Emil Lederer: Review of W. Kulemann, Die Berufsvereine, First Division, Volumes 4–6 (1915)

Emil Lederer’s 1915 review examines Kulemann’s international history of workers’ and employers’ organizations. It combines admiration for painstaking documentary scholarship with a methodological objection: organizational history cannot become intelligible simply by accumulating facts while excluding the principles, conflicts, and interpretations that connect them.

Kulemann’s emphasis on “external” history provides extensive information about organizational development but insufficient guidance through it. The problem intensifies when numerous national movements receive compressed, densely detailed accounts. A consistent arrangement makes the volumes valuable for consultation without necessarily explaining the historical significance of their contents:

Wenn aber die Basis der Untersuchung ganz international wird, dann ist es immerhin möglich, daß die bloße «äußere Geschichte» unverständlich wird, wenn sie sich nicht auf die prinzipiellen Gesichtspunkte bezieht.

English translation: If, however, the basis of the investigation becomes wholly international, then it is at all events possible that the mere "external history" becomes unintelligible if it does not relate itself to the fundamental points of view.

Lederer treats conceptual orientation as a condition of historical understanding, not an intrusion upon factual research. Ideas and slogans help shape organizational events; leaving them aside can obscure the developments the historian seeks to document. Nevertheless, he recognizes Kulemann’s extensive work with primary materials as an indispensable scholarly achievement.

This criticism does not demand interpretation without presuppositions. Lederer identifies Kulemann’s conviction that conflict between workers and employers need not become class struggle and that legitimate workers’ demands can be met within a system protecting private property. Such commitments should be explicit and examined rather than silently embedded in the narrative. Indeed, research itself necessarily generates judgments:

Es ist unmöglich, ein so weites Gebiet mit dieser Sachkunde, Liebe und peinlicher Genauigkeit zu bearbeiten, wie es Kulemann getan hat, ohne ganz bestimmte Anschauungen zu besitzen, oder (während der Arbeit) zu ihnen zu gelangen.

English translation: It is impossible to work over so wide a field with this expert knowledge, love and scrupulous accuracy, as Kulemann has done, without possessing quite definite views, or (in the course of the work) arriving at them.

The national discussions show what remains unexplained when these judgments are suppressed. For Britain, Lederer finds that detailed chronology does not adequately establish the significance of syndicalist tendencies, particularly around developments culminating in the 1912 congress. The omission of Max Beer’s study also limits access to the intellectual contexts of Owenism and Chartism. In the French account, documentary detail similarly leaves the principles distinguishing socialist currents insufficiently developed.

Lederer’s discussion of France examines relations between leaders and followers rather than attributing political conduct directly to national temperament. Personal allegiance can encourage tactical flexibility and openness to new principles, but personalities remain constrained by class interests and economic forces. His treatment of employers’ organizations likewise emphasizes relationships: their apparent moderation or organizational cohesion must be understood in relation to the strength of the workers confronting them.

Austria provides an extended test of contextual explanation. Lederer resists interpreting socialist tactical flexibility as theoretical weakness. Austrian socialism’s conduct reflects its relationship to a state whose internal authority differs from that of Prussia. Apparent opportunism may therefore express confidence in socialist principles and skepticism toward the state. Nationality conflicts nevertheless exert pressures capable of reshaping the party. While praising Kulemann’s treatment of German–Czech antagonisms, Lederer suggests that disagreements over organizational form also require attention.

Smaller Christian and nationalist associations raise a related problem of evidence. Their publications alone cannot establish their practical influence, the comparability of membership figures, or their relationships with employers. Assessing whether an association is “yellow” requires investigation of its conduct, including consideration of hostile testimony. Refusal to judge does not secure neutrality; it can leave decisive relationships unexplained.

These objections remain deliberately bounded:

Daher sind die kritischen Bemerkungen, welche zum einen oder anderen Teil hier gemacht werden können, keine Kritik des ganzen Werks.

English translation: Hence the critical remarks which can be made here with regard to one part or another are not a criticism of the whole work.

Lederer’s alternative joins documentary rigor to explicit interpretation: compare evidence, disclose guiding concepts, and justify conclusions. He closes by inviting Kulemann to use his exceptional command of the material to consider whether national differences fundamentally shape proletarian organization or chiefly modify its tone and tactics. The review leaves that comparative question open while arguing that the documentary achievement itself makes a more explanatory history possible.