The archive.

The socialist slogan that the means of labour belong to the workers rests, Wieser argues, on a faulty proof — the very demand for land and capital concedes their productive value. Rather than dismiss the grievance, he asks what institutional form could actually join labour, capital, direction and responsibility once the Großbetrieb has severed ordinary workers from ownership and command. His answer is to constitutionalize large-scale enterprise rather than destroy it. A genuine producer cooperative cannot be an association of equal handworkers; it must absorb technical and managerial capacity and grant it proportionate authority, which is why German and Austrian cooperative law, tailored to small producers, leaves such ventures powerless. The French experiments of Godin, Leclaire and Boucicaut supply the model: an 'elite' principle of graded admission into responsibility, extending profit-sharing and eventual partnership without pretending industry can dispense with hierarchy.

Mindestens diejenige Hartnäckigkeit, mit welcher die Techniker die Idee des Luftschiffes auszubilden suchen, muß von den Oekonomen in dieser um so viel näher liegenden Sache bewiesen werden.

English translation: “At the very least, the same tenacity with which engineers pursue the development of the airship must be shown by economists in this matter, which lies so much closer at hand.”

What separates a good, in the economic sense, from the good of the moralist or the poet? This lexicon article marks off Gut as the recognized means of want-satisfaction, holding needs broadly enough to span necessities, luxuries and intellectual satisfactions while requiring that a thing's usefulness be known and within human command. From that boundary Wieser draws the distinctions Austrian value theory depends on: free versus economic goods, where scarcity is decisive; consumption goods versus the higher orders of productive means; and goods proper versus mere preconditions like law, knowledge or natural order. Value is traced backward from final wants through the productive structure, and goods become productive only in complementary combinations — land with tools, materials with labour — so that development turns as much on discovering usefulness and arranging complements as on accumulating things.

Bedürfnis wird dabei außerordentlich weit gefaßt, es umfaßt jede Lust, die befriedigt, jede Unlust, die abgewehrt werden soll.

English translation: “Need" is here taken extraordinarily broadly: it comprises every pleasure that is to be satisfied and every pain that is to be warded off.”

Illness left Henri Pigeonneau’s history of French commerce unfinished in print, with the fate of its remaining manuscripts uncertain. In this brief obituary, Eugen Schwiedland draws on letters from the historian to show both the pressure to complete the work and the restraint governing its composition: abundant notes on wholesale and retail trade were not to overwhelm a general history. Writing as a colleague mourning a contributor to his journal, Schwiedland also identifies an intellectual affinity—Pigeonneau’s opposition to economists who neglected facts and scholars who neglected ideas. The notice offers a personal glimpse of historical research in progress, distinguishing the accumulation of evidence from the judgement needed to make it readable.

Money makes goods comparable in accounts—but does it measure value as a ruler measures length? In this French article, published under the name Charles Menger, Carl Menger argues that monetary calculation presupposes prices rather than establishing them through a common substance called value. His attention to offered and demanded prices, differing household purchases, and the causes behind price movements gives this conceptual dispute practical force. Cheaper clothing may offset dearer bread in a household budget without proving that money itself is stable. Readers can discover why comparing purchasing power and identifying monetary causes are distinct tasks—and why, for Menger, stabilizing money need not mean freezing every price.

A worker’s own workshop need not make that worker independent, nor does machinery alone define a factory. In this article, Eugen Schwiedland engages with Bücher’s historical studies to distinguish industrial forms by who owns materials and productive resources, and how goods reach consumers. His central emphasis falls on markets: expanding outlets and commercial intermediaries reshape production without necessarily eliminating older arrangements. The coexistence of factories and domestic outwork is particularly revealing, as subcontracting allows entrepreneurs to shift the costs of uncertain demand onto dispersed workers. Readers can discover here a concrete alternative to histories driven chiefly by technical invention—one that locates industrial change in ownership, access to customers, and the uneven distribution of commercial risk.

A tribunal can interpret an existing labour contract—but can it help employers and workers agree on the next one? In this 1892 article, Victor Mataja compares Italian proposals combining adjudication and conciliation with a French scheme relying on voluntary arbitration and public opinion. His concern is not simply which procedure looks better on paper: who can credibly represent workers, commit them to a settlement, and command an employer’s respect? Mataja argues that conciliatory machinery needs organized constituencies and reciprocal bargaining power to function. His attention to institutional detail also produces a pointed defence of women’s eligibility for industrial tribunals. The comparison shows why designing a forum for negotiation is different from establishing the social authority that makes negotiation effective.

What should determine the gold value of a gulden when its purchasing power no longer tracks the silver it contains? In this 1892 review of official publications prepared for Austria-Hungary’s currency deliberations, Robert Zuckerkandl tests the evidence behind monetary reform. He welcomes the statistical compilations but exposes the limits of their apparent precision: combined gold and silver totals conceal discrepancies, while an export surplus may service foreign debt rather than accumulate wealth. His distinctive concern is how monetary institutions and international obligations shape the meaning of the figures. By distinguishing traded from local goods, wholesale from retail prices, and wages from both, he shows why choosing a conversion rate requires more than a calculation of metallic content—and why its consequences cannot be read from aggregate prices alone.

Can a statesman depart from private moral rules while remaining answerable to morality’s highest purpose? In this brief review of F. W. Neurath’s 1891 pamphlet, Siegmund Feilbogen isolates precisely that distinction. He reports Neurath’s proposed end—a realm of perfected spirituality and love—and places it within an idealistic worldview grounded in Kantianism and Darwinism. Feilbogen offers exposition rather than sustained criticism; the review’s interest lies in this compact account of a position that separates political judgment from individual moral prescriptions without abandoning an ethical goal.

Scholarly merit need not follow doctrinal allegiance: in this 1892 review of recent economic literature, Carl Menger praises Adolph Wagner’s work while marking its state-socialist standpoint, and welcomes Philippovich’s textbook as a bridge between Austrian and German economics. These judgements give the survey its distinctive interest. Menger considers not only what economists argue, but how their knowledge becomes usable—through reference bibliographies, compact university teaching, translation, and archival research. His attention to Austria’s contribution runs alongside an appreciation of international exchange and work serving administrators as well as scholars. Readers encounter Menger as a critic weighing intellectual mediation and practical usefulness, rather than simply defending a theoretical school.

How could two thinkers arrive at nearly identical ideas while only one founded a science? Feilbogen builds his whole inquiry on that contrast between Adam Smith and Turgot, Smith's most advanced predecessor, arguing that the practical individualism usually blamed on Smith was in fact stated more radically by the Frenchman—that so-called Smithianism is a moderated Turgotism. Against reducing the Wealth of Nations to laissez-faire, he insists its organizing principle is labor, not freedom or egoism, and that Smith's liberty is social and conditional rather than an absolute natural right. Drawing on Menger, Roscher, and Hasbach and applying Mill's method of difference to intellectual history, he locates Smith's true superiority in the transformation of the physiocratic revenu net into the net product of labor.

Die Arbeit rühmen heisst das Volk rühmen; die Arbeit belauschen heisst das Volksleben belauschen.

English translation: “To praise labor is to praise the people; to listen in on labor is to listen in on the life of the people.”

Agreement on gold did not mean agreement on how to reach it. In this short 1892 review of the Vienna currency inquiry’s proceedings, Robert Zuckerkandl singles out the dispute over converting existing gulden into gold: when should the rate be fixed, and which price should govern it? His account distinguishes near-unanimity on the monetary standard from unresolved choices about transition. It also preserves an important procedural limit: the experts spoke and debated but did not vote, so any majority on contested questions remained conjectural. Declining a detailed verdict as legislation approached, Zuckerkandl values the inquiry as material for judging reform rather than as a binding decision. The review offers a compact view of what expert consultation clarified—and what it left unsettled.

Professor Macvane, defending Ricardo, had charged the Austrians with smuggling cost into their theory as an afterthought once marginal utility failed. Wieser's rejoinder — which swells from polemic into a full essay against Ricardo himself — turns the accusation around: cost is no rival to marginal utility but a special modification of it, the form value in use assumes under capitalistic production. He dismantles the reduction of all costs to labor, insisting that no actual cost-account contains labor alone, since machines are built with machines and materials with materials. Wages, too, are graded by productive service and scarcity, not by the pain of toil. Exchange itself, he argues, is intelligible only as a mutual gain in use-value; and against Jevons, he holds that value in an age of capital reckons the sacrifice of material means, not merely of effort.

By no form of computation can the factor ‘capital’ be eliminated from the cost of capital.