Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:00:19.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corporative Organization of the Third Reich

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Taylor Cole
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Theoreticians have always stood in the vanguard of revolutions with programs which were designed to chart the course for nascent political régimes. When the Third Reich was officially ushered in, enthusiastic exponents of a corporative state (Ständestaat) or corporative organization (ständischer Aufbau) were at hand to act as engineers for an uncharted future—in fact, a future which occasionally offered faint glimpses of perpetuity. Some of the corporative “soap bubbles,” as Max Weber once termed them, quickly burst while others remained intact. Some of the bubble-blowers were swept on by the revolutionary forces or they gathered by the wayside to appraise the residue of their theories. In any case, the period from 1933 to the outbreak of the present war has been sufficient to allow for a survey of the corporative developments in Germany in the light of their theoretical background and institutional expression.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , October 1940 , pp. 438 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1940

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Stand cannot be properly translated into English without reference to its use in German discussions. It may mean variously guild, estate, corporation or status. On the concept of Stand, see particularly Weber, Max, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Tübingen, 1922), pp. 631–641Google Scholar; Tönnies, F., “Stände und Klassen,” Handwörterbuch der Soziologie (Stuttgart, 1931), pp. 617–638Google Scholar. The most important German ständische literature since 1919 is listed in Berger, Robert, “Stand: ständischer Aufbau,” Die RechtsentJuicklung der Jahre 1933 bis 1935/1936, being Handwörterbuch der Rechtswissenchaft (1937), vol. 8, pp. 685–687Google Scholar.

2 Herrfahrdt, Heinrich, Das Problem der berufsständischen Vertreiung von der französischen Revolution bis zur Cegenwart (Stuttgart und Berlin, 1921), pp. 29–32Google Scholar.

3 Aris, Reinhold, History of Political Thought in Germany from 1789 to 1815 (London, 1936), pp. 399 ffGoogle Scholar.

4 “Staatswirtschaftliche Verlegenheiten in England und Reform der Geldverhältnisse in Österreich,” in Baxa, J. (ed.), Ausgewählte Abhandlungen (2 Aufl., Jena, 1931), p. 200Google Scholar. Müller distinguished between the four estates of aristocracy, clergy, industry and merchants, though he appears to have made another classification in one of his later writings.

5 Kohler, R. (ed.), Schriflen zur Staatsphilosophie (München, 1923), p. 306Google Scholar.

6 Lasson, G. (ed.), Crundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts (3. Aufl., Leipzig, 1930), vol. 6, Sees. 302, 203–205Google Scholar.

7 Bůlow, Friedrich, Der deuische Ständtstaat (Leipzig, 1934), p. 18Google Scholar. For a general review of the literature, see Brauweiler, H., Berufsständ und Staal (Berlin, 1925), pp. 59–117Google Scholar; Tartarin-Tarnheyden, E., Die Berufsstände (Berlin, 1922), pp. 113–125Google Scholar; Heinrich, W., Das Ständewesen (Jena, 1932), 283–292Google Scholar; Tönnies, , loc cit., pp. 629 ffGoogle Scholar.

8 Curtius, J., Bismarck's Plan eines Deutschen Volkswirtschaftsrats (Heidelberg, 1919)Google Scholar.

9 Gedanken und Erinnerungen (2 vols., Stuttgart, 1898), vol. 1, pp. 15 ffGoogle Scholar. Bismarck's views underwent changes during his lifetime.

10 Finer, Herman, Theory and Practice of Modern Government (2 vols., London, 1932), vol. 2, p. 889Google Scholar. See also his Representative Government and a Parliament of Industry (Westminster, 1923), pp. 37–97Google Scholar, and Tartarin-Tamheyden, , op. cit., pp. 144–164Google Scholar. None of these standard works, however, gives an adequate discussion of the background of Art. 165.

11 See Brauweiler, , op. cit., pp. 51–56Google Scholar; Ermarth, Fritz, The New Germany (Washington, 1936), pp. 84–85Google Scholar.

12 Note the especially sharp attack on Gierke, in the light of National Socialist first principles, in Reinhard Höhn, Otto von Gierke's Staatslehre und unsere Zeit (Hamburg, 1936), pp. 149–155. For contrary views, see ibid., pp. 9–14.

13 A complete discussion, which is not attempted here, would necessarily include many individual writers. Special mention might be made of the Polilische Kolleg directed by Herrfahrdt and which included Martin Spahn as a member. See the entire issue of Die Tat vol. 17, Heft 7 (1925), and esp. p. 494Google Scholar.

14 Günther, M., Das deutsche Berufsständeproblem seit 1919 und die Vorschläge zu seiner Lösung (Dresden, 1935), pp. 77–79Google Scholar.

15 The model for the members of this werksgemeinschaftlich-berufsständische Gedankenkresis was the Pomeranian Landbundsysstem. Vorwerck, Karl, Die berufsständische Wirtschafts-und Sozialordnung (Berlin, 1933), pp. 32 ffGoogle Scholar.

16 English translations may be found in Husslein, Joseph, The Christian Social Manifesto (Chicago, 1931), pp. 257–323Google Scholar. For discussions, see Eckhardt, C. C., The Papacy and World Affairs (Chicago, 1937), pp. 250 ff.Google Scholar; Fanfani, Amintore, Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism (New York, 1935), pp. 142 ff.Google Scholar; Schilling, Otto, Katholische Sozialpolitik (München, 1929), pp. 57 ffGoogle Scholar.

17 Stand: Ständewesen (Sonderabdruck aus dem Staatslexikon der Görresgesellschaft, 5. Aufl., Bd. 5, Freiburg, 1932), pp. 47–50Google Scholar. See also his “Stand und Klasse,” Stimmen der Zeit, vol. 117 (1929), pp. 284 ffGoogle Scholar.

18 The Stand, according to Pieper, J., was to be transformed “vom Zweckverband Zur Lebensgemeinschaft.” Berufsgedanke und Berufssland im Wirlschaflsleben (M. Gladbach, 1926), p. 20Google Scholar.

19 Shortly before their dissolution in 1933, the National Christian Unions were advocating a berufsständische organization embodying the essentials of the Catholic proposals. Günther, , op. cit., p. 90Google Scholar.

20 On the significance of Social Christian ideas of the corporative state, see Briefs, Goetz, “Social Christian Movements,” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 14, p. 127Google Scholar.

21 For a list of the more important members of this school, see Spann, , The History of Economics (trans, by Eden, and Paul, Cedar, New York, 1930), pp. 282–283Google Scholar. Spann acknowledges in his writings a heavy indebtedness to Adam Müller. Mr. Ralf Munster has called my attention to certain materials on Othmar Spann.

22 Ibid., p. 59.

23 While the distinctions between the Vorstand, or spiritual estate, the Vollsland, or active estate, and the Zunft, or organized guild, are essential to an understanding of Spann's theories, they cannot be drawn here without too many erroneous over-simplifications. See, however, Spann, , Der wahre Staat (3. Aufl., Jena, 1931), pp. 158–195Google Scholar.

24 Spann, , Cescllschaftslehre (3. Aufl., Leipzig, 1930), pp. 501 If.Google Scholar; Hauptpunkte der universalistischen Staatsauffassung (2. Aufl., Wien, 1931), pp. 14–19Google Scholar.

25 Heinrich, , op. cit., pp. 12–14, 99–115Google Scholar.

26 Ibid., pp. 203 ff.

27 Ibid., pp. 24–36.

28 Emery, Andree, “The Totalitarian Economics of Othmar Spann,” Journal of Social Philosophy, vol. 1, (1936), p. 264Google Scholar. For additional discussions of these and other aspects of Spann's theories, see Merriam, C. E., The New Democracy and the New Despotism (New York, 1939), pp. 212–215Google Scholar and Kolnai, A., The War Against the West (New York, 1938), pp. 99 ff., 161 ff., 340–341, 387 ffGoogle Scholar.

29 Das Programm der NSDAP, p. 17Google Scholar. Spann, incidentally, was probably the first and certainly one of the few university professors to accept the soundness of Feder's monetary theories. The History of Economics, op. cit., pp. 238–239Google Scholar.

30 Voeltzer, F., “Der Weg zur organischen Wirtschaftsordnung und ihre theoretische Grundlage,” Ständisches Leben, 5. Heft, 1934, pp. 229 ffGoogle Scholar.

31 An outline of the program for the summer of 1934 is included in Braune Wirtschafls-Post, April 14, 1934, p. 990.

32 In most English versions this word has been translated so as to distort the meaning of this part of Point 25. Thus, in Lichtenberger, H., The Third Reich (trans, by Pinson, K. S., New York, 1937), p. 303Google Scholar, and The Programme of the Party of Hitler (trans, by Dugdale, E. T. S., Můnchen, 1933), p. 25, Stand is rendered “class”!Google Scholar

33 Starcke, G., NSBO. und Deutsche Arbeitsfront (2. Aufl., Berlin, 1934), pp. 218–220Google Scholar.

34 Der ständische Gedanke im Nationalsozialismus (4. Aufl. Můnchen, 1933), p. 24. This book first appeared in 1932Google Scholar.

35 Was ist ständischer Aufbau? (Berlin, 1934), pp. 19–20Google Scholar; cf. Ley, Robert, “Vom Wesen des ständischen Aufbaues,” Nalionalsozialislische Monalshefte, 42. Heft, 1933, pp. 388–389Google Scholar.

36 Frauendorfer, in Völkischer Beobachter, 01 17, 1934Google Scholar.

37 Was ist ständischer Aufbau?, op. at., p. 45.

38 Biallas, Hans, in Völkischer Beobachter, 08 11, 1933Google Scholar.

39 “Nationalsozialistische Wirtschaftgestaltung,” ibid., Sept. 4, 1933; Wirischaflsführung im dritten Reich (Berlin, 1934), p. 32. In some earlier writings where Feder's views were followed, only the National Food Estate was recognized as a Stand. Herrman, A. R. and Ritch, A., Die Wirtschaft im nalionalsozialistischen Weltbild (Leipzig, 1934), pp. 67–68Google Scholar.

40 Der deulsche Volksmirt, May 18, 1934, p. 1454; see also the discussion in Völkischer Beobachler, July 5, 1933.

41 The pages of Der Deutsche, the official Labor Front paper, carried on an acrimonious debate with certain Italian publicists on this point of priority, until Hitler abruptly terminated the discussion.

42 New York Times, Jan. 26, 1936, Sec. 2, p. 1.

43 Roloff, J., “Der Begriff des Ständestaates,” Ständisches Leben, 2. Heft, 1934, p. 93Google Scholar.

44 Ständeverfassung und Demokratie (Berlin und Wien, 1935), pp. 28, 32 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Heinrich, , op. cit., pp. 291 ffGoogle Scholar.

45 Roloff, J., “Missvertständnisse ůber den Universalismus Othmar Spanns,” Ständisches Leben, 1. Heft, 1935, p. 43Google Scholar.

46 Köllreutter, O., Grundriss der allgemeinen Staatslehre (Tubingen, 1933), pp. 186–187Google Scholar

47 Der Mythos des 20. Jahrhunderts (12. Aufl. München, 1933), pp. 695 ff., and elsewhereGoogle Scholar.

48 Freyer, H.. Soziologie als Wirklichkeitsmissenschaft (Leipzig und Berlin, 1930), pp. 68–78Google Scholar; Rössle, W., Ständestaat und politischer Staat (Tübingen, 1934)Google Scholar; Huber, E. R., Die Gestalt des deulschen Sozialismus (Hamburg, 1934), pp. 65 ffGoogle Scholar. Note the attack from the Catholic ranks by Schwer, W. in Ver. des V. fůuer das Kath. Deutschlund (1932), pp. 86–87Google Scholar. Spann, as compared to many Catholic writers, found no realization of his ideas in the Austrian Constitution of 1934, which avowedly established a “christlichen, deutschen Bundesstaat auf ständischer Grundlage.”

49 Selzner, Claus concluded that “Hitler wollen wir und nicht Othmar Spann.” Die deutsche Arbeitsfront (Berlin, 1935), p. 14Google Scholar.

50 See the excellent comment in Ermarth, , op. cit., pp. 82–87Google Scholar.

51 New York Times, Jan. 2, 1935, p. 5. The collection of Ley's, Dr. writings and speeches, Deutschland ist schöner geworden (Berlin, 1936)Google Scholar, and Durchbruch der sozialen Ehre (Berlin, 1937)Google Scholar, omit all of his previous discussions of ständischer Aufbau.

52 Frauendorfer was later given another office in the Party. See “Der Tag der Gemeinschaft,” Deutsche Verwaltung, April 25, 1938, pp. 225–226.

53 In the spring of 1934 the Academy of German Law offered a prize for the best essay on “What is a Stand?”

54 “Das Wesen der ständischen Gliederung mit besonderer Berůcksichtigung Deutschlands,” Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung, April 15, 1934, pp. 502–504; Deulscher Sozialismus (Berlin, 1934), pp. 219–232Google Scholar. The latter book has been translated by K. F. Geiser, under the title of A New Social Philosophy (Princeton, 1937)Google Scholar. These discussions cannot, of course, be reconciled with some of Sombart's earlier writings. See Der moderne Kapitalimus, vol. 2 (6. Aufl. München, 1924), pp. 1091–1107Google Scholar.

55 A New Social Philosophy, op. cit., pp. 202–203.

56 Handbuch füer das Deutsche Reich (Berlin, 1936), pp. 382–418Google Scholar. In Oct., 1934, Dr. Ley, in an order prohibiting the creation of “so-called ständische organizations” recognized only the National Food Estate and the National Chamber of Culture as being “gesetzlich verankert und parteiamtlich anerkannt.” Deutsche allgem. Zeitung, Oct. 8, 1934.

57 Mirbt, M. and Küster, K., Standerecht (Leipzig, 1935)Google Scholar, Chs. 5–6; Meissner, O. and Kaisenberg, G., Staats-und Verwaltungsrecht im dritten Reich (Berlin, 1935), pp. 266–267Google Scholar; Berger, , loc. cit., pp. 677–680Google Scholar.

58 See Frankfurter Zeitung, July 13, 1934.

59 A New Social Philosophy, op. cit., p. 202.

60 Köttgen, A., Deulsche Verwahung (Leipzig, 1936), p. 109Google Scholar.

61 Meissner, and Kaisenberg, , op. cit., p. 267Google Scholar; Maunz, Theodor, Verwaltung (Hamburg, 1937), pp. 163 ffGoogle Scholar.

62 RCBI. I, p. 626. This law had been preceded by the “Law Relative to the Jurisdiction of the Reich for the Regulation of the Corporative Organization of Agriculture” of July 15, 1933. ibid., I, p. 495.

63 Ibid., I, p. 185.

64 Ibid., I, p. 1015. The “industrial or craft organization of handicrafts starts from the guild as the lowest stage, rising thence through the national federations of guilds, or trade groups, to She national group ‘Handicrafts’ (with the Grand Master of German Handicrafts at its head); the geographical organization starts from the chambers of handicrafts and rises thence to the German Congress of Chambers of Handicrafts and Industries (also presided over by the Grand Master of German Handicrafts, acting in the various economic districts through the Grand Master of Handicrafts of the various states).” Schindler, E., “Handicrafts in Germany,” International Labour Review, vol. 35 (1937), p. 77Google Scholar.

65 RCBL, I, p. 661.

66 Ibid., I, p. 1169.

67 Ibid., I, 1935, p. 1433 (Physicians' Code).

68 Ibid., I, 1936, p. 347 (Veterinarians' Code).

69 Ibid., I, 1936, 107 (Lawyers' Code).

70 Ibid., I, 1934, p. 712 (Notary Publics' Code).

71 Brief descriptions, supplemented by charts, may be found in Krause, A. B., Organisation von Arbeit und Wirtschaft (Berlin, 1935)Google Scholar, Part II; Mönckmeier, Otto, fahrbuch ier nationahozialistischen Wirtschaft (Můnchen, 1937)Google Scholar, Part I, Sec. 9 and Part II; Rawlins, E. C. D., Economic Conditions in Germany (London, 1936)Google Scholar; Laufenburger, Henry and Pflimlin, Pierre, La nouvelle structure économique da Reich (Paris 1938), pp. 21 ffGoogle Scholar.

72 Note the powers vested in the Minister of Interior in the Physicians' Code, Secs. 3, 6, 7, 11, 14–17,80.

73 The National Food Estate, the National Chamber of Culture, the National Economic Chamber and the Physicians' and Lawyers' Federations are corporate members of the Labor Front, which precludes individual membership on the part of members of the Stände. Krause, , op. cit., pp. 57 ffGoogle Scholar. On the special relationship of the Labor Front and the National Economic Chamber, see Cole, Taylor, “The Evolution of the German Labor Front,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 52 (1937), pp. 555 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 First Decree Relative to the Preliminary Organization of the National Food Estate, RCBI. I, 1933, p. 1060, Sec. 2; First Decree for the Execution of the National Chamber of Culture Law, ibid., I, 1933, p. 797, Sec. 3.

75 As in First Decree, National Food Estate, Sec. 2.

76 As in First Decree Relative to the Preliminary Organization of German Handicrafts, RCBI. I, 1934, p. 493, Sec. 43.

77 As in First Decree, National Chamber of Culture Law, Sec. 10.

78 As in First Decree Relative to the Execution of the Law on the Preparation for the Organic Structure of the German Economy. RCBI. I, 1934, p. 1194, Sec. 16.

79 As in the case of National Food Estate, ibid., I, 1933, p. 626.

80 As in First Decree, National Chamber of Culture Law, Sec. 25.

81 As in First Decree, German Handicrafts, Sec. 46.

82 As in Physicians' Code, Sec. 47.

83 As in Lawyers' Code, Sec. 48.

84 As in Physicians' Code, Secs. 51 ff. and Lawyers' Code, Sees. 64 ff.

85 Ascoli, Max and Feiler, Arthur, Fascism for Whom? (New York, 1938). pp. 163 ffGoogle Scholar.

86 Guillebaud, C. W., The Economic Recovery of Germany, 1933–1938 (London, 1939), pp. 246–247Google Scholar.

87 Rösner, Ernst, “Rechtspflegestatistik,” Handwörterbuch der Rechtswissenschaft, vol. 8, pp. 526 ffGoogle Scholar.

88 Poole, K. E., German Financial Policies, 1932–1939 (Cambridge, 1939), p. 6Google Scholar; Sweezy, Maxine Y., “Distribution of Wealth and Income under, the Nazis,” The Review of Economic Studies, vol. 21 (1939), pp. 180–182Google Scholar; Laufenburger, Henry, “La vie économique en Allemagne,” Revue d'economie politique, vol. 53 (1939), p. 1570Google Scholar.

89 Note the discussion in Drucker, P. B., The End of Economic Man (New York, 1939), pp. 135 ffGoogle Scholar. Drucker has exaggerated a thesis which contains some valid elements.

90 Löwenstein, K., “Occupational Representation and the Idea of an Economic Parliament,” Social Science, vol. 12, (1937), p. 429Google Scholar, and Hitlers Germany (New York, 1939), pp. 143 ffGoogle Scholar.

91 Weber, Max found in “honor” the distinguishing feature of a Stand, as compared to other social groups. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, op. cit., pp. 635 ffGoogle Scholar.

92 Mansfeld, W., “Ehrengerichtsbarkeit,” Handwörterbuch der Rechtswissenschaft, vol. 8, p. 154Google Scholar.

93 Frank, Reichsminister Hans, “Nationalsozialistischer Ehrenschutz,” Deuisches Recht, July 15, 1937, pp. 267 ffGoogle Scholar. The latter of these views may seem to have prevailed in the creation of the corporate honor courts and in that the honor codes, without exception, provided penalties for honor violations in general clauses. Müller, H. M., Ständische Ehrengerichtsbarkeit (Berlin, 1936), p. 16Google Scholar. Presumably there is such a clear understanding of what would constitute a violation of ständische honor that there is no need to enumerate types of prohibited activities. Since the National Labor Law of 1934, in creating courts of social honor, makes a specific enumeration of punishable acts (RGBI. I, 1934, p. 45, Sec. 36), it might be argued that the honor of the recently created “works communities” rested upon somewhat more uncertain foundations than those of the Stand.

94 On the organization and jurisdiction of these vocational courts, consult Ule, , “Zur Verfassung der ständischen Ehrengerichtsbarkeit,” Verwaltungsarchiv, vols. 42–43 (1937–1938), pp. 349 ffGoogle Scholar.