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 short foreword to L. Galin's study of Russian courts and penal practice becomes, in Lederer's hands, an occasion to ask what law can be under Bolshevism. He opens by admitting he has never been to Russia and depends on sparse, contradictory reports, then advances a striking claim: even a revolution that ruptures every legal continuity generates continuity of its own, as old institutions, trained specialists, and popular habit reassert themselves. The dictatorship of the proletariat, he argues, has become institutional — sustained by leadership, propaganda, and transformed consciousness — yet has produced no genuinely new legal idea, an answer even Galin can give only unsatisfyingly. From that dissatisfaction he draws the essay's sharpest question: whether the Rechtsstaat itself is possible only within the bourgeois world.
So öffnet diese Darstellung den Ausblick auf die Frage: ob und inwieweit auch der Rechtsstaat nur in der bürgerlichen Welt möglich ist.
English translation: “Thus this account opens up the prospect of the question: whether and to what extent the Rechtsstaat too is possible only in the bourgeois world.”
Promises of equitable commerce sit uneasily beside the exclusion of Germany and Austria from the institutions meant to secure them. In this 1920 article, Emil Perels tests the League of Nations Covenant against German and Austrian proposals for international economic cooperation. His concern is concrete: what protection do transit rights and commercial guarantees offer states denied an equal voice in their administration? Comparing treaty obligations with proposals for a world commercial treaty, he links economic rights to institutional participation rather than treating them as self-enforcing rules. His defence of the defeated powers also has limits: criticism of colonial mandates does not become a rejection of empire. The article exposes the tension between European economic interdependence and a settlement that, in Perels’s judgement, preserves the victors’ instruments of economic leverage.
A resolution’s authority can depend on who had time to attend. In this brief intervention recorded in the Sozialisierungs-Kommission proceedings, Emil Lederer explains that short notice kept both him and Professor Weber from a plenary meeting, then asserts that their presence would have reversed the decision. The statement offers a precise procedural objection rather than a substantive argument: it leaves the resolution’s content unspecified while challenging the circumstances that produced its majority.
Could shoemakers organized in a producers’ cooperative claim not to operate commercially—and thereby escape socialization? In this brief question recorded in the Sozialisierungs-Kommission proceedings published in 1921, Emil Lederer asks Mayor Dullo to test his interpretation of the law against a concrete form of collective production. The interest lies in the boundary Lederer probes: whether cooperative organization changes an enterprise’s legal classification and its exposure to socialization. This complete speaking turn preserves the question, not Dullo’s answer or an assertion that such an exemption exists.
Where should municipal ownership stop—and could a municipality restrict new businesses without taking them over? In this brief oral report, delivered in 1920 and published in the commission proceedings in 1921, Emil Lederer records how the Municipalization Committee approached these boundaries. His perspective is that of a reporting participant, carefully separating decisions from proposals still awaiting justification or approval. A single word, “gewerbsmäßig,” becomes a safeguard for cooperatives; a proposed exemption for enterprises with cultural significance threatens to widen the limits on socialization. Rathenau’s proposal to prohibit new enterprises without a takeover exposes the distinction between ownership and regulatory power. The report offers a compact view of municipalization as a problem of legal drafting and institutional negotiation, rather than a settled programme.
When should a commission stop debating possible cases and settle on a general rule? In this brief recorded intervention, Emil Lederer proposes narrowing discussion to a single word: “gewerbsmäßig,” designating establishments operated on a commercial basis. He treats that scope as already agreed, argues against regulating every case separately, and points to administrative litigation as a means of challenging particular applications. His position is pragmatic rather than dogmatic: the wording could be improved, but no better term has yet been found. The exchange offers a compact view of how substantive agreement, legal safeguards and drafting choices can become reasons to limit deliberation.
In this single-sentence intervention in the 1921 proceedings of the Socialization Commission, Emil Lederer favors repetition, identifying it with the earlier wording under discussion. His qualified phrasing records a preference rather than a demand. The turn offers a precise glimpse of his position in a drafting deliberation, but supplies neither the disputed wording nor his reasons for retaining it.
What happens when demolition value exceeds ordinary value? In this single-sentence intervention in the Sozialisierungs-Kommission’s deliberations, Emil Lederer singles out a troublesome valuation case. He concedes that it may have little practical relevance, yet insists that it remains difficult to decide. The recorded turn offers no solution; its interest lies in the precise complication it raises for the commission’s discussion of compensation.
Can compensation for a municipal takeover make the intended public operation financially impossible? In this brief intervention recorded in the Sozialisierungs-Kommission proceedings published in 1921, Emil Lederer distinguishes demolition from continued operation. Where demolition is intended, the municipality could ask the entrepreneur to dismantle the undertaking and receive payment. Where continued operation is intended, Lederer objects to using “demolition value” to extract compensation so high that the municipality cannot afford to run it. His point is not to reject compensation, but to test a valuation formula against the practical purpose of acquisition. The passage offers a sharply bounded example of how a seemingly technical valuation rule can frustrate the very use a takeover is meant to secure.
Preserving a municipal power need not mean requiring its exercise. In this brief intervention recorded in the Sozialisierungs-Kommission proceedings published in 1921, Emil Lederer defends retaining a provision that would let municipalities enable sickness insurance funds to supply medicines at cost. He acknowledges that he cannot immediately weigh the preceding objections fully, yet argues that expanded compulsory health insurance strengthens the case for funds operating pharmacies themselves. His distinctive move is to regard these funds as consumer organizations of medicine users. The passage offers a precise institutional distinction: municipalities could decline to establish a monopoly while retaining an option for collective provision—an option Lederer argues would be lost if pharmacies were left entirely unrestricted.
An enterprise in East Prussia does 80 percent of its work for Berlin: does that give Berlin the right to municipalize it? In this brief intervention recorded in the Sozialisierungs-Kommission’s proceedings, Emil Lederer answers Professor Lindemann with a firm distinction between economic connection and territorial authority. On Lederer’s reading, the law does not permit a municipality to municipalize an enterprise beyond its boundaries merely because that enterprise chiefly serves it. The concrete example makes this a revealing moment of legal boundary-setting within the municipalization debate: the reach of a city’s economic interests need not coincide with the reach of its powers.
Where should the proposed municipalization of cemetery services stop? In this brief intervention in the Socialization Commission’s deliberations, Emil Lederer tentatively draws a boundary between cemetery services proper and businesses that decorate graves. His single recorded sentence offers a precise glimpse of the problem of defining a municipal service without automatically including the commercial activities surrounding it; it states the distinction, but leaves its justification unstated.