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.
Collective control can expand without simply restoring communal ownership: this is the tension Eugen Peter Schwiedland brings into view in his brief review of Waldemar Mitscherlich’s economic stage theory. He presents Mitscherlich’s account largely through exposition rather than criticism, tracing how private initiative emerges from customary restraints and then encounters new forms of corporate authority. The concrete interest lies in the final stage, where state factories, trusts, trade unions, shop stewards and works councils all figure within an enlarged concept of “corporative” economy. Readers can discover how this scheme distinguishes renewed collective power over developed capitalist enterprises from the communal regulation of early economic life—and how cautiously the review describes its possible movement toward “social capital.”
When does competition for world markets become economic coercion, and what obligations might restrain it? In this brief review, Eugen Peter Schwiedland presents Adolf Lenz’s proposal to place international economic relations under legal regulation. The concrete stakes are food, raw materials, labour, and manufactured goods: Lenz would direct surpluses beyond domestic needs toward common provision, guaranteeing each national economy a subsistence minimum and access to loans that do not obstruct its development. Schwiedland praises Lenz’s legal precision and command of existing regulations, while expressing hope rather than certainty about practical results. The review offers a compact encounter with a proposal to make national economic security compatible with enforceable duties toward other peoples.
Can public ownership curb excessive drinking without denying ordinary people their drink? In this brief German review of Arthur Greenwood’s book, Eugen Peter Schwiedland foregrounds the British Labour Party’s proposed answer: remove the commercial incentive to sell more and stronger alcohol. His favourable account centres on wartime Carlisle, where an influx of munitions workers was followed by overcrowding and increased drunkenness. Public administration of drinking establishments, withdrawal of licences, and the provision of food and light refreshments supplied a practical precedent for reform. The review offers a compact account of how changing ownership and the services a public house provided could be presented as an alternative to prohibition.
Can tracing the origins of psychic life advance the study of society? In this brief review of Aurel Kolnai’s book, Eugen Peter Schwiedland questions both the conceptual links psychoanalysis offers and its capacity to reach readers beyond the Freudian school. He singles out the connection between delusional formations and philosophical systems as speculative, while acknowledging Kolnai’s fluent exposition. His practical objections—specialist terminology, no summary of findings, no table of contents—give the notice its particular interest: explanatory credibility and usability become linked tests of psychoanalysis’s entry into social inquiry.
An economist can educate a generation while remaining an institutional outsider. That contrast shapes Eugen Peter Schwiedland’s brief 1921 review of the sixth edition of Charles Gide’s Cours d’économie politique. As Gide’s former co-editor, Schwiedland brings personal knowledge to his account of a cooperative advocate whose postwar political stance, he argues, obstructed an intended appointment at the Collège de France. His praise of Gide’s clarity and fairness leads to a concrete feature of the textbook: a hundred pages devoted to consumers, expenditure, saving, and related questions. The review offers a compact view of what Schwiedland valued in economic teaching—independence from established schools, serious attention to opposing opinions, and recognition of consumers as economic actors.