Book Review: The Green Book, by Muammar Gaddafi

Something that’s talked about a little less in leftist circles than others is Muammar Gaddafi, and his Green Book. The Libyan revolutionary was a controversial figure in recent U.S. history, and was killed following a NATO attack in 2011. In the midst of having power for several decades, he put together a work known as Third International Theory, which is in three short parts, all within this book. Being heavily anti-capitalist, as well as rejecting Marxism, leftists tend to have mixed feelings of Gaddafi and his works. While certainly running with a socialist model, it’s not exactly in alignment with Marxist-Leninist theory. So the goal here is to give my perspective of the work through a Marxist lens.

The first section focuses heavily on democracy, something that Marxists hold close, which can be defined in many different ways. Gaddafi quickly details his distaste for any kind of authoritarianism, starting with the issues of parliamentary government. This points to the issues of using propaganda to win parliament and ultimately be an untrue voice of the people. He also mentions that a party taking parliament yields control of the population with only the perspective of that party, which is also misrepresentative. Classes are then tied into this, and this section closes off with the importance of popular conferences and people's committees to be the center of a governing force, as well as the driver for societal law and how to manage it.

Economics takes the mainstage for the second section, which is where socialism enters the picture. Right about here is where Third International Theory syncs up closest with Marxist analysis. Housing, income, and land are the three largest points, which are spelled out exactly as they would (should) be in any true socialist model. It stresses how essential these three things are, and how they are to be provided to anybody in order for survival. Land specifically is pointed out to be the property of none, and that it’s to be a public utility, as it’s more permanent than the everyday lives of how and where people live. Wage labor for society vs. private enterprise is compared to close the shortest section.

Finally, the social model makes up the last section. It addresses nationalism, and how it results in minorities’ heightened oppression. That then gives way to different family and tribal structures and roles within family, tribe, and nation. This is where things probably stray furthest from Marxist thinking, as women are seen to fulfill a certain role and appear a certain way in relation to man and the family structure, despite capitalizing on equality. Education makes its way into the fold, being something that should not be state controlled, and that variety of it should exist, giving a large criticism of world education systems. Entertainment, such as music and sport are briefly touched on at the end, and the work is then closed out.

So it should become easy to see why Marxists tend to have mixed feelings on Gaddaffi. On one hand, he was a revolutionary that sought to bring liberation to Libya, Africa, and the black community as a whole, as outlined in The Green Book. He believed in an economic model that was meant to fight exploitation, that saw housing, land, and proper wages as a need for society, and ultimately should stay out of the hands of private capitalists. Having a foot against imperialism certainly helps things too.

At the same time, many problems also arise within this context. For starters, the idea of a role for women and how they should be portrayed is a bit off when it comes to equality. While there may be some progressive ideas, and that equality is stated as necessary in the beginning of this section, there are some takes that strip away certain identity and involvement of women. Outside of social issues, some may disagree with the sentiment of giving one party control of the government. Movements meant to benefit private profit for the few, this certainly makes sense. But a revolutionary movement with the masses behind a party doesn’t quite seem to be the same thing in my eyes, which is another spot where Gadaffi exits the Marxist-Leninist idea. Using popular conferences and committees is certainly something we can agree on, as this form of democratic involvement is crucial for a socialist setting, but discounting the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat renders it less useful, and more utopian.

Is this worth reading? Sure. It's a short enough work that would probably take the average reader a day or two, and from an educational standpoint, it’s helpful. Americans could especially use this to gain insight on a leader that had such a recent conflict with the U.S. If nothing else, it provides one more taste of nuance. Prioritize it as you see fit, and take it with a grain of salt.