The Green Book: Part Two

Muammar Al Qathafi

THE GREEN BOOK

Part Two

The Solution of the

ECONOMIC PROBLEM

'Socialism'
 Table of Contents

1. The Economic Basis of the Third Universal Theory

2. Need
3. Land
4. Domestic Servants
Chapter One

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]
Chapter Two

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]
Chapter Three

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]
Chapter Four

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]