How many people can you kill?

 

‘We aim to kill 50,000 Russians a month’, Ukraine’s new defence minister has said. This is an almost 50% increase on 2025 when around 35,000 per month were killed. Since the war began there have been around 1.2 million Russians casualties (killed, wounded and missing). Ukrainians have suffered fewer losses – estimates vary from 500,000 to 600,000 casualties. Another 200,000 Ukrainian soldiers are absent without official leave.

In the cold light of day, all this seems pretty unbelievable. But war and the devastation it causes is a constant feature of the capitalist world, where governments are prepared to sacrifice their populations in support of the economic interests of the tiny minority who own or control the vast majority of the wealth.

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

Socialist Sonnet No. 225

Collateral Damage

 

The primary target has been destroyed,

By a surgical strike designed to leave

Blasted and charred ruins for those who grieve

To pick through, for all who couldn’t avoid

Being reduced to statistics, a body count

On the evening news. Strategy is clear,

It’s the brutal diplomacy of fear,

Leaving far too few remains to amount

To complete human beings. There is concern,

International stock markets are falling,

With speculation, futures are stalling:

How many losses before fortunes turn?

The enemy is easily identified,

Being those barbarians on the other side.

 

D. A.

Iran in the cross hairs

 

Will the attack on Iran by the USA and Israel be another Twelve Day war like in June 2025? Or will it develop into something more devastating to the belligerents and non-belligerents? Is part of the global economy going to suffer serious consequences or will the oil shock likely to occur from the shutting down of prod and transportation likely to initiate the Seventies disruption or worse across a wider scale?

It is too soon to ascertain exactly what is happening although it does appear that Iran has targeted  several Arab states. The  propaganda and disinformation machinery on lots of sides is already being put fully into action so the dust of war will need to clear before it becomes apparent who has ‘won’ or ‘lost’ in this insane destruction of human lives and of infrastructure. 

Opinion polls in various states tend to show that the majority of populations are against further wars of any kind but the opinions of the majority count for nothing when 'those in charge' are pursuing actions to appropriate resources which will mean profit and more profit.

The human lives already lost and which will be lost and shattered are less than nothing in the considerations of those perpetuating this wholly illegal criminal act by two rogue states upon another. But this doesn’t mean that one has to cheer on or choose one particular side over the other. Hegemony is the name of the game in capitalism and whatever the outcome of this new war it will continue to be the cause of some new attempt by some state or other in the future to appropriate resources for the benefit of its capitalist class.

The below is from the Socialist Standard January 2008

Preparations for a US attack on Iran are well advanced. American planes probe the country's air defences. Commandos infiltrate Iran on sabotage and reconnaissance missions. A new military base is built close to the Iraq/Iran border at Badrah. The Fifth Fleet patrols in the Gulf and along Iran's southern coast.

Political preparations also continue. Accusations against Iran are elaborated and repeated ad nauseam. Pressure is exerted (with variable success) on other countries to assist in the war plans. Aid and encouragement are given to separatists in ethnic-minority areas of Iran: Arab Khuzestan in the southwest, "southern Azerbaijan" in the northwest. Resolutions are pushed through at the U.N. Security Council and in the US Congress to create a "legal" justification for aggression.

Why are the dominant capitalist interests in the US so bent on war with Iran? The war propaganda provides a highly distorted and incomplete picture of the real reasons.


"War against terror" – Stage 3?
An attack on Iran will be sold as the next stage, after Afghanistan and Iraq, of the "war against terror." What does this mean?

As with the attack on Iraq, the claim may be made, explicitly or implicitly, that the Iranian regime is connected in some way with Al-Qaeda. This time round the claim would be even more deceptive, as Iranian leaders denounced 9/11 and helped the US depose the Taliban in Afghanistan. The terrorism charge is also based on the real Iranian support of Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. This, however, means enlarging the meaning of "terrorist" to cover any armed movement that opposes the regional interests of the US and its allies. Finally, the US Congress has passed a resolution – supported, incidentally, by leading Democratic presidential contender Senator Hilary Clinton – declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guards (an elite section of its armed forces) a terrorist organization. This justifies military action against them as part of the "war against terror." 


Another "disarmament war"?
Above all, the Bush administration claims that Iran is very close to acquiring nuclear weapons and that a nuclear-armed Iran would be an unprecedented threat to world peace. The same claim was used to justify the attack on Iraq. No nuclear weapons capability was discovered after the invasion, but the claim had served its purpose. Iran is enriching uranium for a civilian nuclear power program under IAEA supervision, but there is no evidence that its leaders seek nuclear weapons and it will not be in a position to produce them for several (perhaps ten) years. This is a consensus view of specialists not only at the IAEA but also at the CIA and Pentagon.

Nevertheless, Iran is a rising power with ambitions of exerting influence in a region crowded with nuclear powers (Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia and China, not to mention the US nuclear presence). As such it is very likely to acquire nuclear weapons at some point. It might be willing to barter the nuclear weapons option for international recognition of its status as a regional power, but that is precisely what the US and its allies are unwilling to grant. 

While the risk of accident or miscalculation does increase with the number of nuclear powers, there is no serious reason to suppose that Iran would be more dangerous than any other state with nuclear weapons. All nuclear states are prepared to resort to nuclear weapons under certain circumstances.

"Nuclear non-proliferation" started as an international agreement to confine nuclear weapons to the members of a small exclusive club. It has now come to mean "disarmament wars" to deny nuclear weapons status selectively to regimes considered hostile to US interests (listen to an interview with Jonathan Schell on www.therealnews.com). The US seeks to prevent Iran from going nuclear because it would shift the balance of power in the Middle East, making American nuclear capabilities less intimidating and depriving Israel of its regional nuclear monopoly.


Oil and gas, dollars and euros
While the US does want to prevent Iran from eventually acquiring nuclear weapons, this does not explain the urgency of the preparations for war. The key factor is control over resources, in particular oil and natural gas. The US seeks to restore and maintain control over the hydrocarbon resources of the Middle East, a region that contains 55 percent of the world's oil and 40 percent of its gas.

The occupation of Iraq marks an important step toward this goal. The petroleum law that the US is imposing on Iraq will give foreign companies direct control of its oilfields through "production sharing agreements". Iran, which alone accounts for 10 percent of world oil and 16 percent of world gas, is the main remaining obstacle to regional domination.

Control over oil has various aspects. One is control over price – gaining the leverage to ensure the continued flow of cheap oil to the American economy. Another is control over who buys the oil. The country that buys the most oil from Iran is now China, a situation that upsets those in the US who view China as a major rival and future adversary. Arguably, however, the most important issue is which currency is used to price and sell oil.

As the position of the dollar in relation to other currencies weakens, the dollar is ceasing to function as the world's main reserve currency. Countries are shifting their foreign exchange reserves away from dollar assets toward assets denominated in other currencies, especially the euro. Dollar assets now constitute only 20 percent of Iran's reserves. 

Similarly, oil producers increasingly prefer not to receive dollars for their oil. In late 2006 China began paying for Iranian oil in euros, while in September 2007 Japan's Nippon Oil agreed to pay for Iranian oil in yen. Continuation of this trend will flood the US economy with petrodollars, fuelling inflation and further weakening the dollar. It is feared that the result will be a deep recession. 

Occupying oil-producing countries may seem like an obvious way to buck the trend, although the effect is bound to be temporary. In 2000 Iraq began selling oil for euros; subsequently it converted its reserves to euros. Since the US invasion it has gone back to using dollars. This may be an important motive for attacking Iran too.


The shifting geopolitical map
The collapse of the Soviet Union enabled the US to establish a temporary global geopolitical predominance, though at the cost of enormous military expenditure that exceeds that of all other countries combined. Like the dominant position of the dollar, this cannot last very much longer in view of the progressive economic decline of the US.

The geopolitical map of the world has begun to shift, and Iran occupies a central place in this process. The framework of a potential anti-U.S. axis exists in the shape of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which brings together Russia, China and post-Soviet Central Asia. American strategists fear further consolidation and militarization of the SCO and its expansion to draw in other major Asian states and, first of all, Iran, which already has close ties with both Russia and China. (India, though for the time being firmly aligned with the US, may follow.) So here too attacking Iran may be seen as a way of averting a threat to US predominance.

Senseless wars
There is a certain logic to the motives that drove the US to war in Iraq and may drive it to war with Iran. Nevertheless, these wars make no sense even in capitalist terms (let alone from the working class and human point of view). It is not just that costs are likely to exceed benefits, as was the case in Vietnam, for instance. They are senseless because under current world conditions the goal of securing long-term US predominance is unattainable. At most, the loss of economic and geopolitical primacy may be deferred for a few years, but it will be all the more precipitous when it does come.

The faction of the American capitalist class currently in power refuses to recognize this reality. Even their "mainstream" opponents in the "Democratic" Party are rather reluctant to do so. Admittedly, the top brass do not want another quagmire. Perhaps their resistance will save the day.

Stefan

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2008/01/iran-in-crosshairs.html

March 2026 SOCIALIST STANDARD Now Available On Line FREE

 

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020s/2026/no-1459-march-2026/

Who do Samaritans call?

 

Driven to despair by capitalism? UK workers can always call the Samaritans, a help-line run by unpaid volunteers. Sadly, those volunteers also face capitalism’s cruelties, in the form of money-saving cut-backs, office closures and a requirement to work in isolation at home.

‘Having sacked volunteers who dared voice concerns about the proposed closure of half of its branches, the Samaritans’ HQ has slapped them with serious misconduct charges and imposed lifetime bans…’ Whistleblowers speak anonymously, fearing reprisals: ‘Leadership have used the concerns and complaints process like the thought police. They are on career paths, some of them very well paid… most of them will never have had to talk a caller down from suicide…’ (Private Eye, 5 February 2026).

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

Socialist Sonnet No. 224

The Prince

 

The prince is so divined by rite of birth,

No merit necessary, nor deserved;

Predestined not to serve, but to be served

Irrespective of foibles, fault or worth.

What personal qualities should a prince show?

Those, perhaps, that best define his station,

Daring! Cruelty! Manipulation!

As promulgated by Old Niccolo.

These media days maybe it’s more vital

A public prince should be wisely bidden

To keep such characteristics hidden,

As exposure could cost him his title.

But, should monarchy, like the old Tsars, fall,

Capital will just repossess it all.

 

D. A.

Agency and Responsibility

The controversy surrounding the 2026 BAFTA Film Awards, in which John Davidson, whose life with Tourette’s inspired the film I Swear, involuntarily vocalised a racial slur during the ceremony, generated predictable outrage. Social media rapidly framed the incident as an “outburst,” implying intent. The assumption of agency was immediate.

Yet Tourette’s syndrome, particularly in cases involving coprolalia, involves involuntary vocalisations. The utterance of taboo words is not a revelation of belief but a neurological compulsion. Coprolalia occurs in approximately 10-15 percent of people with Tourette’s and involves the brain’s failure to suppress socially inappropriate utterances. The individual has no control over the content; the words that emerge are often those most prohibited by their conscious values, precisely because the brain’s suppression mechanism has misfired.

The episode offers a useful case study in how capitalist society understands, and misunderstands, responsibility.

Agency Under Capitalism

Capitalist society rests heavily on the idea of individual responsibility. Workers are treated as autonomous units of labour power, assumed to be rational, self regulating, and fully in control of their conduct. Discipline in speech and behaviour is expected as part of employability and public legitimacy.

Where agency is compromised, through illness, disability or neurological variation, this framework strains. Instead of adjusting its assumptions, society often reasserts them more harshly. The presumption of intent remains, even where medical explanation is well documented.

This reveals a contradiction. When an individual is able to conform, their conformity is praised as personal virtue. When they cannot, their difference is interpreted as moral failure.

The Policing of Speech

Modern capitalism places significant emphasis on regulated language. Public speech is increasingly scrutinised, not only in workplaces but in cultural life. While there are good reasons to challenge genuinely racist or abusive expression, the framework often operates without regard to material context.

This is not an argument against challenging racist language. When someone with full agency chooses to use slurs, that reveals values and deserves opposition. The point is that agency itself must be established before moral judgment is applied. Treating involuntary and deliberate speech identically serves neither anti racism nor disability justice.

The Davidson incident illustrates this tension. A word can be socially harmful in its historical weight and impact. But responsibility cannot be abstracted from agency. To treat involuntary neurological discharge as deliberate prejudice collapses an important distinction.

Capitalist society frequently commodifies “inspirational” narratives of disability. Films, awards ceremonies and media profiles celebrate individuals overcoming adversity. Yet this celebration is conditional. It assumes that disability can be packaged into palatable form. When the unfiltered reality appears, tolerance evaporates.

The disabled individual is accepted only so long as they remain manageable.

Outrage as Commodity

The rapid reaction online was not incidental. Social media platforms reward immediacy and emotional intensity. Speed outruns verification. The platforms profit from engagement regardless of accuracy. A nuanced explanation of Tourette’s generates less interaction than moral outrage. The economic incentive is toward simplification and condemnation, not toward understanding the material reality of neurological conditions.

Under these conditions, moral judgement becomes performative. Expressing indignation is easier than examining neurological evidence. The result is a form of “gotcha” politics that prioritises signalling over understanding.

The Paradox of Inspiration

Davidson’s presence at the BAFTAs was itself a product of an inspiration narrative , his life “overcoming” Tourette’s packaged as cultural uplift. But inspiration requires disability to be sanitised, controlled, presented as triumph over adversity.

The moment Tourette’s manifested as it actually does, involuntarily, inconveniently, in a way that cannot be neatly celebrated, the tolerance evaporated. This reveals what capitalism often means by “acceptance”: the disabled must perform their difference in ways that affirm rather than challenge existing norms.

Responsibility Reconsidered

A socialist analysis does not abandon the concept of harm. Words carry histories; their impact is real. But justice requires proportionality and context. If an action is involuntary, then moral condemnation is misdirected.

The deeper issue is the rigidity of a society that demands uniform neurological performance in public life. When responsibility is defined without regard to material capacity, it ceases to be rational and becomes punitive.

The BAFTA incident reveals a system that confuses control with virtue and compliance with morality. It treats neurological difference as character defect and involuntary behaviour as moral choice. A materialist analysis rejects this confusion and demands that responsibility be matched to actual agency, not to capitalist fantasies of the self regulating individual.

Pablo

Recent BBC exposé reveals … well hardly anything really

 

When you see a headline like “Why food fraud persists, even with improving tech”, you might reasonably expect to be told why honey is deliberately contaminated with glucose syrup, why melamine was added to Chinese baby formula or why spice is adulterated with industrial dyes.

These are just some of the ‘food crimes’ mentioned in the article, which also bemoans the difficulty/impossibility of monitoring the food we eat. Yet the motive for food fraud – extra profit – is never addressed. Because to have done so, the BBC would have had to challenge the logic of the very system it was set up to defend.

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

Socialist Sonnet No. 223

Quotidian Fallacy

 

Volunteering must be unnatural,

Most certainly a contradiction indeed

Of that basic human motivation, greed!

A person’s worth is measured by the deal

Securing the highest price for work done,

While any employer will want to see

How much work can be extracted for free:

Surely no one will work a shift for fun?

Astonishingly, there are those who say

The world should turn on freely meeting needs,

All working together and no one leads;

People choosing to live a different way.

But stopping human nature from rearing?

About as likely as volunteering!

 

D. A.

Flats and ghosts

 The i paper (5 February) ran a story about a 70-year-old man who is living in a house with five others, the only way he can survive on his pension. Far more people over 65 now share homes than a decade ago.

Also many properties advertised on flat-sharing sites have no living room, as turning a lounge into a bedroom means more income for the landlord, so the tenants each live and sleep in just one room. Yet there are many ‘ghost homes’ in Britain, expensive new flats that remain empty because few people can afford to buy them.

This is the reality when housing is for profit, not to meet human need.

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

Socialist Sonnet No. 222

Eight Billion People

 

Today, eight billion people or so

Did not dispatch drones and missiles to kill

Neighbours, didn’t intimidate or instil

A sense of fear. Mostly they’re content to go

About their lives without any glister

Of gold braid, tittles or honours. Indeed,

It’s only too clear where such awards lead:

A-lister scratching the back of A-lister.

They aren’t trafficers for sex or cheap labour,

Those who exploit the weak and distressed,

Whose only real interest is interest,

Who believe neighbour should exploit neighbour.

Better by far the eight billion would choose

To live otherwise than those in the news.

 

D. A.

Jobs, yes or no?

 

Dignity, hope, resilience. All dimensions of having a job according to the World Bank. Who knew the caring, sharing World Bank was so invested in the health, well-being and emotional welfare of t millions of young people? No, of course it’s not, the WB operates on behalf of the interests of the minority capitalist class in the world. 1.2 billion jobs will be required says the WB to provide employment for the number of young people who will have to sell their labour power in order to live under a capitalist system. The WB didn’t say that of course. Neither did it mention surplus value, exploitation or class warfare.

So where are these jobs going to come from? Unlikely that there will be that many because of retirees or people dropping out of the labour market. What impact will AI have on the jobs which still require actual humans? How many people will the reserve army of labour ‘employ’?

In England from Henry Eight through to James First statutes were enacted that threatened the most severe punishments, up to and including death, for ‘sturdy vagabonds’ and ‘idlers’ who were not involved in labour. ‘Punishment’ included whipping, branding and the cutting off of body parts. Similar laws were enforced in France and the Netherlands also.

When the ‘new’ workforce will have also to compete against AI and new technologies designed to do away with human workers, will capitalism be able to provide jobs that provide ‘dignity and hope’ Those terms are an oxymoron under capitalism. When these jobs don’t materialise will we see capitalism revert to thedraconian laws of previous centuries to force people to accept medieval coercion?

The below is from the Socialist Standard, August 2010

‘Don’t get us wrong. We don’t want to play down the misery of those who have lost their jobs – or the many more who are going to lose their jobs – in the current slump. We know very well what losing your job so often means. Losing your home (well, you thought it was yours!). Even losing your family.

But think. If not being employed was really the problem, wouldn’t you expect everyone without a job to be in misery? But there are many people who don’t have jobs and yet live well enough. People who don’t need jobs.

Native people in the Amazon rainforest, for so long as they manage to preserve their old way of life, don’t need jobs. They have access to land, food, wood, medicinal herbs, other resources they need – to their means of life. When the logging and mining companies move in, they lose access. Sure, then they need jobs.

Most of us in the “developed” countries lost access to the means of life long ago. They no longer belong to us. They were seized by a small minority who claim to own them. These owners allow us access to things we need only in exchange for money. If we can’t pay, they would sooner have things go to waste – sooner leave houses empty, for instance, than shelter the homeless. They allow us access to productive resources only when they hire us to work for them. If we try to get access without their permission, they call us criminals and send their police and jailors to punish us.

These people – the employers, the owners of the means of life – are unemployed, every one of them. But it doesn’t bother them a bit! They live on the income from their property. They too don’t need jobs.

So unemployment is a problem only for people who depend on being employed in order to live. That situation of dependence is what we mean by the real problem.

Some of us try to escape from the situation of dependence by going into business for ourselves. But chances of success are small – even in good times, let alone during a slump. Many don’t seek escape at all but appeal to the government to create more jobs, hoping to go back to slaving away for others.

We socialists don’t appeal for jobs. We don’t want jobs. That doesn’t mean we’re lazy. We thirst for the opportunity to do useful work as free, equal, and dignified human beings – work to satisfy our needs and the needs of others. We want to be rid of an absurd system that artificially creates misery and wastes vast material, natural, and human resources. That is why we demand restoration of access to the means of life – their common ownership and democratic control by the whole community.’

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-unemployment-really-problem.html

Asbestotis for sale

 

One eagle eyed parent was suspicious of the bottles of play sand on sale at the local Hobbycraft so she did a little research. The bottles of sand contained asbestos. The level of asbestos was below the limit of concentration allowed in its country of origin but well above the UK legal level, which in itself is above the danger level. Any asbestos inhalation is considered dangerous and often fatal over the passage of time.

This highlights just how little the health of consumers is viewed under capitalism. No matter whether it’s food and drink, cladding for dwellings or children’s toys, the contents are often a secret not shared with buyers.

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

Socialist Sonnet No. 221

Change

 

Neither gods nor leaders! It is people

Who make and remake societies.

Therefore, within human reason power lies

To discern and dismiss all the feeble

Commonplace political panjandrums,

Officers of state, that prestige deranges,

Under whose guidance nothing changes,

While capital keeps on doing its sums,

Totting up all the profits and losses,

Profits being what labour of workers yields,

Workers whose losses scatter battlefields

At the self-serving behest of bosses.

However things are presently arranged,

When people decide, then things can be changed.

 

D. A.

Non-stop

It’s been non-stop this year under Trump. The US has removed Maduro, said it wants to run Venezuela, tried to claim Greenland, killed protestors, put the head of its Central Bank under investigation, set up a ‘Board of Peace’ with Trump as its self-appointed leader….

What next? Some say it’s the end of democracy for the US and perhaps more widely. But we see it as capitalism just going on its merry unpredictable way. What doesn’t change is workers’ lives continuing to depend on finding an employer to sell their energies to. Instead of this, the world needs a different system of society – moneyless, cooperative, where we all freely contribute according to our abilities and take according to our needs.

 https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

True then, Still true.

 

From the Socialist Standard February 1944

‘Once upon a time there was. a strange world called Bluuderland. In this world there was a palace in which there lived Baron Butrich. He wore the most costly clothes, and adorned himself with bejewelled rings on his fat fingers, and a sparkling tie-pin in his expensive necktie. Neither by hand nor by brain did he toil, yet bags of gold he had in plenty. The choicest foods and rarest wines were served to him by an under-nourished man-servant. His pet dogs, too, were fed with the richest morsels.

Baron Butrich owned many large buildings in which were huge machines. He called these buildings his factories and boasted that he derived his many bags of gold from them.

But Baron Butrich told a lie when he said it was his factories and machines that brought his riches, for the machines were worked by hundreds of poor people who lived in small, old and crumbling houses, and it was really these people who made the Baron’s wealth.

These people had no bags of gold to buy the food they needed, and they would have starved, but Baron Butrich said to them:

"Come into my factory and work my machines, and make with them the costly clothes that my wife and I will wear. Make, too, the shoddy suits and dresses that will cover your thin bodies. Come and make the beautiful expensive toys that will amuse my children. Create, also, the cheap, trifling little gadgets with which your offspring will play. Come into my factory, and, from the pulp of rags, make the newspapers that will bear praise to me, and glorify the things that give me, Baron Butrich, my favoured place in this world. Do all this and 1 will give each.of you a piece of gold with which you will be able to buy bread to eat, clothes to wear, and will pay for the hire of a place to dwell in."

And to the poor there was nothing to do but go into Baron Butrich’s factory and make the many things that were needed by the Blunderian people. Only in that way could they get the money that would pay for their food, clothing and shelter.

So the poor went into the factory and worked the machines. Beautiful and costly raiment they created for the Baron and his wife; cheap and shoddy garments they made, too, and knew, as they were not rich enough to buy the sort of garb worn by the Butrich’s, that they were fated to wear these inferior clothes. Expensive and intricate toys they made for the Baron’s children; simple little gadgets for their own offspring.

Pulp was made into paper, which was turned into newspapers that told on their pages how rich and grand was this world of Blunderland.

For six days the poor worked in this way, and at the end of that time Baron Butrich said to them:

"You have worked for six days, and here are the pieces of gold I promised you—one piece for each person. Tomorrow you need not work m my factory, but the day after to-morrow come and work for me for another six days and I will give you another piece of gold.”

And the workers took home their pieces of gold and rejoiced that they could now buy food and clothing. But before they had bought all the things they needed they found that their money was spent. And so, to get the gold that buys these needs, the poor were forced to work in the factory for another six days.

So it went on, and priceless things were made for Baron Butrich, who called a small number of new workers to his side. And to these new workers he said:

“Sell these goods for me—sell them for as high a sum as you can get, and I will give each of you a piece of silver."

And the articles were sold, and Baron Butrich became richer and richer.

As for the workers, although they received their pieces of silver each week they did not get any richer, for the silver was gone by the time they had paid for their food, clothing and shelter. But these poor Blunderians were simple folk, and did not realise that nearly all of the great riches they made were being taken from them by the Baron.

Indeed, they praised and blessed Baron Butrich, who lay in his beautiful bed, and grew fatter and fatter.

And in the castle there were to be seen even richer carpets and costlier furniture, whilst an even greater number of jewels flashed upon the fingers of the Baron as he said to the Baroness:

“How lucky we are that the Blunderians are simple people. Let us reap a rich harvest from their toil, for one day they may discard their simplicity, and there will be nobody to make our wealth.”’

F. Hawkins

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2021/02/a-modern-fairy-tale-palace-in.html