The Green Book: Part Two
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 Table of Contents