ee |

gs,

THE HUNGRY THIRTIES

This was a big job, an Air
Orce base, with the RCAF
ilready in occupation of some

f the completed buildings,
@nd an airfield of a couple of
square miles from which air
Manoeuvres were ee out

ry day. :
an big job, and rapidly. ex-
Qanding. Here thousands of
jen were employed, building
huge steel and concrete build-

‘ings — administration, bar-
‘tacks, offices, machine shops,
_ hangars.

Carpenters, plumbers, ma-
hinists’ cement finishers truck
ivers, laborers were employ-
éd. Everything that goes to

; make up a big building con-

‘| was there

By R. LIVERSEDGE

‘Here i is a description of a relief project during the Hungry Thirties, and lest anyone | ‘
think that I am describing a “labor camp” in Nazi Germany of that period, let me assure
you that I am writing from bitter personal experience as a worker on that Canadian
ef project for a few weeks during the year 1934.

struction site was there.

What was unique about this
job was that none of these
workers were receiving wages.
Three adequate meals per day
were provided, work clothes
of a semi-uniform style, “khaki
shirt and pants and work
boots; and -sleeping accommo-
dation in the long wings of
the barrack ‘blocks as they
were finished. _Double-decker
beds with about a foot of
space between.

An “allowance” of 20 cents
per day was made to each man
for every working day. Dici-
pline was maintained by a 20
cents per day police force in
the camp. The only privilege

allowed was that of quitting,

which meant that no relief or
assistance of any kind was ob-
tainable, and reduced a man
to hoboing and to prison.
That is a brief and very
factual description of the
RCAF base at Trenton, Ontar-
io, during the Hungry Thirties.
It was only one of thousands
of relief camps stretching all
the way from Valcartier, Que-
bee to Vancouver Island, un-
der the direction of the De-
partment of National Defense;
and was the Bennett Tory gov-
ernment’s “solution” of the

mass unemployment problems,

of that time.
I was there.

look at

: Beone who studies the rich
Science of Marxism, soon dis-
covers that no aspect of life,
fio group of people in society
|i overlooked or neglected as
being unimportant.

Marx and Engels, the found-
fs of Marxist science, studied
everything: every phase of life,
fvery section of society. (En-
féls also studied natural sci-
fee deeply).

Their study of woman—her
fevelopment and_ evolution
from the beginning of recorded
listory right into the present
(apitalist era, is one of the
most yaluable contributions to
our knowledge of the progress
of mankind.

Marx and Engels—and later
\ lenin in his writings — con-

sidered woman as a member of
: society of equal importance to
fan. All three pointed out
tlearly that no basic change
in society can be brought
about without the participa-
fion of women. They saw and
feted the fact that, in capital-
sf society, woman was (and
d#ill is) in a contradictory posi-

ation; that while society had

\ileadily progressed from one

- tage to another, each more

ayanced than the previous

oie, and while woman has

Wenefited in a general way
from the advances in civiliza-

: i ion, nevertheless, as a mem-

yer of society, she remains in
definitely inferior position

i
: \ in relation to man.

'Engels explained the cause

| or this state of affairs in his

vork Origin Of the Family,

early society shows

Private Property and the State.
He takes us. back in history
to the period called primitive
communism; proceeding from
this point in history he shows
us how changes in the way
people live, how they procure
the three basic necessities of
life — food, clothing and shel-
ter — also change people and
their relationships with one
another.

Thus, in early primitive life
when people lived communal-
ly, with as many as 100 people
under one roof — in the “long
houses” as they were called,
woman’s status was natural,
simple and clear. She was as-
signed certain tasks in accord-
ance with her ability and the
social needs of all, on an equal
basis with man, who had. his
own tasks to perform on the
same basis. Most of the men’s
time - was spent hunting for
food and materials for cloth-
ing.

The women did not go hunt-
ing, simply because they were
the child-bearing sex. They
administered the household—
prepared the food, made cloth-
ing from the skins the men
brought home, and_ raised
children. They performed some
primitive agricultural tasks.
They generally had the same
physical strength as men. The
division of labor was natural
in accordance with the exist-
ing mode of living.

Women were honored equal-
ly with men. They sat with
them on tribal councils. They
were specially recognized as

ow woman lost her -equality

producers of life, had specific
rights and were regarded as
the head of the family. Fam-
ilies were identified by their
relation to the mother and
grandmother rather than to
the father. Men and women
mated freely, within their
groups. The child would al-
ways know his mother, but
not necessarily his father.

The first great change in
this way of life came when
man discovered new ways of
getting his food. He learned to
tame and keep animals in cap-
tivity—the domestication of
animals was achieved. As a
consequence man no longer
had to roam great distances
to hunt food. At first, the
herds produced were owned
collectively; then, as the herds
became larger than the needs
of the commune required, they
became the property of  in-
dividuals,

It could be said that all
woman’s troubles began the
day some tribe or individual
acquired a surplus of cattle,
for it was the male who be-
came a man of property; thus,
woman became dispossessed of
her equality. Man became jeal-
ous of his property; he became
the dominant figure. “Mother
right’? gave way to “father
right.”

“This,” wrote Engels, “was
the world historical defeat of
the female sex. The man took
cOmmand in the home also;
the woman was degraded and
reduced to a position of servi-
tude.”

Gert Whyte's

SPOR

AANY a two-buck punter
thinks that if he only had
a few thousand dollars in his
jeans he’d be able to beat the
races. Fact is, his percentage
of wins and losses would re-
main the same.
Last Friday a patron of
horseflesh took a few C-notes

to Hastings and set the tote
board working like mad as he
bet his choices to the tune of
a thousand bucks a race. Let’s
see how he made out.

In the scecond race he put
$1,000 on Glen Laddie to place.
The two-year-old came up in
the stretch to be third. One
grand down.

In the third he gambled an-
other $1,000 to place on Etta-
croft, who finished second and
paid $2.40. Our brave punter
collected $1,200, and was now
$800 down.

In the fourth he baciced Am-
can Cathy with another $1,000.
The filly shot to the front at
the break, was second to Ur-
Mia coming into the stretch,
then faded and finished fifth
in a six-horse field. Our gam-
boleer was now down $1,800.

His luck changed in the fifth,
when he put $2,000 on Noble
Choice, half to win and half
to place. The horse ran second
to Abcan until he hit the
stretch, then took over to win
easily by two lengths. Win
price of $4.70 returned $2,350
and place price of $2.80 added
another $1,400, for a total of
$3,750.

“Our punter was now $50
down, having bet $5,000 and
collected $4,950. .

In the sixth he liked Beau
Sierra, and bet another grand,

His choice came in third, and
he was down $1.050.

The five-year-old gelding
Bay Toe attracted our hero in
the seventh, and he wagered
$500 to win, $300 to place and
$200 to show. Bay Toe was
taken off the pace for five
eighths, then passed his six
competitors as if they were
standing still and breezed home
in front by four lengths, paying
$6.20, $3.20 and $2.50. Our

TLIGHT

eager beaver collected $1,550,
$480 and $250.

Total wagers, $7,000. Total
collected, $7,230. Finding him-
self $230 ahead, our big time
spender decided to duck the

unpredictable eighth, and
scoot for home.
te ae

As the racing season enters
its final stage, a few tips for
the $2 punters may be in order.

First, there is no system for
beating the races. The rake-
off (more than 20 per cent in
B.C.) ensures that in the long
run the races will beat you.

(one who plays favorites con-
sistently) remember that over
a period of time favorites win
about 35 percent of all races,
and pay off at the rate of 3-2.
In 55 percent of all races the
favorite runs first or second,
and returns 3 to 4 on the in-
vestment. In 70 out of 100
races, the favorite collects
show money at 2 to 5.

No way to win playing fav-
orites, then. But you can im-
prove your chances by only

playing favorites which have
run in the money last time
out, and have raced within 10
days. Also, favorites in juven-
ile (two-year old) events win
seven percent oftener than
among older horses.

Playing ‘‘post positions’ is
another good way to go broke.
At Hastings, however, the in-
side positions are of some val-
ue in the sprints. But playing
the No. 1 position is sure sui-
cide.

Second choices win 20 pers

cent of the time and average
$8.50. To make a profit they
would have to average $10.
This ‘system is called ‘‘the slow
road to the poorhouse.”’

An outsider finishes in the
money in 83 percent of all
-races. If you can spot the right
outsiders, you’re in clover.
AnyOne having a foolproof
system, give me a ring, please.

Castle Jewelers
590 WEST GEORGIA
Vancouver, B.C.

PHONE MU 5-5014

Watchmaker & Jewelers
Special Dis-
count to all
Tribune Rea-
ders. Bring
this ad with.

you.

If you are a chalk player .

August 28, 1959—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 7