Commentary On The Green Book: Categories Of Reactionaries

Consists Of Lectures By The Brother Leader Muammar Al Qadhafi And The Contributions Of Other Writers And Thinkers

Volume I
Commentary On The Green Book
Categories Of Reactionaries

1 – disaffected people have the right to expel their rulers.

2 – parliamentary government is the mother of civil liberties.

3 – The people are the kingmaker.

4 – the proper law is accepted by the people.

5 – The government is the sound that pleases her people.

This that we are all arguments for retroactivity to the era of the masses. Although they are still valid until now in the contemporary world. Although the curricula of law schools all around the world include these statements carteri and studied on the grounds that it is correct and valid. But if we look at the content of these statements in light of the times where I was born, it was then left-wing and progressive to a large extent.

Valmcolh first:

Were the product of the American Revolution, and I have seen a light at the time of a new era was really the rulers spend much on the people and not only be subject to them. The American revolutionaries were able to expel the British rulers, the new rule may be set up to govern the relationship between the people and the ruling is “the right of the people disaffected to expel their rulers.” It was a revolt against the ruling before then disbelief, because the ruler is the shadow of God on earth, shall be deemed to be a rebellion rebellion against God and His will and decree disbelief ruled on the perpetrator by burning, and Istbah his blood, as quoted to us that the history books. Which is confirmed in the minds of people practices the Christian Church, which drew him to Marx said “Religion is the opium of the people” .. Has concluded his term this through the time and place specific Valziman who exercised the Church tyranny and dishonesty, and found the Marx and the place is Europe under the domination of the Christian Church, where the church with the blessing of the ruling as those who do not Tbarkhm not be entitled to exercise judgment, ruler is the shadow God in the earth and the Pope is a proxy for religion and God in the land who shall deliver the divine authority of the governor. A role accepted by the church after the loss of political power, did not Cha to over-exploited by the religious authority that the worst use of that layer with a layer known as the clergy, which the rulers scoffed layer to maintain their privileges. Just as the capitalist class do not exercise that power directly, but they put symbols of political power and Tska to serve its interests and to maintain their privileges. In capitalist countries the President and Prime Minister and President of Parliament and members of these councils is also a creature of capitalism and a tool in her hand. For example, is the American president is an executive tool of the capitalist class that created and brought him to power, and not in the ability of any person regardless of the features that up to the presidency without being behind this layer.

That the people selected were subject to their rulers in accordance with the definition of the Christian church to them that they are God’s shadow on the ground, which was invited to Marx that religion is the opium of the people. In order to get rid of the Americans to dominate the British fired this slogan that we are dealing with, which I consider a revolutionary very time because it gave people the right to expel rulers who angry with them, ruler remains as long as the people satisfied with him, if the indignation of the people on the governor to expel him, and considered this really does not disbelief. As far as this argument was revolutionary at the time they are more reactionary now in the era of the masses, in that it recognizes the existence of the rulers of the people from where you start. Then make, survival continues to be angry with them the people to focus upon other rulers. In the era of the masses governs the same people, and ends with a final if found the rulers, the ruler of the political struggle will continue until it reaches the people themselves to power and ends with the ruling. Since the people are controlled by the rulers of Alan, the political struggle will continue, and be triggered revolutions and uprisings everywhere, where people are trying to eliminate its rulers. This political conflict, disease, political or social unrest caused by the direct presence of the referees who make up the opposite party and the anti-people, according to a dialectical relationship between the people and the government shows that the presence of one does not only come at the expense of the other .. Do not end the conflict but the end of one of them. Thus, the rulers will end up and under control of the peoples of the final and end the political conflict in human societies.

The second argument:

This argument is still prevalent even now in the modern world, has resulted in this statement for the English Revolution. The British fought a bitter struggle to find representatives of the English people consulted the king and ruled thereafter as it deems appropriate in its favor. Since the king is God’s shadow on the ground, recognizing the government of a parliamentary was then event a revolutionary great and a great victory for democracy, Faced with the power of that kind does not recognize one of the only King who is the shadow of God on earth, is the deviation or questioned in disbelief, and the waiver of something of his powers is considered blasphemous, too, the parliamentary government was an act of the English progressive is still proud of him and take pride in their revolution that is provided. Contemporary societies are still gullible in this statement “The government is parliamentary or civil liberties” .. According to which all the systems of parliamentary democracy .. Where there is freedom of Parliament, a major fallacy. And direction of the retroactive real anti-freedom of the people according to the logic of the era of the masses. Although it has been proven invalid measurement that parliamentary government is the mother of civil liberties, as we have seen in practice that the most notorious types of dictatorships coercive and oppressive may have under the government’s parliamentary, and that it had ruled on civil liberties was almost eliminate civil herself completely eliminates, but this argument reactionary and hostile to the peoples of the approval because of the principle of representation and the prosecution of the people. According to this argument is absent, people are attending on behalf of the parliament and government as an agent. The theory holds that the absence of the third world dictatorship of the people and that the principle of the prosecution’s decision not about is the absence of him .. Thus, the. The principle of parliamentary representation and the system of Parliament is actually a dictatorship. As Htabna the rulers in our discussion of the first argument we Nctab on parliamentary government in this statement. We say that the people’s power is the mother of civil liberties.

The third argument:

As long as the King – as made ​​clear – it is God’s shadow on the ground it is not a right to make a king other than God himself. That any property in any country may be the king appointed him God! Thus, this was a divine right turns. From father to son inheritance of death or anything else. Is not entitled to a family that is not God-given right to replace the king. The British went to an earlier period of their history to Europe Fastarua of their king from one of the royal families, when they differ in some of their business. As for the people is to become a kingmaker. That heresy can not be ratified in that era that people should it continue to be subject to Mlokh not included in the Shan of their affairs, do not interfere with one in his inaugural, and remain the owner of the land and them without the object one of the people but his turns hereditary in his family the biggest Valokpr and so on. The Kings also contemporary people are still dealing with them according to those old convictions, we find in the constitutions of modern monarchies the king is responsible and irresponsible at the same time. As the shadow of God on earth. And that the Aeugh to criticism. As in the Constitution Libyan Revolution, who fell on the monarchy in 1969. And if the revolution raised for discussion before we explode There is no doubt we will hear that some members of the community have objected to the mandate of ownership on the grounds that the king’s authority derives from a holy God is not entitled to direct one to object to the will of God, or else the infidel. Thus, the. Saying “the people is the kingmaker.” Is progressive in its time no doubt because they had to fold all this rubble and given the right of the people in the appointment of the king to rob him of divine right. The Alan and under the authority of the people, the Kings have become part of the past who died Banblaj era of the masses, which destroyed the traditional structure of human societies, and established socio-political life is not governed at all, which are ruled by the kings or others.

The fourth argument:

It specifies that “the proper law is accepted by the people” .. This means that the point of what makes the law, if not accepted by the people was not legally sound. Thus the law is sound, the body that enacted the law are made ​​legally acceptable to the people last. The people in this case not only in front of him to satisfy the first satisfaction. If the law may properly If not satisfied, the law is not, but it remains intact. According to the people, though. All the governments in the modern world enact laws through its legislative and applied against the people of consent, whether or sham announced his rejection. The notion of such reaction is not because they allow the application of laws on the people although he did not accept it, but reactionary because it recognizes the region of the legislature is not the same people.

Fifth argument:

The most reactionary statements and a cause for laughter and ridicule are these, which states that “the government is the sound that pleases them the people” .. It is not in the world in terms of the Government to start impair people’s satisfaction with his government only himself. And dealing with the abolition of all governments and the establishment of the traditional power of the people. But such an argument were justified in the past, as the governments that controlled peoples were not seeking any degree no matter how small to achieve the consent of the people. Thus, this argument has made ​​governments ease in which they set a bit and trying to appease some people Alajraouat Allviqih, which with time became very funny. The reaction among these categories that allow a government above the people and the Congress and other tools of repression, may Vdanha practical experience, and people discovered corruption, but was left to them to go away .. The contemporary systems of government, all parliamentary systems of government .. The Hitler Mussolini and Franco were parliamentary governments, although the whole world is dictatorial rule. As well as the Shah of Iran and apartheid regimes in South Africa and occupied Palestine are also adopting a parliamentary system where people give up their will to another person behaves according to his will. Is there a justification because people give up their control?. These statements should be dropped. As we studied Fsndersha as being reactionary arguments of ancient history as we study the worship of idols, it is worthy that we consider to be part of the history pagan communities.


The law is not only a reflection of the relationship prevailing at the time it is made. When the king is God’s shadow on the ground, we will not find a law contrary to that, but we will find Laws confirm it. It will be in our hands is the law of the revolution against the king prohibited and disbelief as they revolt against God and his will which require that no doubt!. If one tried to revolt against the king and brought to the court, the judge just and Emma Fadel and older will be judged by that I come and commit haraam explicit atheism! It is judged according to the law and considered himself right when he follows the provisions of the law, even if it does not satisfy his conscience. The issue in this case that do not fit the judge and justice but is essentially a question of the existence of the law that codifies the unjust conditions. For the sake of those who use the law to assert their interests and expand the first thing they talk about the right way, which enacted the law! It is not only a way that enables them to enact laws. Appropriate to their interests. Also they put the proper requirements of the law and the conditions that must be available in the enacted, to suit their situation and make these conditions apply to them alone. After this stage, hammer out the legal text such as:

– Do not arrest the perpetrator of a crime except in accordance with (the law). And the toll they are for and impact of the law which regulates the capture process which creates a repressive law is not safe in a shadow of himself arrested or otherwise. This law allows even the arrest and imprisonment of innocent people without charge, the installation of legal texts on their condition and status that you see them power. Thus, the law unjust and compelling.

If we look at the legal text says:

– Passes in front of the king’s house he was arrested and punished. We do not find a logical crime worthy of punishment or arrest of a person who does in the passage in front of the house of another human being, but the law specifies that the act is a crime, despite the lack of rationale in that. Beyond this, even if the political sphere to the economic sphere, we know that the merchant and the contractor and the employer are thieves according to the logic and in accordance with the revolutionary science. Perhaps if we heard a contractor or a merchant or employer severely angry, He said this appeal personally owed ​​an honest man! To raise his voice calling for an investigation commissioned by him on the legal validation of financial and non-discharged it, and do not help him escape from us, we will ask a judge to either sue him just to prove the charge against him or acquit acquitted them. We must know that, in accordance with applicable law in all parts of the world is a contractor and the merchant and the employer, honorable men and none of them will come out of any vision of the trial did not prove a crime against him, as long as his hand did not enter into the pockets of others to Mahfezathm Winchell. Although this patent received by the legal thieves like these they realistically are not only thieves. Have won their innocence because the law codifies the theft but are permitted and considered legitimate.

How to steal the contractor? The contractor uses a contract worker work in accordance with civil law in force, and agree with him based on his work on the full price and sets a time for his daily work. Fask ten hours complete and be conducted by is equal to six hours only. Thus, the worker produces four hours of the contractor without something against which to obtain .. If the contractor gave the eighth factor to six hours – a price agreed upon reward for a worker – it still has the eighth-four hours during which he mocked the other without working for it to betray him, and this is what is known as a profit contractor. The employer (contractor) is based on the law by making the outset that the work has any other factor worth six dinars a day, but he uses it ten hours and when it is time for a dinar, the dinars six taken by the Group are for only six hours, and lose at the same time, eighth hours the other four that did not want the employer to give him for it. If we alter the court that the traditional control according to the laws that allow exploitation of theft, they would ask the Court of revolutionary employer for four hours, which mocked the worker without to give him for it. Said that this feat was considered a thief profit no doubt. Factor such that it robs the employer of four dinars per day have lost 400 dinars if he works 100 days. If the likes of the workers, for example, the 1000 workers of whom Saserg Contractor within 100 days 400.000 dinars. Without making any effort productive in only if we consider theft effort productive. And even if cut, the employer profit if the agent uses the ten hours and give him eight hours or nine hours, the hours or time that was not given for it to work, considering it as a profit is theft. Whatever its value dropped. The trial of conventional and exploitation according to the laws show us that the employer committed to the law did not overtake, was held the work provides for the worker to serve the Lord of paid work under his supervision and management. May determine the value of wage and says, “Bagger of six dinars a day.” In court, ask the employer a certificate same factor.

Did not work with me 100 days. And then Slmtk 600 dinars? He answered yes and that the factor that corresponds to the employment contract between them acquitted.

And shows the employer the same as a human being compassionate and kind and loving to the laboring class, says he has increased the wages of 100 dinars other factor as a gift for this occasion as well as the Group also ..

Or gave him a radio or other visual pleasure to come to himself and his family the same! Thus, if the employment contract was required to obtain a factor 600 dinars he had received 700 dinars. If that absolve according to the legalization of theft, it is the logic of the revolutionary science sly thief not only stole the hard-working, but it also intentionally misled and deceived .. It is stipulated from the outset that works for working ten hours for taxis specified by the contract of employment. Factor has been produced in 100 days and 1000 dinars if he received it was of 600 400 dinars, and if the employer had tried to mislead malignant offer 100 dinars from the other, they stayed out of 400 dinars stolen. The rule governing the relationship between employees and employers is that the worker produces more and receive less, whether the employer is a natural person or legal entity.

Those who cling to this situation and defend those laws are the thieves who steal effort servitude of others and want to serve their interests and put them under their supervision and management. However, the revolution is delegated to such a situation is unjust, they explode as a result of the discovery of these unjust rules that govern the people and the interests of the powerful Tskm in the community. And proceeds to destroy it, to establish instead a fair social life, free from oppression and tyranny. All the hostile forces of progress will fight the revolution on society reactionary in the transformer to maintain the exploited, but the revolution will be resolved this conflict in favor of the new values ​​of fair and will the masses logos of Progress and Socialism high chanting that they are “partners do not hold”, as it may not be in the era of the masses to make fun of people another, or be placed under his direction or under his supervision at work.

The relationship built according to this rule is an unfair relationship. It is clear theft. Therefore, the law which permits the rule. And allows the relationship between the resulting worker and the employer is the law retroactive, and the social situation allows such a retroactive law is to put the revolution must be destroyed. Factor should run his own and not to give up his administration to any other party. Thus, for producers to manage productive enterprises they work for the Department’s popularity. Because it is based on their efforts in production and managed so they more deserving than any other, and must not give up this right. He will be among the reactionary forces which cling to the conditions of exploitation and injustice, clerics are trying to stop the advance of revolutionary values ​​of new, and trying to discredit the statements and revolutionary slogans and combat harness religion and the exploitation of emotions of the faithful to stand hostile attitude of the revolution, that these clerics are just impostors defend the interests of the class and justify theft they exercise the right of the popular masses, but they are not something of religion, any religion can justify theft, exploitation and injustice? religions fighting injustice, exploitation, and theft, it can not justify the use of working ten hours to steal his employer’s four of them. The religion apt to order to cut off the hands of the employer that this is not only a professional thief.

On trade:

Any items purchased with the dinar, for example, the merchant can not sell it according to his interests, but more than dinars. This topic, such as that established by the item trader Bmottagrh and lock them out, even thought the owner of this need – Item – access to it, is not the way he wants, he is a thief, merchant, according to the law of exploitation. The thief is the one who actually held the needs of people in the trap appoint him to rob them of their money. The store’s only one door you need to ask for intervention by the merchant held her that you are asked to pay for it and increase the price (profit). Valslah which the price of dinars to be paid to him by two dinars and so on. This price increase on the merchant considers necessary to relieve you of your need, which held her to forces you to pay this royalty. That when he enters the needy to the store is required to realistically have a quorum to release a professional trader named for his need, which held her in Fajh which appointed him for this purpose. The price at which the merchant Adoba contains the value you want to increase the real price of this item is released. And so can not be obtained before the needy on the need to incur a financial penalty for each commodity needed because of fraud and fraud practiced by the merchant for index by Fajh and held for the needs of the people inside. The crook pretending to such a merchant goodness of people and allows them to buy goods from Fajh they need to have in order to elicit compassion it, and miss their awareness to prevent discovery of his crime, which perpetrated against them. The man received less like them Senberon quorum for the defense of any like him in the face to stop the process Ahtealh they will defend him desperately because he needs a good and we sell them! Demonstrating leadership has also demanded cancellation of the procedures that would prevent him from continuing Ahtealh. This is what happened in Chile altogether. حيث استطاع الرأسماليون والقوى الرجعية الشريكة لهم في الاستغلال تضليل الجماهير وقيادتها في مظاهرات ضد الإجراءات الاشتراكية التي تكبح يدهم عن الاستغلال وتفك قيودهم من رقاب الشعب حتى سقط النظام الثوري في تشيلي وسقطت الإجراءات الاشتراكية والديمقراطية تبعا لذلك فعاد الاستغلال والاحتكار والدكتاتورية والقهر وعاد الرأسماليون سادة مكشرين عن انيابهم لينهشوا لحم الجماهير الشعبية، ولكن التشيليين لم يستيقظوا الا بعد فوات الأوان. إن جماهير مغيبة ينجح الرأسماليون والرجعيون بتغفيلها وتضليلها ستدافع عن قيودها وستعيد نفسها إلى السلاسل من جديد حين تتردد في الاجهاز على الطبقات المستغلة المعادية لها تاريخيا. ولأن الجماهير المغيبة هذه ستخضع لاشك لهيمنة الرأسماليين والرجعيين المستغلين، فإنها ستكتوى بنار الهزيمة الشنيعة. وستندم على تفريطها في إدارة معركتها التاريخية ضد هذه الفئات المعادية لها لتتمكن من خلال هذه المعركة من تحرير حاجاتها فترسخ حريتها النهائية وتخلص نفسها من الاستغلال والهيمنة. ولكن كيف يمكنها تحرير حاجاتها؟ ما الحل الذي يحقق حرية هذه الجماهير؟

الحل :

هو أن يدمر القانون الذي يسمح بنصب ألا فخاخ للناس، وأن يدمر الوضع الاجتماعي الذي يفرز أو يقبل هذه القوانين فادا تحقق ذلك فان حاجات الناس تتحرر، ويتحرر الناس تبعا لتحرر حاجاتهم لأنه في الحاجة تكمن الحرية. وبإلغاء قانون التجارة وتدميره فإن الناس تتحصل على السلع التي تلزمها من الأسواق العامة التي تبيع السلع بثمن تكلفتها. فاللباس، الذي يكون ثمن تكلفته عشرة دنانير يباع لمن يحتاجه بنفس الثمن دون زيادة. ويستطيع الناس أن يقيموا جمعيات استهلاكية تحل بدل تلك ألا فخاخ التي نصبها المحتالون حين يقوم سكان منطقة معينة مثلا بتحديد ما يطلبون من حاجات ويحددون أثمانها الحقيقية وفقا لسعر التكلفة ويدفع كل منهم ثمن الأشياء الى طلبها لتحضر له بعد ذلك دون فائدة عليها.

الثورة :

إننا نقوم بثورة تدمر قواعد الاستغلال التي يقوم عليها المجتمع الرجعى، وتحطم القوانين الظالمة التي صاغها الاستغلال، تلك التي تبيح استغلال إنسان لإنسان. حتى تتحرر حاجات الناس، ويعتقوا من كافة أدوات القهر والعسف التي تتصرف في شئونهم وتتحكم فيهم. إن واجب القيادة الثورية للجماهير هو كشف القواعد الفاسدة التي بنى عليها المجتمع الرجعى لتدميرها، وبناء قواعد صحيحة وعادلة لمجتمع ثوري يحقق مصالح الجماهير الشعبية. إذن فهي أداة لتحطيم أي استغلال أو هيمنة على الجماهير. فهي لا تلغى الجماهير أو تحل محلها أو تنوب عنها.. إنه من السهل حين وصول قيادة ثورية إلى السلطة على انقاض نظام رجعى أن تصدر قرارات لها قوة القانون بفعل السلطة، وحتى حين تكون هذه القرارات لمصلحة الجماهير فإن الجماهير لا تعرف الحكمة في إصدارها، ولن تدرك النتائج المراد تحقيقها من خلالها، وبالتالي فإن أية سلطة بامكانها أن تصدر قرارات نقيضة لها لتمحو بها أي إنجاز تحقق بقرار سلطوي وهو ما حدث للشعب المصري الذي عمل عبد الناصر من أجله ربع قرن كامل وحقق له من الانجازات ما جعله في مقدمة شعوب العالم الثالث، وإذ لم تفهم الجماهير شيئا مما كان يدور في السلطة وفي غيرها فإنه قد سهل على القوى المضادة للثورة المصرية ممثلة في السادات أن تسرق تلك الإنجازات وان تدمرها دون أن تحرك الجماهير ساكنا. لقد كانت هذه الجماهير تتفرج على السلطة الثورية تصدر قرارات لصالحها فلم يتغير دورها إذ السلطة الرجعية تصدر قرارات معادية لها. إن خطا فادحا ترتكبه القيادة الثورية للجماهير حين تجعل الجماهير متفرجة وتجعل من نفسها نائبة عنها. والصحيح هو أن تقود هده القيادة الثورية عملية التحولات جميعها من خلال الجماهير نفسها. إن الجماهير الشعبية لن تسلم في إنجازاتها الثورية التي تمت بواسطتها، ولكنها لن تهتم بأي شئ تحقق دون أن تعرفه ودون أن تفهم فحواه. إنه إذا اقتنع العامل بان مستخدمه قد سرقه بالأدلة، فإن العمال جميعا سيعون هذه الحقيقة، ليقوموا بالثورة. وانهم سيستولون على المؤسسات الإنتاجية، وسيرفضون البقاء كأجراء، وسيكون مستحيلا إرجاعهم إلى الأجرة مجددا إذا قرروا أن يصبحوا شركاء بإرادتهم وعن وعى كامل بمضمون أوضاعهم الاجتماعية والاقتصادية. إن المنطلق الصحيح للدور الثوري هو تحليل العلاقات السائدة بين الناس، والبحث في العلاقات الموجودة لاكتشاف الفاسد منها ونشر الوعي العلمي بهذه العلاقات ليتمكن الناس من تدميرها بأنفسهم. إن الحديث عن التجارة وعن العلاقة الظالمة التي تربط رب العمل بالعامل، ليس اختراعا يبتدعه أحد من عنده بقدر ما هي مسالة تحليل للواقع الذي يعيشه الناس، مثله في ذلك مثل موضوع اكتشاف الزائدة الدودية، فليس لأحد الحق في الادعاء بأنه اخترعها ولكنها موجودة قبله، أما هو فتمكن من معرفتها بالبحث في جسم الإنسان. وكذلك فإن القذافي لم يخلق الفخ الذي ينصبه التاجر ليصطاد المستهلكين، ولكنه بحث في علاقة الحاجة بالحرية، في مصادر تهديد هذه الحرية حتى اهتدى إلى العلاقة الظالمة التي تربط المستهلك للسلعة بالتاجر، فتبين له منها بأنها مجرد عملية سرقة أو عملية احتيال ونصب يحميها القانون ويسمح بها مجتمع الاستغلال. إن التجارة كعلاقة ظالمة كانت موجودة منذ القدم، قبل فلاسفة اليونان وقبل ماركس وقبل القذافي إلا أن كشفها هو شأن من شئون التحليل العلمي، ومن خلال التحليل العلمي نفسه يقتنع الناس بضرورة تدميرها، ويتم تحديد العلاقة العادلة والسليمة أيضا وفق تحليل موضوعي وعلمي للواقع. فحيث أن القوانين التي تبيح التجارة الخاصة هي قوانين ظالمة تبيح السرقة، فإن الحل هو تدمير هذه القوانين وإيجاد القاعدة السليمة البديلة عنها وهى تلك التي تقتنع بها الجماهير وتقرها فتصبح قانونا أو قاعدة للتعامل بالشكل الذي يضعها الشعب به. إن مهمة اللجان الثورية هي إقناع الجماهير الشعبية في المؤتمرات الشعبية بالدليل العلمي القاطع وبالتحليل الموضوعي عن العلاقات السائدة في المجتمع، لتقوم الجماهير بدورها بعد ذلك في تدمير العلاقات الظالمة وايجاد العلاقات العادلة البديلة عنها.

مثال :

من أين جاء ت المنازل؟ ولماذا ليس من حق أحد أن يكون له أكثرمن بيت حين يكون آخرون لا بيوت لهم؟ لنفرض أن المربع أ ب ج د هو بلاد المجتمع س ويوجد في هذا المربع المواد اللازمة للبناء مثل الماء والحديد والترابة والخشب وغير ذلك مما يتوفر داخل المربع أويتم استيراده من بلاد أخرى مقابل تصدير شئ مأمن المربع أ ب ج د. فليس من الممكن أن يتحصل س على أي مادة دون مقابل نقدي يغطى ثمنها أو مادة متساوية معها في الثمن. وبالتالي فان الاستيراد أيضا هو مقابل تصدير من ذات المربع المذكور.

لنفرض بان س=100.000 أسرة. وأن المواد المتوفرة في أ ب ج د تكفى لبناء 100.000 بيت. إن الحل الصحيح في هذه الحالة هو أن تقسم المواد بالتساوى بين كل الأسر في المجتمع س لتتحصل كل أسرة على بيت. فإذا تحصلت أسرة على أكثر من بيت فإن هذا يعنى حرمان أسرة أخرى من بيت على الإطلاق، وهو اعتداء واضح وسرقة، ويكون بيت للذين لا بيت لهم لدى أولئك الذين لهم أكثر من بيت واحد.

فرض آخر :

لنفرض أن س= 100.000 أسرة. وإن المواد المتوفرة في أ ب ج د=110.000 بيت. فإن الحل هو أن تقسم المواد بالتساوى لتتحصل كل، أسرة على بيت واحد. ويبقى من المواد ما يكفى لبناء 10.000 بيت هي ملك بالتساوى لكل س ولا يحق لأحدأن ينال منها شيئا بمفرده، فلو أخذ واحد من أفراد س منها بيتا إلى جانب بيته فإنه يقوم بالسرقة، بسبب أن هذه المواد الباقية هي ملك للجميع ويجب أن تقسم أيضا بالتساوى أو تبقى مخزنة لاستعمالها في الوقت المناسب بالتساوى، ولا مبرر لاستشناء أحد من أفراد س في جميع عمليات القسمة هذه، وإلا اعتبرت القسمة ظالمة. فان الذي أخذ أكثر من حصته في المواد الباقية يحرم أخر من حصته منها. وهكذا فإن أي فرد من س يمتلك أكثر من بيت واحد يكون قد سرق حصة غيره من ثروة البلاد، لأنه في نفس اللحظة سيكـون هناك فـرد آخر من س بدون بيت على الإطـلاق. لأن كل الـمواد المتوفرة في المـربع أ ب ج د محسوبة بدقة ويتم تقدير الكمية المسموح باستغلالها منها سنويا أو مدى الحياة، فلا يجوز الا قسمتها على أصحابها بالتساوى. ووفقا لهذا التحليل العلمي فإن المؤتمرات الشعبية ستضع إذا فهمته بلا شك إجراءات كفيلة بمنع الاستغلال والسرقة لتضمن تقسيم ثروة المجتمع بالتساوى بين أفراده دون ظلم، لأنها ستدرك أن من ينال أكثر من حصته إنما ينال حصة فرد آخر من أفراد المجتمع.

Archive Link