{ } = word or expression can't be understood
{word} = hard to understand, might be this

...and they speak of what the government should do or not do. But they always forget that their order of the last 200 years has led to -- two world wars, which were one. And that Lenin, the alleged Communist, acknowledged this. In 19- -- -17, before he made the revolution, he simply -- he said, "My program is war-economics and Soviets." Because he discovered that in a wa- -- universal war, the energies are so composed -- compounded, gotten up, that his ideal of a united society seemed to be fulfilled.

Don't believe that the Russians have ever made a revolution. The revolution is -- are the world wars, this massacre. Here -- the Russians are still attached to it, so to speak, with a kind of special alphabet, or special lingo. But they haven't made a revolution. The revolution was made by all the nations of the world to -- who went to war. Obviously now they live in one world, and they hate it, but they are in it.

Every day we learn this, that we are in- -- inside a new world which didn't exist when the war -- First World War broke out. It's one of the -- facts that have to do with Mr. Marx and Mr. Adam Smith, that anybody who is simply a follower of one of the two--and most people are--they are either liberals and capitalists, or they are Communists or Socialists--cannot see this. That's why I tried to wake you up to the fact that the two defectors of the old system of houses, and of an old economy of houses of God and man, that the two have brought about now a situation in which we either have to rebuild houses, or we will perish.

We are homeless, today. And the proof of this is in the -- very word "home economics," which is utterly ridiculous, because "economics" means the order of a household. And to have home economics means that the household is exceptional now, to have a household. And "home economics" means that in a corner, there is a certain admission that a mother, and a father, and children have some economy to themselves.

I told you already last time that the defector, Adam Smith, who was a bachelor and a Scotchman, besides, the -- didn't -- called houses only today as the realtor, you see, something to sell. Not something to live in. And certainly not that house from which I asked you to understand that it was a question of three generations, and a question of a division between the outer world and the inner life. And that thirdly--and I cannot stress this strongly -- strong enough--that there was no point in this whole house which could be -- be identified with any one person. Because it was all the time a relationship between parents and child-

ren, between servants and masters, between sisters and brothers, between lovers. But certainly you could never point to the spirit of a house, or the soul of a house by saying, "This is he." If you could, it would be -- have ceased to be a house, and it would be a factory, or would be an office, or would be a kitchen. There can be some soul of the thing, you see, in one of the rooms of the house. But never in the whole house. The whole house is -- has a spirit, the Holy Spirit, if it is a good house; the Devil, if it is a bad house. But the -- that I'm talking of facts, you can see from this simple fact that this kind of a house is disappearing, or has disappeared. You can't find it in Los Angeles. The law has forbidden the existence of such an establishment.

To prove this to you, I will read you -- if I am allowed to move--I don't know if this is possible--I will -- read you a -- two days ago in the paper, it was my good fortune to discover a story:

"Sculptor stymied by building code Marble he can't carry

{Eino} { }, Viking blue-eyed and..."

[tape interruption]

..."is a 25-year-old Finnish-born sculptor, with a problem that -- that weighs seven tons. He has a great big chunk of goldleaf marble, from which he proposes to sculpt four { } called 'Oneness.' But this, in its present state, the marble column is just a huge slab, and this is what constitutes the seven-ton problem. Because, claims {Eino}, city building inspectors have told him he can't work on it, where it is now. He will have to move it before he resumes his effort with -- mallet and chisel.

"'It took me three weeks just to get it into my own house,' said {Eino}. Here being his combination studio and living quarters at 71 1/2 Lincoln Boulevard in Venice. He bought..."

Now I won't go into the dis- -- details. But he finally managed to get this wonderful material for his great scope, his great sculpture into his living.

"But" -- now comes our modern law: "Building lords do not allow an artist or writer to work for a profit in his residence."

That is, the consumer and the producer, the two elements that make up a house, you see, have been so separated that they cannot meet in the same place. The poor man is not allowed to produce this sculpture, which he only can produce on his own property--seven tons, you can imagine. Nobody else would allow him in. He couldn't pay for it. But the building code says -- he understands

inspectors have a job to do. Laws are laws. But he believes the rules should be bent in the interest of art.

"In my kind of work"--in strongly accented English he speaks. He came from Helsinki three years ago--"I need to live and work in the same place."

You understand? "I -- I must live and work in the same place," because it is so fatiguing. After he has worked on these tremendous slabs, he goes back and forth, he takes a walk, and then he must be able to work again, at night perhaps. We all know this, if we have real work to do. It's the same with us. Only in offices and factories this has long disappeared. The man in production has nothing to do with the man in consumption or in distribution.

The second story I would like to mention --. I have a friend who worked in Madison Avenue. And since this is a mad avenue, he left it. In New York, you know. I don't know if this is known that there is a city called New York City in the East; and there is Madison Avenue, where all the advertising agencies -- work. And he worked in one of these agencies for advertising. And he found he should not do this any longer. So he moved to a farm and became the -- the -- how would you say, the manager of a very big enterprise in biodynamic food, in genuine food production, and was very successful. However, his farm was located too close to a big city called Philadelphia. A speculator persuaded the owners of the property to speculate in land instead of producing genuine food. And so his activities were stopped.

And now he writes me from this place where he's still living, but only living, you see, as a consumer. I think it's an exciting letter.

"I feel diminution in my own stature and scope. A year ago, I would have told our Dutch friend..."--who is a mutual friend, who is out of work--"A year ago, I would have told our Dutch friend to come to Golden Acres"--the name of this place--"and then look for work. But now I do not have that support behind me. Our British friend, {Ralph Gardiner}, often mentioned an economic base for our beliefs. And now I realize how much Golden Acres gave me which I just can't pump up out of myself. There was always room for the unexpected. Food, freedom, a worthy endeavor. Like the cherries left at the top of the tree..."

I told him the story that in my home country, in {Bardinia}, you could not harvest a cherry tree without leaving one branch unharvested, you see. That was for the -- anybody who came. But you couldn't rob this tree of some of its -- cherries just for your own profit.

"Like the cherries left at the top of the tree, there was

something left to chance for which no accounting was necessary. Much more than a business disappeared when the farm was sold. I feel this, a diminution of my own stature and scope."

So the same man living in the same place, once had a house and now hasn't. That's why the very word "home economics" bears witness to this fact that -- the -- rule and order of 8,000 years under which people lived in tents or houses, and had an economy, trying to depict the house of God in some way or other--like the tent of the Jews in the desert, you see, which was before they built the temple of -- Solomon, every house an equivalent of God's -- Almighty's order of the universe--that this has disappeared, forever. Every one of us is included in this fact. My friend cannot even pump out of his own consciousness, you see, out of his own will this existence of a house. Although he knows the secret. It's gone, you see, without his doing, because, as I said, the center of the house is not any individual.

So this strange world today, without any spiritual center, is called the modern world. And it is worthwhile to look at their -- at their achievements, the greatness of this world in many respects. Even though it has led to this worldwide catastrophe, to this massacre, we cannot forget what we owe it. We all live in it. We can't deny it. We can't abolish it.

I went -- was taken this morning to {Giordano's}, and was allowed to admire there the fruits, vegetables, all the edible goods laid out there. You know the -- the outlay is very beautiful. The organization testifies to the fact that even Florida is represented in {Giordano's}, you see, even the enemy, or the con- -- competitor. Everything is there. The world has become a world market. Or better, the town has become a world market. And instead of a house, we have markets. And we have supermarkets. And I think the best expression for our present day is the term "supermarket," because it means that the goods proposed to you there, trying to seduce you, are not from the surrounding villages only; they are supermarket goods; they come from the whole world.

Years ago, while the World War was raging, I was quartered in front of Verdun, in a little town called Dun, on the Meuse River. I have not forgotten. There was a good library. I wrote -- read a book there, a French book, on economics. Written perhaps in 1905 or '06. I Have forgotten of course the year. It's long ago. First World War. And this man described how in Paris the goods of all the world competed. And there was no distinction, he said, whether they came from the Loire, or from Toulouse, you see, or whether they came from Brazil. The greatness was that there was no distinction between the goods at -- from home, you see, from nearby, and from far away. And he said, "That is the achievement of our economic order." And he's right.

The space of man has become ubiquitous. And Mr. Lovell and Bormann testify to this. It's one space. Only you remember in any home of people and houses, there is a wall between the inner and the outer world. We only live in the outer world. If you look at modern architecture, the one thing they all try to do, to put the -- the beds, you see, on the verandah. That is, they call it a house, but it is outdoors. If you look at the modern window, the whole modern problem is to identify the house and the landscape in some strange manner.

Because we don't know the distinction between outer and inner anymore. We try to abolish it. You see it from our linguistic capacity to replace the word "people" by the word "public." That goes very far. And it tells you exactly what has happened. The public is always out in the open.

A justice of the Supreme Court could afford to write a book, which was a bestseller, The Public and Its Government. Now mark you, there are two interesting things in this. One is that he calls the American people the "public." And the second interesting thing is that he calls it -- them "it." The Public and Its Government. I would have written a book -- I would have loved to write a book on The People and Their Government. That's -- makes quite a difference. Because the public, as you all know it, that part in you which is public is gullible. This is not the best in you if you sit in a concert hall and listen. You -- you are much better when you make a sacrifice, sometimes even when you write an exam. Pain is a part of being -- belonging to a people. Enjoyment is the part when you belong to the public. Because you can dissolve the bond immediately. A public doesn't last beyond the moment of pleasure. Then you go home.

So public is -- look there, I mean, it isn't -- it doesn't exist. It's a dream. For writers, of course, of the modern century, it is their desire to meet the public. I've always tried to meet people. It's not the same.

You can heap examples of this confusion between public and people by the million. When Pierpont Morgan's -- was warned that he shouldn't abuse his financial power, he said, "I owe the public nothing."

He couldn't have said, "I owe the people nothing." He was very wise that he said this, you see. So he wasn't burned at stake. You -- you can defy the public. Well, that's courageous. But you cannot defy the people.

This confusion is all over the place. I'm afraid -- I mean, all our academic teaching is in this confusion. You make no distinction between "public" and "people." Now people are from eternity to eternity; and public are, I'm afraid to say, from 4:00 to 5:00. You are, Sir, public at this moment, here. If you are not -- more than public, it would have to be shown after this lecture. At this moment,

I've galvanized you into a -- sedentary position, you see, by speaking to you. But that can be hypnotism. We will know only 10 years later if you have done something with what -- the things I say now. Before, it's ambiguous. It can just be a public- -- a publicity stunt.

In this term "public," every layman has a very good means, a very good drug, so to speak, to know where he is. Is he at home in the universe of his creator? Or is he on Madison Avenue, or on a long telephone line organized by Madison Avenue? Any university -- any -- any order of society today is between these two situations, you see. In a factory, if it is a good, spirited factory, the people feel at home, and they wouldn't call themselves "a public," you see, they are the crew, they are the men of this firm, you see. If by a public speaking arrangement, they can be, so to speak, hypnotized and smoothed up, and so, it's a very external thing.

So I offer you with this word "public" a kind of -- of mechanism to know where we are. Here are our two authorities. And it is quite interesting. It's even touching to see that these two authors, Smith and Marx, both defied public opinion. They themselves were not the slave of that situation which they, so to speak, depicted or advocated for the rest of the world. Perhaps you will bear with me, when I read to you from the preface of Karl Marx's great work, the Kapital, written in London, July 25th, 1867.

He knows, of course, that the -- he will arouse enmity. And he says, "Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to the prejudices of so-called public opinion, to which I have ma- -- never made concessions, now as aforetime, the maxim of the great Florentine is mine." The Great Florentine is, of course, is -- is the exile from Florence, Dante, who, because he didn't care for public opinion, had to eat the bread of exile. And that's the Italian verse, { }: "Follow your own cause, and let the people talk."

So it is quite interesting that Marx and Adam Smith still were at home in the temple of our Lord, where the truth comes first, and public opinion is not important. Where would we be if anybody who has something important to say would care for public opinion? Anybody who cares for public opinion has forfeited the right to be listened to.

Give you an example. The war -- Second World War, the end of the First -- the real World War had happened. And I was invited by a friend to speak at Harvard at the club of young historians they had founded in honor of their teacher, Samuel Eliot Morison, who is a great man and a friend of mine. And it was this way that it happened that I was invited to speak there. This was the year of the Lord, I think, '47. Could be '46, but I guess it was '47. There were 25 men,

all between -- all veterans. Some wounded, and all trying to get their famous Ph.D. in the graduate school of Harvard, in history. And they told me after I had delivered the goods -- my goods, they told me in conversation that they had just sent off to the Ford Foundation a request for a stipend.

I said, "For 24?"

"Yes. We thought they have so much money, we must help them along, and -- to get rid of it. And we have found a way in which they should pay to every one of us $5,000 a year for three years. That would be very nice."

At that time, the money -- was still considerable, you see. Now of course, in -- here in California, that's nothing. But $5,000, that was my salary at -- at my college. So I was quite surprised. And I said, "Well, do you mean that this work which you propose is important, and should be done by 24 people?"

And they said, "Well, one of us hasn't signed up, the 25th, because he also had misgivings about this. But we think if we milk the foundation, nobody can begrudge us this. That's our privilege."

I said, "It will take you 10 years before you have made up for this in your own inner life. Perhaps never." And left.

I would leave again. These poor people had sold out to the Devil. They did something that no scholar can ev- -- is ever allowed to do. It's happening now, day and night, in -- in this country. And you will have much money, but no scholarship. This is -- the modern harlot is not women that -- but men. And they have sold out to gold. Very simple. Gold is immediate power. A baby needs no gold, because it has endless time. It will perhaps be 70, 80, 90 before it is recognized for what it is worth. Anybody who would -- needs gold now wants to shorten the process of living. Where you have gold, where you have government, where you have troops, where you have Mr. McNamara, where you have power, you always find that it is a curtailing of the timespan that is needed in a normal life. If you must buy love, it's very expensive. If the girl loves you, it's very cheap. Because love is eternal and lasts. Power? That's of the moment.

This is unknown in this country where power is -- often adored. It is the most lamentable thing, if you need power. A normal person doesn't need power. He's liked, he's trusted, he's -- he's needed. All kind of things. But if he is just tolerated because he has power, that's very little. You see, we have power in our -- for our government to defend us against dangers, against enemies, against the criminal, against arson, against earthquakes, against -- against -- the Chinese. There we need power, because we cannot wait before we have made friends

with these enemies. One day we may be friends. But we cannot wait.

It's very strange that in our modern sociological books on government and what- -- and what-not, this simple solution or equation of power is not mentioned. Power means there is no time. Where you need -- have -- infinite time, we -- you no -- need power. That's why Christ doesn't have to -- had to have power. He has endless time. The whole essence of Christianity is this equation. I haven't invented this. Only the power of the cler- -- clergy has led them to forget that the eternal needs no power. It is only that which is abrupt, which is brusque, which must act now that needs power. I also need power, of course, against the -- the hail, and the snow, and the -- the immediate dangers, you see, that don't give me time to cope with it. If I had time, and could always move to -- to California, as I have done this -- fall, you see, and then I wouldn't have to dread the snow in Vermont.

I'm -- what I'm trying to do, and that's why I had to bring together Jonathan Edwards and his house of God, and the modern econ- -- economy with the home economics in a corner --. Because I would like to make you feel that we have created a very interesting society, where space is ubiquitous, gigantic, covering all, all-embracing, and where nobody has time, where everybody is in a hurry.

The relation between the time a hermit on the Nile in the desert had -- believed to have, 200 A.D., and the belief of a modern manager of the time that is at his disposal is in a remarkable conflict. You know these people in the desert went out there and sat there, and they took them -- some of them 12 hours to reach the river from the desert, bring back a hatful, or a kettleful of water. Bring -- bring it to their comrades, drink it there. And then another man had to get up already to make the same walk, because it was so far distant to the river. So of course some good sports, and some clever people proposed to them: why didn't they move to the Nile River?

"Well," they said, "Then the whole merit of our life in the desert would be gone. We have to prove that God created the desert as well as the river valley. It is easy to live in the golden wheatfields of Egypt," you see, and the fleshpots of Egypt, where Cairo is, and Luxor, and all these cities, where the water is, of the holy Nile water. To this day, you know. An Egyptian doesn't migrate, and doesn't drink any other water but Nile water.

When I lived there, we offered them from the Chicago House in -- Luxor, water to our servants, to the maid, et cetera. They wouldn't touch it. It was well water, you see. We of course were hygienic, and it was, you see, poisonous clean water. And the Nile water is terrible, but it was sacred. And they all drank it.

Well, only to make you understand that these hermits have taught us that no one country can be put on a map by itself, that the mountains, and the deserts, and the rivers, and the gaps in the -- map are just as much part of our creation as we now believe it to be, you see. But it was done by hermits, who had infinite time, so much time that 365 days they spent on getting the water from the river to the desert, to prove their point that the desert was as divine as this fertile valley, you see, where houses, and -- palaces, and temples were abounding.

This is not a pious story, but a very practical story. It means that you cannot take the next step before you have not endless time. That's why the Peace Corps is very right in saying, "If you don't go out for two years, please don't." And we had before the Peace Corps, a very -- nice and generous enterprise. The Quakers, the Friends -- Society of Friends had work camps in summer. My own son worked in one of them in San Pedro here, in Los Angeles, with the Japanese truck gardeners. What was the distinction? It was a vacation job. They had no time. They had just six weeks. In six weeks, you cannot reform the world, and you cannot re-organize it. The nice- -- the kindness of the Friends is beyond criticism, and their good will. But the one element that makes acts -- our acts serious is time. That now this Peace Corps of Mr. Shriver demands two years, you see, is the first step into the recognition that if a man has not more time, you see, than at first he would think he has, it isn't worthwhile. That's why marriage is so interesting, because it can, except in Hollywood, last forever.

The endlessness of time is the condition that there is any time. Endlessness is an attitude, is not something you can measure. As a matter of fact, an engineer of one of the greatest engineering firms in Europe, a Mr. {Wagemann}, became a friend of mine. He had written in 1912 -- before I knew him, a book in which he proved mathematically that in order to change anything in this world of ours, of a finite result, you had to make an infinite effort. That the relation -- he proved it with cosines, and tangents--and I'm not a mathematician; I can't tell you the story--but it was very convincing that in order to produce any little effect in the universe, you see, men -- or plants -- the trees, as you see, that -- that bursts open his seed has to make an infinite effort in order to produce a finite effect.

It -- I'm convinced that he's right. Because I know from my own life that only those things have been worthwhile where I made an infinite investment, infinite effort. Whenever I thought I could say beforehand, "This will take me two hours," I just as well should have left it alone. I mean, if you deliver these goods left and right -- I mean, as we deliver lectures, but I hope I have not -- am not delivering this lecture without an in- -- infinite effort -- because obviously, I -- may not boast of this, but you may trust me that it is my whole life, an infinite experience which is at your disposal at this moment. Otherwise I wouldn't dare

to stay before -- stand before you and talk about war and peace. Anybody who peaks -- speaks of such inflammable material as government, war, peace, order, beliefs, has to make an infinite effort. And now you know perhaps wheth- -- why a public isn't good enough for me to speak to, you see. To -- a public is not to be reformed. A public will not share my life. I go home. They have bought the ticket, and that's all I can have from them. This is not my hope. I hope that we meet in 50 years, somewhere in Hell or Heaven, that you -- we remember each other. That's infinite. And that is the reason why the Church has always spoken of eternity, and of Heaven and Hell. They exist, my dear people. You can think they cannot be painted; that may be. but anybody who wants to live without the notion of Heaven and Hell cannot rule, cannot teach, cannot beget children and educate them. He's unfit for society. The infinite is the condition of our finite actions.

And this is denied by Mr. Marx and by Mr. Adam Smith, and the society which he describes. Now in order to do justice to them, let me go back to their achievement. There is infinity in their approach. It's the infinity, as I said, of space. It's the infinity of a world trade. It's the infinity of a universal economy. There is only one economy. Where there is a market, where you can -- when -- if you can buy coffee from Brazil, buy it, you see. If you can get a -- whale oil from -- from the whalers in Norway, chase them. Buy them. The infinity of space is what is the grandeur of the last 200 years.

The world appeared in 1700 as halfened: the known and the unknown. One-half of the world was not -- still unknown. And the greatness of Adam Smith and his followers has been--not just Marx, but all the other -- economists, too--that they said, "Embrace the infinite space. Go out of your friendship," as Abraham went out of his friendship, you see--"and go to New Zealand. Discover if there's something that's cheaper in New Zealand, more readily to be had," you see, than something at home. "Trade with everybody." Free trade, after all, was Adam Smith's great slogan, great discovery. An embracing movement to get hold of the whole world, discovered and undiscovered. And you must think very little was known. There were very mi- -- many white spots on the map of the world when I was born.

Mr. Sven Hedin was the man who said proud- -- was a Swedish explorer. You have perhaps heard a book -- his book on Tibet. Well, Sven Hedin was very self-conscious, and he said of himself, "I am the man who have wiped out the last white spot on the map of the world." It's quite something to do. But this explains the emphasis of this belief in an infinite harmony, if only we can get hold of all the treasures of all the climates, of all the mountains, and all the rivers, and all the oceans, you see, then we only will know how to organize the exchange of all the goods. Because then only will we know that oranges from California are the

best.

This has been done. We gra- -- we -- we thank these people, these -- these teachers, this courage to say not the milk produced, you see, in your own barn is the best milk. We must get the best milk, you see. And of course, I have a -- a song to sing of my little state. When I came, there were more cows -- cows than people in Vermont, you see. Now there are neither people nor cows. There are only city people, summer guests, you see, who come skiing.

You also know of the devastation that this modern market economy can produce, that settlements are simply abandoned. And we haven't yet solved the -- this question, which you will have to tackle, that everywhere in the world where it is livable, people must live. It's no solution to say it doesn't pay.

When Napoleon came to the Austrian frontier in Dalmatia, and he looked at the sterile mountains which now are modern Yugoslavia, he is supposed to have said to his generals, "What does the emperor of Austria pay to his subjects so that they live here?" It was such a, you see, sterile and hard, harsh country. He has a point there, you see. We probably will have to pay people to keep the whole globe peopled. It cannot go on like this--that a state like my own, this Vermont state, you see, is without people, real people.

Perhaps -- it is interesting to show you that the Swedes have solved this long ago. If you go to the -- Sweden is a very large country, compared to its few people, you see. It's 9 million inhabitants, but I think it's larger than California -- quite considerably larger, and the distances are immense, from Stockholm or from Malm” to the north. However, the law says there that the telephone in Haparanda, which is the northern town, you see, or Kirkenes, is the same -- cannot cost more than in Stockholm. It's one country. The outlying districts are underlying the same law, you see, being a Swedish par- -- part of Sweden. It's as important that people should live in the North of Sweden than they should live in Oslo. And you can see, since Russia is their neighbor, they are very right. The country up there must be peopled, must be kept inhabited.

With this notion, I went before the power commission of my own state and tried to convince them to bring electricity to -- 16 outlying farms of my little town who needed--30 years ago, it was--we -- who needed electricity in order to compete on the milk shed of Boston, you see. They had to have electric equipment. You take this for granted. But 30 years ago, this was -- made news, that you had electricity. The farmers hadn't had it. They didn't get it, because the power commission said, "We don't care. We -- we sell in one block of Boston more electricity than we ever will sell to these 16 people."

Well, so the government had to step in and create the Rural Electrification program. I still think that my banker, and the head of the power commission--he's now president of a university, of course--that they were -- just were wrong. They had just the wrong picture of the home in which we live, that this globe has to be -- made into a home, into a house. And if you treat the various rooms in a house as not being of that same house, you are just in error. A room in a house in which one person -- lives is just as important as the nursery in which six babies live. There's no difference. They both have to be heated. They both have to have electricity. Now if -- it was just a lack of imagination if these people cannot see that this is one house. Our mountains in Vermont gave this electricity, sent it down to Boston. And this electricity originating next door to these 16 farmers, you see, was denied them.

This is one of the difficulties of the modern political system. Our parties are obsolete, because they have drawn up their -- their programs in 1865, or some time about that. That has nothing to do with our reality. That's expansionism. -- Was right at a time when the world was not yet discovered, when there were white spots on the -- on the map, and where competition was the only way to find out what was still to be had, if you went beyond the existing order.

I mean, you just open a paper, and it bears me out that this is today the debate which is going on. You have people who deny that there has to be any debates. And then there are people who are willing to debate. And then there are people who already have made up their mind that we have to go forward. And time will tell. The speed in which anything is done in the world of course depends on the good will of the people concerned. And you just have to win as many as possible. But you can't win de Gaulle. That is, there is always some lag, some block who live in the previous age. And this of course is the justification of the ardor of Marx and Adam Smith. They still had against them all the people who were homebound, so to speak, and believed in the old house order.

May I therefore read to you a really earthshaking story?--I hope I can find it--in which Marx quotes the report of the English Parliament on the fate of child labor in England. Now mind you, this was the Parliament itself, in session in 1865 or '66, investigating this treatment of children in factories. And you can imagine that this can be bad or good, reasonable or cruel. But what you would not expect, and what is today forgotten totally--and that shows you how fast history marches--is the fact that the Parliament said, "It is easy to deal with the employers. They understand that children cannot be abused and exploited. But it is impossible to deny that the parents of these children are their worst enemies. There is no limit to their greed, and they will allow their children to work 23 hours a day."

You wouldn't believe this. But it's a fact. This only is to be mentioned to show you that the old house had lost its functioning capacity, you see, that there was -- had something happened by industry, by this -- the -- separation from -- from factory, from cons- -- and production, you see, the place of production from the place of the kitchen, and the -- and the bedroom, where -- where you consume, that these parents had lost their -- their character. They were no parents. They were vultures.

This is never mentioned, because we are all so pious. We think parents are always wonderful, you see. That's not true. Children are not wonderful. That's not true, either. They are both horrid, if -- unless they live in a real house. That as -- unless they believe that this house has a claim on them, without a demand made on people, they all malfunction. Every one of us. Take away the -- the discipline, and we all are just pigs. And I am told that pigs are very nice people, so I take it all back. And so we are not even pigs. We are just brutes.

Now Marx knew that the exploiters of the labor, of these children, you see--although their own parents could lose all character--and that's why he did not see any salvation or any solution in housekeeping, in households, and said, "The proletariat {has it all}. This prole- -- the dictatorship must come," you see, sweeping everything aside --. But you know what his ideal was? I have used it as a motto to one of my books on the decentralization of industry, which I wrote 40 years ago, in which I quote Marx as a motto at the beginning, because Marx has said something you wouldn't believe: "Finally it shall be shown that mankind does its old work now again in its old manner."

You think he's a bloody revolutionary. He was a very tender father of his family. He lost his wife and his children from undernourishment. And nothing was farrer from his mind than to invent an order which was -- should be unhu- -- inhuman. He is not responsible for this war-economy of the Communists. They have always excused themself by saying, "We are the least-developed country in the world. Therefore we must do things, stunts, you see, which have nothing to do with the full-fledged industrial system."

I had a friend who traveled in -- in Russia in 1931. And he came back, very excited, and said to me, "Listen. I -- I met in Odessa people who could speak German. And the wife of this friend of mine whom I made there, an engineer, said to me, 'Imagine! If we proceed with our program sufficiently and energetically, the world revolution may come in 20 years.'"

This is not known in this country, that the Russians have never claimed to make the world revolution, you see. They were quite clear in -- in their own mind that they were behind the times. And they had expected of course that

Germany and France would make the revolution, you see. This was the great objection in the -- 1917 and '18, in Russia itself, that they said, "We can't do it. We have no factories. You -- send us factories so we can make a revolution."

All this is strangely unknown, because you are all hipped on the -- on separating revolution and wars. This is not so. Wars are -- can be revolutions. And certainly this -- we -- just look at our budget; our economy is half a war economy. In Russia, it's nine-tenths a war economy. In China, it's 100 percent a war economy. Because this we know how to do. We don't know yet to build a peace economy in which everybody is at home, because the discovery of the rest of the world is just over. And what happens in the Amaz“nas Valley in Brazil, you see, is not yet under our control. You know very well that the exporting countries of raw materials get poorer every year. And we, the manufacturing countries, get richer every year. That's not our in- -- purpose. That's not our intent. We are not evil-doers. But that's what we do. It's very strange. There is this bifurcation which you also have between the agriculture in this country, you see. The man who makes -- gives you the eggs and the chickens, he -- doesn't get richer by all this great -- his great egg business. The city does.

This is very deep -- I would think, a deep secret. And it will be my duty next time to say how it comes, that when you begin with gold, and power, and goods, the world does not offer at the end a spectacle of peace. But it offers still a strange spectacle of either massacres, as you see in Vietnam or in the World War, or injustice.