4,099 works, 472 books, 3,268 articles, 356 other works, 3 awaiting classification, 150 years of economic thought. Each one summarized and searchable, with cited passages inside.
Who buys the bread matters in Emil Lederer’s brief intervention in the Socialisation Commission’s deliberations. Challenging the representativeness of cases raised in discussion, he argues that cooperative bakeries ordinarily sell overwhelmingly to members of the consumer cooperative. His qualification—“to my knowledge”—keeps the objection measured. This recorded speaking turn offers a precise distinction between exceptional cases and customary practice, showing how the identity of customers can become a point of contention in discussions of cooperative enterprise.
Should discussion of how to supply the population with food also address financing? In this brief procedural intervention recorded in the Socialization Commission’s proceedings, Emil Lederer recommends keeping the questions separate. His concern is the organization of deliberation, not a particular financial policy: technical suitability should be considered without joining it to the financial question. The interest of this small documentary source lies in that precise distinction—and in the restraint of a recommendation offered without an accompanying justification.
A cinema could turn its audience into a consumer cooperative by offering membership discounts—and thereby escape municipalization. This possibility sharpens Emil Lederer’s brief intervention in the Socialization Commission proceedings published in 1921: how can legislation protect genuine cooperatives without making their legal form a shelter for businesses resisting public control? Lederer approaches the problem as a defender of both cooperative development and municipal provision. He refuses to treat wartime failures in food administration as decisive evidence against municipal enterprise under normal conditions. His closing question, left unanswered here, makes the passage worth examining: it shows how an apparently protective exemption can undermine the purpose of a law, and why institutional names alone cannot settle which enterprises deserve protection.
Municipal ownership need not mean censorship: this distinction anchors Emil Lederer’s brief recorded intervention in the Sozialisierungs-Kommission proceedings published in 1921. Explaining his support for Dr. Vogelstein’s motion, Lederer argues that municipalities can establish cultural enterprises where management is inadequate or profit interests threaten cultural interests. His decisive point is practical rather than programmatic: no law prevents such initiatives. The passage offers a compact view of his reasoning about public responsibility for culture, without specifying how municipal management would work.
Der Sinn der Kommunalisierung soll nicht der einer Zensur sein, sondern es soll sein eine Übernahme durch die Gemeinde.
English translation: “The purpose of municipalization should not be censorship, but rather a takeover by the municipality.”
A cooperative that bakes bread is not necessarily a producers’ cooperative. In this brief intervention recorded in the Socialization Commission’s proceedings, Emil Lederer challenges the habit of treating consumer and producer cooperatives alike. His correction of Wissell’s example turns on whom the cooperative organizes, not simply what it does. The remark offers a compact distinction with practical consequences for discussions of municipalization: productive activity alone does not determine a cooperative’s classification.
Membership is the point of comparison in Emil Lederer’s brief intervention in the Sozialisierungs-Kommission proceedings. He asks whether consumer organization differs fundamentally from the cooperative association of independent tradespeople, then notes how carefully a credit cooperative scrutinizes those it admits. This complete recorded speaking turn offers a compact question rather than a developed argument: should cooperative forms be treated alike when their approaches to membership differ?
Could a shoemaking business fall outside socialization simply by taking cooperative form? In this brief recorded intervention in the German Socialization Commission’s proceedings, Emil Lederer draws attention to the experts’ unanimous view that producer cooperatives should count as non-commercial and therefore be exempt. His example makes the consequence tangible: shoemakers could place not only leather purchasing but also business operations and shoe sales within a cooperative, thereby excluding the enterprise from socialization under the experts’ interpretation. The interest of this compact source lies in Lederer’s shift from an organizational label to the activities it encompasses. Without proposing an alternative, he pinpoints a boundary problem in deciding which enterprises socialization should reach.
Must municipalization wait for central authorization and advance at the same pace everywhere? In this brief intervention recorded in the Sozialisierungs-Kommission proceedings, Emil Lederer argues that both expectations could obstruct locally feasible change. Authorizing an entire economic sector would place legislative responsibility on a Reich government facing substantial political opposition; he also doubts its technical competence for the task. His alternative remains unnamed, but his insistence on permanently transferring responsibility is explicit. The sharper point concerns unevenness: differences in municipal policy reflect political choices, economic attitudes and the abilities of those involved, not necessarily a defect to be corrected. This compact exchange offers a concrete distinction between enabling municipalization and requiring uniform implementation.
“Do horse races fall under that?” Emil Lederer’s single recorded question in the commission proceedings on municipalization tests the boundary of a category under discussion. The extract supplies neither the category nor an answer; it records only his question and unspecified interjections. Its interest lies in this concrete request for clarification: a particular activity is brought forward to test what a proposed classification includes. The brief exchange preserves that probing move without resolving it.
“That has already happened!” Emil Lederer’s complete recorded interjection offers a brief corrective within the Sozialisierungs-Kommission’s deliberations on municipalization. Its force lies in “already”: Lederer presents the matter under discussion as accomplished, rather than still pending. Preserved as an individually attributed intervention, the sentence lets readers attend to this small act of correction without supplying the unidentified referent or reasons absent from the excerpt.
Lederer: Das ist schon geschehen!
English translation: “Lederer: That has already happened!”
“Additions can be made!” Emil Lederer’s complete recorded interjection in the commission proceedings on municipalization offers a procedural qualification, not an economic argument. Its interest lies in the distinction between what has already been presented and what may still be supplemented. The sentence records Lederer insisting on that possibility, while leaving unspecified what the additions would concern or under what conditions they could be made.
“In every case?” Emil Lederer’s complete recorded intervention consists of this single question in the proceedings of the Sozialisierungs-Kommission. Its interest lies in the distinction between questioning a claim’s scope and refuting it: Lederer asks whether a preceding statement holds universally, without asserting an exception. The isolated extract does not identify that statement, preserving the challenge but not enough context to determine its target.
Lederer: In jedem Falle?
English translation: “Lederer: In every case?”