The current stress of the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party on the necessity of “seeking truth from facts” and the accompanying more liberal attitude to research have led to a re-vitalisation, as in other areas, of the study of party history. The portrayal of Mao Zedong in a more fallible light and the ending of the overemphasis on his role in the Chinese Revolution have led to the study, or re-study, of aspects of Chinese communist history in which Mao was not directly, or only marginally, involved, and to evaluations, or re-evaluations, of the contribution of other communist leaders. The contemporary view that the concept of “two-line struggle” has been overstressed in past historiography, particularly during the Cultural Revolution decade, has also helped historians in China to provide a more “objective” account of the role of other key figures. Differences of opinion no longer have to be castigated as outright opposition nor do later “failings” by individuals necessarily lead to a search by historians to expose a “counter-revolutionary” past throughout.

Recently there has been great interest in the re-organization of work and its effects on labor relations during the last decades of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth century, particularly in the metal-working and machine industries. Studies of this issue have generally been framed in terms of technological advances in the steel industry in the second half of the nineteenth century, the exigencies of the market during and after the Great Depression of the late nineteenth century, and the efforts of skilled labor to defend its position on the shopfloor. In France and elsewhere the importance of national and international arms sales before 1914 made the armaments industry one of the main arenas of these developments. Until mid-century the defense industry and the business of defense had been under state control in France. Largely for economic reasons, however, the Third Republic turned over increasing amounts of defense contracting, especially in shipbuilding, to private industry. The Etablissements Schneider at Le Creusot, the Compagnie des Aciéries de la Marine at Saint-Chamond and other large private firms established themselves as profitable arms manufacturers. National and foreign government contracts for weaponry encouraged these companies to make large capital investments, to rationalize work to permit greater managerial control, and to develop authoritarian paternalist systems of labor management.

There is a real need to integrate local and national approaches to the study of Chartism. The inadequacies of the pioneering studies of the national movement certainly revealed the need to return to the local roots of the movement. However, the pattern of local studies largely established by the important volume of Chartist Studies edited by Asa Briggs has had some unfortunate consequences. The attempt to provide a comprehensive account of Chartism in a given locality, and cover the entire period from 1838 to 1848, has often precluded extended examination of key issues. Such matters as the relationship between Chartism and other forms of popular protest, Chartist ideology and tactics, the relationship between the Chartists and the middle class, and the whole cultural and organisational dimension of Chartism have only recently begun to receive detailed analysis. There has been a marked tendency for one of the most remarkable aspects of Chartism, the extent to which diverse localities were united in a national movement, to be obscured. Indeed it is evident that many historians returned to the local roots of Chartism without adequate assessments of Chartist ideology, tactics, national organisation and national leadership. Some important recent work has done much to enhance our understanding of such matters. A more meaningful assessment of how events in the localities interacted with the national movement is now possible.