This quote from «Green Paper» Muammar al-Gaddafi (which in Russia, incidentally, is not included in the list of extremist materials, despite the reputation of its author). This book should be in the library of every true regionalists. Yes, and nationalists should go look. If the author frankly realized his social utopia, you do not have fired back today at the palace, and reap the rewards Pan-Arab revolution as its recognizable leader. But now Gaddafi own hands nullifies all that for which his people would remember him with respect. Meanwhile, the Libyan people have only exercised their right to arms.
Nevertheless, the Jamahiriya - this is the most successful and comfortable for the bottom incarnation of Utopia National Socialism. "Golden time" Gaddafi had a 70-ies, when an accomplishment Arab masses had the idea of an authoritarian socialist state, based on the fair distribution of oil revenues. In the Jamahiriya, this idea has received its fullest expression. Libya - rich country with a GDP per capita $ 14 thousand, nearly a half times higher than in Russia. Unlike Russia, most of these resources are not plundered the tip, and was on the development of infrastructure and improved living standards lower classes (free housing, cheap food, affordable and quality education). Libyans last 20 years not only consume oil revenues: they realized the biggest in the history of mankind irrigation project «The Great Man-Made River» . Now, feeding on socialism, Libyans were ripe for democracy. Good luck, friends!
relative success of the Libyan model of socialism because the revolution did there no external force, and the autochthonous leaders. In Russia, we would see something similar if, instead of the Bolsheviks, with their German Marxism, retained control of the revolution Revolutionaries, and the further development of the country would go through the Constituent Assembly. (The portrait - our, Russian Gaddafi: President of the Constituent Assembly, the ideologue Socialist Party of Viktor Chernov) By the way, if we decode "SR" as "socialists regionalists, it is not too much mistaken. In Utopia Gaddafi (especially with the 90-ies.) We see quite SR idea: the country as a federation of self-managed communities, "ancient city", with a high degree of autonomy and the elements of direct democracy. I suspect that the realization of this utopia in practice has not been brilliant. Under the influence of strong clan-tribal tradition, there certainly occurred feudalization management. Still, this is Africa, not Europe. Probably, in fact, all run by the leaders of clans, their children, relatives, and for the rest of the population participated in the power and social mobility is limited. This is indicated, and actively participate in governance of the Gaddafi family. And since (unlike the SR program) where prohibited by European politics, with parties, free press, independent trade unions, the legitimate protest is difficult, and steam in the pot "accumulated over the years. If we add to this the "Soviet" loss of economic freedom (ie, inability to make an independent career in the economy), the fury of the Libyan youth is quite understandable. A new generation of Libyans (and Arabs in general) wants not only social, but also a democratic state. Let's see if they are combined.
is appropriate here to point out the error of many well-known liberals, who believe that high standards of living - It is a necessary foundation for political freedom and political equality of citizens. In fact, the poorest of society (including primitive and barbaric) very often exhibit samples of political equality and collective decision-making. Even the "exemplary" Athens heyday were nothing more than as "democracy, longshoremen, and the rowers in the galleys, where citizens receive a salary for their participation in political activities, to this day do not stay hungry. And in general, a typical citizen of the Greek polis, with our present point of view - is a poor, dark and dull farmer, who lives could only plow, and to fight "wall to wall." In an era of universal suffrage in Europe, most of them belonged to the population to the proletariat, with the standard of living lower than that of contemporary Russians.
This relationship between income and democracy is somewhat different: the political Freedom - it's the only way to keep the explosion society, where people in the mass is prosperity and leisure. Poor societies can be democratic by choice and prosperous - has to be so in need. And the Soviet Union, and Libya - a classic example of authoritarian societies, which blew up the very first generation, "replete since childhood. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment