To the Editor of the Crimson:

While there is agitation for a radical or conservative social settlement of world peace, there is none for a moderate arrangement, sufficiently broad to include all but implacable communists or irreconcilable reactionaries.

It is difficult indeed to know what the liberals are striving for. Our very enemies, Germany and Italy, have that economic equality the liberals relish, while Russia, a joy to radical economists, is a tyranny. Why cannot the radicals demand abolition of all dictatorships, fascist and communistic? Leftists now want to leave the Russian system alone after the war. This is a compromise with idealism and shows a weak inconsistency in the radical camp. Can they expect a lasting peace with any dictatorship still rampant?

Even the conservatives seem doubtful about their aims. There is hesitation to bring out openly their views, most of which have been discredited during the last decade. The British class system, "natural" economic laws, unregulated business and abolition of labor gains are untenable points. Rightests still want conservatism but are afraid to propose a real program.

Thus neither side has a consistent plan. What is needed is a broad, central scheme taking the best points of the liberals, fighting for labor, and the best of the conservatives, proponents of business. Give equal treatment to both. Italy, whatever its demerits, has solved the economic problem by its Corporations, which form a branch of the government, representing industries by both employers and employees. A modification, to supplant the Senate, would solve our problem of economic equality by putting labor and business on the same plane. It is only by a stern but broad measure, taking in the whole economy, giving all a voice in the government, that long-term peace, free from exploitation by either capital or labor, can result. Henry S. Middendort, Jr. '15.