Yes, James, I also have also wondered how radical Adler really was in his younger days. However, my conclusion is that Adler never really supported any violent means. He took part in the discussions of the socialist student organizations (where he met his future wife) simply because social issues were not discussed in conservative-nationalistic organizations. These organizations have been described by Stefan Zweig in his memoirs, and commented by Freud who saw in them only "a compact majority". There was lots of drinking, flag-waving, fighting and brawling, and nationalistic heat. The various nationalities were fighting each other - Germans against Czechs, Czechs against Italians, and so on. Later on, Adler spoke sometimes about "misunderstood nationalism". Possibly he meant these organizations, and what emerged from them. The real social issues were debated in those organizations where Adler participated. - In his paper "Town and Country" Adler develops the thesis of a contrast between town and country in health-matters. His answer is that town and country are really interdependent of each other, and this creates a need to develop a better social medicine in the countryside. More doctors, nurses, and hygienists are needed in the country in order to have a better coverage of social-medical services. Adler had spent his childhood in a suburb that lay between Vienna and the countryside. His parents came from a country-area on the Hungarian side. His father was involved in the grain-business, so the family preserved deep ties with the country in spite of the fact that they were living in Vienna. All this creates a need for more government funds for health-care, although Adler himself does not explicitly make this conclusion - it is left for the readers to make it. - In his paper on "State Aid or Self Help" Adler develops the thesis that the existing political structures in the Habsburg-empire are not able to respond to the real health-needs of the population. Adler thinks that the insurance-plans have not produced what should be expected of them, that the insurance companies are only interested in profits and that the medical profession has not the freedom it deserves. Even medical research and teaching are subdued under governmental authorities. Adler's conclusion is more gloomy than in the previous paper: that medical profession can only help itself, "its future only by its own powers". I feel that this paper is even more political than the previous one. I think that the idea of this paper was to wake up the medical profession, to make alarm: see how badly we are! We must take the challenge, we must respect our own ethics and professional obligations! We must make things better! So don't sleep, act! Adler was thinking very much about the living-conditions of the ordinary people, and he felt that by making a professional effort, things could be changed. There is a better health-care somewhere to be found, if a real professional effort is made.