Is a statue of Lenin next on the agenda? Last week the Harvard Square Defense Fund (HSDF) held its annual meeting. The group's executives complained that their fund needs more money to protect the Square from the forces of evil.

Now what was the name of that organization? Yes, you heard correctly, the Harvard Square Defense Fund.

Defense Fund? What does the Square need to be defended against? Executives of the Defense Fund say the Square needs to be defended against "big business" (read: the Dark Side).

Excuse our bourgeois consciousness, but we take an entirely different view of the matter. The Square does not need to be defended against capitalism and the forces of the free market. It's a point we've made in the past and one we will gladly make again.

Whether some residents of Cambridge like it or not, this nation runs on the capitalist model. This is a fact that no home rule petition can change. As any Ec 10 student knows, we keep this system because it does the best job of allocating goods and services and meeting consumer needs.

The stores in the Square that serve their customers well, providing quality merchandise at good prices, will flourish. Success means that people have made their voices heard: this is a store they want in the Square.

The stores that can't pay their rents are those stores that haven't done a good job of delivering value to consumers. Their departure from the Square is no great loss.

Allies of the Fund might argue that the free market can make mistakes. Without the Fund, they say in impassioned tones, Cambridge will lose the stores that make it so distinctive and unique. The Gap will expand to take over The Coop. Unique bookstores and quaint coffee houses will be replaced by the terror of all terrors: McDonald's (And this would be a bad thing?)

What many self-appointed defenders of the Square fail to realize is that bookstores and coffee houses will always be here. In a college town, book-stores and coffee houses are guaranteed a steady flow of business--so long as they serve their customers well.

In fact, any business that satisfies the needs of the local population will survive. Frivolous businesses, like expensive New Age jewelry stores, deserve to be pushed out by the invisible hand. Ultimately, of course, Squaregoers will determine the definition of "frivolous."

Nonetheless, some of the panelists at the Fund meeting did make some valid points. We agree that basic problems such as the homeless, littering and the denizens of the Pit require attention. By dealing with these issues, the Fund could actually make itself useful.

It's nice for the Square to possess "character." But "character" is too often used as a euphemism to refer to the undefined, amorphous quality possessed only by shabby and inefficient businesses.

The Guardians of the Square speak affectionately about the stores with "character"; they just don't patronize them.

We agree that Harvard Square needs defense. It must be protected against the well-intentioned but misguided folks who want to resurrect the "central planning" economic model after it has failed all around the world.

Even the People's Republic of China has begun to embrace the free market system with open arms. The People's Republic of Cambridge should do the same.