Muammar Gaddafi. The Green Book. Written: First Published: The Solution of the Problem of Democracy: The Authority of the People, The Solution of. approach to the impact of Muammar Gaddafi, although Libya is presentely in an . Green Book (political, economic and social estrategies and proposals, U.S. Library of Congress, in: caite.info pdf. The Green Book [Muammar Al Gathafi] on caite.info *FREE* shipping on Muammar Gaddafi is the Arab world's longest-serving leader. Col Gaddafi came .
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|Genre:||Politics & Laws|
|ePub File Size:||28.66 MB|
|PDF File Size:||11.31 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
GREEN BOOK presents the ultimate solution to the problem of the proper instrument of government. All political systems in the world today are a product of the. The Green Book is a short book setting out the political philosophy of Libyan leader Muammar .. WorldCat: Formats and editions of The Green Book · caite.info: The Green Book (pdf file). The Green Book Muammar al-Qaddafi Contents The Solution of the Problem of THE GREEN BOOK presents the ultimate solution to the problem of the proper.
Since his wages cannot satisfy his needs, the choices are either to look for another master to get a better price for his work, or be forced, as a matter of survival, to remain where he is. Further, we would have to assume that the political authority control- ling ownership is that of all the people, practised through the Popular Conferences and People's Committees, and not the au- thority of one class, one party, several parties, one sect, tribe, family, individual, or any form of representative authority Fail- ing this, what is received directly by the workers with respect to their own interests, in the form of wages, percentage of profits or social benefits, is the same as that received by workers in a private corporation. The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or motherhood because of work abandons her natural role under similar coercive conditions. The struggle to liberate do- mestic servants from their status of slavery and to transform them into partners, where their material production can be di- vided into its necessary basic components, is an inevitable pro- cess. Only the religious factor is a rival to the social factor in influencing the unity of a group. It is not an un- productive activity, nor one which seeks profit for surplus sav- ings beyond the satisfaction of such needs. All political systems in the world today are a product of the struggle for power between alternative instruments of govern- ment.
It will be replaced by the true definition: Democracy is the supervision of the people by the people. All citizens who are members of these Popular Conferences belong, vocationally and functionally, to various sectors and have, therefore, to form themselves into their own professional Popular Conferences in addition to being, by virtue of citizen- ship, members of the Basic Popular Conferences or People's Committees.
Reso- lutions of the General People's Congress, which meets annually or periodically, are passed on to the Popular Conferences and People's Committees, which undertake the execution of those resolutions through the responsible committees, which are, in turn, accountable to the Basic Popular Conferences.
The General People's Congress is not a gathering of persons or members such as those of parliaments but, rather, a gathering of the Popular Conferences and People's Committees.
Thus, the problem of the instrument of government is natu- rally solved, and all dictatorial instruments disappear. The peo- ple become the instrument of government, and the dilemma of democracy in the world is conclusively solved. Although it was dealt with in different periods of history, the problem still persists today.
For a committee or an assembly to be empowered to draft the law of society is both invalid and undemocratic. It is also invalid and undemocratic for the law of society to be abrogated or amended by individual, a committee, or an assembly. What then is the law of society? Who drafts it and what is its relevance to democracy? The natural law of any society is grounded in either tradi- tion custom or religion. Any other attempt to draft law outside these two sources is invalid and illogical.
Constitutions cannot be considered the law of society. A constitution is fundamen- tally a man-made positive law, and lacks the natural source from which it must derive its justification. The problem of freedom in the modern age is that constitu- tions have become the law of societies. These constitutions are based solely on the premises of the instruments of dictatorial rule prevailing in the world today, ranging from the individual to the party.
Proof of this are the differences existing in various constitutions, although human freedom is one and the same. This is how freedom becomes vulnerable under contemporary forms of government.
The method by which a specific modality of government seeks to dominate the people is contained in the constitution. The people are compelled to accept it by virtue of the laws de- rived from that constitution, which is itself the product of the tendencies within particular instruments of governments.
The laws of the dictatorial instruments of government have replaced the natural laws, i. Consequently, ethical standards have become confused.
The human being is essentially, physically and emotionally, the same everywhere. Because of this fact, natural laws are applicable to all. However, constitutions as conventional laws do not perceive human beings equally. This view has no justification, except for the fact that it reflects the will of the instrument of government, be it an individual, an assembly, a class or a party. That is why constitutions change when an alteration in the instruments of government takes place, indicating that a constitution is not nat- ural law but reflects the drive of the instrument of government to serve its own purpose.
The abrogation of natural laws from human societies and their replacement by conventional laws is the fundamental dan- ger that threatens freedom.
Any ruling system must be made subservient to natural laws, not the reverse. The fundamental law of society must not be subject to his- torical drafting or composition. Its importance lies in being the decisive criterion in light of which truth and falsehood, right and wrong, and individual rights and duties can be judged. It is, rather, the responsibility of the instrument of government to adhere to the laws of society. Un- fortunately, people the world over are currently ruled by man- made laws that can be changed or abrogated, depending upon the struggle for power among competing forms of government.
Conducting plebiscites on constitutions is often insufficient. Plebiscites are essentially a counterfeit of democracy since a "yes" or "no" is the only option. Moreover, under man-made law, people are compelled to vote on these plebiscites. Conduct- ing a plebiscite on a constitution does not necessarily make the constitution the law of society.
In other words, the status of a constitution will not be altered by a plebiscite; it will remain no more than the subject of a plebiscite. The law of society is an eternal human heritage that does not belong only to the living.
Therefore, drafting a constitution or conducting a plebiscite on it is a mockery. The catalogues of man-made laws emanating from man- made constitutions are fraught with physical penalties directed against human beings, while tradition contains few such mea- sures. Tradition lays down moral, non-physical penalties that conform to the intrinsic nature of humanity.
Religion contains tradition and absorbs it; and tradition is a manifestation of the natural life of people. Its teachings comprise basic social guide- lines and answers to the fundamental questions of existence. Most physical penalties are deferred to a future judgment.
This is the most appropriate law affording due respect to the human being. Religion does not provide for prompt penalties, save in certain compelling instances necessary to the well-being of society. Therefore, religion is an affirma- tion of natural laws which are discerned therein. Laws which are not premised on religion and tradition are merely an invention by man to be used against his fellow man. Consequently, such laws are invalid because they do not emanate from the natural source of tradition and religion.
The question arises: Democratically no one group can claim this right on behalf of society. Therefore, society alone supervises itself. It is dictatorial for any individual or group to claim the right of the supervision of the laws of the society, which is, democratically, the respon- sibility of the society as a whole.
This can be arrived at through the democratic instrument of government that results from the organization of the society itself into Basic Popular Conferences, and through the government of these people through People's Committees and the General People's Congress - the national congress - where Secretariats of the Popular Conferences and the People's Committees convene. In accordance with this the- ory, the people become the instrument of government and, in turn, become their own supervisors.
Society thus secures self- supervision over its laws. If the instrument of government is dictatorial, as is the case in the world's political systems today, society's awareness of devia- tion from its laws is expressed only through violence to redirect its course, i.
Violence and revolution, even though they reflect the sentiments of society regarding deviation, do not constitute an exercise in which the whole of society takes part. Rather, violence and rev- olution are carried out by those who have the capability and courage to take the initiative and proclaim the will of society. However, this unilateral approach is dictatorial because the rev- olutionary initiative in itself provides the opportunity for a new instrument of government representing the people to arise.
This means that the governing structure remains dictatorial. In addi- tion, violence and effecting change by force are both undemo- cratic, even though they take place as a reaction against an un- democratic prior condition. The society that revolves around this concept is backward. What, then, is the solution? The solution lies in the people being themselves the instru- ment of government whose authority is derived from Basic Pop- ular Conferences and the General People's Congress; in elimi- nating government administration and replacing it by People's Committees; and finally, in the General People's Congress be- 33 CHAPTER 9.
In such a system, if deviation takes place, it is then rectified by a total democratic revision, and not through the use of force. The process here is not a voluntary option for social change and treatment of social ills. It is, rather, an inevitable result of the nature of this democratic system because, in such a case, there is no outside group who can be held responsible for such deviation or against whom violence can be directed.
Corporate bodies too have the right to express their corporate identity The former represent only themselves and the latter represent those who share their corporate identity. Since society consists of private individuals and corporate bodies, the expres- sion, for example, by an individual of his or her insanity does not mean that the other members of society are insane. Such expression reflects only in the individual's character.
Likewise, corporate expression reflects only the interest or view of those making up the corporate body. For instance, a tobacco company, despite the fact that what it produces is harmful to health, ex- presses the interests of those who make up the company. The press is a means of expression for society: Therefore, logically and democratically, it should not belong to either one of them. A newspaper owned by any individual is his or her own, and expresses only his or her point of view.
Any claim that a newspa- per represents public opinion is groundless because it actually expresses the viewpoint of that private individual. Democrati- cally, private individuals should not be permitted to own any public means of publication or information. Any journal issued by a professional sec- tor, for example, is only a means of expression of that particular social group.
It presents their own points of view and not that of the general public. This applies to all other corporate and private individuals in society. The democratic press is that which is issued by a People's Committee, comprising all the groups of society. Only in this case, and not otherwise, will the press or any other information medium be democratic, expressing the viewpoints of the whole society, and representing all its groups.
If medical professionals issue a journal, it must be purely medical. Similarly, this applies to other groups. Private individ- uals have the right to express only their own, and not anyone else's opinions. What is known as the problem of the freedom of the press in the world will be radically and democratically solved.
Because it is by-product of the problem of democracy generally, the prob- lem of freedom of the press cannot be solved independently of that of democracy in society as a whole. Therefore, the only so- lution to the persistent problem of democracy is through The Third Universal Theory. According to this theory, the democratic system is a cohe- sive structure whose foundations are firmly laid on Basic Pop- ular Conferences and People's Committees which convene in a General People's Congress.
This is absolutely the only form of genuine democratic society. In summary, the era of the masses, which follows the age of the republics, excites the feelings and dazzles the eyes.
But even though the vision of this era denotes genuine freedom of the masses and their happy emancipation from the bonds of 36 CHAPTER THE PRESS external authoritarian structures, it warns also of the dangers of a period of chaos and demagoguery, and the threat of a return to the authority of the individual, the sect and party, instead of the authority of the people. Theoretically, this is genuine democracy but, realistically, the strong always rules, i.
Socialism 39 11 The Economic Basis Of The Third Universal Theory Important historical developments contributing to the solution of the problem of work and wages - the relationship between producers and owners, workers and employers - have occurred in recent history.
These developments include the determination of fixed working hours, overtime pay, leaves, minimal wages, profit sharing, the participation of workers in administration, the banning of arbitrary dismissal, social security, the right to strike, and other provisions contained in labour codes of al- most all contemporary legislation.
Of no less significance are changes in the realm of ownership, such as the enactment of laws transferring private ownership to the state, and also those limiting income.
Despite these not inconsiderable developments in the history of economics, the problem still fundamentally ex- ists, even though it has been made less severe than in past cen- turies through improvements, refinements and developments that have brought many benefits to the workers.
However, the economic problem still persists unsolved in the world. Attempts aimed at ownership have failed to solve the problems of producers. They are still wage-earners, despite the state ownership which may vary from the extreme right to the extreme left to the centre of the political spectrum.
Attempts to improve wages were equally significant to those that were aimed at the transferral of ownership. As time passed, workers, technicians, and administrators have acquired certain rights which were previ- ously unattainable.
However, in reality, the economic problem still exists. Attempts that were aimed at wages were contrived and refor- mative, and have failed to provide a solution.
They were more of a charity than a recognition of the rights of the workers. Why do workers receive 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 do not consume what they produce; rather, they are compelled to concede their product for wages.
Hence, the sound rule: Wage-earners, however improved their wages may be, are a type of slave. Wage-earners are but slaves to the masters who hire them. They are temporary slaves, and their slavery lasts as long as they work for wages from employers, be they individuals or the state.
The workers' relationship to the owner or the productive establishment, and to their own interests, is similar under all prevailing conditions in the world today, regardless of whether ownership is right or left. Even publicly-owned establishments give workers wages as well as other social benefits, similar to the charity endowed by the rich owners of economic establishments upon those who work for them.
Unlike the privately-owned establishment where income ben- efits the owner, the claim that the income from the public-owned establishment benefits all of the society, including the workers, is true only if we take into consideration the general welfare of the 42 CHAPTER Further, we would have to assume that the political authority control- ling ownership is that of all the people, practised through the Popular Conferences and People's Committees, and not the au- thority of one class, one party, several parties, one sect, tribe, family, individual, or any form of representative authority Fail- ing this, what is received directly by the workers with respect to their own interests, in the form of wages, percentage of profits or social benefits, is the same as that received by workers in a private corporation.
In both instances, the producers are wage- earners, despite the difference in ownership. Thus, this change in ownership has not solved the problem of the producer's right to benefit directly from what he produces, and not through the society nor through wages.
The proof thereof is the fact that pro- ducers are still wage-earners despite the change in this state of ownership. The ultimate solution lies in abolishing the wage-system, emancipating people from its bondage and reverting to the nat- ural laws which defined relationships before the emergence of classes, forms of governments and man-made laws. These nat- ural rules are the only measures that ought to govern human relations.
These natural rules have produced natural socialism based on equality among the components of economic production, and have maintained public consumption almost equal to natural production among individuals. The exploitation of man by man and the possession by some individuals of more of the general wealth than their needs required is a manifest departure from the natural rule and the beginning of distortion and corruption 43 CHAPTER It heralds the start of the exploitative society.
If we analyse the factors of economic production from ancient times to the present, we always find that they essentially con- sist of certain basic production components, i. The natural rule of equal- ity requires that each of these components receives a share of this production. Because production cannot be achieved with- out the essential role of each of these components, it has to be equally divided amongst them.
The preponderance of one of them contravenes the natural rule of equality and becomes an encroachment upon the others' rights. Thus, each must be awarded an equal share, regardless of the number of compo- nents in the process of production. If the components are two, each receives half of the production; if three, then one-third. Applying this natural rule to both ancient and modern situ- ations, we arrive at the following.
At the stage of manual pro- duction, the process of production resulted from raw material and a producer. Later, new means of production were added to the process.
Animals, utilized as power units, constitute a good example. Gradually, machines replaced animals, types and amounts of raw materials evolved from the simple and inexpen- sive to the valuable and complex. Likewise, the unskilled work- ers became skilled workers and engineers; their former huge numbers dwindling to a few specialized technicians. Despite the fact that components have qualitatively and quan- titatively changed, their essential role in production has re- mained basically unaltered.
For example, iron ore, a component of both past and present production, was manufactured prim- itively by iron smiths into knives, axes, spears, etc. The animal - horse, mule, camel, or the like - which was a component of production, has been replaced by factories and huge machines.
Production, based upon primitive tools, is now founded upon sophisticated technical instruments. Despite these tremendous changes, the components of natural produc- tion remain basically the same.
This consistency inevitably ne- cessitates returning to sound natural rules to solve the economic problems that are the result of all previous historical attempts to formulate solutions that ignore these rules. All previous historical theories tackled the economic problem either from the angle of ownership of any of the components of production, or from that of wages for production.
They failed to solve the real problem; the problem of production itself. Thus, the most important characteristic of economic order prevailing in the world today is a wage system that deprives the workers of any right to the products being produced, be it for the society or for a private establishment. An industrial establishment is composed of material for pro- duction, machines and workers. Production is achieved by work- ers manufacturing materials and using machines. Thus, man- ufactured goods would not have been ready for use and con- sumption had they not gone through a production process re- quiring raw materials, factories, and workers.
Clearly, without basic raw materials, the factory cannot operate and without the factory, raw materials will not be manufactured. Likewise, with- out producers, the factory comes to a halt.
Thus, the three factors are equally essential to the process of production, and without them there can be no production.
Therefore, the natural rule necessitates each component receiving an equal share of the benefits of production. It is not only the factory that is important, but those who consume its production as well.
The same is applicable to agricultural production processes resulting from only two components: The prod- uct must be divided equally into two shares congruent with the number of production components. Furthermore, if any addi- tional mode, mechanical or otherwise is utilized in the process, production must be equally divided into three shares: Consequently, a so- cialist system emerges under which all production processes are governed by this natural rule.
The producers are the workers; they are called producers be- cause the terms "worker," "labourer," and "toiler" have become invalid. The traditional definition is revised because workers are undergoing qualitative and quantitative changes. The working class is declining proportionately to the advancement of science and technology.
Tasks once performed by a number of workers are now being carried out by a single machine. Operating a machine requires fewer workers; this has brought about a quantitative change in the labour force, while the replacement of physical force by tech- nical skill has resulted in a qualitative change in the labour force. The labour force has become a component of the produc- tion process. As a result of technical advancement, multitudes of unskilled toilers have been transformed into limited num- bers of technicians, engineers and scientists.
Consequently, trade unions will subsequently disappear and be replaced by syndi- cates of engineers and technicians.
Thanks to this process, illiter- acy will be eliminated and unskilled workers will become a tem- porary phenomenon destined to gradual disappearance. How- ever, even in this new environment, persons will always remain the basic component in the production process. Furthermore, exploitation is caused by need.
Need is an intrinsic problem and conflict is initiated by the control of one's needs by another. Living in another's house, whether paying rent or not, compromises freedom. At- tempts made by various countries to solve the housing problem did not provide a definite solution because such attempts did not target the ultimate solution - the necessity that people own their dwellings - but rather offered the reduction, increase, or standardization of rent, whether it went to privately or publicly- owned enterprise.
In a socialist society, no one, including soci- ety itself, has the right to control people's needs. No one has the right to acquire a house additional to his or her own dwelling and that of his or her heirs for the purpose of renting it be- cause this additional house is, in fact, a need of someone else.
Acquiring it for such a purpose is the beginning of controlling the needs of others, and "in need freedom is latent". In a socialist society, it should not be in the form of wages from any source or charity from any one.
In this society there are no wage-earners, but only partners. One's income is a private matter and should either be managed privately to meet one's needs or be a share from a production process of which one is an essential component. It should not be a wage in return for production. It should not be owned by others. In a socialist so- ciety no person or authority has the right to own a means of transportation for the purpose of renting it, for this also means controlling the needs of others.
Rather, everyone has the right to beneficially utilize it by working, farming or pasturing as long as he and his heirs live on it - to satisfy their needs, but without employing others with or without a wage. If lands were privately owned, only the living would have a share in it. Land is permanent, while those who benefit from the land undergo, in the course of time, changes in profession, capabili- ties and existence.
The aspiration of the new socialist society is to create a society which is happy because it is free. This can only be achieved by satisfying, man's material and spiritual needs, and that, in turn, comes about through the liberation of these needs from the con- trol of others. Satisfaction of these needs must be attained with- out exploiting or enslaving others; otherwise, the aspirations of the new socialist society are contradicted.
Thus, the citizen in this new society secures his material needs either through self-employment, or by being a partner in a collectively-owned establishment, or by rendering public service to society which, in return, provides for his material needs.
Economic activity in the new socialist society is a productive one aimed at the satisfaction of material needs. It is not an un- productive activity, nor one which seeks profit for surplus sav- ings beyond the satisfaction of such needs.
This, according to the new socialist basis, is unacceptable. LAND for private economic activities is only to satisfy one's needs be- cause the wealth of the world, as well as that of each individual society is finite at each stage.
No one has the right to undertake an economic activity whereby wealth exceeding the satisfaction of one's needs can be amassed. Such accumulations are, in fact, the deprived right of others. One only has the right to save from his own production and not by employing others, or to save at the expense of his or her own needs and not of others.
If economic activity is allowed to extend beyond the satisfaction of needs, some will acquire more than required for their needs while others will be deprived.
The savings which are in excess of one's needs are another person's share of the wealth of soci- ety. Allowing private economic activity to amass wealth beyond the satisfaction of one's needs and employing others to satisfy one's needs or beyond, or to secure savings, is the very essence of exploitation. Work for wages, in addition to being enslavement as previ- ously mentioned, is void of incentives because the producer is a wage-earner and not a partner.
Self-employed persons are un- doubtedly devoted to their work because from it they satisfy their material needs. Likewise, those who work in a collective establishment are also devoted to their work because they are partners in it and they satisfy their material needs from the pro- duction.
Whoever works for a wage, on the other hand, has little incentive to work. Work for wages has failed to solve the problem of motivation for increasing and developing production.
Whether it is a service or goods production, work for wages is continuously deteriorat- ing because it is performed by unmotivated wage-earners. First example: The society gives him one apple for his production and it fully satisfies his needs. The society gives him one apple for his production which does not satisfy his needs. Second example: A worker produces ten apples for another person and gets wages less than the price of one apple.
Third example: A worker produces ten apples for himself. The conclusion: In the first example a , because the worker's wages are lim- ited to one unit which satisfies his needs, he has no incentive to increase his production. Thus, all the labour force that works for society is psychologically apathetic.
However, he continues working without any incentives because generally, like all mem- bers, he is forced to acquiesce to the working conditions of the society. In the second example, the worker works basically to get wages and not to produce. Since his wages cannot satisfy his needs, the choices are either to look for another master to get a better price for his work, or be forced, as a matter of survival, to remain where he is.
In the third example, the self-employed alone is the one who produces eagerly and voluntarily. LAND In a socialist society, there is no possibility for private produc- tion to exceed the satisfaction of one's needs because satisfaction of needs at the expense or by means of others is not permit- ted.
Moreover, socialist establishments operate only for the sat- isfaction of the needs of society Accordingly, the third example demonstrates the sound basis of its economic production. However, in all instances, even the bad ones production is as- sociated with survival.
The proof thereof is that, even though in capitalist societies production accumulates and expands in the hands of only a few owners who do not work but exploit the efforts of others, the toilers are still forced to produce in order to survive. However, THE GREEN BOOK not only solves the problem of material production but also prescribes a compre- hensive solution for the problems facing human societies so that individuals may be totally liberated, materially and spiritually, in order to attain their happiness.
Other examples: If we assume that the wealth of a society is ten units and its inhabitants are ten persons, then the share of each member is one-tenth of the total one unit per person. If some members of this society get more than one unit each, then a certain number from the society get nothing. Their share of the wealth of their society has been acquired by others.
Hence, the presence of rich and poor in an exploitative society. Let us also suppose that five members of that particular society each own two units.
In such a case, half of the society is deprived of their rights to the wealth of their society, for what should be theirs has been acquired by others. If an individual of that society needs only one of the units of the wealth of the society to satisfy his needs, then those who 60 CHAPTER LAND possess more than one unit are, in fact, seizing the rights of other members of the society.
Because the one unit is all that is required to satisfy the needs of an individual, the additional units are acquired for the purpose of savings.
This can only be achieved at the expense of the needs of others; the acquisition of others' share in this wealth. This is the reason behind the existence of those who hoard and do not spend; those who save beyond the satisfaction of their needs; and the existence of those who beg and are deprived of their right to the wealth of the society and do not find enough to consume.
Such is an act of plunder and theft, yet according to the unjust and exploitative rules governing such a society, it is legitimate and overt. Any surplus beyond the satisfaction of needs should ulti- mately belong to all members of society.
Individuals, however, have a right to effect savings from the share allocated to their own needs since it is the amassing of wealth beyond the sat- isfaction of one's needs that is an encroachment upon public wealth.
The industrious and skilful in a society have no right, as a result of this advantage, to take from the shares of others. They can use their talents to satisfy their own needs and save from those needs.
Like any other member of the society, the aged and the mentally and physically disabled should have their fair share of the wealth of the society. The wealth of a society may be likened to a supply estab- lishment or a store providing a certain number of people with daily rations satisfying their needs. Each person has a right to save from such provisions what he wants, i. LAND talents to acquire excessively from the "supply establishment" are undoubtedly thieves.
Therefore, those using their skill to ac- quire wealth exceeding the satisfaction of their needs are, in fact, infringing upon the public right, namely, the wealth of society which is like the store in the said example. Disparity in the wealth of individuals in the new socialist so- ciety is not tolerated, save for those rendering certain services to the society for which they are accorded an amount congruent with their services.
Individual shares only differ relative to the amount of production or public service rendered in excess. Hence, human experiences through history have produced a new experiment in a unique attempt to culminate the struggle of persons to complete their freedom, to achieve happiness through satisfying their needs, to ward off exploitation by others, to put an end to tyranny, and to find a method to distribute the wealth of the society equitably, without exploiting others or compro- mising their needs.
It is the theory of the fulfilment of needs for the emancipation of humanity. The new socialist society is but a dialectical outcome of the unjust relationships prevailing in the world today.
The new so- cialist society will introduce the natural solution - privately- owned property to satisfy one's needs without exploitation, and collective property in which the producers are partners replac- ing private enterprise, which is based on the production of oth- ers without recognizing their right to a just share of the product.
Whoever possesses the house in which you dwell, the vehicle in which you ride or the income on which you live, possesses your freedom, or part of it. Freedom is indivisible. For people to be happy, they must be free, and to be free, they must possess the possibility of satisfying their own needs.
LAND the means of fulfilling your needs controls or exploits you, and may enslave you despite any legislation to the contrary The material needs of people that are basic and personal start with food, housing, clothing and transport and must be regarded as private and sacred and their satisfaction should not depend on hire.
To satisfy these material needs through rent, gives the original owner the right to interfere in your personal life and to control your imperative needs, even if the original owner be the soci- ety in general. The original owner can usurp your freedom and take away your happiness. The interference of the original owner may include repossessing your clothes, even leaving you naked on the street.
Likewise, the owner of your means of transporta- tion may leave you stranded on the sidewalk, and the owner of your house may make you homeless. People's imperative needs cannot be regulated by legal or administrative procedures. They must be fundamentally im- planted into the society in accordance with natural rules. The aim of the socialist society is the happiness of the human being, which cannot be attained except by the establishment of one's material, and spiritual freedom.
The achievement of free- dom depends on the private and sacred attainment of man's needs. One's needs should not be under the domination of oth- ers and should not be subject to plunder by any source in society, otherwise one will live in insecurity. Deprivation of the means of fulfilment compromises freedom because, in attempting to satisfy basic needs, one would be subject to the interference of outside forces in one's basic interests.
The transformation of existing societies of wage-earners into those of partners is inevitable as a dialectical outcome of the 63 CHAPTER LAND contradictory economic theories prevailing in the world today. It is also a dialectical outcome of the unjust relationship based on the wage system. None of these issues have been resolved to date. The antagonistic force of the trade unions in the capitalist world is capable of replacing capitalistic wage societies by a soci- ety of partnerships.
The possibility of a socialist revolution starts by producers taking over their share of the production. Con- sequently the aims of the producers' strikes will change from demanding increases in wages to controlling their share in pro- duction.
The final step is for the new socialist society to reach a stage in which profit and money disappear. Society will become fully productive; the material needs of society will be met. In this final stage, profit will disappear, as will the need for money. The recognition of profit is an acknowledgment of exploita- tion, for profit has no limit.
Attempts so far to limit profit by various means have been reformative, not radical, intending to prohibit exploitation of man by man. The final solution lies in eradicating profit, but because profit is the dynamic force be- hind the economic process, eliminating profit is not a matter of decree but, rather, an outcome of the evolving socialist process. This solution can be attained when the material satisfaction of the needs of society and its members is achieved. Work to in- crease profit will itself lead to its final eradication.
Indeed, they are the slaves of the modern age. Since the new socialist society is based on partnership and not on a wage system, natural socialist rules do not apply to domestic servants because they render services rather than pro- duction. Services have no tangible material product and cannot be divided into shares according to the natural socialist rule. Domestic servants have no alternative but to work for wages, or even be unpaid in the worst of situations.
As wage-earners are a type of slave and their slavery exists as long as they work for wages, domestic servants, whose position is lower than that of wage-earners in economic establishments and corporations, have an even greater need to be emancipated from the society of wage-labour and the society of slaves.
Domestic servants is a phenomenon that comes next to slav- ery. The Third Universal Theory heralds emancipation from the fetters of injustice, despotism, exploitation, and economic and political hegemony, for the purpose of establishing a society of all the people where all are free and share equally in authority, wealth and arms.
Freedom will then triumph definitively and universally. The struggle to liberate do- mestic servants from their status of slavery and to transform them into partners, where their material production can be di- vided into its necessary basic components, is an inevitable pro- cess. Households should be serviced by their habitants. Essential household services should not be performed by domestic ser- vants, paid or unpaid, but by employees who can be promoted in rendering their services and can enjoy social and material benefits as any other public employee would.
The social bond, which binds together human com- munities from the family through the tribe to the nation, is the basis for the movement of history Heroes in history are, by definition, those who have sacrificed for causes.
But what causes? They sacrificed for the sake of oth- ers, but which others? They are those with whom they maintain a relationship.
Therefore, the relationship between an individual and a group is a social one that governs the people's dealings amongst themselves. Nationalism, then, is the base upon which one nation emerges. Social causes are therefore national, and the national relationship is a social one.
The social relationship is derived from society, i. The social relationship is, therefore, a national rela- tionship and the national is a social relationship. Even if small in number, communities or groups form one nation regardless of the individual relationship amongst its members. What is meant here by a community is that which is permanent because of the common national ties that govern it.
Historic movements are mass movements, i. These differentiations indicate the so- cial characteristics that bind a community together.
A group movement is a nation's movement for its own interests. By virtue of its national structure, each group has common social needs which must be collectively satisfied. These needs are in no way individualistic; they are collective needs, rights, demands, or objectives of a nation which are linked by a single ethos.
That is why these movements are called national movements. Con- temporary national liberation movements are themselves social movements; they will not come to an end before every group is liberated from the domination of another group. The world is now passing through one of the regular cycles of the movement of history, namely, the social struggle in support of nationalism.
In the world of man, this is as much a historical reality as it is a social reality. That means that the national struggle - the social struggle - is the basis of the movement of history. It is stronger than all other factors since it is in the nature of the human group; it is in the nature of the nation; it is the nature of life itself.
Other animals, apart from man, live in groups. Indeed, just as the community is the basis for the survival of all groups within the animal kingdom, so nationalism is the basis for the survival of nations. Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subject to ruin.
Minorities, which are one of the main political problems in the world, are the outcome. They are nations whose nationalism has been destroyed and which are thus torn apart. It is the nation's innate momentum for survival. Nationalism in the human world and group instinct in the animal kingdom are like gravity in the domain of material and celestial bodies.
If the sun lost its gravity, its gasses would ex- plode and its unity would no longer exist. Accordingly, unity is the basis for survival. The factor of unity in any group is a social factor; in man's case, nationalism.
For this reason, human communities struggle for their own national unity, the basis for their survival. The national factor, the social bond, works automatically to impel a nation towards survival, in the same way that the gravity of an object works to keep it as one mass surrounding its centre.
The dissolution and dispersion of atoms in an atomic bomb are the result of the explosion of the nucleus, which is the focus of gravitation for the particles around it. When the factor of unity in those component systems is destroyed and gravity is lost, ev- ery atom is separately dispersed. This is the nature of matter.
It is an established natural law. To disregard it or to go against it is damaging to life. Similarly, man's life is damaged when he begins to disregard nationalism - the social factor - for it is the gravity of the group, the secret of its survival. Only the religious factor is a rival to the social factor in influencing the unity of a group.
The religious factor may divide the national group or unite groups with different nationalisms; however, the social fac- tor will eventually triumph. This has been the case throughout the ages. Historically, each nation had a religion.
This was har- monious. Eventually, however, differences arose which became a genuine cause of conflict and instability in the lives of people throughout the ages.
For it to be otherwise is abnormal. Such an abnormality creates an un- sound situation which becomes a real cause for disputes within one national group. There is no other solution but to be harmo- nious with the natural rule, i.
When the social factor is compatible with the religious factor, harmony prevails and the life of communities becomes stable, strong, and develops soundly. Marriage is a process that can positively or negatively influ- ence the social factor. Though, on a natural basis of freedom, both man and woman are free to accept whom they want and reject whom they do not want, marriage within a group, by its very nature, strengthens its unity and brings about collective growth in conformity with the social factor.
Mankind acknowledges the individual as a human being, and the individual acknowledges the family, which is his cradle, his origin, and his social umbrella. According to the law of nature, the human race is the individual and the family, but not the state. The human race has neither relations nor anything else to do with the state, which is an artificial political, economic, and sometimes military, system.
The family is like a plant, with branches, stems, leaves and blossoms. Cultivating nature into farms and gardens is an artificial process that has no relevance to the plant itself. The fact that certain political, economic or military factors tie a number of families into one state does not necessarily link this system or its organization with humanity.
Similarly, any situation, position or proceeding that results in the dispersion, decline or loss of the family is inhuman, unnatural and oppressive, analogous to any procedure, measure or action that destroys a plant and its branches and withers its leaves and blossoms. Societies in which the existence and unity of the family be- come threatened due to any circumstance, are similar to fields whose plants experience uprooting, drought, fire, weathering or death.
The blossoming garden or field is one whose plants grow, blossom and pollinate naturally. The flourishing society is that in which the individual grows naturally within the family and the family within society. The individual is linked to the larger family of humankind like a leaf is to a branch or a branch to a tree. They have no value or life if they are separated. The same holds true for individuals if they are separated from their families - the individual without a family has no value or social life.
If human society reaches the stage where the individual lives without a family, it would then become a society of tramps, without roots, like artificial plants. It follows that a tribe is an enlarged family. Similarly a nation is a tribe which has grown through procreation. The nation, then, is an enlarged tribe. The world is a nation which has been di- versified into various nations.
The world, then, is an enlarged nation. The relationship which binds the family also binds the tribe, the nation, and the world. However, it weakens with the increase in number. The essence of humanity is that of nation, the essence of nation is that of the tribe, and the essence of the tribe is that of family.
The degree of warmth involved in the re- lationship decreases proportionately with the increase in size of the social unit. This is an indisputable social fact denied only by those who are ignorant of it. The social bond, cohesiveness, unity, intimacy and love are stronger at the family level than at the tribal level, stronger at the tribal level than that of the nation, and stronger at the level of the nation than that of the world.
Advantages, privileges, values and ideals based on social bonds exist where those bonds are natural and undoubtedly strong.
They are stronger at the family level than at the level of the tribe, stronger at the tribal level than that of the nation, and stronger at the nation's level than that of the world. Thus, these social bonds, benefits, advantages and ideals associated with them are lost wherever the family, the tribe, the nation 75 CHAPTER It is, therefore, of great im- portance for human society to maintain the cohesiveness of the family, the tribe, the nation and the world in order to benefit from the advantages, privileges, values and ideals yielded by the solidarity, cohesiveness, unity, intimacy and love of family, tribe, nation and humanity In the social sense, the familial society is better than that of the tribe, the tribal society is better than that of the nation, and the society of the nation is better than world society with respect to fellowship, affection, solidarity and benefits.
What must be emphasized is that, in the context of the tribe, an individual might indulge himself in an uncouth man- ner, something which he would not do within the family How- ever, because of the smallness in size of the family, immediate supervision is not exercised, unlike the tribe whose members continually feel that they are under its supervision.
In view of these considerations, the tribe forms a behaviour pattern for its members, developing into a social education which is bet- ter and more noble than any school education. The tribe is a social school where its members are raised to absorb the high ideals which develop into a behaviour pattern for life.
These be- come automatically rooted as the human being grows, unlike classroom education with its curricula - formally dictated and gradually lost with the growth of the individual. This is so be- cause it is formal and compulsory and because the individual is aware of the fact that it is dictated to him. The tribe is a natural social "umbrella" for social security.
By virtue of social tribal traditions, the tribe provides for its mem- bers collective protection in the form of fines, revenge and de- fence; namely, social protection. With the passage of time, the differences between the factors of blood and affilia- tion disappear, leaving the tribe as one social and physical unit, though it remains fundamentally a unit of blood in origin.
Tribalism damages nationalism because tribal al- legiance weakens national loyalty and flourishes at its expense. In the same way, loyalty to the family flourishes at the expense of tribal loyalty and weakens it. National loyalty is essential to the nation but, at the same time, it is a threat to humanity.
The nation in the world community is similar, to the family in the tribe. The more the families of a tribe feud and become fanatical, the more the tribe is threatened. The family is threat- ened when its individual members feud and pursue only their personal interests. Similarly, if the tribes of a nation quarrel and pursue only their own interests, then the nation is undermined.
National fanaticism expressed in the use of force against weak nations, or national progress which is at the expense of other na- tions, is evil and harmful to humanity. However, strong individ- uals who have self-respect and are aware of their own individual responsibilities are important and useful to the family, just as a strong and respectable family, which is aware of its importance, is socially and materially beneficial to the tribe.
Equally useful to the whole world is a progressive, productive and civilized nation. The national political structure is damaged when it de- scends to a lower social level, namely, the family and tribe, and attempts to act in their manner and to adopt their views. THE NATION The nation is an enlarged family which has passed through the period of the tribe and through the diversification of tribes that have branched out from one common source.
It also in- cludes those members who affiliated themselves with its des- tiny. The family likewise, grows into a nation only after passing through the period of the tribe and its diversification, as well as through the process of affiliation which comes about as a result of interaction between various communities in a society Inevitably, this is achieved over a long period of time.
Although the passage of time creates new nations, it also helps to fragment old ones. Common origin and common destiny, through affili- ation, are the two historic bases for any nation, though origin ranks first and affiliation second. The Green Book rejects both capitalism and communism , as well as representative democracy. Instead, it proposes a type of direct democracy overseen by the General People's Committee which allows direct political participation for all adult citizens.
The book states that " Freedom of expression is the natural right of every person, even if they choose to behave irrationally, to express his or her insanity.
A paragraph in the book about abolishing money is similar to a paragraph in Frederick Engels ' Principles of Communism. It is through transforming society into a fully productive society, and through reaching in production a level where the material needs of the members of society are satisfied.
On that final stage, profit will automatically disappear and there will be no need for money. George Tremlett has called the resulting media dull and lacking in a clash of ideas. Ambassador David Mack called the book quite jumbled, with various ideas including "a fair amount of xenophobia" wrapped up in "strange mixture".
Writing for the British Broadcasting Corporation , the journalist Martin Asser described the book as follows: In fact, it is little more than a series of fatuous diatribes, and it is bitterly ironic that a text whose professed objective is to break the shackles From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article is about the political book by Muammar Gaddafi.
For other uses, see Green Book. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Foreign Policy. Foreign Relations. History of Libya Third International Theory. Other countries Atlas. The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with US and European academics and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article , discuss the issue on the talk page , or create a new article , as appropriate.
May Learn how and when to remove this template message. All Things Considered Interview: Interviewed by Melissa Block.
Retrieved 26 August The Art of Uprising: The Libyan Revolution in Graffiti. Dalton; Richard A. Lobban Jr. History and Revolution illustrated ed. A Country Study. Washington, D. Library of Congress. Retrieved 2 August Reuters Africa. The Desert Mystic First ed. New York: A history of modern Libya. Cambridge University Press. BBC News. Socialism People's Committee, Libya. National Public Radio-. Retrieved 24 June The New York Times. Salafi movement. Ahl-i Hadith Madkhalism Sahwa movement Wahhabism.
Qutbism Salafi jihadism. Balkans Gaza Strip United Kingdom. Criticism Political aspects of Islam Political Islam. Muammar Gaddafi. Libya portal Books portal Social and political philosophy portal. Authority control GND: Retrieved from " https: Hidden categories: Articles containing Arabic-language text Articles with limited geographic scope from May Pages in non-existent country centric categories Commons category link from Wikidata Use dmy dates from March Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers.
Foreign Policy Foreign Relations. The most important political question is "what form of government should be established? The basic feature of a representative democracy is its parliament , or assembly.
Once elected, members usurp the authority of their constituents for their term of service. Political parties themselves also usurp the people's authority, and focus on maintaining power instead of improving society for all, the proper object of government.