“marginalized” (105). This led to Woodsworth’s purge of the Ontario Labour Conference in 1934 and another purge of the Ontario CCF in 1936. The CCF had a complex relationship with the Communists in the 1930s and 1940s. On the one hand, they were rivals for working-class support. Yet, many labour socialists advocated working-class unity. The CPC was active in the labour movement, organizing the unemployed, fighting against state repression and organizing support for the Spanish Republic. Woodsworth and the CCF leadership opposed co-operation with the Communists. On the ground, CCFers often joined social struggles alongside or led by Communists. Naylor examines this in detail, but he places particular emphasis upon the impact of Communists’ turn to the “popular front” strategy in the mid-30s. As the Communists made the fight against fascism their priority, they “looked beyond the working class towards the broadest possible anti-fascist alliance” (202). The Communist embrace of cross-class alliances served to further undermine the vision of working-class socialism held by labour socialists. Finally, Naylor demonstrates that Woodsworth’s opposition to Canada’s participa- tion in the Second World War, usually described as pacifism, should be understood as rooted in the anti-imperialism of the labour socialist tradition. Rather than being a lonely pacifist voice, Woodsworth reflected the continuing strand of anti-imperialist sentiment within the CCF. All of this makes a fundamentally important contribution that will become required reading for anyone that wants to understand the origins and trajectory of the CCF/NDP. The early CCF had a variety of political and organizational influences. The labour socialists were an important, formative strand within the CCF. The roots of the transfor- mation of the socialist CCF into the social democratic CCF/NDP of the postwar years can be traced to developments in the 1930s and 1940s and the fate of labour socialism. MURRAY COOKE York University Qu’est-ce qu’un gouvernement socialiste ? Ce qui est vivant et ce qui est mort dans le socialisme Franck Fischbach Lux Éditeur Montréal, 2017, 251 pages doi:10.1017/S0008423918000689 La question du socialisme refait surface dans la pensée politique contemporaine. L ’ouvrage de Pierre Dardot et Christian Laval Commun (2014), celui d’Axel Honneth L’idée du socialisme (2017) et maintenant celui de Franck Fischbach Qu’est-ce qu’un gouvernement socialiste ? confirme ce renouveau. Le philosophe, traducteur (Hegel, Marx et Honneth) et professeur cherche à circonscrire les grandes hypothèses du social- isme et à proposer certaines pistes de régénérescence. Cet livre s’inscrit dans la continuité du cycle de recherche portant sur l’émancipation entamé avec Le sens du social (2015). Fischbach amorce son analyse par l’affirmation que « rien ne semble plus étrange à notre époque que la perspective du socialisme » (7). C’est à partir de ce constat qu’il se donne la tâche de reprendre et de reformuler l’hypothèse socialiste. Pour ce faire, l’auteur établit deux distinctions importantes : la différence entre le socialisme et la gauche et celle entre le socialisme et le libéralisme. Fischbach s’inspire des travaux du philosophe Jean-Claude Michéa pour distinguer le socialisme de la gauche. Il plonge ainsi dans l’histoire politique de la France pour démontrer que ces deux courants politiques ont d’abord été séparés, puis unis sans qu’il n’y ait eu une véritable commensurabilité. Il définit la gauche à partir de trois grands principes : d’abord par Recensions / Reviews 709 Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423918000689 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Ottawa - Library Network, on 18 Sep 2018 at 13:04:22, subject to the