NINETEENTH-CENTURY Europe produced two major concepts for the reorganization of society: those of Marxian socialism and liberal nationalism. Each was regarded by its exponents as a liberating force. Marxian socialists wished to free mankind from the economic exploitation of the capitalistic system, while liberal nationalists wished to free the peoples of Europe from the oppression of authoritarian empires. Both had a strong admixture of utopianism. The socialists envisioned a classless society in which men would work in equality and harmony for the common good, while liberal nationalists envisioned a world composed of nation-states based on democratic constitutions. Both sought to banish war. To the socialists war was a function of capitalism and would disappear with its abolition. To the liberal nationalists war was the product of autocratic monarchical governments, whose liquidation would introduce a new era of international peace.

PROFESSOR PFLANZE's distinction between the state-nation and the nation-state of nineteenth-century Europe is also illuminating for the study of nationalism in recent Africa. The dominant force in recent African politics has obviously been the desire to build nations, and these nations are clearly of the statenation type.

IT HAS often been correctly remarked that a pronounced aristocratic preference informed the political thought of David Hume. This paper will attempt to show: 1) the philosophical basis for an aristocratic approach to politics which Hume provided in his logic, ethics, and esthetics; 2) the manner in which this aristocratic preference influenced his political thought; 3) the fact that this preference represented, in its various manifestations, a normative intrusion upon his experimental method; and 4) the sources of this preference in Hume's personality and in the cultural and social values shared by “gentlemen” of Britain's Augustan Age.

THE individual in the twentieth century finds himself dwarfed by two giant institutions which decide his political destiny: the state, with its efficient bureaucrat methodically signing papers that may mean success or failure, life or death, for everyman and his world; the other is the political party, which aspires to control the state by mobilizing the masses. Nineteenth-century bureaucracy tended to be rigid and authoritarian, yet unrelated to popular support and limited in its impact on daily life. The nineteenth- century liberal, suspicious of the state, attempted to protect the individual by further limiting the bureaucrat; the twentiethcentury liberal hopes to use the bureaucrat to limit the privately powerful, whereas the totalitarian party hopes to dominate the state and therewith to dominate everyman. When a monopolistic party controls a monolithic state, the individual seems to have no choice but to flee, to obey or to disappear into a concentration camp. Overt individual resistance appears senseless; overt group resistance extremely dangerous and almost certainly doomed to failure.

THE Sino-Soviet dispute entered its present phase at the time of the 1962–1963 Congresses of the national Communist Parties. Then the esoteric struggle among the international parties was replaced by direct confrontation, referred to by Communists as the “open polemics.” The present article will examine some of the causal factors in the changing relationships between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China, as these have found expression in the Sino-Soviet dispute.

THE “third world” of the developing and, for the most part, newly independent nations is, for Communists of all brands and allegiances, both a crucial arena of political competition against the “imperialists” and the center of their hopes for new victories. Yet there are important differences in the way Moscow and Peking view these opportunities. The Soviet leadership believes that the many poor and ambitious countries will, later if not sooner, decide that Communism offers them the best prospects for raising their status in the world. Chinese Communist propaganda, on the other hand, calls for an ever more militant struggle of “national liberation” to expel the “imperialists” from Asia, Africa, and Latin America and to unite the developing countries under Peking's leadership. Thus, in addition to being a principal focus of Communist hopes and efforts, the question of the “correct” policy toward the third world has unleashed deep-set rivalries and antagonisms between and within ruling and nonruling Communist parties alike.