CAPITALISM DOES NOT BREED WAR

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 24 June 1937, Page 8

CAPITALISM DOES NOT BREED WAR

PROFESSOR MURPHY’S VIEW SOCIALIST COUNTRIES ARE BELLICOSE The contention of a section of political theorists that capitalism is the chief cause of war was emphatically denied by Professor B. E. Murphy, professor of eco uomics at Victoria University College, in an address at the conference of the Royal Agricultural Society of New Zealand, held in Wellington. “it is the reverse of the truth to say that capitalism breeds wars,’’ said Professor Murphy. “Look round the world and you will see that the capitalist countries, notably Britain and France, are pacific, and the socialist countries bellicose. "Capitalism is associated with policies making for peace and security, abroad and democracy at home. Socialism is associated with war and insecurity abroad and with dictatorships at home. Which is cause and which effect?

“You will get war under any social system, but you will get less war under capitalism, which works better in an, atmosphere of peace and internationalism. Economic nationalism, dictatorship, and Socialism are modern triplets.” Discussing what lie termed the eclipse of capitalism in recent years, Professor Murphy said its only serious rival was Socialism, in one form or another —State Socialism, Fascism, Nazi-ism or Commuu. ism. All of these showed some differences and were mutually hostile, but their basic resemblances were more important than their differences, which were relatively superficial. A MATTER OF MORE OR LESS Capitalism or Socialism were not a matter of yes or no, but of more or,less. Capitalism had always contained and required some measure of restriction on its basic principle of competition. Socialism did not abolish competition, but shifted its incidence, diverted its channels and caused it to play round other objectives. But competition was still there. Unless Socialism were based on equal sharing of national income, the division must be based on competition, even if it was political rather than economic in character.

Socialism seemed quite workable, but would probably play for, safety rather than progress. The average standard > f living under a Socialist state would not be much different from what it was today. We had no right to assume that it would not develop a productive psychology, but as long as it was a blend of economics and politics this was not likelyIn any event, to secure efficiency Socialism must be autocratic. .

Referring particularly to the New Zealand political scene, the professor suggested that if another Uoverntnent were returned to power at the next general election there was little likelihood that, it would repeal the restrictive legislation enacted by its predecessor in relation to banking and industry. History showed that once a law had readied the Statute Book it was extremely difficult to remove it. Ho said he saw rocks ahead in the general world trend toward Socialism. The Socialist philosophy took for granted that advances in technical productivity would continue, and that capital would continue to accumulate. ’I his could only be done if motives to industry were preserved and if a substitute for private saving be created. Past Government planning in its own sphere did not encourage hopes in this direction. Due outstanding objection was. that Socialism substituted political for economic motives. The real objections to Socialism were the ordinary objections one got on the street corner.