Dialectics, Democracy and Discontent

The values implicit in your editorial of April 18th are surely a little grotesque. Your basic complaint seems to be that people are unhealthily contented with what they see about them, and you assert that unless they become discontented, then they won't be contented for much longer!

(Reductio ad absurdun)—Ed.

The [unclear: assertion] that students, above all must take a lively interest in politics if democratic society as we know it is to survive, I find especially interesting. You make earier a clear implication that to be uninterested is to be Conservative—can it not then be assumed that to be interested is to be revolutionary? If this is so, then what you have said in effect is that democracy cannot survive unless students are revolutionaries! Sir, surely the influence borne by student opinion is a little less negative and reactionary than this?

Generally, in fact, your editorial seems to be a bit of a hotch-pot. You begin with absurdity, ("It has become a truism. .—truisms are born, Sir, not made. . .) and you conclude with pomposity and further absurdity (next time you happen to be going backwards. Sir, please try turning about and going forward—the chances are you will find yourself going in exactly the same direction as before, only you won't find yourself tripping up so frequently). Between the two, we find the vague ramblings of a mind confused in dialectic, politically immature.

—R. H. Green.

(We suggest that the correspondent re-read our editorial.—Ed.)