the method, though. They first collected, classified, and then analysed the facts and made conclusions; after that, they thought they could figure out the purpose for which their facts and deductions could be applied to, but the human mind works the other way around. The author ends up saying that every political judgement helps us to modify the facts and political thought is itself a form of political action. “Political science is the science not only of what is, but what ought to be”. Edward then introduces us to utopianism, which will be present throughout the text, where during the utopian stage of the political sciences the researchers pay little attention to the existing facts or to the analysis of cause and effect, but will commit their time to the elaboration of visionary projects. It is only when these projects break down, and wish or purpose is shown to be incapable by itself of achieving the desired end, that the researchers will reluctantly call in the aid of analysis, and the study; only then it will be regarded as a science. The course of events after 1931 clearly revealed the weaknesses of pure aspiration as the basis for a science of international politics. At the beginning of his career Carr stuck to the ideas of realism by studying Russian history and became more Marxist oriented, as a result, he manifests the necessity of realism to correct the exuberance of utopianism and later he will establish duel between them. He was both sceptical about the League of Nations considering that any social order implies a large measure of standardization, and therefore of abstraction, which is impossible due to the diverse countries involved; meaning there cannot be a different rule for every member of the community, and he was also critical of the liberal principles as his faith in liberalism received its greatest blow from the collapse of the world economy after 1929. Carr also discuses how a political society, national or international, cannot exist unless individuals submit to certain standards of conduct, but the problem relies on why we should continue following such rules. Afterwards, he talks about laissez-faire and its relation with the doctrine of the harmony of interests and morality, causing a complex phenomenon known as economic nationalism. Just like how controversial the previous economic doctrine was, the text explores how there is an assumption that every nation has