Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen: Review of G. Fiamingo’s Il protezionismo sociale contemporaneo (1896)

Schullern’s review combines methodological criticism, a defence of historically conditioned social intervention, and a synopsis of Fiamingo’s seven-part argument for economic freedom. Although he praises the author’s intellectual energy and learning, he rejects both his conclusions and his evidentiary procedures. Doubtful statistics, untested excursions through world and economic history, and judgments about Austria and Germany allegedly derived from partisan newspapers undermine the book’s authority. The deeper disagreement, however, concerns whether social protection represents reaction or a necessary preparation for realizing liberal ideals.

Schullern presents liberalism as an advance toward freedom and equality undertaken before its material and social conditions had been secured. His military metaphor makes protective intervention a strategic retreat rather than an abandonment of those ends:

Das Ideal war mit dem Verstand davon gelaufen, nun hiess es zurückkehren bis zur gesicherten Operationsbasis.

English translation: The ideal had run away with the understanding; now it was a matter of falling back to a secured base of operations.

On this account, opponents misname the retreat “Reaction” or “Protectionismus,” overlooking its historical purpose and sometimes defending their own class interests. Schullern insists that social policy should restore the conditions for durable progress:

Die wahre soziale Idee will aber nicht noch weiter zurückführen, sondern sie will, dass wieder der Vormarsch aufgenommen werde, wenn seine Erfolge nach menschlichem Ermessen gesichert wären.

English translation: The true social idea, however, does not wish to lead back still further, but wishes rather that the advance be taken up again once its successes are, by human estimation, assured.

The necessary preparation consists in raising the population’s material, intellectual, and moral condition, narrowing differences between classes, and building shared interests. Yet this reconciliatory programme also contains a forceful conception of leadership:

Damit das geschähe, ist aber ein starker führender Geist nothwendig, dem wenigstens die moralisch und geistig Vorgeschrittenen der Nation mit Hingebung folgen und der sich nicht davor scheuen darf, diejenigen bei Seite zu schleudern, welche der Erreichung des nächsten Zieles hindernd in den Weg treten.

English translation: For that to happen, however, a strong leading spirit is necessary, whom at least the morally and intellectually advanced of the nation follow with devotion, and who must not shrink from hurling aside those who place themselves obstructively in the way of the attainment of the next goal.

This passage exposes the tension between the review’s ultimate commitment to freedom and equality and its willingness to authorize coercive direction in preparing their realization. Schullern further frames the disagreement through a national hierarchy of political experience: some Germans, he argues, have already recognized liberalism’s inadequate foundations, whereas many Italians and other Romance peoples still mistake corrective intervention for betrayal. His historical defence of protection thus depends partly on national generalizations that sit uneasily beside his initial demand for cautious judgments about foreign societies.

The subsequent synopsis clarifies the opposing position. Fiamingo’s first chapter treats state activity through utility: historically explicable forms of intervention become harmful in contemporary society, where expanding government benefits one class by exploiting others. Both social democracy and state socialism fall under this indictment. The second chapter locates social equilibrium in the individual advantage obtained through association and free competition. Schullern condenses its conclusion:

Greift der Staat in die socialen Verhältnisse ein, so verletzt er seine utilitären Aufgaben.

English translation: If the state intervenes in social relations, it violates its utilitarian tasks.

The third chapter extends this criticism to tariffs and other economic legislation, portraying government as parasitic and wasteful. The fourth interprets growing socialist influence and public expenditure as symptoms of social illness, prescribing a minimal state restricted to functions useful to all citizens. The fifth attacks parliamentarism; the sixth links social progress to the economical association of natural and intellectual forces under complete economic freedom. The seventh addresses disarmament and brute force, explaining war through a political system that privileges force over social justice. Schullern declines an extended discussion of this final argument and adds a brief correction concerning Fiamingo’s one-sided use of a passage from his own writing.

The review’s significance lies in its contest over the meaning of progress. Fiamingo, as presented here, makes free competition the criterion of social utility and treats intervention as organized exploitation. Schullern instead regards protection as a provisional means of making liberal aspirations socially sustainable. His recognition that the book remains instructive and worth reading preserves the intellectual seriousness of this dispute even while his historical and national framework sharply limits his agreement with its author.