The archive.

Paris was said to offer little to the social sciences; Feilbogen replies by mapping a landscape crowded with rival schools. He tracks liberal individualism across three generations—Passy, Molinari, Levasseur, and then the systematic Leroy-Beaulieu—and the socialism that Guesde and Lafargue imported from German Marxism before it fractured into reformism and revolutionary syndicalism. Georges Sorel draws the sharpest scrutiny as the theorist of violence and the general strike, whose cult of myth the author judges barbarizing and historically naive. Between the extremes stand the mediating currents—academic economics, the Le Play school, Catholic social thought, Durkheim's sociology, and above all Léon Bourgeois's solidarism, which grounds each individual's debt to society in a quasi-contract while preserving liberty and property.

Ein Mythos ist ein Volksmotiv. Er braucht nicht klar, er braucht nicht wahr zu sein, wenn er nur begeistert.

English translation: “A myth is a popular motive force. It need not be clear, it need not be true, so long as it inspires.”

Legal definitions can classify money without explaining its purchasing power; bank balance sheets can record assets without showing how readily depositors can recover their funds. These gaps animate Ludwig von Mises’s 1910 literature report on money and banking. Reviewing monetary histories and institutional studies, he asks what their descriptions explain—and what they leave concealed. His criticism of Knapp’s state theory turns on its neglect of monetary value and the purposes behind currency reform. His attention to small banks and insurers brings a parallel concern into view: apparently reassuring institutions may hold funds in forms ill suited to sudden withdrawals. The report offers a concrete encounter with Mises as a critic, testing scholarship against historical motives, economic explanation, and the practical risks of financial arrangements.

Lectures and specialized seminars do not, Schumpeter argues, give beginners all the technique or breadth that economics requires. In this brief 1910 review of Otto Neurath and Anna Schapire-Neurath’s Lesebuch der Volkswirtschaftslehre, he judges elementary teaching aids by their contribution to scholarly competence, rather than dismissing them as schoolmasterly. The reader’s selections from twenty-five authors, presented in German with short introductions, offer practical help where economics competes with other subjects—particularly in law faculties. His qualified endorsement reveals a concrete pedagogical concern: demanding serious economic study means supplying the means to begin it, including for students unable to undertake extensive independent reading.

Salaried employees could defend their middle-class standing while making demands that brought them closer to trade unionism. In this 1910 article, Emil Lederer examines that tension through commercial and technical employees’ associations, salary evidence, and pension disputes. His focus is on what organizations do rather than what their programmes profess: benefit funds can sustain loyalty despite political contradictions, while minimum-salary campaigns expose interests shared across status divisions. Nationalist and antisemitic exclusions, meanwhile, obstruct the solidarity effective bargaining requires. Lederer argues that efforts to recover security and independence can acquire consequences their initially conservative supporters did not intend. The article offers a concrete account of class formation through employment practices and social legislation, without assuming that economic dependence simply erases inherited loyalties.

Whose interests are reconciled when agriculture and industry reach an “equilibrium”? In this short 1910 review of A. G. Raunig, Emil Lederer argues that the apparent compromise serves Austrian heavy industry and agriculture at the expense of consumers and manufacturers of finished goods. His distinction is concrete: tariffs and cartels sustain high domestic prices, while dearer agricultural products raise costs for producers whose interests Raunig neglects. Lederer tests the language of sectoral harmony against the distribution of profits, costs and wage pressures. Yet he also credits Raunig’s statistical material and its reliable sources. The review offers a compact example of criticism that separates a publication’s documentary usefulness from its claim to represent shared economic interests.

Legal recognition could leave Russian trade unions scarcely able to act, while employers were permitted to organize across the empire. This asymmetry anchors Emil Lederer’s 1910 review of A. von Witte’s study of the Russian trade-union movement. Praising Witte’s evidence, Lederer draws attention to restrictive legalization, suppressed union newspapers, and lockouts that forced workers to accept harsh terms. His distinctive intervention is to locate the initiative in class struggle with the stronger party—here, the employers—rather than with militant workers. The review offers a compact encounter with Lederer’s argument that employer organization takes an autocratic turn where effective worker organization cannot restrain it, and shows why formal permission to associate need not confer meaningful collective power.

Industrial unity against whom—and under whose leadership? In this short review, Emil Lederer reads Arnold Steinmann-Bucher’s defence of the Zentralverband der Industriellen as a bid for political recruitment, not simply a case for common economic interests. Protectionism ostensibly serving workers accompanies an appeal to industrialists, the middle class and civil servants against labour leaders. Lederer’s pointed distinction is between agreement on an opponent and agreement on who should command the alliance. His review brings into focus the rivalry that Steinmann-Bucher’s call for unity obscures: between the ultra-conservative Zentralverband and the broader, comparatively democratic business organizations competing with it.

An employment-placement system may aspire to neutrality without winning workers’ support. This is the sharpest reservation in Emil Lederer’s brief 1910 review of Bodenstein and Stojentin’s lectures on labour-market organization. Lederer values Bodenstein’s tables showing foreign employment growing even amid unemployment and crisis, but doubts that workers would welcome an industrial counterpart to Germany’s agricultural placement agency. His own description of migrant workers also reproduces a cultural hierarchy. Against Stojentin’s institutional survey, he presses a different objection: the absence of figures or concrete material. This compact review shows Lederer judging administrative proposals by both their empirical substance and their likely reception among workers.

Do political affiliations determine how unions fight? In this brief joint review, Emil Lederer draws a pointed comparison from an account of the 1909 aluminium-workers’ strike at Badisch-Rheinfelden: Christian unionists employed the same tactics and fought with the same energy as the free trade unions. Setting aside the controversies that prompted the account’s publication, he argues that comparable conditions produce comparable forms of class struggle, regardless of party orientation. His observation offers a compact instance of a sociological judgement grounded in strike practice rather than ideological labels. The second pamphlet, concerning disputes between Baden’s factory inspectors and Christian unions, is listed but not separately discussed.

Collective agreements could promise industrial peace—or supply the machinery for a larger confrontation. In this short review, Emil Lederer examines a pamphlet by Berlin building employers who opposed their national federation’s demands during the 1910 construction lockout. He finds revealing testimony in their insistence that those demands were incompatible with collective bargaining, and in their praise for the unions’ restraint. Reading employers’ criticism of other employers, Lederer argues that centralized organization could serve the pursuit of power rather than negotiated accommodation. His pointed conclusion contrasts the Berlin dissenters’ limited influence with unions’ practical willingness to compromise despite their commitment to class struggle. The review offers a compact example of how internal disagreement can unsettle the public alignment of employers and workers.

What use are agricultural tariffs to peasants with almost nothing to sell? In this brief 1910 review of the second edition of Eugen Ehrlich’s lecture on social policy in Bukovina, Emil Lederer foregrounds the mismatch between Western European remedies and regional livelihoods. His concise account, without an explicit critical verdict, sets out Ehrlich’s case for cooperatives rather than price protection and for industrialization to broaden Jewish occupational opportunities. The review offers a compact view of how Ehrlich shifts the policy question from protecting markets to enabling people to earn a living—and of Lederer’s choice to make that regional distinction central to his report.

Agreement on economic principles need not mean reconciliation between economic classes. In this short 1910 review of Eugen von Philippovich’s six lectures, Emil Lederer praises the author’s compressed exposition but identifies a methodological tension: lectures intended to connect economic-policy ideals with conceptions of state and society instead explain them, he argues, through material conditions and class interests. His sharpest objection concerns the rise of specialized interest organizations alongside and against established political parties. For Lederer, their undisguised pursuit of sectional interests suggests not a shared settlement but intensified antagonism. The review offers a compact encounter with his materialist reading of political ideas—and his suspicion that agreement in political vocabulary can conceal deepening economic conflict.