The Green Book: Part One

Chapter Four

               CLASS


  The class political system is the
same as the party, the tribal, or secta-
rian 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 blood-
relationship, 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 blood-
relationship, 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 concep-
tion directed toward realising the out-
look and ends of that group. In all cases
the people are neither the class, the
party, the tribe nor the sect; these are

                  [18]


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 in-
terests, 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 aban-
doning 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

                  [19]


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 li-
quidation 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 li-
quidation.
  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

                  [20]


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, attri-
butes of other eliminated classes
emerge in the very ranks of the work-
ing 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 socie-
ty 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 gov-
erning.
  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,

                  [21]


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 pos-
sessions of others in order to maintain
the instrument of governing for its own
interests, will find that material pos-
sessions have brought within that class
what material possessions usually
bring about within the society as a
whole.
  In short, attempts to unify the mate-
rial 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.

                  [22]

Chapter Five   Table of Contents