Eugen Peter Schwiedland · 1923
Eugen Peter Schwiedland’s 1923 review of Beckerath’s 1922 book traces German industrial organization from prewar competition through wartime centralization to postwar reconstruction. It presents entrepreneurial coordination as more effective than administrative direction, while treating the concentration of industrial power as a problem of social responsibility and political leadership.
The review begins by locating industrial organization within competitive pressures and established habits of cooperation:
Der angespannte Wettbewerb drängte da bereits zu weitgehender Organisation, die sich in Deutschland gefördert fand durch einen Geist der Einordnung und Disziplin.
English translation: There the intense competition was already pressing towards far-reaching organisation, which in Germany found itself furthered by a spirit of subordination and discipline.
Organization therefore predates wartime intervention. Competition encouraged cartels and more closely integrated corporate groups, or Konzerne, rather than merely preserving isolated firms. War changed the purposes and mechanisms of coordination: separation from overseas markets and the demands of national survival redirected production toward centrally determined needs.
The postwar persistence of controls is explained through both institutional continuity and material necessity:
Die Nachkriegszeit behielt diese Organisation im ganzen bei, obgleich die privaten Wirtschaften sich immer stärker gegen die Schranken auflehnten, die ihnen auferlegt wurden.
English translation: The post-war period retained this organisation on the whole, although the private economies rebelled ever more strongly against the barriers imposed upon them.
Continued blockade, shortages, currency difficulties, and disrupted transport supported intervention even as enterprises resisted it. Reintegration into the world economy initially seemed impossible without state assistance. Socialist aspirations also encouraged an organization intended to reconcile private activity with collective purposes. Yet administrative knowledge and authority proved inadequate to the varied requirements of individual firms.
In Schwiedland’s account of Beckerath’s argument, the entrepreneur consequently emerges as the effective organizer of reconstruction. Practical knowledge, technical and commercial competence, and initiative enabled private actors to combine enterprises whose capital, equipment, and raw materials were unevenly distributed. The distinction between cartels and Konzerne is functional: the former coordinate enterprises alongside one another, whereas the latter reorganize production through closer integration.
The review then moves from organizational effectiveness to the vulnerabilities of concentrated leadership. Could a small number of industrial leaders sustain the intellectual demands of vast enterprises? Would their treatment of workers promote cooperation or intensify conflict? Parallel concentration abroad makes these questions international as well as domestic. Industrial leaders might subordinate national policy to private interests, or recognize social solidarity and cooperation among nations as conditions of durable prosperity.
Schwiedland’s concluding emphasis is ethical: successful reconstruction does not itself guarantee responsible power. His review connects the productive capacities of entrepreneurial organization to unresolved questions about its social and political direction. Its central tension lies between confidence in private industrial coordination and concern about the purposes served by the authority it creates.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian