PATH TO PEACE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23859, 13 July 1939, Page 12

PATH TO PEACE

ADOPTION OF SOCIALISM

NO FIGHTING OVER EXPORT MARKETS DR McMILLAN’S CONTENTION (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, July 12. A contention that Socialism would bring peace because it would remove the need to fight for export markets was made by Dr D. G. McMillan (Govt., Dunedin West), when speaking in the Address-m-Reply debate in the House of Representatives to-night. Once the neopie realised that Socialism would mean peace, he said, they would all become Socialists, if for that reason alone. “ Defence is only a means to an end,” Dr McMillan said, when referring to a clause in the Opposition’s no-confidence amendment on defence. “The thing we must give most attention to is peace, which we will obtain neither by armament or disarmament. We can only obtain it by removing the causes of war, which are entirely economic in their foundation, and we will never get perpetual peace until we get rid of those causes.

Example of Russia

“ The reason why wars tend to occur,” Dr McMillan said, “ is that nations are fighting for the export markets which are essential under the capitalistic financial system. Russia has no need to go to war because she aims at increasing not her exports, but her consumption. “ The standard of living of a country is determined by' its consumtion,” Dr McMillan continued. “ Under Socialism an export market is not needed, so that there is no reason to go to war. Once people are convinced that Socialism will bring peace, they will all become Socialists, if only for that reason.”

Dr McMillan said he felt that if the people of New Zealand were to be persuaded to defend their country it would be necessary to appeal to their commonsense, and to debunk a 16t of the humbug about war. It would be necessary first of all to stop pretending that war was right, because everyone knew it was not, hut all the same it was necessary to do what was wrong to protect our democratic institutions.

Tilt at Opposition

“ It was noticeable,” Dr McMillan said, “that members of the Opposition were careful not to use the word conscription but rather the term universal service, when urging compulsory military training, but if they believed in conscription they should use the old term.

“I am not prepared to support conscription,” Dr McMillan added, “ because when we have it in peace it means we may have it in war, and 1 am not prepared to oblige another man to lay down his life for something I believe in. Members of the Opposition are prepared to conscript men but not something far less im-portant-wealth.”