Professor Gorny's review represents the characteristic flaws, weaknesses and distortions inherent in the self-serving historiography of the Labour movement. In Nation-Building or a New Society? I pose a question of general significance that has never occurred to historians like Gorny: namely, is a national movement aiming at a cultural, moral and political revolution, and whose values are by their very nature of a particularistic character, capable of coexisting with the universal values of socialism? Secondly, I examine the nature of Labour socialism and the type of socialism that developed in Eretz-Israel. Finally, I examine the concrete social achievements and the relationship between socialism and nationalism in the Zionist context. The conclusions I reach are essentially different from those which the apologetic school has put forward for many years. Labour 'constructive' socialism was not a 'specific Jewish nationalism' (Gorny) but a local variety of nationalist socialism: there was no gap between ideals and practical achievements and the aims realized were precisely those which the founders set themselves: a cultural revolution, the conquest of the land and the founding of a Jewish State. On the other hand, the founders did not seek a change in the social order, and they did not have a vision of a general alternative to capitalist society. Their failure to change society was rooted in the ideology itself.