DoctorWasdarb
26th March 2018, 18:28
Hey all
Over the past few days I've reread Qadhafi's Green Book in which he outlines his ideology, the Third Universal Theory. Wondering what you all think of it, and what you think about the real praxis of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, perhaps in spite of the writings in his book.
To get the ball rolling, I'll outline briefly what I think of his work.
Right off the bat, I don't care for how he calls his theory. I don't think any theory can assume any degree of absolutism.
In the first chapter he outlines his policy regarding the political organization of the nation. His opposition to liberal democracy is certainly spot on. He recognizes the fact that representatives don't represent the masses, but they represent the rich, and it creates an antagonism between the masses and the state. He also criticizes Marxist Leninist single party states, and even workers states more broadly. He believes that a party, by its very nature, will tend towards elitism, which history has shown to be a reactionary force, even if the party was initially revolutionary. He criticizes workers states in that, according to the historical record, embryonic (and even not so embryonic after years of growth) bourgeoisies have always formed within nations which have the purported goal of ending classlessness. In conclusion, he proposes a state organization in which all the popular classes enjoy equal representation and power, and in which there are no political parties. As far as representatives in the General People's Congress, he/she is endowed with a unique role compared to other socialist nations. He/she heads off to the General congress a couple times a year to work with the other representatives, but when not in session, the representative returns to the locality and works with the local (elected, of course) administrators. (And of course, like in any socialist nation, representatives are chosen by mass meetings, not by wealthy investors who choose the candidates for the masses to choose from.) Additionally, workers across a certain sector also had representation in the General People's Congress.
His criticisms have some merit, as does what he has proposed in its place as a more democratic system, although in practice, I'm not sure the army was sufficiently subservient to the masses. I don't believe a People's Army was high on Qadhafi's priorities, compared to other things. I'm also concerned that the central leadership elected by the General People's Congress wasn't sufficiently institutionally connected to the masses, but where the people who elect the government in the General People's Congress spend the rest of the time really working with the masses in their communities and all, this crisis may have been averted. Similarly, at least according to Wikipedia, the central leadership cycled quite frequently, every couple years or so, which to me is a good sign, even though it can't be conclusive. I also think this model lacks a medium of revolutionary political education of the masses, because it doesn't contain any insurance that the leaders will be politically advanced, simply that they will do, theoretically (and practically, it seems) what the people want.
Within this section he wrote a couple pages on freedom of the press within a socialist country. I recommend checking it out. It's the same proposal as all of historical and current communists, but it's very well presented: succinct, concise, and precise.
In the second chapter he writes about the economy. He says a lot of correct things in this segment, about the necessity for everyone's needs to be met, his opposition to rent, interest, private land ownership, and the likes. I take issue with his formulation of the question of exploitation. On the one hand, he says that if you produce X amount of apples, and you only need [less than X], and society takes the rest from you, that this is exploitation. But he also says that if you only need [less than X] apples, you have an obligation to give the rest to society/the needy, otherwise you are exploiting the needy. I find this formulation to be clumsy, contradictory, and the former half to be very petty bourgeois. Nevertheless, in practice, Libya enjoyed a strong socialized-state sector and collective sector.
Regarding the international economy, Libya followed a strong, anti-imperialist policy. Its leadership refused IMF loans, structural adjustment, etc. The Libyan people were one of the few nations which was free from the yoke of imperialism. Additionally, Qadhafi did a lot of work for African unity against imperialism. Among other things, he sought to establish three African banks with the purpose of organizing African investment according to the needs of Africans, rather than allowing African policy to be written by the World Bank. And the in theory these banks were to run on the African Dinar, a proposed currency which would run on gold, something which exists in mass in Africa, yet less so in the imperialist nations. The result would be Africa's economic power to be more proportionate to the real mineral wealth which exists under their soil. These policies would have bankrupted the West. He also played a leading role in the African Union, as its president from 2009-2010. Furthermore, just before the NATO invasion, he had proposed nationalization of foreign oil firms, which had been permitted to operate in the country only a few years earlier, mostly out of fear of invasion after Iraq was invaded for deciding to trade oil in Euros instead of dollars. In light of all this, it really shouldn't be surprised that he was such a major target for the imperialists.
His third chapter dealt with the subject of culture. I find that this is the chapter with the most troubling ideas. Firstly, he's very religious. He believes that the law of a country shouldn't contradict its religion or traditions, and he doesn't really treat the religion of a country as an ever-changing part of the superstructure, but more of a key component of the national identity. As a defender of secularism, I find this troubling, although the Libyan experience makes me more comfortable working with the Liberation Theologians and the like.
The other major issue is his view on women. He is a feminist of sorts in that he recognizes the presence of patriarchy and he seeks to fix it. He identifies the fact that patriarchy exists in fellow Islamic nations in how women are often bought and sold in marriage. In that regard, he's very progressive, but he thinks that the West's denial of gender roles represses the feminine characteristics of the woman, and constitutes an oppression of her. He thinks that because of the special relationship a mother has with a child in childbirth and the months/years that follow, a woman has a unique obligation to take care of the kids. While the father does too, the mother's responsibility is greater, according to him. (In accordance with this view, he thinks property ownership as it pertains to a house should automatically belong to the woman, because in a sense, it's her "domain.") While it may be true that the complete suppression of any distinction between men and women may be excessive, I find his view on this subject to be incredibly backwards. However, perhaps because he exaggerated his criticisms in his book, perhaps because Libya *wasn't* a dictatorship, or perhaps both, the reality was that the life of woman in Libya was incredibly free. They could dress however they liked, unlike their comrades in Saudi. They could travel freely and marry freely, unlike their comrades in Saudi. They were free to have a job and an education in whatever studies they desired. *Legally,* they had equal rights with men. *Socially,* they weren't equal, but they were on the road towards equality.
The other things Qadhafi mentions in the rest of his book are rather inconsequential in my view. They're minor. On education, he supports education, and since the revolution in 1969, literacy rates skyrocketed, as in any socialist nation. All education was free, and if a certain degree wasn't available in Libya, the state covered their studies in a foreign nation, and provided subsidies for living, transportation, etc., through the form of a monthly allowance, I believe.
He also believed that Asians and Europeans all had their turn as global superpowers, so that next it was Africa's turn. He believed that it was inevitable that black people would dominate the globe. I find this a little ridiculous, but he never really pushed for this in his foreign policy, so I'm not really bothered by it. But he says a lot of goofy things like this. It kinda makes him look like the Trump of the socialist world, but a little more eccentric and a lot more intelligent. In a speech at the UN in 2010, he suggested that every continent or subcontinent should have representation in the Security Council, such that it doesn't function as an organ of individual national interests, especially the interests of the sole superpowers. I don't think he was trying to make Africa subjugate Europe.
In his final paragraphs he denounced spectator sports, suggesting that it leads to elitism. You don't go into a mosque to watch other people pray, so you don't go to a football game to watch other people play. Interesting idea. One of his sons was a professional football player, anyway.
That's it for my summary of the Green Book, with my own thoughts sprinkled throughout. I prefer that you read the book before responding (it's really not too long), although I'm happy to discuss with anyone on the topic. Here's a pdf of the book: http://openanthropology.org/libya/gaddafi-green-book.pdf
Over the past few days I've reread Qadhafi's Green Book in which he outlines his ideology, the Third Universal Theory. Wondering what you all think of it, and what you think about the real praxis of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, perhaps in spite of the writings in his book.
To get the ball rolling, I'll outline briefly what I think of his work.
Right off the bat, I don't care for how he calls his theory. I don't think any theory can assume any degree of absolutism.
In the first chapter he outlines his policy regarding the political organization of the nation. His opposition to liberal democracy is certainly spot on. He recognizes the fact that representatives don't represent the masses, but they represent the rich, and it creates an antagonism between the masses and the state. He also criticizes Marxist Leninist single party states, and even workers states more broadly. He believes that a party, by its very nature, will tend towards elitism, which history has shown to be a reactionary force, even if the party was initially revolutionary. He criticizes workers states in that, according to the historical record, embryonic (and even not so embryonic after years of growth) bourgeoisies have always formed within nations which have the purported goal of ending classlessness. In conclusion, he proposes a state organization in which all the popular classes enjoy equal representation and power, and in which there are no political parties. As far as representatives in the General People's Congress, he/she is endowed with a unique role compared to other socialist nations. He/she heads off to the General congress a couple times a year to work with the other representatives, but when not in session, the representative returns to the locality and works with the local (elected, of course) administrators. (And of course, like in any socialist nation, representatives are chosen by mass meetings, not by wealthy investors who choose the candidates for the masses to choose from.) Additionally, workers across a certain sector also had representation in the General People's Congress.
His criticisms have some merit, as does what he has proposed in its place as a more democratic system, although in practice, I'm not sure the army was sufficiently subservient to the masses. I don't believe a People's Army was high on Qadhafi's priorities, compared to other things. I'm also concerned that the central leadership elected by the General People's Congress wasn't sufficiently institutionally connected to the masses, but where the people who elect the government in the General People's Congress spend the rest of the time really working with the masses in their communities and all, this crisis may have been averted. Similarly, at least according to Wikipedia, the central leadership cycled quite frequently, every couple years or so, which to me is a good sign, even though it can't be conclusive. I also think this model lacks a medium of revolutionary political education of the masses, because it doesn't contain any insurance that the leaders will be politically advanced, simply that they will do, theoretically (and practically, it seems) what the people want.
Within this section he wrote a couple pages on freedom of the press within a socialist country. I recommend checking it out. It's the same proposal as all of historical and current communists, but it's very well presented: succinct, concise, and precise.
In the second chapter he writes about the economy. He says a lot of correct things in this segment, about the necessity for everyone's needs to be met, his opposition to rent, interest, private land ownership, and the likes. I take issue with his formulation of the question of exploitation. On the one hand, he says that if you produce X amount of apples, and you only need [less than X], and society takes the rest from you, that this is exploitation. But he also says that if you only need [less than X] apples, you have an obligation to give the rest to society/the needy, otherwise you are exploiting the needy. I find this formulation to be clumsy, contradictory, and the former half to be very petty bourgeois. Nevertheless, in practice, Libya enjoyed a strong socialized-state sector and collective sector.
Regarding the international economy, Libya followed a strong, anti-imperialist policy. Its leadership refused IMF loans, structural adjustment, etc. The Libyan people were one of the few nations which was free from the yoke of imperialism. Additionally, Qadhafi did a lot of work for African unity against imperialism. Among other things, he sought to establish three African banks with the purpose of organizing African investment according to the needs of Africans, rather than allowing African policy to be written by the World Bank. And the in theory these banks were to run on the African Dinar, a proposed currency which would run on gold, something which exists in mass in Africa, yet less so in the imperialist nations. The result would be Africa's economic power to be more proportionate to the real mineral wealth which exists under their soil. These policies would have bankrupted the West. He also played a leading role in the African Union, as its president from 2009-2010. Furthermore, just before the NATO invasion, he had proposed nationalization of foreign oil firms, which had been permitted to operate in the country only a few years earlier, mostly out of fear of invasion after Iraq was invaded for deciding to trade oil in Euros instead of dollars. In light of all this, it really shouldn't be surprised that he was such a major target for the imperialists.
His third chapter dealt with the subject of culture. I find that this is the chapter with the most troubling ideas. Firstly, he's very religious. He believes that the law of a country shouldn't contradict its religion or traditions, and he doesn't really treat the religion of a country as an ever-changing part of the superstructure, but more of a key component of the national identity. As a defender of secularism, I find this troubling, although the Libyan experience makes me more comfortable working with the Liberation Theologians and the like.
The other major issue is his view on women. He is a feminist of sorts in that he recognizes the presence of patriarchy and he seeks to fix it. He identifies the fact that patriarchy exists in fellow Islamic nations in how women are often bought and sold in marriage. In that regard, he's very progressive, but he thinks that the West's denial of gender roles represses the feminine characteristics of the woman, and constitutes an oppression of her. He thinks that because of the special relationship a mother has with a child in childbirth and the months/years that follow, a woman has a unique obligation to take care of the kids. While the father does too, the mother's responsibility is greater, according to him. (In accordance with this view, he thinks property ownership as it pertains to a house should automatically belong to the woman, because in a sense, it's her "domain.") While it may be true that the complete suppression of any distinction between men and women may be excessive, I find his view on this subject to be incredibly backwards. However, perhaps because he exaggerated his criticisms in his book, perhaps because Libya *wasn't* a dictatorship, or perhaps both, the reality was that the life of woman in Libya was incredibly free. They could dress however they liked, unlike their comrades in Saudi. They could travel freely and marry freely, unlike their comrades in Saudi. They were free to have a job and an education in whatever studies they desired. *Legally,* they had equal rights with men. *Socially,* they weren't equal, but they were on the road towards equality.
The other things Qadhafi mentions in the rest of his book are rather inconsequential in my view. They're minor. On education, he supports education, and since the revolution in 1969, literacy rates skyrocketed, as in any socialist nation. All education was free, and if a certain degree wasn't available in Libya, the state covered their studies in a foreign nation, and provided subsidies for living, transportation, etc., through the form of a monthly allowance, I believe.
He also believed that Asians and Europeans all had their turn as global superpowers, so that next it was Africa's turn. He believed that it was inevitable that black people would dominate the globe. I find this a little ridiculous, but he never really pushed for this in his foreign policy, so I'm not really bothered by it. But he says a lot of goofy things like this. It kinda makes him look like the Trump of the socialist world, but a little more eccentric and a lot more intelligent. In a speech at the UN in 2010, he suggested that every continent or subcontinent should have representation in the Security Council, such that it doesn't function as an organ of individual national interests, especially the interests of the sole superpowers. I don't think he was trying to make Africa subjugate Europe.
In his final paragraphs he denounced spectator sports, suggesting that it leads to elitism. You don't go into a mosque to watch other people pray, so you don't go to a football game to watch other people play. Interesting idea. One of his sons was a professional football player, anyway.
That's it for my summary of the Green Book, with my own thoughts sprinkled throughout. I prefer that you read the book before responding (it's really not too long), although I'm happy to discuss with anyone on the topic. Here's a pdf of the book: http://openanthropology.org/libya/gaddafi-green-book.pdf