The archive.

Idle factories and available capital pose a puzzle: why does an economy fail to put them back to work? In this 1939 symposium article, Emil Lederer argues that recovery depends not simply on lower wages or prices, but on opportunities for investment that established industries may no longer provide. His distinction between expanding existing production and creating new industries gives technological unemployment a concrete setting: machines can reduce costs without generating enough demand to reemploy displaced workers. Against assurances drawn from nineteenth-century growth, he asks whether the conditions that once made adjustment possible still hold. The economic frontier, he concludes, is not closed—but spontaneous expansion cannot be counted on. Readers can discover why, in his account, deliberate demand creation and a reconsideration of thrift become questions of democratic economic security.

A wage cut can lower a firm’s costs while shrinking the market for its products. This tension anchors Emil Lederer’s 1939 article, presented here in French translation, on whether wages cause economic crises and whether reducing them hastens recovery. Lederer challenges both capital-shortage and underconsumption theories by asking when cheaper production actually prompts new investment—and when it merely redistributes purchasing power. His distinctive move is to connect the business cycle with differences among occupations and industries: construction costs, skilled workers’ earnings, and housing affordability matter in ways an average wage index conceals. His case for targeted subsidies rather than general wage cuts offers a concrete way to examine how policy might lower investment costs without reducing workers’ incomes.

Le niveau des salaires est une abstraction, de même que le niveau général des prix.

English translation: “The wage level is an abstraction, just as the general price level is.”

Does listening at home free people from the pressures of a political crowd—or bring propaganda directly to their firesides? In this review of César Saerchinger’s Hello America!—Radio Adventures in Europe, Emil Lederer tests the broadcaster’s claim that the microphone weakens demagogues by stripping away theatrical gestures and exposing insincerity. Father Coughlin and dictatorships’ multilingual short-wave broadcasts supply his counterexamples: manipulation can travel through a seemingly objective argument as readily as through a rant. Lederer values Saerchinger’s insider observations of broadcasting machinery and political figures, while asking what their reach means for public opinion. This brief review captures a precise tension between radio’s promise of independent listening and its capacity to make private homes part of an international political struggle.

Can an account of conflicting worldviews also explain why political restraint fails? In this brief 1939 review of Harley Farnsworth MacNair’s The Real Conflict between China and Japan, Emil Lederer welcomes an explanation that reaches beyond territory, wealth and power to the historical beliefs shaping state ambitions. His sharper intervention concerns the consequences of that explanation: he argues that a Japanese political system driven by prestige and unlimited ambition leaves advocates of a “sensible” policy powerless and makes appeasement futile. The review offers a compact encounter between appreciation and criticism, showing how Lederer turns MacNair’s account of ideological conflict into a question about whether a political system can accommodate moderation.

Comprehensive state control may be indispensable to modern warfare without making an economy socialist. In this 1939 essay from War in Our Time, Emil Lederer explains that distinction through the material demands of mobilization: military orders absorb labor and raw materials while civilian supplies shrink, so price controls alone cannot prevent shortages. His comparison of totalitarian preparation with democratic alternatives keeps attention on the real resources behind borrowing, investment restrictions, rationing, and substitute industries. The central contrast is between war’s excess demand and the idle capacity of peacetime depression. Readers can discover why apparently similar instruments of economic intervention serve sharply different purposes—and why even extensive planning cannot overcome limits imposed by population, raw materials, and productive capacity.

Modern dictatorship is not rule by a clique, a bureaucracy, or a defensive capitalist class; it arises, Lederer argues, when a society loses the classes, parties, associations, and publics through which individuals become politically articulate. What remains is an amorphous mass, available for emotional mobilization, crystallized around a leader and held together by propaganda that mimics argument while severing it from truth. Tracing d'Annunzio at Fiume, Italian Fascism, and the SA's conquest of the German street, he presents fascism as the destruction of society itself rather than its capture. His warning against the classless society defends not hierarchy but stratification, the plural conflict on which freedom depends. Written in American exile and read here in Angela Kornberger's German rendering of the 1940 English original, State of the Masses, it stands among the first emigre theories of totalitarianism.

Der totalitäre Staat ist der Staat der Massen.

English translation: “The totalitarian state is the state of the masses.”

Rising real wages do not by themselves establish that poverty has receded. In this review, published in English translation in 1931, Emil Lederer examines the first volume of The New Survey of London Life and Labour through that distinction. He values Charles Booth’s combination of statistical classification and intimate household observation, but asks what happens when its measures are carried across forty years of changing expectations. Deteriorating housing, commuting costs and lost leisure complicate the apparent gains in purchasing power; London’s locally rooted poor also challenge explanations centred on migration. Lederer’s favourable but questioning assessment shows what historical comparison demands of a social survey: evidence not merely of higher incomes, but of how economic change alters the conditions and possibilities of working-class life.

Salaried employees could strike, bargain collectively, and acknowledge a conflict with employers without abandoning their claims to middle-class distinction. This tension anchors Emil Lederer’s study of German private-sector employees after November 1918. Drawing on technical and commercial associations, salary agreements, and disputes over workplace representation, he distinguishes the adoption of union methods from conversion to socialism. Inflation eroded welfare funds, while comparisons with skilled workers’ earnings challenged assumptions of salaried superiority; yet occupational pride and nationalist allegiances persisted. Lederer treats revolution as an opening for collective action, not merely a consequence of economic decline. His account shows why increasingly similar employment interests could sustain sharply different political loyalties—and why organizational change cannot be read directly as a change in social identity.

German trade unions emerged from the revolution of 1918 with more members, legal recognition, and greater influence—but no settled answer to what their new power should achieve. In this critical survey, Emil Lederer examines the tension between bargaining within capitalism and preparing to transform production. He tests institutional gains against their economic substance: inflation eroded wage increases and strike funds, while employer–union cooperation could secure recognition without altering private ownership. Works councils sharpened a further conflict, representing entire workforces rather than the members of voluntary unions. Lederer’s distinctive concern is how these organizational arrangements shaped competing ideas of socialism and class struggle. His analysis shows why stronger labor institutions could simultaneously stabilize existing economic relations and generate demands to overturn them.

Abolishing the employer does not by itself give workers a stake in collective life. This distinction anchors Emil Lederer’s review essay on Walther Rathenau’s proposals for economic and social reconstruction. Welcoming Rathenau’s turn toward expropriation, Lederer asks what would make self-government more than a change of administrators: participation in production, municipal affairs, and communal housing must make solidarity an everyday experience. His criticism also reaches Rathenau’s fear that economic equality would impoverish culture. Why should the disappearance of wealthy patrons entail the disappearance of creative initiative or diverse audiences? Rather than promise socialist flourishing, Lederer challenges the projection of wartime deprivation onto a future social order. The essay offers a concrete account of what ownership reform leaves unresolved: motivation, cultural freedom, and the institutions through which people acquire shared responsibility.

A state can define a monetary unit, but can it explain what that unit will buy? In this review of Kurt Singer’s Das Geld als Zeichen, Emil Lederer presses the gap between money’s legal validity and its purchasing power. He credits Singer’s insights into credit creation and economic fluctuations while questioning whether central-bank management can secure stability without a fuller account of the economy. The same demand for concrete explanation shapes his criticism of Singer’s cultural history: medieval debasement and postwar currency collapse require analysis of fiscal pressures and exchange relationships, not merely the invocation of an epoch’s spirit. The review offers a pointed distinction between recognizing that money is historically conditioned and explaining how particular economic conditions sustain—or undermine—it.