The Action Française was the most notorious reactionary movement in twentieth-century France. From the Dreyfus Affair to the fall of the Vichy Regime it carried on its campaign against “the principles of 789”, which many Frenchmen (and other Western Europeans) mistakenly blamed for the “evils” of modern industrial society. But it represented neither the frustrated lower-middle classes that were attracted to fascism, nor the genteel bien-pensants who pined for the good old days” under Louis XVI or Charles X. Its leaders were café intellectuals who flaunted their newly acquired devotion to the monarchy and the church. They were professional nativists clamoring or a return to the traditional virtues of a golden age that never insisted. Their utopia was a highly intellectualized daydream invented by charles Maurras.

At the turn of the century, the authoritative political theorist Henri Michel had this to say of the characteristic approach in France to all problems, and in particular to political problems. “We are infatuated with isms, it is part of the national temperament. It is significant that a large number of our fellow-citizens like them so much, that every time they are presented with a new one, they greedily seize upon it, without asking themselves whether it can be accomodated alongside the one with which they were previously enamoured.”; The accuracy of this observation has not substantially diminished over the last half-century, the parties left of centre being particularly addicted to doctrinaire formulations of their political philosophies and programmes and to the consequent verbal fetishism and pompous dogmatism. The rise of Socialism in the late nineteenth century overshadowed the contemporary crystallisation of Radical attitudes and aims into the doctrine of Solidarism. Solidarism, however, played a major part in galvanising and rallying the protagonists of state intervention and voluntary association; uniting them in the task of building, by a series of piecemeal reforms inspired by a simple principle and a multiplicity of imperative needs what has come to be known as the “Welfare State”. Despite the doctrinal fragility of Solidarism, its practical programme was inspired by and was appropriate to the social and political needs of a society in transition from individualist and non-interventionist liberalism to associationist and statist socialism, just as liberal economism had secured the transition from corporativism and mercantilism to private enterprise, laisser faire and laisser passer. To-day it is Gaullism that dominates the political scene, but the tenacious Radical tradition of the Third and Fourth Republics may yet reassert itself, transforming in retrospect the tidal wave of to-day into a ripple, as it has so frequently done during the last eighty years of France's tormented history.

Jusqu'ici, nous n'avons envisagé que l'analyse faite par les Webb des structures internes de l'Union soviétique. L'étude du régime communiste russe dans ses relations avec le monde extérieur forme cependant une partie également importante, et non moins significative, de «Soviet Communism».

In the middle of September Howell wrote to James Stansfeld: “I understand that Mr. Glyn is much pleased with our reports: Mr. Stanhope has also spoken highly of them. We shall be glad if Mr. Glyn and yourself will write to Mr. Morley on this subject if you feel satisfied with our preliminary work”.

In Asia Minor in the Second Century B.C., an ephemeral revolutionary regime held sway which has been variously hailed as the first volley of Marxism or the last stand of Cloudcuckooland. Since Aristonicus did not hesitate to openly proclaim class warfare against the bourgeoisie of Pergamum, even restrained scholars label his City of the Sun as a “proletarian state”. Ironically, though he challenged the majesty of Rome, Aristonicus won the support of Blossius of Cumae, the Stoic adviser of Tiberius Gracchus and the ideologue of the Roman reformers, who would perish in the debacle of the Pergamene revolution.