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.
A legal draft exists, but the provisions for workers’ representation are still changing. In this brief recorded intervention before the German Socialization Commission, Emil Lederer reports on the preparation of the Hilferding–Lederer proposal for coal-mining reform. Speaking as a participant in the drafting group, he distinguishes a revised explanatory report, an available legal formulation, and newly amended arrangements for labor relations and pit councils that have yet to be duplicated. His practical question is what the commission can discuss now, including principles he offers to present orally. The turn provides a precise glimpse of reform in preparation: legal wording did not settle the structure of workers’ representation, and deliberation had to proceed with documents at different stages of readiness.
When is a proposal ready for collective debate? In this brief recorded intervention in the coal-mining socialization commission’s proceedings, Emil Lederer distinguishes settled details from finished wording. His group has agreed on a compensation proposal, but its text remains open to revision in the plenary meeting. He leaves the agenda to the commission while recommending two concrete priorities: the legal basis and compensation. The passage offers a compact view of proposals moving from a smaller preparatory meeting into collective deliberation—not the terms of compensation themselves, but Lederer’s account of what is ready to discuss and what remains revisable.
A small drafting choice raises a concrete question of scope in Emil Lederer’s brief intervention, recorded in the 1920 coal-mining deliberations of the German Socialization Commission. He tentatively proposes leaving out the words “im Werk” (“within the works”) and explicitly exempting gasworks unconnected with mining operations. The interest lies in this precise distinction: Lederer seeks to make a gasworks’ connection to mining decisive, rather than rely on the proposed phrase. This single speaking turn lets readers observe a boundary being clarified in the course of discussion, without supplying the paragraph’s wider provisions.
Where should a coal-sector organization end when mining, coking and chemical production are intertwined? In this brief intervention recorded in the 1920 socialization commission proceedings, Emil Lederer clarifies his group’s proposal rather than offering a general theory of socialization. He accepts that industrial boundaries are partly arbitrary, yet distinguishes the recovery of chemical raw materials from their further processing: the former belongs within the proposed coal organization, the latter does not. His explanation of the qualification “im Werk” likewise seeks to prevent compulsory inclusion of municipal coking unconnected with mining. The passage offers a precise glimpse of institutional boundary-making, where a few words determine which connected activities a proposal would encompass.
What counts as an economic purpose? In this single-sentence reply recorded in the 1920 coal-mining deliberations of the German Socialization Commission, Emil Lederer makes the question concrete through the sale of gas. His conditional phrasing clarifies a possible meaning of “economic activity” without fixing its definition. The fragment offers a precise glimpse of terminology being negotiated in discussion, rather than a statement of Lederer’s broader position.
Where should a regulatory decision be made—in the law itself or in its implementing provisions? In this brief intervention recorded in the 1920 coal-mining commission proceedings, Emil Lederer proposes loose coordination if substantial quantities are involved, while leaving its definition to implementing provisions. The extract does not identify the precise issue under discussion, and Lederer admits that he cannot recall the commission’s earlier position. Its interest lies in this narrow, practical distinction: a perceived need for coordination need not entail specifying the arrangement in statute.
Where should coking belong when coal mining and iron and steel production are reorganized? In this brief intervention recorded in the 1920 Socialization Commission proceedings, Emil Lederer identifies a concrete consequence of the proposal under discussion: coking operations would be detached from iron and steel works and transferred to the coal community. Wissell’s interjected question prompts an explicit confirmation. The exchange lets readers see precisely where Lederer draws the proposed institutional boundary through an integrated industrial process.
Agreement on the best economic use of coal does not settle how to organize it. In this brief speaking turn from the 1920 Socialization Commission proceedings, Emil Lederer locates the disagreement with von Siemens in the proposed organization’s capacity to achieve a shared objective. He then identifies von Siemens’s concern that organized control of coal itself threatens that objective. The intervention offers a precise distinction between agreement on ends and disagreement over institutional means—not a detailed organizational proposal or a developed rebuttal.
Does organized coordination of coal production necessarily sacrifice economic flexibility? In this brief intervention in the German Socialization Commission’s proceedings, published in 1920, Emil Lederer argues that it need not. He maintains that industry’s links with the proposed coal association could be arranged to secure the same economic advantages as Rathenau’s proposal. The statement offers no detailed institutional design; its interest lies in Lederer’s refusal to treat organization and flexibility as opposites. It isolates a concrete point of contention in the coal debate: whether economic advantages depend on a particular proposal or can also be achieved through a differently organized relationship between industry and the coal association.
In this brief speaking turn from the coal-mining socialization commission proceedings published in 1920, Emil Lederer reads a proposed § 2 rather than advancing an argument of his own. The provision gives the German Coal Community public-law status and responsibility for administering coal mining in the common economic interest. Its authority over imports and exports remains subject to rules issued by the competent authorities. The passage offers a compact view of the institutional wording under discussion: broad responsibility for an industry, framed within existing governmental regulation.
In this single recorded intervention from the coal-mining socialization commission’s proceedings published in 1920, Emil Lederer qualifies his assent: general export and import regulations must be taken into account. The documentary interest lies in that qualification, which connects the matter under discussion to the wider rules governing cross-border trade. Since the preceding question is not included, the sentence preserves a condition on his agreement without identifying the specific proposal he supported.
Ja, unter Berücksichtigung der allgemeinen Aus- und Einfuhrbestimmungen.
English translation: “Yes, taking into account the general export and import regulations.”
A proposed interim declaration leads Emil Lederer to a constitutional difficulty in this brief speaking turn from the 1920 coal-mining socialization commission proceedings. With publication of the law not imminent, he urges the commission to state that the redemption of regalian mining rights should be settled through Reich legislation, because it materially affects mining socialization. Yet he immediately qualifies the proposal: as far as he can see, it would entail a constitutional amendment. The interest lies in this precise hesitation—a concrete instance of a socialization measure confronting the legal authority required to carry it out.