This is the first of a series of weekly columns on post-war problems which will appear on the Crimson editorial page.

There is a currently popular phrase which goes something like this: "It is not enough to win the war; we must also win the peace." This tricky grouping of words is rapidly becoming one of the less palatable platitudes of our day. It has over-tones of piety which deny explanation, and most people are satisfied to nod their approval, and let it go at that.

This column does not pretend to own a crystal ball; nor can it attempt to draw up any blueprints. But, on the other hand, we are willing to challenge sportswriter Bill Cunningham's attitude toward post-war planners. That popular scribe flashily dismisses the whole matter saying, "It's nice of them to do the heavy thinking while somebody else does the heavy fighting, but their hot air hangs like a steam curtain between the effort and the ultimate."

We do know that the world looked like after the last war. We know what changes took place between 1919 and 1941. And we can, with reasonably clear conscience and a tempered imagination, extend the trends which have been set in motion since September 1939, to the point where they will combine to form a different picture at the close of World War II.

Labor provides one of the best examples of a current thread which will reappear in the post-war tapestry. The CIO has been plugging for the creation of industry-labor councils which would give the workers a direct hand in the deciding and executing of company policies. Labor will still be waging a major campaign for these councils long after the next armistice has been signed and sealed.

Today, Philip Murray builds his council argument around the current issue of inflation. Opposing any law which will put a ceiling on wages, he claims that Industry was making profits while operating far below capacity before the war, and that those profits are enormously expanded now that plants are operating at full production. Labor insists on its share of the benefits of full production, and it wants to get them through industry-labor councils. After the war, Labor will be more interested in full employment than in a share of the profits. The unions will claim their right to prevent Industry from ever again operating below capacity for a profit. They will insist, and keep insisting, on the Murray plan.

Here, then, is one proof that there is a direct tie between the "effort and the ultimate." Inflation is a war-effort problem; full employment will certainly be an important part of the peace effort. This column does not insist that Philip Murray's council idea is the answer, nor does it endorse Industry's argument that the managers know what is best for their own company, and the unions should have no say in policy formation. It is enough for us to clarify the phrase "win the peace" by pointing out that this dispute, and other disputes already begun, are the obstacles that will stand in the way of that admittedly idealistic objective.