MAIL

To the Editor of the Crimson:

Whilst heartily approving your general attitude with regard to the H.S.U., I should like to take issue with the statement that, whilst "...the H.S.U. is avowedly an organization for the preservation of peace and democracy... a basic confusion still remains; the confusion about the role of the communist in a liberal coalition..."

On joining the H.S.U. some two months ago I was rather inclined to minimize the sinister tales of red influence in that organization. I do not think, however, that I am alone in saying that the recent internecine conflict within the Union has been somewhat disillusioning. As a result of Tuesday's meeting it now appears that at least four of the seven executive committee members are more or less active supporters of the present Russian government. These individuals and their spiritual fellows though in a minority were able to muster what was, for some liberal members, a rather surprising show of hands in support of the most radical of the three motions; the one applauding Mr. Stalin for his recent display of benevolence and pacifism.

Whatever one may think of those stubborn fanatics who still cling to the twisting tail of the party line, I do not believe that there need be any confusion "about the role of the communist in a liberal coalition." The role of the communist has always been a strictly disciplined progress along the narrow path of his party's policy. Previous to August 1939 this policy happened to coincide largely with that of these individuals who are perforce vaguely termed liberals. The H. S. U. meeting was but one indication of the fact that these two policies no longer coincide. For this reason it must be doubted whether the previously effective cooperation is still possible. Philip Mayer '43,   Member of the Freshman Executive   Committee of the H. S. U.