THE GREEN BOOK
                      by Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi
                             Part One

 
                         Explanatory Note 

This post contains the complete text of THE GREEN BOOK (Part One)
by Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi. This translation was published by the
Public Establishment for Publishing, Advertising and Distribution
in Tripoli, Libya.  Absolute fidelity to the original has been
maintained....  The only omission is the diagram entitled "The
Authority of the People" that appears on page 27 of the original
and which, unfortunately, could not be reproduced in ASCII format.

..................................................................
                            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
..................................................................
                             Part One:

             The Solution of the Problem of Democracy:
                  'The Authority of the People'

                   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.

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 per cent of the
electorate is ruled by an instru- ment 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 overwhelming 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.

                           PARLIAMENTS

No represenation in lieu of the people

Parliaments are the backbone of traditional democracy as it exists
to day. A parliament is a misrepresenta tion 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.

Represenation 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 par liament is either elected
from consti tuencies 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. 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. 

Representation is a falsification of democracy.

The prevailing traditional democracy endows the member of a
parliament with a sacredness and immunity denied to other
individual members of the people. 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.
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, multi-party 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
realising 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. 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 mean 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.

                            THE PARTY

The part system aborts democracy.

The party is the contemporary dicta torship. 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 programme. 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. 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 to 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.
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
programmes 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.  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 manoeuvres, tricks
and political games. All these emphasise 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. 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 whose 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. 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.

                              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 bloodrelationship, 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 bloodrelationship, 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 realising 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. 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. 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.  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, 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 favour of party, class, sect or tribe, have failed, such as the
efforts to satisfy the masses through the election of
representatives or by organising plebiscites to discover their
views. To go on with these efforts has become a waste of time and
a mockery of the people.

                           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
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 one 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 realised, 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.

This new theory is based on the authority of the people, without
representation or deputation.  It realises 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.

            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 com mittees are not creations of
the imagi nation 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 realised 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. 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 tbat 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 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 realised 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. 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. 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.
                                 

                        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.
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. 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. 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.

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.


              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.  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.


           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, 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.


                            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.

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. 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 cannot 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.

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.

                            -end-

 


           EXPLANATORY NOTE
 
  Responses 1 - 4 to this topic contain
the complete text of THE GREEN BOOK (Part
Two) by Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi. This transla-
tion was published by the Public Estab-
lishment for Publishing, Advertising and
Distribution in Tripoli, Libya.
 
  Absolute fidelity to the original has
been maintained, including page and line
numbers.
 
-----------------------------------------------
                 CONTENTS
 
1.  The Economic Basis of the Third
      Universal Theory
2.  Need      
3.  Land
4.  Domestic Servants
-----------------------------------------------
 
          Muammar Al Qathafi

            THE GREEN BOOK

               Part Two

          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, be-
tween the producers and the owners.
The developments include fixed work-
ing-hours, wages for additional work,
different types of leave, minimum
wages, profit sharing and participation
in administration. In addition, arbit-
rary 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 emerg-
ence 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

                  [3]

problem still basically  exists.  The        |Partners not
modifications, improvements, provi-          |wage-workers
sions and other measures have made
the problem less severe than it was in
past centuries by gaining many advan-
tages for the workers. Yet, the econo-
mic problem has not been solved. All
the attempts which have concentrated
on ownership have not solved the prob-
lem 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 be-
nefits received by workers, guaran-
teed 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 In-
dustrial Revolution have been trans-
formed, and, in the course of time
workers, technicians and administra-
tors have gained previously unattain-
able 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 recog-
nition 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 produc-
tion, but have been obliged to surren-
der 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 work-
ers' 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,

                  [5]


even though ownership varies . . . from
the right to the left. The public econo-
mic 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 econo-
mic corporations.
  The argument that, in the case of
public ownership, income reverts to
society, including the workers, in con-
trast to the case of the private corpora-
tion 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 prac-
tised 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.
However, what is received directly by

                  [6]

the workers, as regards their own
interests, in the form of wages, percen-
tage 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 relation-
ships before the emergence of classes,
forms of government and man-made
laws. The natural rules are the mea-
sure, the reference book and the sole
course in human relations.
  Natural law has led to natural social-
ism based on equality among the eco-
nomic factors of production and has
almost brought about, among indi-

                  [7]

viduals, consumption equal to nature's
production. 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 produc-
er. The natural rule of equality is that
each of the factors has a share in this
production, for if any of them is with-
drawn, 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 fundamen-
tal, they are all equal in their essential
character within the process of produc-
tion. 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 equal-

                  [8]

ity, and is an attack on the right of
others. 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 sim-
ple materials to valuable complex
ones. 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

                  [9]

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 manufac-
tured by the ironsmith 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, en-
gines 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 tech-
nical equipment. The essential natural
factors of production are basically
stable despite their great develop-
ment. The essential stability of the
factors of production makes the natu-
ral 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 work-
er 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. The three

                  [11]

factors are equally essential in the
process of production.  Without these
three factors there will be no produc-
tion. 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 pro-
duction 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 pro-
duction. Here production is only di-
vided into two shares in accordance
with the number of factors of produc-
tion. 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 estab-
lished to which all processes of produc-

                  [12]

tion are subjected, by analogy with this
natural rule.
  The producers are the workers. We
call them 'producers' because the
words 'workers', 'employees' or 'toil-
ers' are no longer applicable. The
reason is that workers, according to
the traditional definition, are quantita-
tively 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 num-
ber of workers. This is the quantitative
change in the labour force, while the 
qualitative change necessitated the re-
placement of a physical force by tech-
nical 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 techni-
cians, engineers and scientists. Conse-
quently, Trade Unions will disappear
to be replaced by professional and

                  [13]

technical syndicates because scientific
development is an irreversible gain to
humanity. Through such scientific de-
velopment, illiteracy will be eradi-
cated 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
 
 
  Man's freedom is lacking if some-          |A person in
body else controls what he needs. For        |need is a
need may result in man's enslavement         |slave indeed
of man.  Need causes exploitation.
Need is an intrinsic problem and con-
flict grows out of the domination of
man's needs.
  The house is a basic need of both the      |Masters in
individual and the family. Therefore, it     |their own
should not be owned by others. There is      |castles
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 hous-
ing 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 concen-
trated 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]

  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        |In need
control over the need of that man and        |freedom
'In Need Freedom is Latent'.                 |indeed
  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.
For there are no wage-workers in the
socialist society, only partners. Your
income is a form of private ownership.
You manage it by yourself either to
meet your needs or to share in the
production, where you are one of its
main factors. Your share will not be
used as a wage paid for any person in
return for production.
  The vehicle is a necessity both to the
individual and the family. Your vehicle
should not be owned by others. In the
socialist society no man or any other
authority can possess private vehicles
for the purpose of hiring them out, for
this is domination of the needs of
others.
 
                  [16]
 
                LAND
 
 
  Land is no one's property. But every-
one has the right to use it, to benefit
from it by working, farming or pastur-
ing. This would take place throughout a
man's life and the lives of his heirs,
and would be through his own effort
without using others with or without
wages, and only to the extent of satis-
fying his own needs.
  If possession of land is allowed, only
those who are living there have a share
in it. The land is permanently there,
while, in the course of time, users
change in profession, in capacity and in
their presence.
  The purpose of the new socialist
society is to create a society which is
happy because it is free. This can be
achieved through satisfying the mate-
rial and spiritual needs of man, and
that, in turn, comes about through the
liberation of these needs from outside
domination and control.
  Satisfaction of these needs must be
attained without exploiting or enslav-
ing others, or else, it will contradict the
purpose of the new socialist society.
 
                  [17]

  Man in the new society works for
himself to guarantee his material
needs, or works for a socialist corpora-
tion in whose production he is a part-
ner, or performs a public service to the
society which provides his material
needs.
  Economic activity in the new social-
ist society is productive activity for the
satisfaction of material needs. It is not
unproductive activity or an activity
which seeks profit in order, after satis-
fying material needs, to save the sur-
plus. That is impossible under the rules
of the new socialism.
  The legitimate purpose of the indi-
vidual's economic activity is solely to
satisfy his needs. For the wealth of the
world has limits at each stage as does
the wealth of each individual society.
Therefore no individual has the right to
carry out economic activity in order to
acquire more of that wealth than is
necessary to satisfy his needs, because
the excess amount belongs to other
individuals. He has the right to save
from his needs and from his own pro-
duction but not from the efforts of
others nor at the expense of their
 
                  [18]

needs. For if we allow economic activ-
ity to extend beyond the satisfaction of
needs, one person will only have more
than his needs by preventing another
from obtaining his. The savings which
are in excess of one's needs are
another person's share of the wealth of
society.
  To allow private production for the
purpose of acquiring savings that ex-
ceed the satisfaction of needs is ex-
ploitation itself, as in permitting the
use of others to satisfy your own needs
or to get more than your own needs.
This can be done by exploiting a person
to satisfy the needs of others and
making savings for others at the ex--
pense of his needs.
  Work for a wage is, in addition to
being an enslavement of man as men-
tioned before, work without incentives
because the producer is a wage-worker
rather than a partner.
  Whoever works for himself is cer-
tainly devoted to his productive work
because his incentive to production lies
in his dependence on his private work
to satisfy his material needs. Also
whoever works in a socialist corpora-
 
                  [19]

tion is a partner in its production. He
is, undoubtedly, devoted to his produc-
tive work because the impetus for
devotion to production is that he gets a
satisfaction of his needs through pro-
duction. But whoever works for a wage
has no incentive to work.
  Work for wages failed to solve the
problem of increasing and developing
production. Work, either in the form of
services or production, is continually
deteriorating because it rests on the
shoulders of wage-workers.
 
 
       EXAMPLES OF LABOUR FOR
        WAGES FOR SOCIETY, OF
       LABOUR FOR WAGES FOR A
        PRIVATE ACTIVITY, AND
         LABOUR FOR NO WAGES
 
 
First Example:
  (a) A worker who produces ten ap-
ples for society. Society gives him one
apple for his production. The apple
fully satisfies his needs.
  (b) A worker who produces ten ap-
ples for society. Society gives him one
apple for his production. The apple is
not enough to satisfy his needs.
 
                  [20]

Second Example:
  A worker who produces ten apples
for another person and gets a wage of
less than the price of one apple.
Third Example:
  A worker who produces ten apples
for himself.
 
THE CONCLUSION
 
  The first (a) will not increase his
production for whatever the increase
might be, he will only get an apple for
himself. It is what satisfies his needs.
Thus all those working for such a
society are always psychologically
apathetic.
  The first (b) has no incentive to
production itself, for he produces for
the society without obtaining satisfac-
tion of his needs. However he has to
continue to work without incentive be-
cause he is forced to submit to the
general conditions of work throughout
the society. That is the case with mem-
bers of that society.
  The second does not initially work to
produce. He works to get wages. Since
his wages are not enough to satisfy his
needs, he will either search for another
 
                  [21]

master and sell him his work at a
better price or he will be obliged to
continue the same work just to survive.
  The third is the only one who pro-
duces without apathy and without coer-
cion. In the socialist society, there is no
possibility for private production ex-
ceeding the satisfaction of individual
needs, because satisfaction of needs at
the expense of others is not allowed.
As the socialist establishments work
for the satisfaction of the needs of
society, the third example explains the
sound basis of economic production.
However, in all conditions, even in bad
ones, production continues for surviv-
al. The best proof is that in capitalist
societies production accumulates and
expands in the hands of a few owners
who do not work but exploit the efforts
of toilers who are obliged to produce in
order to survive. However, The Green
Book not only solves the problem of
material production but also pre-
scribes the comprehensive solution of
the problems of human society so that
the individual may be materially and
spiritually liberated ... a final libera-
tion to attain his happiness.
 
                  [22]

 
Other Examples:
 
  If we assume that the wealth of
society is ten units and its population is
ten persons, the share of each in the
wealth of society is 10/10 -- only one of
the units per person. But if some mem-
bers of society possess more than one
unit, then other members of the same
society possess nothing. The reason is
that their share of the units of wealth
has been taken by others. Thus, there
are poor and rich in the society where
exploitation prevails.
  Suppose that five members of that
society possess two units each. In this
case the other five possess nothing,
i.e., 50 per cent are deprived of their
right to their own wealth because the
additional unit possessed by each of
the first five is the share of each of the
second five.
  If an individual in that society needs
only one of the units of the wealth of
society to satisfy his needs then the
individual possessing more than one
unit is, in fact, expropriating the right
of other members of the society. Since
this share exceeds what is required to
satisfy his needs, estimated at one of
 
                  [23]

the units of wealth then he has seized
it to hoard it. Such hoarding is only
achieved at the expense of others'
needs, i.e., through taking others'
share in this wealth. That is why there
are those who hoard and do not spend
-- that is, they save what exceeds the
satisfaction of their needs -- and there
are those who beg and are deprived --
that is those who ask for their rights in
the wealth of their society and do not
find anything to consume. It is an act of
plunder and theft, but open and legiti-
mate under the unjust and exploitative
rules which govern that society.
  Ultimately, all that is beyond the
satisfaction of needs should remain the
property of all the members of society.
But individuals only have the right to
save as much as they want from their
own needs, because the hoarding of
what exceeds their needs involves an
encroachment on public wealth.
  The skilful and industrious have no
right to take hold of the share of others
as a result of their skill and industry.
But they can benefit from these advan-
tages. Also if a person is disabled or
lunatic, it does not mean that he does
 
                  [24]

not have the same share as the healthy
in the wealth of the society.
  The wealth of the society is like a
corporation or a store of supply which
daily provides a number of people with
a quantity of supply of a definite
amount which is enough to satisfy the
needs of those people during that day.
Each person has the right to save out of
that quantity what he wants, i.e., he can
consume or save what he likes from his
share. In this he can use his own skill
and talents. But he who uses his talents
to take an additional amount for him-
self from the store of the public supply
is undoubtedly a thief. Therefore, he
who uses his skill to gain wealth that
exceeds the satisfaction of his needs is,
in fact, encroaching on a public right,
namely, the wealth of the society
which is like the store mentioned in
this example.
  In the new socialist society differ-
ences in individual wealth are only
permissible for those who render a
public service. The society allocates
for them a certain share of the wealth
equivalent to that service.
  The share of individuals only differs
 
                  [25]

according to the public service each of
them renders, and as much as he
produces. Thus, the experiments of
history have produced a new experi-
ment, a final culmination of man's
struggle to attain his freedom and to
achieve happiness by satisfying his
need, warding off the exploitation of
others, putting an ultimate end to
tyranny and finding a means for the
just distribution of society's wealth.
Under the new experiment you work
for yourself to satisfy your needs
rather than exploiting others to work
for you, in order to satisfy yours at
their expense; or working to plunder
the needs of others. It is the theory of
the liberation of needs in order to
emancipate man.
  Thus the new socialist society is no
more than a dialectical consequence of
the unjust relations prevailing in this
world. It has produced the natural
solution, namely private ownership to
satisfy the needs without using others,
and socialist ownership, in which the
producers are partners in production.
The socialist ownership replaced a pri-
vate ownership based on the produc-
 
                  [26]

tion of wage-workers who had no right
in what they produced.
  Whoever possesses the house you
dwell in, the vehicle you ride or the
income you live on, takes hold of your
freedom, or part of your freedom, and
freedom is indivisible. For man to be
happy, he must be free, and to be free,
man must possess his own needs.
  Whoever possesses your needs con-
trols or exploits you. He may enslave
you despite any legislation outlawing
that.
  The material needs of man that are
basic, necessary and personal, start
with food, housing, clothing and trans-
port . . . These must be within his
private and sacred ownership. They
are not to be hired from any quarter.
To obtain them through rent or hire
allows the real owners, even society in
general, to interfere in his private life,
to have control over his basic needs,
and then to dominate his freedom and
to deprive him of his happiness. The
owner of the costumes one has hired
could interfere to remove them even in
the street and leave one naked. The
owner of the vehicle could interfere,
 
                  [27]

leaving one in the middle of the road.
Likewise, the owner of the house could
interfere, leaving one without shelter.
  It is ironic that man's basic needs
are treated by legal administrative or
other measures. Fundamentally, soci-
ety must be founded on the application
of the natural law to these needs.
  The purpose of the socialist society is
the happiness of man which can only
be realized through material and spir-
itual freedom. Attainment of such free-
dom depends on the extent of man's
ownership of his needs; ownership that
is personal and sacredly guaranteed,
i.e., your need must neither be owned
by somebody else, nor subject to plun-
der by any part of society. Otherwise,
you will live in a state of anxiety which
will take away your happiness and
render you unfree, because you live
under the apprehension of outside in-
terference in your basic needs.
  The overturning of contemporary
societies, to change them from being
societies of wage-workers to societies
of partners is inevitable as a dialectic-
al result of the contradictory economic
theses prevailing in the world today.
 
                  [28]

and is the inevitable dialectical result
of the injustice to relations based on
the wage system, which have not been
solved.
  The threatening power of the Trade
Unions in the capitalist world is cap-
able of overturning capitalist societies
of wage-workers into societies of part-
ners.
  It is probable that the outbreak of the
revolution to achieve socialism will
start with the appropriation by the
producers of their share in what they
produce. The objective of the workers'
strikes will shift from a demand for the
increase of wages to a demand for
sharing in the production. All that will,
sooner or later, take place under the
guidance of The Green Book.
  But the final step is when the new
socialist society reaches the stage
where profit and money disappear. It
is through transforming society into a
fully productive society and through
reaching, in production, the level where
the material needs of the members of
society are satisfied. In that final stage
profit will automatically disappear
and there will be no need for money.
 
                  [29]

  The recognition of profit is an ack-
nowledgement of exploitation.  The
mere recognition of profit removes the
possibility of limiting it. Measures
taken to put a limit to it through
various means are mere attempts at
reform, which are not radical, in order
to stop man's exploitation by man.
  The final solution is the abolition of
profit. But as profit is the driving force
of economic activity, its abolition is not
a decision that can be taken lightly. It
must result from the development of
socialist production which will be
achieved if the satisfaction of the
material needs of society is realised.
The endeavour to increase profit will
ultimately lead to its disappearance.
 
                  [30]

 
 
        DOMESTIC SERVANTS
 
 
  Domestic servants, paid or unpaid          |A servant
are a type of slave. Indeed they are the     |and prisoner
slaves of the modern age. But since the      |are comrades
new socialist society is based on part-      |in chains
nership in production rather than on
wages, natural socialist law does not
apply to them, because they render
services rather than production. Ser-
vices have no physical production
which is divisible into shares in accord-
ance with natural socialist law.
Domestic servants, therefore, have no
alternative but to work with or without
wages under bad conditions. As wage-
workers are a type of slave and their
slavery exists as long as they work for
wages, so domestic servants are in a
lower position than the wage-workers
in the economic establishments and
corporations outside the houses. They
are, then, even more entitled to eman-
cipation from the slavery of the society
than are wage-workers from their soci-
ety. Domestic servants form one of the
social phenomena that stands next to
 
                  [31]

that of slaves. The Third Universal
Theory is a herald to the masses
announcing the final salvation from all
fetters of injustice, despotism, ex-
ploitation and economic and political
hegemony. It has the purpose of estab-
lishing the society of all people, where
all men are free and equal in authority,
wealth and arms, so that freedom may
gain the final and complete triumph.
  The Green Book, therefore, pre-            |Do-it-yourself
scribes the way of salvation to the
masses of wage-workers and domestic
servants in order to achieve the free-
dom of man. It is inevitable, then, to
struggle to liberate domestic servants
from their slave status and transform
them into partners outside the houses,
in places where there is material pro-
duction which is divisible into shares
according to its factors. The house is to
be served by its residents.  But the
solution to necessary house service
should not be through servants, with or
without wages, but through employees
who can be promoted while performing
their house jobs and can enjoy social
and material safeguards like any em-
ployee in the public service.
 
                  [32]