A communist critique and rebuttal

A communist commentator has contributed a critique after an initial reading of The Green Book. We publish the critique here below together with a Jamahiriyan rebuttal.

Dialogue between different ideologies is welcomed and this could be the starting point for a longer discourse.

We hereby publish the critique and its point by point rebuttal. The quotes with a line on the left side are the critique, and below our responses and additional clarifications.

The author (Gaddafi) makes an idol out of democracy. I agree that democracy is, in general, desirable, but it can be no better than the people who comprise it, and people are far from being enlightened. Most people are decent, but some are ruthless sociopaths. Because the latter are aggressive, they will come to dominate the "Popular Conferences" and "People's Committees",  In addition, the "Popular Conferences", being local or regional, will compete with one another for resources. The result may be an improvement over existing political systems, but it will be far from Utopia.

The commentator makes 3 main assertions: (1) that the The Green Book "makes an idol out of democracy"; (2) the problem of the varied types of people within society many of whom do not wish well for others and the fear that these types will dominate the Popular Conferences and People's Committees; and (3) a concern that Popular Conferences being local or regional, will "compete with one another for resources." Each of these points will now be addressed in turn:

First: the objective of Qaddafi and the revolutionary committees, is the popular revolution to place the people themselves in power. It is not "making an idol out of democracy" but rather the "solution to the problem of democracy", which is the aim of Part One of The Green Book.

The source of the enslavement of humanity and the turning of their life to misery, can be found precisely in power: the lack of power of the people to exert their rights and the power of a group of people to rule, misrule, abuse, exploit and oppress those who are not in power. The solution to this problem advocated by The Green Book is for the people as a whole, to possess all power, wealth and arms. No one group, party, sect or tribe has a right to rule over others: the people must rule themselves by themselves, directly. Such a resulting self-governing masses society is known in the as a "Jamahiriya". This precludes any group, no matter how they perceive themselves as more entitled than others, from ruling over others without convincing of the masses.

Second: it is absolutely true that there are characters among the people who wish harm to others. This is dealt with at the individual criminal level by laws, enacted by the Jamahiriya. If the concern is the wider harm caused by the conspiring numerous anti-people exploitative forces, such as fascists, and anyone who would rule over the masses, or even "on their behalf" or "in their best interests" such as any political party, including the "workers party" or "communist party" or "popular party" etc, these are dealt with in front of the Popular Conferences by the revolutionary force: the revolutionary committees movement. Thus exposed in front of the Popular Conferences, no matter how hard they try, these minorities cannot impose themselves upon the people when the revolutionary committees role is to expose them in front of the people. While those classes, groups, sects and parties may be organized, so too are the revolutionary committees. However, unlike the "vanguard workers party" in communist ideology, revolutionary committees do not present themselves as a vanguard, representative or decision-making group for this would go against the very clear ideology of the Third Universal Theory which makes a clear separation between power and revolution. Studying the unique attributes, culture, tasks, qualifications and mission of the revolutionary committees throws further light on this issue.

Third: the concern that Popular Conferences, made up of the people in any locality, will "compete with one another for resources", is the result of a lack of understanding of how the Popular Conferences system works: all free people who wish to attend, convene in their local basic popular conference, which has no division of class, tribe, sect or any other. It is a gathering of individuals who confer and arrive at consensus on issues that concern them. Where those issues also concern those outside their locality, namely in the geographical area of other Conferences, these points are drafted as Recommendations. The Secretariat of the Basic Popular Conference, then attends the Municipal or regional People's Congress, together with the Secretariats of all other Basic Popular Conferences within that region. As delegates, they do not make any new policies or legislation but instead carry those recommendations with them, so that any issues which were debated within one Conference but not all others in the area, are sent back to those basic popular conferences for deliberation, and those that have been addressed by all conferences in the region, result in a resolution that embodies the majority consensus of those conferences. The same then occurs for issues that are at a wider, for example, national level. It is those same Secretariats of each and every basic popular conference that attend that National (General) People's Congress, where the same occurs. This method of democracy is time consuming, but its benefits are immense. It is precisely this method that ensures that there is consensus and not conflict. As to national and regional budgets, these are apportioned according to need.

The author lacks class awareness. He treats the class as just another divisive aggregation, like the party or tribe. But the class is more than that.  It is defined by power, not by loyalty or any other subjective factor. One can no more wish it away than one can wish away the difference between a mountain and a valley. The class is not the cause of a division; rather, it is the expression of a division that already exists, namely, the division between the powerful and the powerless.  

Accusing the author of a "lack of class awareness" is Marxist terminology that seeks to assign "class awareness" to a acceptance of the division primarily between the "working class" and the "exploiter class" and that this is the crux of the problem, the existence of classes, rather than power being at the root of the problem of democracy. Indeed since the works of Karl Marx it would be hard to ascribe the existence of a "working class" to those who merely push buttons on machines, or sit at home receiving State payments. Whereas in those days the "working class" was very aware of its position and condition, these days that cannot be said of the overwhelming majority. The Green Book smashes this communist definition of class, instead defining a class for what it is: a group of people who share a common interest. The Green Book slices through the communist idea that the masses must wait in a "revolution of the working class" for an eternity and that it must pass through an era of capitalism, then socialism, then communism when the all-powerful one-party state will simply and miraculously "wither away" without any explanation of how this will occur. Instead, the Third Universal Theory burns those stages and shows how the revolution can result at once in the Jamahiriya, with the main criteria of time taken being the level of awareness of the existing and the new and the efforts directed at the revolutionary transition to the self-governing Jamahiriya.

Let us address the two claims made by the commentator that it is the "class that defines power", and that it is a "division that already exists", namely between those in power, and those outside of power, the "powerless". Firstly: whether having power results in the class in power, or the class results in its having power, the problem is solved by the Jamahiriya in that all the people have power. It is the majority then that rules on any given issue, no group or class whether pre-existing or not, can impose its power. We do not then need to fixate upon "class" as the division when there is no longer any working class, nor awareness of oppression, or care about the lack of power among the many, not unity among the powerless, but rather upon an understanding the nature of power, and the need to possess it, the new vision of the Jamahiriya, exposing the reality of the situation and the threats to the masses, igniting the popular revolution, calling for the adoption of the correct method, organizing the popular conferences, guiding and warning about threats to the power of the people, consolidating and defending the accomplishments of the Jamahiriya, and expanding its concepts and bases to all mankind. In this way, the "division that already exists" no longer exists, or may be reversed: the minority former "elite" is out of power, or at best, having the same level of power as the former slave, who is now the master, owner of power along with all others in the Jamahiriya. Those that had abused the masses prior, are dealt with according to justice. We then do not have to worry about any class, no matter its definition, the outdated Marxist one or The Green Book definition which will still remain the same.

Asking these two groups "why we can't all just get along" is useless. Oil and water are never going to mix. There are only two possibilities: Either the powerful retain their power, or they lose their power and the powerless take over. Either we have a dictatorship of the bankers (bourgeoisie) or a dictatorship of the workers (proletariat). The ideal, a classless society, cannot be achieved while the vast majority are powerless: The powerful will not willingly cede power.

There is nowhere in The Green Book that asks "these two groups" (assuming them to be those in power, exploiting those without power) to simply "all just get along" with one another. By the time the popular revolution has imposed itself and resulted in the Jamahiriya where the people possess power and are organized and taking responsibility themselves to exercise that power directly in their Popular Conferences and People's Committees, among them the revolutionary committees which are not separate from the masses, instead of allowing continued government over them via elected or unelected "mis-representatives", or by others that will abuse that power over them, thus the problem is solved, the battles will have been won. Among those that were in the minority group exerting power over the majority, are those that will now be dead, in jail, or cast into the jungle as meat for the lions, but also those who did not abuse the masses and are happily participate in the equal rights of all to power in the Jamahiriya with its many benefits. Indeed, the powerful lose their exclusive power in the popular revolution, and the dictatorship comes to an end. Unlike in communist ideology such as Marxism, there is no "dictatorship of class", "dictatorship of workers" or any other form of dictatorship -- these are charlatan tricks to deceive the masses by the Marxists who wish to rule over the masses by continuing to divide them in the name of an ideology which falsely says that there must be a "dictatorship of the proletariat", which again turns out to be a minority ruling over the majority while claiming to represent their interests. The other side of the materialist capitalist coin, Marxism, is relegated to the dustbin of history along with its incomplete ideologies that failed to solve the essential problems facing humanity, which universal solutions are presented in The Green Book.

It is indeed true that those in power will not cede willingly, especially when they see no viable alternative. This is the mission of the revolutionary committees, the red nerve among the masses, inciting to the popular revolution, the exemplary free men and women who are an example of the new revolutionary culture in their behavior, religion and nation, instead of replacing the people with a new "revolutionary class" they guide the masses to power by way of calling, far from self-interest and with great sacrifice.

A direct democracy that involves the unstructured participation of the entire population is impractical. The author addresses this problem by introducing a federal structure -- local committees feeding into regional committees feeding into a national committee. The author seems to assume that everyone would want to join a committee and offer competent participation. In reality, most people hate political participation and are politically naive. And the author also assumes that the committees would choose their messengers wisely. He does not state how the messengers would be selected or how the messages would be arrived at. This leaves a lot of room for corruption.

On the contrary, the Jamahiriya system is not unstructured, as earlier addressed, where we explained the Conferences and Committees structure and functions. We agree that: "In reality, most people hate political participation and are politically naive." However, on how to address this point, we again differ from Marxists, who use that naivety and dislike of political participation, to rule the masses in their stead, via their "vanguard party". The revolutionary committees will absolutely expose and crush all such attempts by yet another group to rule the masses. Instead, the popular conferences are open to all, without compulsion. It is the revolutionary committees who call upon the masses, by argument and persuasion, to participate in the conferences as is their right and in their interests. This is a difficult task, and it is only the caring minority at first, who will attend. The exploiters and organized groups and parties such as the many "controlled opposition", "best representatives" and "workers parties", may attend in an effort to sway the non-members of the parties, however, in the Jamahiriya system all parties are banned, only the people themselves have a right to power and the efforts of such groups are exposed in front of the masses in the popular conferences by the revolutionary committees. As to the choice of members of the executive people's committees, which replace all forms of traditional government, it is not the committees "who choose their messengers" but the conferences who choose their committees and the members of those committees. The revolutionary committees, with the advanced consciousness, skills and political awareness, warn the masses of pitfalls, without exerting any power over their final decisions. The people's committees are not mandated to pass their own policies but instead their role is strictly to implement the policies that resulted from the popular congresses, and they are monitored by the conference secretariats and directly responsible to the popular conferences. They are obligated to attend all sessions of the popular conferences and are bound by their resolutions. If they did not perform to the satisfaction of the popular conferences they are sanctioned, or dismissed, and the people's committees may also present their own studies and proposals, however, it is the masses attending the popular conferences that decide to accept, or modify or reject those proposals, just as they can do with any other proposal from any quarter. Indeed, unlike in communism where the party cadres have the final say and the "dictatorship over the workers by the proletariat" in the Jamahiriya system, although revolutionary committees have their own local meetings to decide their revolutionary programs of action, the revolutionary committees may propose many advanced positions at the popular conferences but are often rejected. In the popular revolution and the Jamahiriya is it not the revolutionary committees and people's committees that hold power, but the popular conferences. This is a good safeguard against all that has gone wrong when "once class replaces another and then inherits the characteristics of the class it replaced", thus, the "workers class" becomes via the communist party system, the new "exploitative ruling class" attempting to keep the masses assuaged by meaningless slogans and an elitist ideology which keeps the masses from power.

I favor a form of direct democracy called "sortition" -- aka "aleatory democracy".  Participants in government are chosen from a pool of qualified volunteers. There is no need to enlist every last citizen, including the disinterested and the incompetent.  And chance eliminates the possibility of corruption.  

As The Green Book states:

Popular Conferences are the only means to achieve popular democracy. Any system of government contrary to this method, the method of Popular Conferences, is undemocratic. All the prevailing systems of government in the world today will remain undemocratic, unless they adopt this method. Popular Conferences are the end of the journey of the masses in quest of democracy. 

Popular Conferences and People's Committees are the fruition of the people's struggle for democracy. Popular Conferences and People's Committees are not creations of the imagination; they are the product of thought which has absorbed all human experiments to achieve democracy. 

Direct democracy, if put into practice, is indisputably the ideal method of government. Because it is impossible to gather all people, however small the population, in one place so that they can discuss, discern and decide policies, nations departed from direct democracy, which became an utopian idea detached from reality. It was replaced by various theories of government, such as representative councils, party-coalitions and plebiscites, all of which isolated the masses and prevented them from managing their political affairs. 

These instruments of government - the individual, the class, the sect, the tribe, the parliament and the party struggling to achieve power have plundered the sovereignty of the masses and monopolized politics and authority for themselves. 

THE GREEN BOOK guides the masses to an unprecedented practical system of direct democracy. No two intelligent people can dispute the fact that direct democracy is the ideal, but until now no practical method for its implementation has been devised. The Third Universal Theory, however, now provides us with a practical approach to direct democracy. The problem of democracy in the world will finally be solved. All that is left before the masses now is the struggle to eliminate all prevailing forms of dictatorial governments, be they parliament, sect, tribe, class, one-party system, two-party system or multi-party system, which falsely call themselves democracies. 

True democracy has but one method and one theory. The dissimilarity and diversity of the systems claiming to be democratic do, in fact, provide evidence that they are not so. Authority of the people has but one face which can only be realized through Popular Conferences and People's Committees. There can be no democracy without Popular Conferences and Committees everywhere. 

The Green Book then proceeds to explain how this is done.

The point is clear: there is only one method and one theory of true democracy. Other forms of democracy, whether one party, two party, multi party, parliamentary, merit democracy, aleatory democracy, referendum democracy etc are undemocratic and at best partial or incomplete attempts at democracy. The graphic of the commentator's proposition of "aleatory" democracy:

The Green Book Part Two "Solution to the Economic Problem" addresses the various types of allowed economic activity in the Jamahiriya system in greater details.

I see democracy as a means to an end, the end being good government. I have no objection to a one-party state, where party membership is broad and political decisions are the product of extensive discussion within the party. Party democracy is needed to keep the party honest and open. Inadequate democracy results in a dangerous stratification.

For us democracy is not a means to an end, for this would imply a dishonest or elitist or sectarian objective to attain power "via democracy" which is exactly what the usurpers have done throughout the world today. Instead, democracy is not the means to an end, but must be continually alive and well, or it results in the demise of the people who are then ruled by others including by technology over which they have no control. The aim, then, is not "good government", according to the Third Universal Theory, there is no form of "good" government (latin: mind control), instead the aim is for their to be NO government. Government also implies the governors and the governed. The Jamahiriya is not a government as much as it is the Authority of the People (true People's Power). As to "Party democracy is needed to keep the party honest and open", no one outside of the party would believe that. Why would any party wish to keep itself honest and open when by its very reason-d'être it is a part of the people exactly so as to cater for its own interests of at best, its members, which share a common outlook? The party must be abolished along with any other instruments of governing. If those within a party have good intentions toward the masses and wish to see the Authority of the People, the Jamahiriya community, they will instead organize themselves into revolutionary committees, after absorbing the true principles and vision of The Green Book so that they work not in lieu of, but among the masses, with the aim of popular revolution.

Finally, indeed, stratification is avoided in the Jamahiriya system of true democracy, and is not at all a bottom up or top down pyramid structure, but rather spherical in nature. It does not fit into the one-dimensional left-right paradigm of traditional political concepts and theories.

We thank the contributor for his honest critique of the thought of The Green Book and hope that this serves to clarify various misconceptions, and excites and inflames the passion of the revolutionary struggler seeking a better world for the oppressed.