Dear Friends.

Ond of the things I have not fully grasped concerns the world socialist
position on taxation, why it is of no concern to workers and why it is
considered that only capitalists are affected. My reading of the SPGB
material on this has still left me a bit confused. Can anyone point me in
the right direction or expalin it in simple terms.  Don't know why I can
understand Das Kapital and yet have trouble with this.
Len Wallace
email: lwallace@...
http://lenwallace.homepage.com/Len.html
------------------------
"For there's no gods and there's precious few heroes,
but there's plenty of dole in the land of the leal.
And it's time now to sweep the future clear
of the lies of the past that we know were never real."
- Hamish Henderson

Hi Len,
The reason for this is that ALL taxes are paid out of profits. This may be
done indirectly by taxing the workers but as I hope to illustrate the net
effect on the worker is nill, and the tax is ultimately paid for by the
capitalists out of their profits.

You will understand that the market works to minimise a workers wage to the
minimum that can be got away with to provide a basic standard of living.
This might vary according to various skills being in greater demand etc. but
the general rule is the same. So when a tax is applied to a worker
ultimately the wage will increaser to compensate. Conversely when taxation
is reduced real wages will drop accordingly. Thus the person paying the
wages (ie the employer) bears the tax.

The effects of inflation and convoluting paths (eg increased road tax causes
hauliers to charge more for selivery increasing bread prices) etc may make
the above process less visible but the effect is still there. The effect is
also hidden by lags in the system, but when the effects of a change in
taxation have settled down the worker will have the same real wage and the
increase is borne by the capitalist.

A quick & simple way toi observe this is to draw up a rough list of wage
rates in various countries and a list of countries by rate of taxation. If
the lists are sorted by wage rate & tax rate respectively anmd compared you
will notice the same countries come in prety much the same order on both
lists. For example the UK has high taxes but high wages compared with
Turkey, and so on.

Hope this explains it OK for you.
Kevin Giles

I won't pretend to recall the official S.P.G.B. position, so consider this
more my own view on taxation as a socialist.

Taxes are a means for the state to gather income of its own from all the
income generated by citizens so that it can build its bridges, roads, pay
for the courts, prisons, armies, and so on.   From the point of view of the
state, it is taking taxes from ALL CITIZENS regardless of how much they earn
(except the super poor who are exempt, at least here in the U.S.).   The
state doesn't consider there to be any division of society into capitalist
and worker, but considers all people abstract citizens under its laws and
economic domain, who in a so-called "democratic society" in which all are
allegedly equal before the law, should each have to pay some portion of
their monies to uphold these civic services.   This is in any case the
ideology of the system.  Obviously the masses see things the same way
(whether they grunt about paying taxes or not), for if they did not see
things according to the official dogma, they would be socialist, and more
keen on operating society based on use value, rather than on how much can be
afforded for civic services out of the national coffers.

But I repeat, this is only ideology.  This is how the capitalists see
things, with all of us citizens in theory abstract fellow citizens enjoying
civic services which we are all supporting out of our respective pockets.
But the reality  is, and by this I mean the experience of the worker (my
experience, your experience), thus OUR reality, is that we are TAXED OF THE
WHOLE WORLD.  We work hard and get fleeced of surplus value which manages to
keep the wealthy in luxurious conditions, while we get pocket money called
wages.  You've read Das Kapital you say, so I won't explain to you what the
value of wages is, which is another matter (briefly, enough to reproduce our
class), but what is essential in my view is how differently we experience
taxation.

From our point of view, while it may seem that we workers are also paying
taxes (we do, after all, have to put aside some of what seems like OUR wages
to pay them, and it feels like we are being robbed for what we are getting
in return in shoddy services), but this is merely an illusion.  We are,
after all, living off what is LEFT from paying our taxes, so really when the
employer says "you will be paid $30,000 a year but after taxes you will get
$25,000," you are really getting $25,000.   Now where did we get our
$30,000?   From years of union activity to get a "fair day's wage from a
fair day's work," which is not a revolutionary activity but an attempt to
get paid wages in the capitalist system enough so that we don't starve and a
little more than that besides (according to Marx, of course, "instead of the
conservative motto 'a fair day's wage for a fair day's work' the workers
should be inscribing upon their banner the revolutionary watchword
'abolition of the wages system,'" a Marxist understanding all the
incorrectly called socialist and communist groups since the turn of the
century have turned a blind eye to despite calling themselves Marxist).

So what if the government said "we will now tax you $25,000 a year, the same
as the capitalist who gets $400,000 a year"?  We would be forced to say "I
will pay $25,000 in taxes, but we will go on strike until we get paid
$50,000, so that we would still get $25,000 to live off."   Either we would
actively campaign for this in our unions, or supply and demand would
eventually force this raising of the wage, because obviously we can't make
the rich rich if we are going to be destitute on the sidewalks with our
children and the $5,000 left us for bagels and coffee after we paid $25,000
from our $30,000.   We must get paid not too little that we are in no
physical or mental condition to produce profits for the capitalists, and not
too much that we can all live off the interest of our wages or save enough
quickly so that as a class we don't go back to work anymore.   Understood in
this manner, taxes are clearly not a working class issue, even though it
feels as though we are all paying taxes, but truthfully our workplaces could
just as well pay us less while the employer would not even pretend it is OUR
tax and life would be no different.  Except that only the employer DOES pay
the tax, whether there is the pretense the employer does or not.

There is no other place the tax CAN come from.  The employer is who is
paying our wage, and our wage must always be just enough to support us as a
class, therefore obviously it is not really OUR tax, even if it feels like
it is the week prior to Taxation Day.

The state and taxes go hand in hand.  The state allows basic civic services
(roads, armies, police, very basic health monitoring of food (I say very
basic because most of it is junk, it won't kill you tomorrow but after
twenty years it will give you cancer since it slowly overtaxes the immune
system, no pun intended - I hope in socialism we all grow organic whole
ingredients with no additives, pesticides, artificial coloring, in our
food!), and the like) - to repeat, the state administers such services which
allow the society as a whole to function without plunging into chaos (chaos
not because of human nature, but because the capitalists don't want to
INDIVIDUALLY bear responsibility for such things, so the state provides what
minimum it can with what taxes it can collect).

Analogy: you are a worm requiring to be given by nature EXACTLY 25 calories
a day of wasted biological matter to consume and defecate into the soil or
you will not be able to live, and without being able to live, no holes in
the ground that produce oxygen and no excreting nutrients in the soil, both
of which sustain ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET.  One day the state comes around and
knocks on your door.  It says:  "You are hereby ordered to pay 1500 calories
a year in taxation (or a little under 5 a day)."   Now you will starve if
you don't get your 25 calories, so you either slowly starve (not just you,
the whole class of worms) and nature comes to a dead end (not something
nature as a whole wants to see since it needs you so much), or you find a
way to get paid by nature 30 calories, so that you can give up 5 a day, and
still get left with 25.  Now it may SEEM as though you paid the 5, but
really nature had to pay you 5 more.

Same in capitalism.  Employers are the only entity AS A CLASS that can
possibly produce this tax, since workers can only get paid enough to sustain
them AS A CLASS.  Not owning the means of producing wealth, they cannot by
themselves produce this surplus.  It is truly a surplus, coming from surplus
value.

The employers may at times begrudge this taxation.  But it pays for the
roads upon which their goods are transported (and their workers to the
workplaces, pays for workers to fight their wars to broaden or protect
markets, keeps the working class safe enough to turn up to work for 40 years
on most days.   So in the end it can be viewed as in their interest, and
only in their interest.  Anything that keeps us working for 40 years on most
days for others can not be in our interest.  Abolishing money and the wages
system, and running the show for ourselves is all that is in our interest.
And then producing for use rather than profit will no longer limit what
resources are applied to civic services (roads, bridges) as now based on how
much tax is collected.

And so life will be far less "taxing."

Dr. Who

Hi Kevin,
                 taxes such as income tax or purchase tax, (Value Added Tax
in Britain) are a burden on capital, they do not necessarily come from
profit. Many small businesses go under, because their outgoings are greater
at a particular time than their income. Often they must go into overdraft in
order to pay wages, banks will cover the wages provided they can show
expected income in excess of their current dept , and have assetts to cover
the amount loaned. The debt in some cases is the tax owed to the Govt. Banks
will weigh up the difference in foreclosing and bankrupting the companies or
allowing them time to "trade out " the dept. They will sometimes involve the
tax dept and negotiate relief from payment untill further income is
generated.
In recent months the New Zealand Inland Revenue Department has been
criticised for being too aggressive in recovering tax owed, after several
suicides of small business men were attributed to the over-zealousness of
one of their staff.
  Capital is the source of income for wages, and employers are responsible
for the deduction of "PAYE"  tax (pay as you earn) and payment of the amount
deducted to the tax dept.
Some years ago a retiring Commisioner for Taxes in NZ explained that when he
started with the Tax Dept in the 1930's, most workers and small farmers paid
no tax, because their incomes were too low. Before PAYE the cost of
collecting such small amounts would out-weigh the income generated .
Because many major corporations can avoid paying company taxes by various
scams, Governments are constantly battling to gain income, hence VAT and
PAYE. Robbie Burns wrote a poem " Yir Mither's awa wi' the excise man", so
the struggle between the levy and collection of taxes has been met by many
means.:-)
The Irish Govt attributes increased growth in recent years to a major
reduction in taxes, they say there is less tax avoidance and they'd rather
have a  smaller slice of a big cake than a bigger slice of a small cake. But
the proof will come when growth is limited and the inevitable decline
occurs.
Workers are made to feel they have a stake in the system if they are paying
taxes, 'our' roads and 'our' country, 'our' army & navy, paid by 'our'
taxes.' Their' taxes of course to protect 'their' capital.

Regards Bob Malone

----- Original Message -----
From: K.D.Giles <kdgiles@...>
To: <WSM_Socialism_Forum@onelist.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 1999 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WSM_Socialism_Forum] Taxation


> From: "K.D.Giles" <kdgiles@...>
>
> Hi Len,
> The reason for this is that ALL taxes are paid out of profits. This may be
> done indirectly by taxing the workers but as I hope to illustrate the net
> effect on the worker is nill, and the tax is ultimately paid for by the
> capitalists out of their profits.
>
> You will understand that the market works to minimise a workers wage to
the
> minimum that can be got away with to provide a basic standard of living.
> This might vary according to various skills being in greater demand etc.
but
> the general rule is the same. So when a tax is applied to a worker
> ultimately the wage will increaser to compensate. Conversely when taxation
> is reduced real wages will drop accordingly. Thus the person paying the
> wages (ie the employer) bears the tax.
>
> The effects of inflation and convoluting paths (eg increased road tax
causes
> hauliers to charge more for selivery increasing bread prices) etc may make
> the above process less visible but the effect is still there. The effect
is
> also hidden by lags in the system, but when the effects of a change in
> taxation have settled down the worker will have the same real wage and the
> increase is borne by the capitalist.
>
> A quick & simple way toi observe this is to draw up a rough list of wage
> rates in various countries and a list of countries by rate of taxation. If
> the lists are sorted by wage rate & tax rate respectively anmd compared
you
> will notice the same countries come in prety much the same order on both
> lists. For example the UK has high taxes but high wages compared with
> Turkey, and so on.
>
> Hope this explains it OK for you.
> Kevin Giles
>
> >

Len's question about taxation has been answered by other respondents, and it
is quite important because many workers believe that dole 'scroungers' are
living off their backs, a fiction which helps to sow division among the
working class.

I believe that when William Pitt first introduced income tax in days of
yore,
the idea was opposed from the opposite benches of the H of C for the very
reason already explained - that it was not an income tax but a labour
purchase
tax. It is also logical that if workers are paid only sufficient to maintain
and reproduce themselves, it is impossible to take more money off them in
taxation, so any extra revenue has to come from the owning class.


One wonders then why the govt bothers with illusory taxes like VAT and
income tax, since they must have worked out for themselves where this
revenue is really coming from. Robert's right that it creates the impression
that workers have a stake in the system, but I believe that the real reason
is even more machiavellian than that. Any direct tax on capital can be
resisted or evaded, but a tax on wages is an indirect means of using the
worker as a weapon to enforce the tax through wage negotiation, just as VAT
is a means of using the consumer to collect govt revenue from producers.

I can illustrate this by a true story which was told to me the other day,
not entirely unrelated to this peculiar misrepresentation of reality:

In Britain we now have a minimum wage, set at £3.60 per hour. A friend was
working for an employer for £3.00 per hour, and claiming the dole. Many
small businesses can only survive by employing 'doleys' in this way.
Foolishly she was honest, and declared her earnings. Not only did the govt.
cut her dole by the amount she was earning, they actually cut it by the
extra amount she should have been earning, rendering her desperately out of
pocket. This appeared to be bureaucratic insanity. She appealed, thinking it
was a mistake. The appeal was rejected. The state seemed determined to
punish her for earning low wages. In panic she told her boss what the govt.
had done. Being a nice chap (some bosses are) he was horrified, and promptly
raised her wage to £3.60 to cancel out the deficit. Result: Govt - 1, boss -
0. The govt used economic pressure on the woman to enforce the minimum wage
at work. Had the boss not been a nice man, he would have been as indifferent
to her plight as the state. This illustrates rather well what pawns we are
in their game, and how that game is played.

Paddy

I asked a friend to video this, but apparently Chris McCall didn't
appear after all. I haven't had a chance to watch it, so I'll let you
know. And yes, although not a party member at the moment, he is still a
socialist.

Stuart

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr.Who [mailto:mpath@...]
Sent: 30 September 1999 08:43
To: WSM_Socialism_Forum@onelist.com
Subject: Re: [WSM_Socialism_Forum] Chris McCall


From: "Dr.Who" <mpath@...>

For those of us living abroad, I would appreciate a brief report.  is
this
individual still a socialist if not in the party?  I went to the BBC
website
(UK) but didn't even see this program listed.   I was hoping they would
have
a website broadcast (some of their programs are available via real
audio),
but no cigar

Dr. Who

-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart Watkins <SWatkins@...>
To: WSM (E-mail) <WSM_Socialism_Forum@onelist.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 2:08 PM
Subject: [WSM_Socialism_Forum] Chris McCall


>From: Stuart Watkins <SWatkins@...>
>
>
>Dear All
>
>Just to let all those living in the UK know that former Party member
>Chris McCall will be appearing on Question Time this Thursday (BBC1 I
>think).
>
>Stuart Watkins
>
>>

Yesterday's Observer newspaper in the UK carried a brief review of a
newly-reissued book containing three novels in the Wizard of Oz series by Frank
Baum (The Wonderful World of Oz, published by Penguin). According to this
review, Oz was conceived by Baum as a Socialist Utopia while the US was
undergoing a depression. One of the books is quoted as follows:

	 "There were no poor people in the land of Oz, because there was no such
	 thing as money, and all property of every sort belonged to the Ruler.
	 Each person was given freely by his neighbours whatever he required for
	 his use, which is as much as anyone may reasonably desire."

The reference to a Ruler is worrying of course, but I wonder if anyone knows
more about Baum or the political background of the Oz books. (It sounds as if
the introduction to this edition may be helpful.)

Paul Bennett

Hello everyone...

I've never been poltically active before, but after conversations with
friends at work I've found myself aligned with socialism.  I'm reading Marx
at the moment (Manifesto) ... but wondered if anyone can make any
recommendations of other books to help educate me.  I work in a bookstore,
but we don't carry many socialist books, and there are sooooo many out
there, I wouldn't know what to order.

Thanks for any information you can in send my direction....

[from Moderator:

I'd suggest purchasing some inexpensive literature from one of
the below parties, depending on where you live:
Socialist Party of Canada http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/pubs.htm
WSP United States http://www.worldsocialism.org/usa/literature.txt
Socialist Party of Great Britain http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlet.htm
World Socialist Party New Zealand mailto:wsp.nz@...
(WSP = World Socialist Party)

My personal favourites are:
Socialism As A Practical Alternative
Lenin Distorts Marx
Money Must Go

These parties will send you free introductory information, if you ask for it. ]

DEar Paul, There is a lot of speculation about the oz books. What I know about
the Author is that he was a supporter of the Populist Party in the United States
and its programs. The Populist Party drew most of the leftists of its day into
its fold, member of the Socialist labor Party, future Socialist Party and others
who would become reformists and socialists in the next century (early 1900's). 
Thus, it is a good possibility that these forces in the reformist Populist Party
had an influence on him. Until the Populist Party got the Silver bug they were
very open to the laborers and their organizations. Once the Silver Bug bit
though, socialists and laborers werepushed into the background.  Anyways, he was
greatly influenced by the Populist Party and it is very possible he ran into
DeLeonists (before their Socialist Industrial Union ideas), Debsites, the
Milwaukee Socialists and the Bellamyites who all advocated  (thought some chock
full of reformist ideas)a society of no money. Hope this helps. There are also
several websites that cover this, you might want to use a search engine using
the author and his book's names, the populist party, etc. Good luck and do let
us know if you find out anything else!  Sincerely CF
---




On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:36:38    Paul Bennett wrote:
>From: Paul Bennett <paul@...>
>
>
>Yesterday's Observer newspaper in the UK carried a brief review of a
>newly-reissued book containing three novels in the Wizard of Oz series by Frank
>Baum (The Wonderful World of Oz, published by Penguin). According to this
>review, Oz was conceived by Baum as a Socialist Utopia while the US was
>undergoing a depression. One of the books is quoted as follows:
>
> "There were no poor people in the land of Oz, because there was no such
> thing as money, and all property of every sort belonged to the Ruler.
> Each person was given freely by his neighbours whatever he required for
> his use, which is as much as anyone may reasonably desire."
>
>The reference to a Ruler is worrying of course, but I wonder if anyone knows
>more about Baum or the political background of the Oz books. (It sounds as if
>the introduction to this edition may be helpful.)
>
>Paul Bennett
>
>>


Visit FindLaw at http://www.findlaw.com for free case law, web guide, and legal
news, and get your free @JusticeMail.com address at http://www.justicemail.com

Chris did manage to get in for a few seconds. As a member of the audience he
asked Ann Widdecombe (an opposition cabinet minister) 'how many muggers she
knew who were millionaires" in answer to her comment that crime and poverty
were unrelated. His comment was brushed off.

I feel that I should point out that the topic in question at the time was
how the class war had ended (ROFL).

I can also clarify Chris's membership status. He is no longer a member due
to his falling out with Head Office. This was not over a party issue and he
is still active with us here in the Bournemouth group. He might almost be
descrided as a 'member without membership' if that make sense.

re Taxation.
>taxes such as income tax or purchase tax, (Value Added Tax
>in Britain) are a burden on capital, they do not necessarily come from
>profit.
  Sorry Bob, my mistake. I used the word profit carelessly.
Kevin Giles

With regards to your query about books, I bet your bookstore has "The
Dispossessed," a science fiction book by Ursula LeGuin.  While the author
describes the society on the moon planet of Anarres as anarchism, it is an
anarchist with no money or wages, in which the means of production are owned
by the whole community, what socialists have been working for for the past
100 years (some anarchists do claim to be for such a society too, but their
politics of changing from "within the system" means they end up supporting
hundreds of reforms, and so no change actually occurs, they end up in
appearance no difference from those who profess that the wages system and
society of buying and selling can be reformed into a better model).  Anyway,
this sci-fi novel rather well describes what a socialist society could be
like, but in conditions of scarcity.  Socialism will be a society of
worldwide abundance.

Another great fictional book is an old novel by Williams Morris (who
designed all that famous wallpaper) called "News From Nowhere," also
obtainable from your bookstore.   Another excellent description of a
moneyless and stateless socialist society, and written by someone who called
himself a socialist over a hundred years ago.

There is a great book published by Macmillan called Marx - Life And Works,
by Maximilien Rubel, which nicely describes his life and works.  It was in
print up until the 80s.  Don't know if it still is.

Where are you writing from?  I am a musician from Chicago who is also a
socialist.  Any questions, feel free to write,

Dr. Who
mpath@...

From a website about the Wizard of Oz and Populism:

http://wccusdgate.wccusd.k12.ca.us/elcerrito/history/oz.htm

Populists received 40 percent of the vote in the 1894 congressional
elections and looked forward to winning the Presidency--and the silver
standard--in 1896. That election, between Republican William McKinley and
Populist - Democrat William Jennings Bryan, Congressman from Nebraska,
revolved around the issue of gold vs. silver. During that campaign Bryan add
the speech that concluded: "You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of
gold." The election proved a disaster for the Populists. McKinley received
271 electoral votes to Bryan's 176, almost all in the Midwest. Bryan opposed
McKinley again in 1900 (when Baum penned The Wonderful Wizard of Oz), but by
then the Populists' strength had been dissipated.

Allegory

Baum viewed these events from up-close in both rural South Dakota and urban
Chicago. He mourned the destruction of the fragile alliance between the
Midwestern farmers (The Scarecrow) and the urban industrial workers (the
Tin-man). Along with Bryan (the Cowardly Lion with aloud roar but little
bite), they had been taken down the yellow brick road (the gold standard)
that leads nowhere.  Each journeyed to the Emerald City (the Capitol)
seeking favors from the Wizard of Oz (the President). Even the name Oz is an
abbreviation of the standard measurement of gold, the ounce. Dorothy, the
symbol of Everyman, went along with them, in her silver shoes (changed to
ruby in the 1939 movie).  She was innocent enough to see the truth before
the others.

Along the way they meet the Wicked Witch of the East who, Baum tells us, had
kept the little Munchkin people "in bondage for many years, making them
slave for her night and day." If we have any doubt as to whom the witch
represents, Baum soon tells us. The Tin Woodsman, once an independent and
hard-working man, had been put under aspell by the witch so that each time
he swung his axe it chopped off a different part of his body. Lacking
another trade, he "worked harder than ever." The worker becomes like a
machine, incapable of love. (Recall the Tinman singing: "If I only had a
heart.") The Scarecrow (farmer) wants the Wizard to give him a brain. The
Wicked Witch of the East symbolizes the large industrial corporations and
eastern finance.

Like Coxey's Army, the small group heads toward the Emerald City where the
Wizard, hiding behind a papier-mache facade, rules. As they enter the throne
room, each member of the group sees something different in the Wizard--like
all good politicans, he can be all things to all people.

Later, however, they confront the Wizard directly. They see he is nothing
more than "a little man, with a bald head and a wrinkled face."

"I thought Oz was a great Head," Dorothy said. "And I thought Oz was a
terrible Beast," said the Tin Woodman. "And I though Oz was a Ball of Fire,"
the Lion said. The Scarecrow thinks he sees a gossamer fairy.

"No, you are all wrong," the man said. "I have been making believe." When
Borothy asks him who he is, really, he replies, "I'm just a common man." The
Scarecrow adds, "You're more than that...You're a humbug."

The Wizard admits: "It was a great mistake my ever letting you into the
Throne Room. Usually I will not see even my subject, and so they believe I
am something terrible." Those were the days before presidential candidates
campaigned among the people. They stayed home and "received" delegations.
Bryan broke the tradition in 1896--he traveled through the country and
roared. This was Baum's Populist message. The powers-that-be can only remain
at the throne through deception, people's ignorance and credulity allow the
powerful to manipulate and control them.

The Wizard--a former ventriloquist and circus balloonist, a common man from
Omaha--is disarmed. Dorothy returns to Kansas with the magical help of her
Silver Shoes, but when she gets to Kansas she realizes her shoes "had fallen
off in her flight through the air, and were lost forever in the desert."

She didn't need the shoes after all to find happiness, safe at home with
Aumt Em And Uncle Henry, simple farmers.

(Baum even displayed an early sympathy for native Americans of the plains,
symolized in the story of the Winged monkeys in the West, whose leader tells
Dorothy, "Once..we were a free people, living happily in the great forest,
flying from tree to tree, eating nuts and fruit and doing just as we pleased
without calling anybody master... This was many years ago, before Oz came
out of the clouds to rule over this land.")

Baum realized perhaps that the silver issue had been lost, but that silver
was not the crucial issue anyway. The eal question was that of power. With
the Wizard of Oz detroned, the Scarecrow (the farmer) rules Emerald City,

The Tin Woodman (the industrial worker) rules in the West and the Lion
(Bryan) protects smaller beasts in "a small old forest." In Baum's vision,
farm interests gain political power, industry moves West, and Bryan,
perhaps, returns to Congress.  Baum's Wonderful Wizard of Oz is at once a
children's fantasy and an angry political statement.

In both film versions, the story remains intact, but the message is gone.
And a 1977 book, The Making of the Wizard of Oz by Adjean Harmetz, spends
329 pages on the history of the film and a psychological portrait of Baum,
never mentioning Baum's political sympathies or the social context of the
time.

Did Ray Bolger realize he represented America' s small farmers? Could Bert
Lahr imagine playing William Jennings Bryan? How might Judy Garland have
reacted if someone asked her about Populists, nationalized railroads, or
silver cionage? The Wizard of Oz was made in 1939, during the next major
depression, when business was once again challenged by farmers, industrial
workers, and progressive politicians; but the story's political references
were lost.

The same pattern holds in the 1978 version. Also made during a period of
economic hardship. It's ironic that of all people Richard Pryor should play
"the Wiz". Among today's black film stars, Pryor has avoided the worst black
exploitation films to play roles in social "message" films. He has portrayed
an industrial worker (Blue Collar), a farmworker (Which Way Is Up?), a
Father-Divine-like religion flim-flam man (Car Wash), and a member of a
black worker-owned baseball team trying to survive in the racist South
(Bingo Long and the Traveling All-Stars).

The Wizards of Hollywood have led American film-goers down another Yellow
Brick Road, cashing in on the fantasy and leaving the political allegory
behind.

Peter Dreier, sociology professor at Tuft's University, teaches a course on
film and politics. He wishes to acknowledge his reliance on an essay by
Henry M. Littlefield, "The Wizard of Oz, Parable on Populism," American
Quarterly, 1964.
-------------------------------------------------

Dr. Who

P.S.  This movie also took on gay significance when it came out in early
1940, with the scene where Dorothy asks to be let into the Emerald City
through the gate reminding gay viewers of the gay/lesbian speakeasys,
spawning endless quotes from the movie.  Even today at gay pride parades you
might see a sign that reads "let Dorothy in."

Re: Becommended Books

I always looked to "Karl Marx: Man and Fighter" by Boris Nicolaevsky amd
Otto Maenchen-Heflin, which was republished by Penguin Books a few years
ago. An excellent bio of Marx and of his work put into historical
perspective.
Len Wallace
email: lwallace@...
http://lenwallace.homepage.com/Len.html
------------------------
"For there's no gods and there's precious few heroes,
but there's plenty of dole in the land of the leal.
And it's time now to sweep the future clear
of the lies of the past that we know were never real."
- Hamish Henderson

Re: recommended books.

The Soul of Man under Socialism, by Oscar Wilde. Will appear in
Collected Works, if nowhere else.

The essay that first introduced me to socialism. Written back in the
days when it was well understood what socialism meant. I think he also
puts the finger on why reformist groups remain larger than the socialist
movement. 'It is easier to have sympathy with suffering than with
thought.' People are still more interested in feeding the poor than with
reconstructing society to get rid of poverty.

He neatly turns on his head the common objection to socialism, that it
would rely on altruism. Altruism has prevented the establishment of
socialism!

Also: The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressell. Have no
comments on this yet, as I'm still reading it myself.

Thanks to Kevin for filling us in on Question Time. My video is
knackered.
Stuart

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen C. Merritt [mailto:scmerritt@...]
Sent: 04 October 1999 16:40
To: WSM_Socialism_Forum@onelist.com
Subject: [WSM_Socialism_Forum] Request for information


From: "Stephen C. Merritt" <scmerritt@...>

Hello everyone...

I've never been poltically active before, but after conversations with
friends at work I've found myself aligned with socialism.  I'm reading
Marx
at the moment (Manifesto) ... but wondered if anyone can make any
recommendations of other books to help educate me.  I work in a
bookstore,
but we don't carry many socialist books, and there are sooooo many out
there, I wouldn't know what to order.

Thanks for any information you can in send my direction....

Stephen C. Merritt wrote:

> From: "Stephen C. Merritt" <scmerritt@...>
>
> Hello everyone...
>
> I've never been poltically active before, but after conversations with
>
> friends at work I've found myself aligned with socialism.  I'm reading
> Marx
> at the moment (Manifesto) ... but wondered if anyone can make any
> recommendations of other books to help educate me.  I work in a
> bookstore,
> but we don't carry many socialist books, and there are sooooo many out
>
> there, I wouldn't know what to order.
>
> Thanks for any information you can in send my direction....
--------------

    stephen: try Michael harrington's "Socialism Past and Future".
Harrington was a pioneer in American Socialism and also wrote the
classic "The other America".

Two More Books:

Istvan Meszaros, "Beyond Capital", he is a Hungarian marxist who rejected
Leninism and Stalinism with a brilliant and deep analysis of modern
capitalism, a critique of social democrats, the neo-liberal and
neo-conservative theorists. It's a deep and dense read that is over 800
pages long but well worth every cent I paid for it.

Daniel Singer, "Whose Millenium?", just recently published. Singer is also
a marxist who looks at present day Russia, Poland and France, a critique of
social democracy and the "new" capitalism in eastern Europe. It is an
exceptionally good read with an easy to read style.
Len Wallace
email: lwallace@...
http://lenwallace.homepage.com/Len.html
------------------------
"For there's no gods and there's precious few heroes,
but there's plenty of dole in the land of the leal.
And it's time now to sweep the future clear
of the lies of the past that we know were never real."
- Hamish Henderson

Thanks for all the great book suggestions everyone... I'm sure it'll keep
me very busy for quite a while...
:-)

Hi,

      I’m a member of the Socialist Party of Canada and I recently submitted , to
our GAC, the idea of creating a Party newsletter (quarterly).

      As for now, none of us really has much experience in putting together a
newsletter.   Should we do a single or multiple-topic newsletter ; what
shouldn't  be left out ; what shouldn't we put in ;  questions in regards to the
more technical aspects of editing (computer related), etc.


      Any suggestions, ideas, comments that experience, in working on a
newsletter, has brought you, would be very much appreciated.

      If any member of the SPC would like to participate by regularly submitting
articles, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

      Thanks.

- For World Socialism
- Patrick De Bortoli

[error occurred in sending message to list, I am forwarding this]
----
Hi,

I’m a member of the Socialist Party of Canada and I recently submitted , to our
GAC, the idea of creating a Party newsletter (quarterly).

As for now, none of us really has much experience in putting together a
newsletter. Should we do a single or multiple-topic newsletter ; what shouldn't
be left out ; what shouldn't we put in ; questions in regards to the more
technical aspects of editing (computer related), etc.


Any suggestions, ideas, comments that experience, in working on a newsletter,
has brought you, would be very much appreciated.

If any member of the SPC would like to participate by regularly submitting
articles, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Thanks.

- For World Socialism
- Patrick De Bortoli

???

Taxes are levied on capital as a whole, and thus on capitalists, to
maintain the capitalist machine. We don't pay tax, in any meaningful sense.
What actually happens is, to fine tune exploitation, after the wages bill
has been processed, workers who receive more in wages have more subtracted,
and some who receive insufficient actually get some back (e.g. Family
Credit). It is all part of the game of mirrors which conceals a very ugly
truth - that whatever you do, unless you secure access to capital, you will
always command the price of your labour, no less and no more.

	 STAKHANOV

----------
>
> From: "Dr.Who" <mpath@...>
>
> I won't pretend to recall the official S.P.G.B. position, so consider this
> more my own view on taxation as a socialist.
>
> Taxes are a means for the state to gather income of its own from all the
> income generated by citizens so that it can build its bridges, roads, pay
> for the courts, prisons, armies, and so on.   From the point of view of
the
> state, it is taking taxes from ALL CITIZENS regardless of how much they
earn
> (except the super poor who are exempt, at least here in the U.S.).   The
> state doesn't consider there to be any division of society into capitalist
> and worker, but considers all people abstract citizens under its laws and
> economic domain, who in a so-called "democratic society" in which all are
> allegedly equal before the law, should each have to pay some portion of
> their monies to uphold these civic services.   This is in any case the
> ideology of the system.  Obviously the masses see things the same way
> (whether they grunt about paying taxes or not), for if they did not see
> things according to the official dogma, they would be socialist, and more
> keen on operating society based on use value, rather than on how much can
be
> afforded for civic services out of the national coffers.
>
> But I repeat, this is only ideology.  This is how the capitalists see
> things, with all of us citizens in theory abstract fellow citizens
enjoying
> civic services which we are all supporting out of our respective pockets.
> But the reality  is, and by this I mean the experience of the worker (my
> experience, your experience), thus OUR reality, is that we are TAXED OF
THE
> WHOLE WORLD.  We work hard and get fleeced of surplus value which manages
to
> keep the wealthy in luxurious conditions, while we get pocket money called
> wages.  You've read Das Kapital you say, so I won't explain to you what
the
> value of wages is, which is another matter (briefly, enough to reproduce
our
> class), but what is essential in my view is how differently we experience
> taxation.
>
> From our point of view, while it may seem that we workers are also paying
> taxes (we do, after all, have to put aside some of what seems like OUR
wages
> to pay them, and it feels like we are being robbed for what we are getting
> in return in shoddy services), but this is merely an illusion.  We are,
> after all, living off what is LEFT from paying our taxes, so really when
the
> employer says "you will be paid $30,000 a year but after taxes you will
get
> $25,000," you are really getting $25,000.   Now where did we get our
> $30,000?   From years of union activity to get a "fair day's wage from a
> fair day's work," which is not a revolutionary activity but an attempt to
> get paid wages in the capitalist system enough so that we don't starve
and a
> little more than that besides (according to Marx, of course, "instead of
the
> conservative motto 'a fair day's wage for a fair day's work' the workers
> should be inscribing upon their banner the revolutionary watchword
> 'abolition of the wages system,'" a Marxist understanding all the
> incorrectly called socialist and communist groups since the turn of the
> century have turned a blind eye to despite calling themselves Marxist).
>
> So what if the government said "we will now tax you $25,000 a year, the
same
> as the capitalist who gets $400,000 a year"?  We would be forced to say "I
> will pay $25,000 in taxes, but we will go on strike until we get paid
> $50,000, so that we would still get $25,000 to live off."   Either we
would
> actively campaign for this in our unions, or supply and demand would
> eventually force this raising of the wage, because obviously we can't make
> the rich rich if we are going to be destitute on the sidewalks with our
> children and the $5,000 left us for bagels and coffee after we paid
$25,000
> from our $30,000.   We must get paid not too little that we are in no
> physical or mental condition to produce profits for the capitalists, and
not
> too much that we can all live off the interest of our wages or save enough
> quickly so that as a class we don't go back to work anymore.   Understood
in
> this manner, taxes are clearly not a working class issue, even though it
> feels as though we are all paying taxes, but truthfully our workplaces
could
> just as well pay us less while the employer would not even pretend it is
OUR
> tax and life would be no different.  Except that only the employer DOES
pay
> the tax, whether there is the pretense the employer does or not.
>
> There is no other place the tax CAN come from.  The employer is who is
> paying our wage, and our wage must always be just enough to support us as
a
> class, therefore obviously it is not really OUR tax, even if it feels like
> it is the week prior to Taxation Day.
>
> The state and taxes go hand in hand.  The state allows basic civic
services
> (roads, armies, police, very basic health monitoring of food (I say very
> basic because most of it is junk, it won't kill you tomorrow but after
> twenty years it will give you cancer since it slowly overtaxes the immune
> system, no pun intended - I hope in socialism we all grow organic whole
> ingredients with no additives, pesticides, artificial coloring, in our
> food!), and the like) - to repeat, the state administers such services
which
> allow the society as a whole to function without plunging into chaos
(chaos
> not because of human nature, but because the capitalists don't want to
> INDIVIDUALLY bear responsibility for such things, so the state provides
what
> minimum it can with what taxes it can collect).
>
> Analogy: you are a worm requiring to be given by nature EXACTLY 25
calories
> a day of wasted biological matter to consume and defecate into the soil or
> you will not be able to live, and without being able to live, no holes in
> the ground that produce oxygen and no excreting nutrients in the soil,
both
> of which sustain ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET.  One day the state comes around
and
> knocks on your door.  It says:  "You are hereby ordered to pay 1500
calories
> a year in taxation (or a little under 5 a day)."   Now you will starve if
> you don't get your 25 calories, so you either slowly starve (not just you,
> the whole class of worms) and nature comes to a dead end (not something
> nature as a whole wants to see since it needs you so much), or you find a
> way to get paid by nature 30 calories, so that you can give up 5 a day,
and
> still get left with 25.  Now it may SEEM as though you paid the 5, but
> really nature had to pay you 5 more.
>
> Same in capitalism.  Employers are the only entity AS A CLASS that can
> possibly produce this tax, since workers can only get paid enough to
sustain
> them AS A CLASS.  Not owning the means of producing wealth, they cannot by
> themselves produce this surplus.  It is truly a surplus, coming from
surplus
> value.
>
> The employers may at times begrudge this taxation.  But it pays for the
> roads upon which their goods are transported (and their workers to the
> workplaces, pays for workers to fight their wars to broaden or protect
> markets, keeps the working class safe enough to turn up to work for 40
years
> on most days.   So in the end it can be viewed as in their interest, and
> only in their interest.  Anything that keeps us working for 40 years on
most
> days for others can not be in our interest.  Abolishing money and the
wages
> system, and running the show for ourselves is all that is in our interest.
> And then producing for use rather than profit will no longer limit what
> resources are applied to civic services (roads, bridges) as now based on
how
> much tax is collected.
>
> And so life will be far less "taxing."
>
> Dr. Who
>
> >

Dear Len,

	 The "workers don't pay tax" issue is one of the party's own clarifications
of socialist theory. Basically, once you get away from the individual
capitalist exploiting the individual worker, and see capitalism as a
system, as is essential to understand Russia's history for example, then
you realise that what is actually happening is that the working class is
exploited in general, producing surplus value, which is then used both to
run capitalism, invest in it, and provide dividends on shares and otherwise
keep the capitalist class in luxury. Maintaining the system is a tax on
capital, and thus collectively on capitalists. Of course, they try to pass
this bill around like fair weather friends at a restaurant when the bill
arrives; dipping into workers wage packets, thus forcing certain
capitalists to make up the difference and thus pay more of their share of
the bill, is one of the many ruses, which makes it look like the working
class pay tax.

----------
> From: Len Wallace <lwallace@...>
>
> Dear Friends.
>
> Ond of the things I have not fully grasped concerns the world socialist
> position on taxation, why it is of no concern to workers and why it is
> considered that only capitalists are affected. My reading of the SPGB
> material on this has still left me a bit confused. Can anyone point me in
> the right direction or expalin it in simple terms.  Don't know why I can
> understand Das Kapital and yet have trouble with this.
> Len Wallace
> email: lwallace@...
> http://lenwallace.homepage.com/Len.html
> ------------------------
> "For there's no gods and there's precious few heroes,
> but there's plenty of dole in the land of the leal.
> And it's time now to sweep the future clear
> of the lies of the past that we know were never real."
> - Hamish Henderson
>
> >

Dear comrades.

Thanks for all the replies on taxation.

True, once I looked at the system as a whole, suddenly it became all clear.

Many thanks!
Len Wallace
email: lwallace@...
http://lenwallace.homepage.com/Len.html
------------------------
"For there's no gods and there's precious few heroes,
but there's plenty of dole in the land of the leal.
And it's time now to sweep the future clear
of the lies of the past that we know were never real."
- Hamish Henderson

Hi,

I'm at university and I'd like to be "active".  Does anyone have any
suggestions or experience they could share with me of how to best be active
at Uni?  How could I spread the word?

Craig

Well done, man!   We need more people out and about educating the
population about socialism!  Here are only a few suggestions.  I am sure
you'll get many more from other forum members.

You could:

1)   Buy a subscription to the Socialist Standard at your college library
(if it doesn't already have one)

2)    Sell the Socialist Standard directly, and interface with individuals
directly (if you don't mind that exposure)

3)    Make internet connections and convince people with websites to add the
www. worldsocialism.org link to their sites, or educate others you write to
of our website.

4)    Advertize a socialist club at your college, have the college help
register it and plug it in the local college rag (student unions usually
help in this matter, at least in the U.S., I don't know about England) and
then whoever turns up at the first meeting which will be advertized you can
join forces with them.   You can explain what socialism is and distribute
some literature to them (I bet the SPGB can send you a package of free
literature for this endeavor) and even if they are not convinced party
members the club can become an informal education group of just four or
five, where you meet and discuss socialist issues or Marxist literature, and
the like.   Then if you do get convinced members out of this discussion
group, they can be the core of a real socialist group that can table
literature on the campus, hold talks, etc.

5)    You can sign up for a debating society's debate in which you argue the
socialist position.

6)    You can see if the college radio or TV stations (if it has any) will
let you take up half an hour discussing socialism, or you could be
interviewed by a talk show (in Ithaca, New York, where I went to college, it
was so easy to get on the radio - college stations are run by students in a
very laissez-fair environment who enjoy getting experience as talk show
hosts, interviewers, and so on)

7)    You can interface with other political groups and educate them about
socialism - many of these groups you find on campuses want to eradicate
particular problems (starvation, overpopulation, racism, sexism, unfair
imprisonments of popular figures) and you can do a lot to help them think
about social context, how abolishing capitalism can get rid of ALL those
problems in one fell swoop)

8)    When I was in college taking a social subject (history) 20 years ago I
had TONS of Socialist Standards and the American journal, World  Socialist,
for the past ten years, with me in my room, and I have to admit they helped
me to conceptualize my argument for almost any historical paper I had, and
often pointed me in the right direction as far as basic literature went as
well.   You can treat your college stay not only as a way of educating
others, but also yourself.  Before you have less time to read once you begin
your career (I hope not no time, but I mean just less), you now have a lot
of time to read key books of history, economics, science, and the like, to
strengthen your socialist position.  You can use your papers in the social
subjects to test your ability to research, think critically, and write
convincing papers from a socialist position (when appropriate).

9)    You can write for your local college rags yourself.

I am sure there are many other things, but this is a good start.

Good luck, and don't forget you are connected to the worldwide socialist
movement, so seek out its support when you need it!

I hope we have the free society in our lifetime...

Dr. Who
Chicago

Dear Craig--As it happens, we have a member at Bates University, in Maine, and
I think you'd find it worthwhile to put your question(s) to him.  His name is
Will Brucher, and  his email address is wbrucher@....  I think British
students are more open to political thinking of all sorts than Americans are
("Girls just want to have fun," etc), and you and Will might find a lot to talk
about.  Anyway, do give him a try. --For socialism, Tom Jackson


At 12:09 AM 10/9/99 +0100, you wrote:
>From: "Craig" <C.W.Bloomfield-97@...>
>
>Hi,
>
>I'm at university and I'd like to be "active".  Does anyone have any
>suggestions or experience they could share with me of how to best be active
>at Uni?  How could I spread the word?
>
>Craig
>
>

Greetings Craig,

Glad to hear you want to be active on the student scene.

I'm an "old fart" now, but back in 1973-75 when I was in the SPC I did
several things.

1. I asked the SPC for literature, pamphlets, leaflets, books, etc., and
was allowed to set up a table in the university student centre. I made a
poster indicating the Socialist Party, taped it to the front. Did this once
every two weeks on my off time and people came by to discuss, argue, take
literature with them.

2. I made up posters like "Do you want to know what Socialism really is?",
with a statement from the DofP principles, with party address, contacts.
Photocopied about 50 of them every now and then and tacked them up on
bulletin boards across campus.

3. Also contacted the student newspaper and wrote weekly articles on events
from a socialist perspective. They were glad that someone so opinionated
would write and stir up "controversy". Many people read the articles. In
fact, i was approached last year by the new student editor who read the
columns from 23 years ago and asked me to write a weekly column again for
the paper.

4. Being a lone socialist is hard. Reformists of every type can quickly
gather around a group. But if you don't have anyone around you on the same
lines it is so much for difficult. Trying to run a "socialist discussion
circle" and hold meetings is next to impossible, akthough if you feel
confident about it, I say go ahead.

One of the things I was involved in was a "discussion" and "book reading
group". Every two or three weeks we'd all get a copy of one of the classics
of socialist literature, agree to read it and come back to discuss it. That
may be a beginning.

5. Aside from the poster idea. I would also clip an article from the
Socialist Standard, photocopy about 50-100 copies with the party's address,
etc., and just leave them around tables in the student centre, cafeteria.
Innumberable ones often became paper airplanes, but many people did read
them and it was the first time they've ever been intoduced to our ideas.

6. The SPC has buttons for sale. Check the website. Pick up a few and wear
them. People actually read them.  It identified you and your ideas, leads
to discussion. To this day I hardly ever go out without some socialist
buttons tagged onto my jacket.

7. If you have time, perhaps you can attend meetings that catch your eye.
Meetings of speakers, other left groups that are open to discussion.
Attending, you can always take the floor and give a socialist perspective
that one usually does not hear.

8. If you are in the UK, then ask if a speaker from the SPGB came come out
to make a presentation, have a meeting open to the public. Get a small room
(and emphasis on the small, because it's better to have a large amount of
people crammed into a small room than a small group of people in a large
one. The visual effect is better). Set up a table of literature there.
Collect a mailing list of people interested in receiving party literature.

I'll think more about my own experiences and try to get them down for you.

All the best. Good luck. And don't get discouraged.

Len Wallace
email: lwallace@...
http://lenwallace.homepage.com/Len.html
------------------------
"For there's no gods and there's precious few heroes,
but there's plenty of dole in the land of the leal.
And it's time now to sweep the future clear
of the lies of the past that we know were never real."
- Hamish Henderson

>
>I'm at university and I'd like to be "active".  Does anyone have any
>suggestions or experience they could share with me of how to best be active
>at Uni?  How could I spread the word?
>
>Craig
>

Another possibility is to attend meetings organised by left-wing student
organisations and to put the Socialist case there. Groups like the SWP probably
have a presence on most UK campuses.

Paul Bennett

On a couple of occasions in the past few years our campaigns committee organised
something called "university challenge" under which we sent circulars round
university debating societies, political clubs, etc offering to send speakers.
Unfortunately the member who organised this is not on email so, Craig, if you're
interested in more details of what exactly was done I'm afraid you'll have to
write to him (Robin Cox) c/o our Clapham address.
Adam Buick

Dear comrades:

         I have just been rereading (the last time was when I was a teenager
some 21 years ago) the excellent Marx - Life and Works, from MacMillan
publishers, by Maximilien Rubel.   I actually met him only briefly as a
teenager who went with a fellow S.P.G.B.er to Paris to attend a talk to plug
the Socialisme Mondial group, our French counterpart(y).

      Rubel was in the audience at that time, and I stayed on in Paris for a
week after the others left and purchased a collection of Rubel's works.
Here was one of the world's few "Marxologists," an academic who had studied
the complete works of Marx and written about him, and who understood as a
libertarian socialist that socialism was a moneyless and stateless society,
and that 1917 was Russia's equivalence to the American or French
Revolutions, a popular uprising of workers, peasants, and capitalists, aimed
at booting out the aristocratic system and establishing a society firmly
dedicated to capitalism, but using socialist language as its official
ideology the way liberty, equality and fraternity were the calls of the
earlier European and American revolutions.

     I ended up corresponding with him quite a bit after I left England to
pursue a B.A. in History in the United States (at that time I began to drift
away from the S.P.G.B.).  And I found myself spending spare time translating
his book into English, and mailing him the translations, which he seemed to
greatly appreciate, although the project was never finished, as (I later
found out) he became ill and disinterested in his work and ceased writing to
me.

     But I digress seriously...  my reading of this book emphasized how
unique the S.P.G.B. stand was in relation to Marx's.  Those of Marx's ideas
which seemed reformist by our standards appeared in part a reflection of the
time, busy as it was with bourgeois politics, wars and struggles to develop
capitalism amidst the ruins of the old feudal order while workers were
organizing for something better still, and partly a reflection of his own
individual development of socialist theory.

     However, he never took the crystal clear position the S.P.G.B. was to
take with regards to reformism, even though this book is chock-full of
quotes that he clearly understood socialism to be a society without capital
and wages.  At one point, for instance, Marx believed that unions would play
a part in the establishment of the socialist workplace, while at another
time he supported political action.  He was clearly bestowed considerable
power in such organizations as the International Working Men's Association,
power which other socialists and members (most notably the libertarian
socialists but there were others) were uncomfortable with and some of whom
lost their own positions as a result of their critical stance.   Today the
S.P.G.B. is a democratic organization, and perhaps the sort of purging that
went on in those days reflected the fact that socialist organizations were
collections of radicals of all shades all vying for influence, while in a
popular international workers' front.

     Because Marx's contributions to socialist theory over the years (class
struggle, dialectical materialism, theory of ideology, labor theory of
value, and establishing a solid scientific foundation for socialist theory)
were considerable, and because his name had towards the end of the last
century as a result been firmly associated with it, he is in part to blame
for the theoretical muddle that followed (imagine the young Lenin reading
his work, contradictions and all.  It is easy to read Marx and make it
support almost any position that has gone by the name socialism in the past
100 years), although obviously not for the conditions that created that
muddle.

      I am thinking in particular of the many contrary positions he took with
regards to supporting this country versus that country because he felt it
was more bourgeois and so more progressive in opposition to the feudal
countries in terms of the history that would lead to socialism, to
supporting other reforms and non-socialist organizations merely because they
were made up of laborers or unsatisfied immigrants or radicals.  Some of
this muddle can be seen today and has been seen since the turn of the
century in terms of pseudo-socialist parties (Leninist, Maoist, Trotskyist,
and so on) engagement in internal power squabbles over how to organize or
lead the masses, in terms of party purges, in terms of support for reforms
which get justified in their literature by a spurious analysis of the
"current bourgeois conditions" and so on, just like Marx did.  Many of these
features of leftist groups which irritate us constantly because of their
socialist or communist identification were also common daily features in
Marx's own work.

     I was deeply impressed by how much that man gave for the socialist
movement, writing books late at night while writing for major newspapers
like New York Daily Times, during the day to make money for his family, at
the expense of his health, wealth, and marriage.  This man lived in
considerable poverty for the bulk of his 65 years, and only a few family
inheritances, contributions from Engels, and occasionally some good money
for writings, provided any years of relative comfort at all.  He seemed
plagued by boils and liver problems, and often was close to death, and even
desiring it at times, so miserable was his life.

     What I have been wondering, following this book, is the connection
between the diverse groups Marx took part in (and indeed founded) and the
eventual formation of the S.P.G.B. some 21 years after his death.  Can
anyone enlighten me/us on this forum?   Marx was involved in the Socialist
League, and also the International Working Men's Association, and other
groups besides.  Did any of these have members who knew Marx and worked with
him in London prior to his death as young socialists who also took part in
the S.P.G.B. some decades later?  Was there any connection at all between
the groups Marx had formed or associated with and the eventual formation of
the S.P.G.B.?   Any history of this type would be greatly stimulating to
hear of.   Any contributions?

     Regards from Chicago,

     Dr. Who