It is questioned whether Belgian planism of the 1930's has been a movement that broke with socialist internationalism and displayed a tendency to preempt fascism by emulating some of its positions, asS.P. Kramer argued in the previous issue of Res Publica. Unlike French neo-socialism, planism was a call to action within the party against the crisis. Whether it was merely a personalities' matter is doubtful. Byindividualizing its failure one leaves unsolved essential problems like the attraction of fascism for the masses and the real spread of the planist idea. Socialisme nationaI was a bow to the circumstances, not to the fascist spirit. The breach in socialist internationalism did not result from a deliberate political wilt but was rather forced upon it by the breakdown of collective security. As for internal policy de Man suggested an unequivocal partnership favouring structural reforms. His failure cannot be dissociated from the failure of democracy and socialism. He eventually blunderel against his own ethics by admitting the destructive revolutionary potentiality of the 1940 defeat. Nevertheless Belgian planism can only be understood along with its historical connections.