member of the disputed claims section,nwith a salary of two thousand francs anmonth; coming one month before hisnmarriage, the salary was enough to setnup a household in untroubled comfort.”nNot the sort of biography one expectsnfor a revolutionary, but then he was notnone.nA momentous event transformed thenlife of Leon Blum from that of the literarynfigure he was to the politician he became.nThat event was the Dreyfus Afl&fr, whichnrocked the Second Republic at the turnnof the century. A friendship proved criticalnto Blum’s course, that of Socialistnleader Jean Jaures. United by the assaultsnof their enemies (the Anti-Dreyfiisardsnwere proponents of street actions againstnthe Republic) and their similar moralntone, Blum became Jaures’s lieutenantnin the reformist, parliamentary wing ofnFrench socialism. Like their opponents,nthe Dreyfiisards were principally concernednwith the future of the nation; thenstru^e over the innocence or guilt ofnAlfred Dreyfus was the casus belli. FornBlum, the “Antis” were the upholders ofninjustice and a threat to the Republic.nLacouture shows, convincingly in mynopinion, that Blum’s “socialism” was annoutgrowth of his passion for justice andnIn the Mailnhis belief that it was the fulfillment of thenrevolution of 1789. His choice to championnjustice and the Republic via thenSocialist Party would determine hisnpolitical career.nThe word socialism with referencento Blum is put into quotation marks becausenBlum rendered an afready nebulousnterm almost completely devoid ofnmeaning. Although he could trot outnMarx to carry the burden of argumentnwith socialist ranks when occasion demanded,nBlum’s conception of socialismnwas strikingly religious, or perhaps betternexpressed as “sentimental” in the usagenof Vilfredo Pareto (TheMind & Society).nOn this point, Lacouture observes thatn”For neither Jaures nor Blum was socialismna science For both men, socialismnwas at once a culture, a morality and annart, the art of harmonizing, rationalizingnsociety.” Blum’s speeches appealed tonjustice, not the realization of the pseudoscientificnlaws of historical developmentnpropounded by Marx.nMarxism suffered a crisis of explanationntoward the end of the 19th centurynwhen the eagerly expected revolutionnfailed to materialize. In the terms ofnThomas Kuhn, there was a breakdownnof the paradigm which provided the op-nLiar’s Manual by Roland Baker; Nelson-Hall; Chicago. This book promotes lying. Andnthat’s the truth.nThe War Powers Resolution: Its Implementation in Theory and Practice by Robert f.nTurner; Foreign Policy Research Institute; Philadelphia. As is well loiown, too many cooksnspoil the soup. The War Powers Resolution, which puts everyone in the kitchen, has, the authornargues, made a hash of diplomacy.nInternational Debt: Crisis and Challenge by Robert E. Weintraub; Geoi^e Mason University;nFalr&K, VA. The questions involved with U.S. banks “lending” to Eastern bloc and lesserndeveloped countries (LDC’s) are examined in this brief but thorough study.nPrivate Rights & Public lands edited by Phillip N. Truluck; The Heritage Foundation;nWashington, DC. A line for Watt-baiters: “A growing number of environmental economists,nlegal scholars, and other experts have concluded the public bureaucracies overseeing federal andnstate lands have been primarily responsible for the myriad economic and environmental problemsnwhich have developed.” “For Sale” signs, anyone?nRenascence, VoL XXXV, No. 3, edited by Joseph Schwartz; Marquette University Press;nMilwaukee. Literary essays with a difference: a Christian perspective.nnnportunity for rival paradigms, albeit withinnMarxism. Thus developed the revisionismnof Bernstein and Kautsky, as wellnas the syndicalism of Sorel and the Bolshevismnof Lenin. Blum felt the uneasinessnof the crisis of Marxism. Berkeleynpolitical scientist A. James Gregor (ThenFascist Persuasion in Radical Politicsnand Young Mussolini and the IntellectualnOrigins of Fascism) interpretsnMussolini’s fascism as a Marxist heresynwhich sprang from the crisis of Marxismnin order to champion “voluntarism” (asnopposed to determinist historicism) andnthe affective power of appeals, includingnnationalist ones. Blum’s approach can beninterpreted similarly, discarding determinismnin favor of appeals to justice andnthe ideas of 1789 (a convenient, readymadenSorelian “myth”). While not goingnover to the nationalist camp as Mussolininwould do, this meant that Blum and hisncohorts could bask in patriotic glory,nhelpful with an electorate schooled innthe mystique of the nation.nOlum’s economics differentiate himnfrom contemporary Socialists. He considerednplanning to be inherently totalitarian,nin tones reminiscent oiTheRoadnto Serfdom. Moreover, like Djilas ornTrotsky, the Stalinists were creating an”new class” that, in his eyes, was inimicalnto freedom and democracy. Nationalizationsnof French industry under Blumnwere primarily of the transport andn”public utility” sort that most Europeannstates had always reserved for themselves.nIt was de Gaulle who imposed indicativenplanning on France. Lacoumre brings tonlight the interesting revelation that, influencednby Jacques Rueff, Blum wasncommitted to the defense of the goldnstandard.nLacouture defends Blum againstncharges that a historic chance to seizenpower for the working class was betrayednby his government. Communist leadernMaurice Thorez termed the PopularnFront a contract between the middlenclass and the working class. Unlike Mitterrand’sngovernment, the Popular Frontnwas a parliamentary working majority ofnMiH^S9nOctober 1983n