.

In the converse of war two-thirds of the people are compelled to feed, shelter, and clothe not only themselves but the basically parasitic holders of the war jobs.

Yet, in spite of shortages, and despite the bombings and the killings, not only is a part of the total population able to provide for all, but production is actually booming.

Compare this situation with the one that prevails when "peace" finally arrives: Most of the surviving holders of the old war jobs now find themselves unemployed. With the entire population available for civilian production, only a proportion of the potential labour force is working, and millions barely survive. Production seems to be exhausted.

WHY SHOULD this contrast exist? The question suggests a paradox that is seemingly insoluble.

No wonder, then, that my observant student, noting the economic disparities in times of war and peace, should yearn for a nice little war, when jobs are plentiful and employment is secure!

No wonder, likewise, that those who advocate socialism should point to the apparent paradox as a contradiction "inherent in capitalism" and seek total government control so that the economy would simulate wartime conditions and provide jobs for all!

Is there an answer to the problem?

The answer is there for all to see, especially in time of peace. Does it not become painfully clear that when farmers are paid not to produce, when supplies are dumped overboard, when tariffs prevent the importation of cheaper and better goods, and when unions prohibit the installation of labour-saving devices, that a deliberately-devised "blockage" exists somewhere in the pipes of the economic machinery? Does it not become evident, when most people are in desperate need, that this blockage effectively stops supply from reaching demand by shutting off access to much of the land and its produce?

The problem, therefore, lies not in the inability to produce, but in the refusal to produce.

In time of war, the powers-that-be merely suspend their own rules against unlimited production, and temporarily rescind their own regulations against the availability of natural resources, thus spurring on total economic activity. In time of peace, however, much of the source of all production (Nature) is fenced off by speculative monopoly, and unemployment and poverty result.

The paradox is solved (or, more correctly, disappears) when it is realised that cessation of production is artificially induced. The so-called paradox turns out to be only a contrived illusion.

It is not "necessary" to wage war in order to obtain jobs. On the contrary, war destroys jobs (not to speak of job-holders). There is no production in destruction. All that is needed, in order to restore full productivity (in war or in peace), is to open the gates to Mother Nature, who is always bountiful, and who always provides sustenance - and jobs.

This is the answer to the problem.

And this economic exposition does not even begin to touch, in its intensity, the mania known as war.

Not only does war kill, shatter, and enslave human beings, not only does it eliminate goods, factories, and cities; but it also obstructs the vision of the eternal values of life. Each conflict sets back the advances toward Light; each conflict plunges the world further into Darkness; each conflict gives birth to barbarians, illiterates, and murderers.

War feeds on itself.

My student's use of the word "good," as an adjective to describe war jobs, brings to mind a passage from Stephen Crane's bitterly ironic poem:

Do not weep, babe, for war is kind.
Because your father tumbled in the yellow trenches,
Raged at his breast, gulped and died,
Do not weep.
War is kind.