There is little evidence of a "drift towards Communism" in the uncommitted nations of the world, three experts on Communism told an overflow audience of alumni in Paine Hall yesterday.

Benjamin I. Schwartz '38, professor of History and Government, explained that, although many of the unaligned nations "have more in common with our opponents than with us," their leaders are too determined "to be masters in their own bailiwicks" to submit to the control of either Moscow or Peking.

Communism is tempting to the leaders of underdeveloped countries, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. '38, special assistant to President Kennedy, maintained, because it is the "best means in history for the exploitation of the proletariat" in order to reduce consumption and permit the accumulation of capital.

It is also important to remember that tyranny is the natural form of government for all of the underdeveloped nations, Theodore White '38, author of The Making of the President 1960, insisted. He noted, however, that although the logic of tyranny may sound like the logic of Communism, it is not exactly the same.

The controlling elites in all underdeveloped countries share "arrogance and a faith in logic and order per se," White continued. They believe the human mind can solve anything, and it is therefore difficult to explain to them the allowances which Western society makes for errors and for mercy. Their logic "requires a discipline which controls all the way down to the grassroots."

And, Schlesinger explained, Communism provides a dogmatic mystique justifying this discipline. But, because of the subordination of national interest which Communism demands, as well as its failure to raise productivity in agriculture, there is "ample opportunity for non-Communist forms of development."

He also emphasized the pre-occupation of the leaders of most of the uncommitted nations with the problems of their own countries. "They have no more interest in the Cold War than the United States had about the Napoleonic Wars," Schlesinger said.

White, too, questioned the usefulness of much American foreign aid. Although he admitted foreign aid could reduce the need for authoritarian methods of raising capital domestically, he claimed that its usefulness is often overrated.

He attacked the "virgin-birth theory" of foreign aid--that if you put in money and higher living standards, democracy, and friendship automatically result without any need for worrying about political problems.