eventually becomes a political conception directed toward realizing the outlook and ends of that group.
In all cases the people are neither the class, the party, the tribe nor the sect; these are no more than a part of the people and constitute a minority.
[18]
If a class, party, tribe or sect dominates a society, the whole system becomes a dictatorship.
However, a class or tribal coalition is better than a party coalition because the people consist originally of a group
of tribes. One seldom finds people who do not belong to a tribe, and all people belong to a certain class. But no party
or parties embrace all the people and therefore the party or party coalition represents a minority compared to the
masses outside its membership.
Under genuine democracy there is no excuse for one class to crush other classes for its own benefit, no excuse for one party to crush other parties for its own interests, no excuse for one tribe to crush other tribes for its own benefit and no excuse for one sect to crush other sects for its own interests.
To allow such actions means abandoning the logic of democracy and resorting to the logic of force.
Such an action is dictatorial, because it is not in the interest of the whole society, which does not consist of only one class or tribe or sect or the members of one party.
[19]
There is no justification for such an action. The dictatorial justification is that the society is actually made up of various parts, and one of the parts undertakes the liquidation of other parts in order to stand solely in power.
This action is then not in the interest of the whole society, but in the interest of a certain class, tribe, sect or party,
i.e., it is in the interest of those who replace the society. The action of liquidation is originally directed against
the members of the society who do not belong to the party, the class, the tribe or the sect which undertakes the liquidation.
The society torn apart by party struggles is similar to one torn by tribal and sectarian struggles.
The party that is formed in the name of a class automatically becomes a substitute for that class and continues until it becomes a replacement for the class hostile to it.
Any class which becomes heir to a society, inherits, at the same time, its characteristics. That is to say that if the working class crushes all other classes, for instance, it becomes heir of the society, that is, it becomes the material and social base of the society.
[20]
The heir bears the traits of the one he inherits from, though they may not be evident at once. As time passes, attributes of other eliminated classes emerge in the very ranks of the working class. And the possessors of those characteristics take the attitudes and points of view appropriate to their characteristics.
Thus the working class turns out to be a separate society, showing the same contradictions as the old society. The material and moral standards of the members of the society are diverse at first but then there emerge the factions that automatically develop into classes, like those which had been eliminated.
Thus the struggle for domination of the society starts again. Each group of people, then each faction and finally each new class, tries to become the instrument of governing.
The material base of the society is not stable because it has a social aspect. The instrument of governing of the single material base of the society will, perhaps, be stable for some time,
[21]
but it will pass away as soon as new material and social standards emerge out of the same single material base.
Any society with class conflict was in the past a one-class society but, due to inevitable evolution, the conflicting classes emerged from that one class.
The class that expropriates the possessions of others in order to maintain the instrument of governing for its own interests, will find that material possessions have brought within that class what material possessions usually bring about within the society as a whole.
In short, attempts to unify the material base of the society to solve the problem of government or to put an end to the struggle in favor of party,class, sect or tribe, have failed, such as the efforts to satisfy the masses through the election of representatives or by organizing plebiscites to discover their views. To go on with these efforts has become a waste of time and a mockery of the people.
[22]
PLEBISCITES
The fallacy of a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ Plebiscite
Plebiscites are a fraud against democracy.
Those who say ‘yes’ and those who say ‘no’ do not, in fact, express their will. They have been silenced through the conception of modern democracy.
They have been allowed to utter only one word: either ’yes’ or ‘no’. This is the most cruel and oppressive dictatorial system. He who says ‘no’ should give reasons for his answer.
He should explain why he did not say ‘yes’. And he who says ‘yes’ should give reasons for approval and why he did not say ‘no’. Everyone should make clear what he wants and the reasons for his approval or rejection.
What road, then, must human groups take to get rid, once and for all, of the tyrannical and dictatorial ages?
Since the intricate problem in the case of democracy is the instrument of governing, expressed by conflicts of classes, parties and individuals; and since the electoral and plebiscite
[23]
methods were invented to cover the failure of those unsuccessful experiments to solve this problem, the solution lies in finding an instrument of governing other than these which are subject to conflict and which represent only on side of the society.
That is to say, an instrument of governing which is not a party, a class, a sect or a tribe, but an instrument of governing which is the people as a whole. It neither represents the people nor speaks in their name.
No representation in lieu of the people and representation is fraud.
If that instrument can be brought into being the problem will be solved, popular democracy will be realized, mankind will have put an end to tyrannical eras and dictatorial systems, and the authority of the people will have taken their place.
The Green Book presents the solution to the problem of the instrument of governing. It indicates for the people the way to pass from the eras of dictatorship to the eras of genuine democracy.
[24]
This new theory is based on the authority of the people, without representation or deputation. It realizes direct democracy in an orderly and
effective form. It differs from the older attempt at direct democracy, which could not be applied in practice and which was frivolous because it lacked popular organisation on the lower levels.
[25]
POPULAR CONGRESSES AND PEOPLE’S COMMITTEES
Popular congresses are the only means to achieve popular democracy. Any system of government other than popular congresses is undemocratic.
All the prevailing systems of government in the world today are undemocratic, unless they adopt this method.
Popular congresses are the end of the journey of the masses’ movement in its quest for democracy.
Popular congresses and people’s committees are the final fruit of the people’s struggle for democracy.
No democracy without popular congresses
Popular congresses and people’s committees are not creations of the imagination so much as they are the product
of human thought which has absorbed all human experiments to achieve democracy.
Direct democracy is the ideal method, which, if realized in practice, is indisputable and noncontroversial.
The nations departed from direct democracy because, however small a people might be, it was impossible to gather them all together at one time in order to discuss, study and decide on their policy.
[26]
THE AUTHORITY OF THE PEOPLE
[27]
Direct democracy remained an Utopian idea far from
reality. It has been replaced by various theories of government such as representative assemblies, parties, coalitions, and plebiscites.
All led to the isolation of the people from political activity and to the plundering of the sovereignty of the people and the assumption of their authority by the successive and conflicting instruments of governing beginning with the individual, on through the class, the sect, the tribe, the parliament and the party.
The Green Book announces to the people the happy discovery of the way to direct democracy, in a practical form. Since no two intelligent people can dispute the fact that direct democracy is the ideal — but its method has been impossible to apply — and since this Third Universal Theory provides us with a realistic experiment in direct democracy, the problem of democracy in the world is finally solved.
All that the masses need do now is to struggle to put an end to all forms of dictatorial rule in the world today, to all forms of
[28]
what is falsely called democracy – from parliaments to the sect, the tribe, the class and to the one-party, the two-party and the multi-party systems.
Democracy has but one method and one theory.
The disparity and dissimilarity of the systems claiming to be democratic is evidence that they are not democratic in fact.
The people’s authority has only one face and it can be realized only by one method, namely, popular congresses and people’s committees.
No democracy without popular congresses and committees everywhere.
First, the people are divided into basic popular congresses. Each basic popular congress chooses its secretariat.
The secretariats together form popular congresses, which are other than the basic ones.
Then the masses of those basic popular congresses choose administrative people’s committees to replace government administration.
Thus all public utilities are run by people’s committees which will be responsible to the basic popular congresses and these dictate the policy to be followed by the people’s committees and supervise its execution.
[29]
Thus, both the administration and the supervision
become popular and the outdated definition of democracy — Democracy is the supervision of the government by
the people — comes to an end. It will be replaced by the right definition Democracy is the supervision of the people by people.
All citizens who are members of those popular congresses belong, professionally and functionally, to categories.
They have, therefore, to establish their own unions and syndicates in addition to being, as citizens, members of the basic popular congresses or the people’s committees. Subjects discussed by basic popular congresses or the people’s committees, syndicates and unions, will take their final shape in the General People’s Congress, where the secretariats of popular congresses, people’s committees, syndicates and unions meet.
What is drafted by the General People’s Congress, which meets annually or periodically, will, in turn, be submitted to popular congresses, people’s committees, syndicates and unions.
[30]
The people’s committees, responsible to the basic popular congresses will, then, start executive action. The General People’s Congress is not a gathering of members or ordinary persons as is the case with parliaments.
It is a gathering of the basic popular congresses, the people’s committees, the unions, the syndicates and all professional associations.
In this way, the problem of the instrument of governing is, as a matter of fact, solved and dictatorial instruments will disappear.
The people are the instrument of governing and the problem of democracy in the world is completely solved.
[31]
THE LAW OF SOCIETY
Law is the other problem parallel to the problem of the instrument of governing. It has not yet been solved in the modern age although it has been solved at certain periods of history.
It is invalid and undemocratic for a committee or a parliament to be entitled to draft the law for the society.
It is also invalid and undemocratic for an individual, a committee or a parliament to amend or abrogate the law of the society.
What, then, is the law of the society?
Who drafts it and what is its importance to democracy?
The natural law of any society is either tradition (custom) or religion.
Any other attempt to draft law for any society, outside these two sources, is invalid and illogical.
Constitutions are not the law of the society. A constitution is a basic man-made law.
[32]
That basic man-made law should have a source for its justification.
The problem of freedom in the modern age is that constitutions have become the law of society, and constitutions are based on nothing other than the views of the instruments of the dictatorial rule prevailing in the world, ranging from the individual to the party.
The proof of this is that there is a difference between constitutions although man’s freedom is the same.
The reason for the difference is the disparity in the conceptions of the instruments of governing.
This is the point where freedom is vulnerable in the systems of the contemporary world.
The method by which the instruments of governing seek to dominate the peoples is established in the constitution and the people are compelled to accept it under the force of laws derived from that constitution, which is itself the product of the temperament and outlook of the instrument of governing.
The law of the dictatorial instruments of governing has replaced natural law.
[33]
Because man-made law has replaced natural law, standards are lost. Man is the same everywhere.
His physical constitution is the same and so is his instinct.
For this reason natural law became a logical law for man as one and the same.
Then the constitutions, which are man-made laws, began to look at man as not one and the same.
They have no justification for that conception other than the will of instruments of governing — the individual, the parliament, the tribe or the party — to dominate the peoples.
So we see that constitutions are usually changed when the instruments of governing change.
This proves that the constitution is the product of the temperament of the instruments of governing and exists to serve their interests. It is not natural law.
This is the impending danger to freedom latent wherever the genuine law of human society is absent and is replaced by man-made laws designed by the instrument of governing to rule the masses.
Properly the method of government should be in accordance with the laws of society, not vice versa.
Therefore, the law of the society is not subject to drafting and codification.
[34]
The significance of law lies in the fact that it is the decisive factor which distinguishes between the true and false, the right and the wrong, and the individuals’ rights and duties. Freedom is threatened unless society has a sacred law based on stable rules which are not subject to change or substitution by any instrument of governing.
On the contrary, it is incumbent upon the instrument of governing to abide by the law of society. Nevertheless, peoples throughout the world are now being ruled by man-made laws that are liable to change and abrogation because of the struggle for power between instruments of governing.
Plebiscites on constitutions are not enough because plebiscites in themselves are a sham democracy, permitting only yes or no. Under man-made laws, peoples are compelled to accept plebiscites.
A plebiscite on a constitution does not mean that it is the law of society, it means that it is only a constitution, or that ‘thing’ subject to plebiscite, nothing else.
The law of the society is an eternal human heritage that is not the possession of the living only. Hence, the drafting of a constitution and holding a plebiscite by present voters are farcical.
[35]
Encyclopedias of man-made laws derived from man-made constitutions are full of material penalties against man while traditional law seldom has
these penalties. Traditional law imposes moral, not material penalties, that are appropriate for man. Religion embraces and absorbs tradition. Most
material penalties in religion are postponed until the Day of Judgement. The major part of its rules are exhortations, instructions and answers to
questions.
This law shows proper respect to man. Religion does not acknowledge temporal penalties, except in extreme cases where these are necessary to protect society.
Religion embraces tradition, which is an expression of the natural life of the peoples. Thus, religion, embracing tradition, is an affirmation of natural
law. Non-religious, non-traditional laws are invented by one man for use against another.
Therefore they are invalid because they are not built upon the natural source of tradition and religion.
[36]
WHO SUPERVISES THE CONDUCT OF SOCIETY?
The question that arises is: who preserves the society from any deviation from the law? Democratically, there is no group whatever that can claim the right of representative supervision over the society. ‘Society is its own supervisor.’ Any pretension by any individual or group that it is responsible for law is dictatorship.
Democracy means the responsibility of the whole society, and supervision should be carried out by the whole society.
That is democracy and its proper implementation is through the democratic instrument of governing, resulting from the organization of society itself in basic popular congresses and from the people’s rule through the popular congresses and the General People’s Congress (National Congress) in which come together the popular congresses, administrative people’s committees, unions, syndicates and all other professional organizations.
[37]
According to this theory, the people are the instrument of governing and in this case they are their own supervisor. In this way self-supervision of the society over its law is realized.
[38]
HOW DOES SOCIETY READJUST ITS DIRECTION IN CASE OF DEVIATION FROM ITS LAW?
If an instrument of governing is dictatorial, as in political systems in the world today, the society’s vigilance towards deviation from law will have only one way to gain readjustment.
That is violence, which means revolution against the instrument of governing. This violence or revolution, even if it is an expression of the feeling of the society against deviation, is not carried out by the whole society.
It is undertaken only by those who have the initiative and boldness to proclaim the will of the society. However, this approach is the way to dictatorship, for this revolutionary initiative increases the opportunity for an instrument of governing, representative of the people, to arise.
This means that the instrument of governing is still dictatorial. Moreover, violence and change by force are themselves undemocratic,
[39]
although they take place as a result of the existence of a previous undemocratic situation. The society that is still entangled around this resultant is a
backward society. What, then, is the solution?
The solution is for the people to be the instrument of governing from basic popular congresses to the General People’s Congress.
The government administration is abolished and replaced by people’s committees. The General People’s Congress should be a national congress where basic popular congresses, people’s administrative committees, unions, syndicates and all professional associations come together. If a deviation from the society’s law takes place under this system, it should be dealt with through a democratic revision rather than by force.
This is not a process of voluntary choice of the method of change or of treatment, rather it is an inevitable result of the nature of such a democratic system.
In such a case, there is no outside group against which violent action may be directed or which may be held responsible for deviation.
[40]
THE PRESS
Democracy means popular rule not popular expression.
The natural person has freedom to express himself even if, when he is mad, he behaves irrationally to express his madness.
The corporate person also is free to express his corporate identity. In these cases, the first represents only himself, and the second represents no more than the group of natural persons composing his corporate person.
The society consists of many natural and many corporate persons. Therefore, when a person, for instance, expresses himself in an irrational manner, that does not mean that the other persons of the society also are mad.
The expression of a natural person is only self-expression, and that of a corporate person is only the expression of the interests or viewpoints of persons forming the corporate person. For example, the company for the production and sale of tobacco only expresses the interests of the participants in that company, i.e. those who benefit from the production and sale of tobacco although it is harmful to the health of others.
[41]
The press is a means of expression of the society and is not a means of expression of a natural or corporate person. Logically and democratically, the press, therefore, cannot be owned by either of these.
Any newspaper owned by an individual is his own and expresses only his point of view. Any claim that a newspaper represents public opinion is groundless because it actually expresses the viewpoints of a natural person.
Democratically, a natural person should not be permitted to own any means of publication or information.
However he has the natural right to express himself by any means, even if it is in an irrational manner to prove his madness. Any journal issued by a trading association or by a chamber of commerce is only a means of expression for this particular social group.
It presents its own point of view and not the viewpoint of public opinion. This applies to all other corporate and natural persons in society.
The democratic press is that which is issued by a popular committee comprising all the various categories of society.
[42]
In this case only, and not otherwise, will the press or any information medium be an expression of the whole society and a bearer of the viewpoint of its categories and thereby the press or information medium will be indeed democratic.
If the Medical Association issues a journal, it must be purely medical.
Similarly this applies to other categories.
The natural person has the right to express only himself and he is not entitled from the democratic point of view to express anybody else. In this
way, what is called the problem of press freedom in the world will be solved radically and democratically.
The continuing problem of press freedom in the world today is generally the product of the problem of democracy.
It can not be solved unless the entire crisis of democracy in the whole society is solved. Only the Third Universal
Theory can solve the intricate problem of democracy.
[43]
According to this theory, the democratic system is a cohesive structure whose foundations are firmly laid on basic popular congresses, people’s
committees and professional associations.
All these come together in the General People’s Congress. Absolutely, there is no other conception for a genuine democratic society.
Finally, the era of the masses, which approaches us at a rapid pace following the era of the republics, inflames the feelings and dazzles the eyes.
As much as this era gladly announces the real freedom of the masses and their happy emancipation from the shackles of instruments of governing so much it warns of the approach of an age of anarchy and demagogy if the new democracy, which is the authority of the people, does not relapse and the
authority of the individual, class, tribe, sect or party again comes to predominate.
Theoretically, this is the genuine democracy. But realistically, the strong always rule, i.e., the stronger part in the society is the one that rules.
[44]
*************************************************************
THE GREEN BOOK (Part Two)
by Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi.
The Solution of the ECONOMIC PROBLEM ’Socialism’
THE ECONOMIC BASIS OF THE THIRD UNIVERSAL THEORY
Important historical developments have taken place which contribute to solving the problem of work and wages, i.e. the relationship between the workers and the employers, between the producers and the owners.
The developments include fixed working-hours, wages for additional work, different types of leave, minimum wages, profit sharing and participation
in administration. In addition, arbitrary dismissal has been outlawed and social security has been guaranteed, along with the right to strike and
whatever other provisions are found in almost all modern labour laws. Of no less significance are the changes in the field of ownership such as the emergence of systems limiting income or outlawing private ownership and transferring it to the state.
Despite all these not inconsiderable developments in the history of the economic problem, nevertheless the problem still basically exists.
[3]
Partners not wage-workers.
The modifications, improvements, provisions and other measures have made the problem less severe than it was in past centuries by gaining many advantages for the workers.
Yet, the economic problem has not been solved. All the attempts which have concentrated on ownership have not solved the problem of producers. They are still wage workers, even when ownership has been transferred from the extreme right to the extreme left or has been given various intermediate positions.
Attempts to improve wages are as important as those which lead to the transference of ownership.
The benefits received by workers, guaranteed by legislation and protected by Trade Unions are all that have been achieved in tackling the problem of
wages.
Thus the hard conditions of the producers immediately after the Industrial Revolution have been transformed, and, in the course of time workers, technicians and administrators have gained previously unattainable rights. However, the economic problem still, in fact, exists.
[4]
This attempt confined to wages was certainly not a solution at all. It is an artificial attempt, aimed merely at reform, more of a charity than a recognition of the right of workers.
Why are the workers given wages? Because they carry out a production process for the benefit of others who hire them to produce a certain product.
In this case, they have not consumed their production, but have been obliged to surrender it for a wage.
The sound rule is:
‘He who produces is the one who consumes.’
Wage-workers are a type of slave, however improved their wages may be.
The wage-worker is like a slave to the master who hires him. He is even a temporary slave, since his slavery
lasts as long as he works for wages from the employer, whether the latter is an individual or a state.
The workers’ relationship with the owner of the productive establishment as regards their own interests is one and the same
… Under all conditions prevailing now in the world they are wage-workers, even though ownership varies . . . from the right to the left.
[5]
The public economic establishment itself gives to its workers only wages and other social benefits; and these do not differ from the charity granted to the workers by the rich, the owners of private economic corporations.
The argument that, in the case of public ownership, income reverts to society, including the workers, in contrast to the case of the private corporation where income reverts only to its owner, is valid.
This is so provided that we take into consideration the general interests of the society rather than the particular interests of the workers, and provided that we assume that the political authority which monopolizes ownership is the authority of all the people, that is to say the authority of the people in their entirety, as practiced through their popular congresses, people’s committees and professional syndicates rather than the authority of one class, one party, group of parties, sect, family, tribe, individual or any other representative authority.
[6]
However, what is received directly by the workers, as regards their own interests, in the form of wages, percentage of the profit or social benefits, is
the same as is received by the workers in the private corporation.
That is to say, workers in both public and private establishments are equally wage-workers though the owners differ.
Thus the change in ownership from one type to another has not solved the problem of the workers’ right in what has been produced directly by himself,
and not by society or for wages. The proof is that the producers are still wage-workers despite the change in ownership.
The ultimate solution is to abolish the wage-system, emancipate man from its bondage and return to the natural law which defined relationships before the emergence of classes, forms of government and man-made laws.
The natural rules are the measure, the reference book and the sole course in human relations.
Natural law has led to natural socialism based on equality among the economic factors of production and has almost brought about, among individuals, consumption equal to nature’s production.
[7]
But the exploitation of man by man and the possession by some individuals of more of the general wealth than they need is a manifest departure from natural law and the beginning of distortion and corruption in the life of the human community.
It is the beginning of the emergence of the society of exploitation.
If we analyse the economic factors of production from ancient times till now we always find that they are composed of these essentials: raw materials, an instrument of production and a producer.
The natural rule of equality is that each of the factors has a share in this production, for if any of them is withdrawn, there will be no production.
Each factor has an essential role in the process of production and without it production comes to a halt. As long as each factor is essential and fundamental, they are all equal in their essential character within the process of production.
Therefore they all should be equal in their right to what is produced.
The encroachment of one factor on another is opposed to the natural rule of equality, and is an attack on the right of others.
[8]
Each factor, then, has a share regardless of the number of factors. If we find a process of production which can be performed by only two factors,
each factor shall have half of the production. If it is carried out by three factors, each shall have a third of the production and so on …
Applying this natural rule to both ancient and modern situations we find the following:
In the state of manual production the productive process involved raw mate- rials, and man, the producer.
Later, an instrument of production intervened between the two and man used it in the productive process.
The animal may be considered as an example of the instrument as a power unit. It, then, developed and the machine replaced the animal.
Raw materials increased in kind and quantity, from cheap simple materials to valuable complex ones.
[9]
Likewise man developed from an ordinary worker into a technician and an engineer and a large number of workers began to be replaced by a few technicians. Although the factors of production have quantitatively and qualitatively changed, the essential role of each factor has not changed.
For example, the iron-ore which is one of the factors of production, both past and present, was primitively manufactured by the iron smith to produce a
knife, an axe or a spear … etc.
The same iron-ore is now manufactured in big furnaces, and from it engineers and technicians produce machines, engines and all kinds of vehicles. The
animal — the horse, the mule or the camel and the like — which was one of the factors of production has now been replaced by the vast factory and huge
machines.
The means of production which were formerly primitive tools have now become sophisticated technical equipment.
The essential natural factors of production are basically stable despite their great development.
The essential stability of the factors of production makes the natural rule sound. It is inevitable, after the failure of all previous historical attempts, which disregarded natural law, to return to it in order, finally, to solve the economic problem.
[10]
The previous historical theories tackled the economic problem either from the angle of the ownership of one of the factors of production only or from the angle of wages for production only.
They have not solved the real problem, namely the problem of pro- duction itself. Thus the most important characteristic of the economic systems prevailing in the world today is the wage system which deprives the worker of any right in his production whether it is produced for society or
for a private establishment.
The industrial establishment is based on raw materials, machines and workers.
Production is the outcome of the workers’ use of the machines in the factory to manufacture raw materials.
In this way, the finished goods pass through a process of production which would have been impossible without the raw materials, the factory and the
workers.
So if we take away the raw materials, the factory cannot operate; if we take away the factory, the raw materials will not be manufactured and if we remove the producers, the factory comes to a halt.
[11]
The three factors are equally essential in the process of production.
Without these three factors there will be no production.
Any one factor cannot carry out this process by itself.
Even two of these factors cannot carry it out.
The natural rule in this case requires that the shares of the three factors in the production be equal, i.e. the production of such a factory is divided into three shares, a share for each of the factors of production.
It is not only the factory which is important, but also those who consume its production.
The same is the case in the process of agricultural production.
That which involves man and land without a third factor, the instrument, is exactly like the manual process of industrial production.
Here production is only divided into two shares in accordance with the number of factors of production.
But if an agricultural machine or the like is used, production is divided into three shares: the land, the farmer and the instrument used in the process of agriculture.
Thus a socialist system is established to which all processes of production are subjected, by analogy with this natural rule.
[12]
The producers are the workers.
We call them ‘producers’ because the words ‘workers’, ‘employees’ or ‘toilers’ are no longer applicable.
The reason is that workers, according to the traditional definition, are quantitatively and qualitatively changing.
The working class is continually declining as science and machines develop.
Strenuous tasks which previously had to be performed by a number of workers are now done by machines.
To run a machine requires a smaller number of workers.
This is the quantitative change in the labour force, while the qualitative change necessitated the re- placement of a physical force by technical skill.
A power which is totally concerned with producing has now become one of the factors of production.
As a result of these developments the workers have changed from a multitude of ignorant toilers into a limited number of technicians, engineers and scientists. Consequently, Trade Unions will disappear to be replaced by professional and technical syndicates because scientific development is an irreversible gain to humanity.
[13]
Through such scientific development, illiteracy will be eradicated and the ordinary worker as a temporal phenomenon will gradually disappear. However, man, in his new form, will always remain an essential factor in the process of production.
[14]
NEED
A person in need is a slave indeed.
Man’s freedom is lacking if somebody else controls what he needs.
For need may result in man’s enslavement of man. Need causes exploitation.
Need is an intrinsic problem and conflict grows out of the domination of man’s needs.
Masters in their own castles.
The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family.
Therefore, it should not be owned by others.
There is no freedom for a man who lives in another’s house, whether he pays rent or not.
All attempts made by various countries to solve the problem of housing are not solutions at all.
The reason is that those attempts do not aim at the radical and ultimate solution of man,
which is the necessity of his owning his own house.
The attempts have concentrated on the reduction or increase of rent and its standardization, whether at public or private expense.
In the socialist society no one, including the society itself, is allowed to have control over man’s need.
[15]
In need freedom indeed.
No one has the right to build a house, additional to his own and that of his heirs, for the purpose of renting it, because the house represents another
person’s need, and building it for the purpose of rent is an attempt to have control over the need of that man and
‘In Need Freedom is Latent’.The income is an imperative need for man.
Thus the income of any man in the society should not be a wage from any source or a charity from anyone