Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T10:08:10.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eccentric Circles: Rudolf Goldscheid and the Unrealized Goal of Menschenökonomie during the Era of Socialization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2023

Janek Wasserman Open the ORCID record for Janek Wasserman [Opens in a new window]
Janek Wasserman*
Affiliation:
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL
*
E-mail: wasserman@ua.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the sudden rise in popularity and limited long-term impact of Rudolf Goldscheid's work around the time of the Great War. Goldscheid is remembered as a founder of central European sociology, a creator of fiscal sociology, and a fin-de-siècle feminist and pacifist. His reputation ranks behind many of his peers in the social sciences, however. A reevaluation of Goldscheid's position within the fin-de-siècle intellectual landscape of Vienna and central Europe reveals why his sudden success—which was really decades in the making—did not endure in the same way as that of Joseph Schumpeter or Otto Neurath, among others. Goldscheid's ideas seemed innovative in the revolutionary years 1918–1920, yet they were frequently misunderstood. His eccentric position in the socio-liberal sphere of fin-de-siècle Vienna seemed to mute his political impact after the war. A better appreciation of Goldscheid's work not only enriches our understanding of his innovative proposals but also illuminates a frenetic, experimental era in central European history.

Keywords

Rudolf Goldscheidfiscal sociologysocializationMenschenökonomieJoseph Schumpeterintellectual history
Type
Article
Information
Central European History , First View , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Central European History Society of the American Historical Association

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 Das Fremden-Blatt, August 28, 1917, 15.

2 Rudolf Goldscheid, “Kriegskredite und Vermögensabgabe,” Arbeiter-Zeitung, March 16, 1918, 1; Wanderer, Friedrich, “Krieg und Finanzsozialismus,” Der Kampf 11, no. 4 (1918): 227–42Google Scholar; Wanderer, Friedrich, “Die Vermögensabgabe,” Der Kampf 11, no. 10 (1918): 691–704Google Scholar.

3 Hugo Breitner, “Vermögensabgabe und Sozialisierung,” Arbeiter-Zeitung, March 21, 1919, 1–2. On his commission appointment, see Die Zeit, April 6, 1919, 4.

4 R. L., “Vermögensabgabe und Sozialisierung,” Der Morgen, April 28, 1919, 5–6; Die Zeit, June 11, 1919, 4. Goldscheid also drew the ire of conservative publications for the first time—namely Die Reichspost—where he was referred to as “the Jew Goldscheid.” Die Reichspost, November 15, 1918. Translations are mine unless noted.

5 Goldscheid, Rudolf, Staatssozialismus oder Staatskapitalismus. Ein finanzsoziologischer Beitrag zur Lösung des Staatsschulden-Problems (Vienna: Anzengruber, 1917), viiGoogle Scholar.

6 Goldscheid, Staatssozialismus oder Staatskapitalismus. viii–xviii, 22–23; on Menschenökonomie, see page 17.

7 Much of the most recent Goldscheid scholarship treats his demographic and evolutionary work. See Exner, Gudrun, “Rudolf Goldscheid (1870–1931) and the Economy of Human Beings,” Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2 (2004): 283–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 The literature on central Europe in 1918–1920 is expansive, yet an intellectual history is missing. A brief sample: Gerwarth, Robert, November 1918: The German Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020)Google Scholar; Ablovatski, Eliza, Revolution and Political Violence in Central Europe: The Deluge of 1919 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Winkler, Heinrich August, Von der Revolution zur Stabilisierung: Arbeiter und Arbeiterbewegung in der Weimarer Republik 1918 bis 1924 (Berlin: Dietz, 1984)Google Scholar; Allan Mitchell, Revolution in Bavaria, 1918–1919: The Eisner Regime and the Soviet Republic, reprint ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015). On socialization, see Jürgen Backhaus, Günther Chaloupek, and Hans A. Frambach, ed, The First Socialization Debate (1918) and Early Efforts Towards Socialization (Cham: Springer, 2019). On the socialist calculation debate, see Chaloupek, Günther K., “The Austrian Debate on Economic Calculation in a Socialist Economy,” History of Political Economy 22, no. 4 (1990): 659–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Steele, David Ramsay, From Marx to Mises: Post-Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation (La Salle: Open Court, 1992)Google Scholar.

9 One could also reexamine the concept of the school, group, or thought collective in a similar fashion. See Stone, Lawrence, “Prosopography,” Daedalus 100, no. 1 (Winter 1971): 46–79Google Scholar; Collins, Randall, The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Bourdieu, Pierre, “The Field of Cultural Production; or, the Economic World Reversed,” Poetics 12 (1983): 311–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 A brief list: Stadler, Friedrich, The Vienna Circle (Vienna: Springer, 2001)Google Scholar; Timms, Edward, Karl Kraus, Apocalyptic Satirist: The Post-war Crisis and the Rise of the Swastika (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005), 103–22Google Scholar; Coen, Deborah, Vienna in the Age of Uncertainty: Science, Liberalism, and Private Life (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dekker, Erwin, The Viennese Students of Civilization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wasserman, Janek, The Marginal Revolutionaries: How Austrian Economists Fought the War of Ideas (Ashland, OR: Blackstone Publishing, 2019)Google Scholar; Ohad Reiss-Sorokin, “Thinking Outside the Circle: The Geistkreis and the Viennese ‘Kreis Culture’ in America,” Modern Intellectual History (2021): 1–27.

11 Wasserman, The Marginal Revolutionaries, and Wasserman, Janek, Black Vienna: The Radical Right in the Red City, 1918–1938 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and, to a degree, Stadler, The Vienna Circle and Timms, Karl Kraus, Apocalyptic Satirist.

12 On epistemic communities, see the special issue of International Organization 46, no. 1 (1992). On thought collectives, see Philip Mirowski and Dieter Plehwe, ed., The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009). See also Slobodian, Quinn, Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 The acceptance of holistic scientific viewpoints was far more common in German-speaking natural sciences. See Harrington, Anne, Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Rudolf Goldscheid, “Staat, öffentlicher Haushalt und Gesellschaft. Wesen und Aufgabe der Finanzwissenschaft vom Standpunkte der Soziologie,” in Handbuch der Finanzwissenschaft, ed. Wilhelm Gerloff and Franz Meisel, vol. 1 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1926): 146–84.

15 Friedrich Stadler, “Spätaufklärung und Sozialdemokratie in Wien, 1918–1938,” in Franz Kadrnoska, ed., Aufbruch und Untergang: Österreichische Kultur zwischen 1918 und 1938 (Vienna: Europaverlag, 1981): 441–73.

16 Rosa Mayreder, “Rudolf Goldscheids Persönlichkeit und Stellung zur Frauenfrage,” Die Friedens-Warte 30, no. 7–8 (July/August 1930): 195–96. See also Anderson, Harriet, Utopian Feminism: Women's Movements in Fin-de-Siècle Vienna (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Goldscheid, Rudolf, Zur Ethik des Gesamtwillens (Leipzig: Reisland, 1902), 1Google Scholar.

18 Goldscheid, Zur Ethik des Gesamtwillens.

19 On Goldscheid, see Bammé, Arno, Rudolf Goldscheid. Eine Einführung (Marburg: Metropolis, 2020)Google Scholar; Max Haller, ed., Aktuelle Probleme der Finanzsoziologie. Die Fragestellungen von Rudolf Goldscheid heute (Vienna: Lit, 2018); Jochen Fleischhacker, “Menschen- und Güterökonomie. Anmerkungen zu Rudolf Goldscheids demoökonomischen Gesellschaftsentwurf,” in Wissenschaft, Politik und Öffentlichkeit. Von der Wiener Moderne bis zur Gegenwart, ed. Mitchell G. Ash (Vienna: WUV, 2002): 207–29; Wolfgang Fritz and Gertraude Mikl-Horke, Rudolf Goldscheid—Finanzsoziologie und ethische Sozialwissenschaft (Vienna: Lit, 2007); Peukert, Helge, Rudolf Goldscheid und die Finanzkrise des Steuerstaates (Graz: Leykam), 2009Google Scholar. On Max Adler, see Tom Bottomore and Patrick Goode, ed., Austro-Marxism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978).

20 Goldscheid, Zur Ethikdes Gesamtwillens, 145–56.

21 Goldscheid, Rudolf, Entwicklungwerttheorie, Entwicklungsökonomie, Menschenökonomie (Leipzig: Klinkhardt, 1908), xxviiiGoogle Scholar.

22 Goldscheid, Entwicklungwerttheorie, Entwicklungsökonomie, Menschenökonomie, 1–7.

23 Goldscheid, Entwicklungwerttheorie, Entwicklungsökonomie, Menschenökonomie, 8–16.

24 On epigenetics, Goldscheid, Entwicklungwerttheorie, Entwicklungsökonomie, Menschenökonomie, 42–51, esp. 51.

25 Goldscheid, Entwicklungwerttheorie, Entwicklungsökonomie, Menschenökonomie, 216–18.

26 Goldscheid, Entwicklungwerttheorie, Entwicklungsökonomie, Menschenökonomie, xxx–xxxi.

27 Rudolf Goldscheid, Frauenfrage und Menschenökonomie (Vienna: Brüder Suschitzky, 1914). On pacifism, see Rudolf Goldscheid, Das Verhältnis der äußern Politik zur inneren (Vienna: Anzengruber, 1914). On the social question, see Holly Case, The Age of Questions (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018), esp. chap. 2.

28 Robert Leucht, Dynamiken politischer Imagination. Die deutschsprachige Utopie von Stifter bis Döblin in ihren internationalen Kontexten, 1848–1930 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), chaps. 3 and 4.

29 He wrote under the name “Carl Ballod.”

30 On Balodis, see Balabkins, Nicholas, “Carl Ballod: His ‘Zukunftsstaat’ and His Place in Independent Latvia,” Journal of Baltic Studes 4, no. 2 (1973): 113–26Google Scholar; Leucht, Dynamiken politischer Imagination, 280–91; Alier, Juan Martinez, “Ecological Economics and Concrete Utopias,” Utopian Studies 3, no. 1 (1992): 39–52Google Scholar.

31 Carl Ballod, Der Zukunftsstaat, 4th ed. (Berlin: Laub, 1927), 9–22, 279–96. His “enrichment” idea is not far from Thomas Piketty's key insight in Capital in the 21st Century (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014).

32 Lynkeus, Josef Popper, Selbstbiographie (Leipzig: Unesma, 1917)Google Scholar. See also Ingrid Belke, Die sozialreformerischen Ideen von Josef Popper-Lynkeus (1938–1921) (Tübingen: Mohr, 1978).

33 Josef Popper, Das Recht zu leben und die Pflicht zu sterben, 3rd ed. (Dresden: Reissner, 1903). See also Belke, Die sozialreformerischen Ideen von Josef Popper-Lynkeus (1938–1921), chap. 4.

34 Popper-Lynkeus, Josef, Die allgemeine Nährpflicht als Lösung der sozialen Frage (Dresden: Reissner, 1912), 1–13Google Scholar.

35 Popper-Lynkeus, Die allgemeine Nährpflicht als Lösung der sozialen, 74–79. Goldscheid was a fan of Popper's, helping to finance a commemorative Popper statue in the 1920s.

36 Popper-Lynkeus, Die allgemeine Nährpflicht als Lösung der sozialen, 499–508. See also Belke, Die sozialreformerischen Ideen von Josef Popper-Lynkeus (1938–1921) 190–96. Popper nevertheless reasserted the priority of his program. He also disliked Balodis's reliance on state involvement, socialization, and expropriation over the private economy.

37 Karl Ballod, “Einiges aus der Utopienliteratur der letzten Jahre,” Archiv für die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung, vol. 6 (Leipzig: Hirschfeld, 1916), 114–28, esp. 120–28; Josef Popper-Lynkeus, “Einiges über modern Utopien. Eine Erwiderung,” Archiv für die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung, vol. 6, 309–13.

38 Wilhelm Neurath, Elemente der Volkswirtschaftslehre, 3rd ed. (Leipzig: Glockner, 1896), 36–38. See also Thomas Uebel, “Otto Neurath's Idealist Inheritance: The Social and Economic Thought of Wilhelm Neurath,” Synthese 103, no. 1 (April 1995): 87–121.

39 Otto Neurath, “War Economy,” in Economic Writings, Selections 1904–1945, ed. Thomas E. Uebel and Robert S. Cohen (New York: Kluwer, 2004), 153.

40 Neurath, “War Economy.” See also Neurath, “The Economic Order of the Future and the Economic Sciences,” 243; “Economics in Kind, Calculation in Kind and Their Relation to War Economics,” 302–03; “Total Socialization,” 371–74; “Economic Plan and Calculation in Kind,” 441–42, 445–46; and “Socialist Utility Calculation and Capitalist Profit Calculation,” 468–69—all in Economic Writings, Selections 1904–1945.

41 On the Werturteilsstreit, see Glaeser, Johannes, Der Werturteilsstreit in der deutschen Nationalökonomie (Marburg: Metropolis, 2014)Google Scholar; Proctor, Robert, Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 85–98Google Scholar; and Bruce Caldwell, Hayek's Challenge (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 83–99. See also Wasserman, The Marginal Revolutionaries, 66–70.

42 On the Verein, see Boese, Franz, Geschichte des Verein für Socialpolitik, 1872–1932 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1939)Google Scholar, and Lindenlaub, Dieter, Richtungskämpfe im Verein für Socialipolitik (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1967)Google Scholar.

43 On the Methodenstreit, Joseph Schumpeter, The History of Economic Analysis, rev. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 775–83; Caldwell, Hayek's Challenge, 64–82; Backhaus, Jürgen, “Der Methodenstreit in der Nationalökonomie,” Journal for the General Philosophy of Science 31, no. 2 (2000): 307–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wasserman, The Marginal Revolutionaries, 31–37.

44 Max Weber, “‘Objectivity’ in Social Science,” in Max Weber on the Methodology of the Social Sciences, ed. Edward Shils and Henry Finch (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1949), 49–112.

45 “Die Gründung der Soziologischen Gesellschaft,” Arbeiter-Zeitung, April 25, 1907, 6–7. Gudrun Exner, Die Soziologische Gesellschaft in Wien (1907–1934) und die Bedeutung Rudolf Goldscheids für ihre Vereinstätigkeit (Vienna: New Academic Press, 2013) provides a comprehensive account of the society's activities and Goldscheid's role. Christian Fleck, Rund um “Marienthal” (Vienna: Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik, 1990), 34–55, provides an overview of the early history of Austrian sociology.

46 Eugen von Philippovich, “Das Wesen der volkswirtschaftlichen Productivität und die Möglichkeit ihrer Messung,” in Verhandlungen des Vereins für Socialpolitik in Wien, 1909 (Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot, 1910), 329–30, 357–70.

47 von Philippovich, Verhandlungen des Vereins für Socialpolitik in Wien, 1909, 563.

48 von Philippovich, Verhandlungen des Vereins für Socialpolitik in Wien, 1909, 582.

49 von Philippovich, Verhandlungen des Vereins für Socialpolitik in Wien, 1909, 595.

50 von Philippovich, Verhandlungen des Vereins für Socialpolitik in Wien, 1909, 597–99.

51 On World War I Austria-Hungary, see Judson, Pieter, The Habsburg Empire: A New History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016), chap. 8Google Scholar; Watson, Alexander, Ring of Steel: Germany and Austria-Hungary in WWI (New York: Basic Books, 2014), chaps. 8 and 11Google Scholar; Healy, Maureen, Vienna and the Fall of the Habsburg Empire: Total War and Everyday Life in World War I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; John Deak, “The Great War and the Forgotten Realm: The Habsburg Monarchy and the First World War,” Journal of Modern History 86 (June 2014); Manfried Rauchensteiner, Der erste Weltkrieg und das Ende der Habsburgermonarchie (Vienna: Böhlau, 2013), especially chaps. 12, 17, 21.

52 Rauchensteiner, Der erste Weltkrieg und das Ende der Habsburgermonarchie, chap. 18.

53 Goldscheid, Staatssozialismus oder Staatskapitalismus, vii–xviii, esp. xv.

54 Goldscheid, Staatssozialismus oder Staatskapitalismus, 1–20.

55 Goldscheid, Staatssozialismus oder Staatskapitalismus, 21–33.

56 See Emanuel Vogel, “Review of Rudolf Goldscheid, Staatssozialismus oder Staatskapitalismus,” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 13 (1918): 496–500, and Robert Lazarsfeld, “Review of Rudolf Goldscheid, Staatssozialismus oder Staatskapitalismus,” Archiv für Rechts- und Wirtschaftsphilosophie 11, no. 2 (1917–1918): 255–59.

57 Julius Deutsch, “Von der Kriegssteuer zum Finanzsozialismus,” Der Kampf 10 (1917): 146–53. See also Braunthal, Julius, “Staatsschuldenproblem und Arbeiterklasse,” Der Kampf 10 (1917): 214–22Google Scholar, for a less positive appraisal.

58 Schumpeter, Joseph, Die Krise des Steuerstaats (Graz: Leuschner & Lubensky, 1918), 6–8Google Scholar.

59 Joseph Schumpeter, “The Crisis of the Tax State,” trans. Wolfgang F. Stolper and Richard A. Musgrave, in International Economic Papers 4 (1954): 5–6.

60 Schumpeter, “The Crisis of the Tax State,” 5.

61 On “the tax state,” see also McCraw, Thomas, The Prophet of Innovation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 94–96Google Scholar.

62 Schumpeter, “The Crisis of the Tax State.”

63 Schumpeter, “The Crisis of the Tax State.”

64 See “Die Vermögensabgabe vor der Tür,” Der neue Tag, March 30, 1919, 12; R. L., “Vermögensabgabe”; Die Zeit, June 11, 1919, 4; “Politischer Abstieg” and “Schumpeter,” Arbeiterwille, October 10, 1919; “Können wir dem Bankerott entgehen,” Der neue Tag, October 23, 1919, 9.

65 A partial sampling: R. A. Musgrave, “Schumpeter's Crisis of the Tax State: An Essay in Fiscal Sociology,” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 2 (1992): 89–113; Jürgen Backhaus, “Fiscal Sociology: What for?” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 61, no. 1 (January 2002): 55–77; Jürgen Backhaus, ed., Essays on Fiscal Sociology (Frankfurt/Main: Lang, 2005); Richard Sturn, “Public Credit, Capital and State Agency: Fiscal Responsibility in German-Language Finanzwissenschaft,” Graz Schumpeter Centre Discussion Paper Series, no. 19 (2019): 1–37; Schöbel, Enrico, “Finanzsoziologie und Steuerpsychologie. Wiederentdeckungen einer sozio-ökonomischen Finanzwissenschaft,” Ordo 69 (2018): 442–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lutz Köllner, “Bemerkungen zur Finanzsoziologie heute,” Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 203, no. 1 (January 1987): 26–42.

66 R. L., “Vermögensabgabe und Sozialisierung”; Die Zeit, June 11, 1919, 4.

67 Walther Rathenau, Der neue Staat (Berlin: Fischer, 1919), 71.

68 On Rathenau, see Volkov, Shulamit, Walther Rathenau: The Life of Weimar's Fallen Stateman (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berglar, Peter, Walther Rathenau. Ein Leben zwischen Philosophie und Politik (Vienna: Styria, 1987)Google Scholar; Wolfgang Brenner, Walter Rathenau. Deutscher und Jude (Munich: Piper, 2005); Jörg Hentzschel-Fröhlings, Walther Rathenau als Politiker der Weimarer Republik (Matthiesen: Husum, 2007).

69 Neurath, “The Economic Order of the Future and the Economic Sciences,” 244. On Marxist utopianism, see Kenneth Calkins, “The Uses of Utopianism: The Millenarian Dream in Central European Social Democracy before 1914,” Central European History 15, no. 2 (June 1982): 124–48.

70 The Republic of German-Austria established a similar commission with a similar remit, headed by socialist leader Otto Bauer. Goldscheid served on that body.

71 A similar timeline unfolded in Austria. See Otto Bauer: Die Österreichische Revolution (Vienna: Wiener Volksbuchhandlung, 1923).

72 Haberler, Gottfried, “Joseph Alois Schumpeter, 1883–1950,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 64 (1950): 345CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 McCraw, The Prophet of Innovation, 543.

74 On the socialization debates, see Jürgen Backhaus, Chaloupek, and Frambach, The First Socialization Debate (1918) and Early Efforts Towards Socialization; Neurath, Economic Writings, 39–46. On the revolutionary years, see Winkler, Von der Revolution zur Stabilisierung; Mitchell, Revolution in Bavaria, 1918–1919; Gerwarth, November 1918.

75 Hans A. Frambach, “The First Socialization Debate of 1918: Was the Socialization Commission Doomed to Failure Right from the Start,” in The First Socialization Debate (1918) and Early Efforts Towards Socialization, 1–16. The Austrian Socialization Commission has not received similar attention. Reading newspaper coverage and Otto Bauer's writings, it appears that there was no real interest in total socialization at any point in Austria.

76 Ballod, Der Zukunftsstaat, iii–iv.

77 März, Eduard, Joseph Schumpeter: Scholar, Teacher, and Politician (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991) chap. 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stolper, Wolfgang, Joseph Alois Schumpeter: The Public Life of a Private Man (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), part 4Google Scholar.

78 Belke, Die sozialreformerischen Ideen von Josef Popper-Lynkeus (1938–1921), 214–16. See also Neurath, Economic Writings, 39–45. Popper, already older than eighty by the end of World War I, did not have direct involvement in postwar activities.

79 On Neurath's ambivalent relationship with Austro-Marxism, see Wasserman, Black Vienna, chaps. 4 and 6.

80 A brief sampling: Karl Kautsky, Die Sozialisierung der Landswirtschaft (Berlin: Cassirer, 1919); Otto Bauer, Der Weg zum Sozialismus (Vienna: Brand, 1919); Otto Neurath, Wesen und Weg der Sozialisierung (Munich: Callwey, 1919); Emil Lederer, Deutschlands Wiederaufbau und weltwirtschaftliche Neueingliederung durch Sozialisierung (Tübingen: Mohr, 1920); Robert Wilbrandt, Sozialismus (Jena: Diederichs, 1919); August Müller, Sozialisierung oder Sozialismus? (Berlin: Ullstein, 1919); Karl Bücher, Die Sozialisierung (Tübingen: Laupp, 1919); Alfred Amomm, Die Hauptprobleme der Sozialisierung (Leipzip: Quelle & Meyer, 1920). See also Ludwig von Mises, Die Gemeinwirtschaft (Jena: Fischer, 1922).

81 Rudolf Goldscheid, Sozialisierung der Wirtschaft oder Staatsbankerott. Ein Sanierungsprogramm (Vienna: Anzengruber, 1919), esp. 1–26.

82 “Der Kampf um die Vermögensabgabe,” Arbeiter-Zeitung, January 25, 1920, 3–4.

83 Her husband, Otto, ignored Goldscheid completely in Der Weg zum Sozialismus and Die österreichische Revolution.

84 Bauer, Helene, “Rudolf Goldscheids ‘Naturalabgabe,’” Der Kampf 12 (1919): 270–73Google Scholar.

85 The best summary is Chaloupek, “The Austrian Debate on Economic Calculation in a Socialist Economy,” 659–75. From an Austrian School perspective, see Lavoie, Don, “Mises, the Calculation Debate, and Market Socialism,” Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter 24, no. 4 (1981): 58–65Google Scholar, and Lavoie, Don, Rivalry and Central Planning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)Google Scholar. See also Steele, From Marx to Mises.

86 Mises has a lone, dismissive reference to Goldscheid's work. See Ludwig von Mises, Socialism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1950), 490.

87 Wilhelm Gerloff and Franz Meisel, ed., Handbuch der Finanzwissenschaft, 3 vols. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1926/1927/1929).

88 Goldscheid, “Staat, öffentlicher Haushalt und Gesellschaft 1: 146–84. On Tandler, see McEwen, Britta I., “Welfare and Eugenics: Julius Tandler's Rassenhygienische Vision for Interwar Vienna,” Austrian History Yearbook 41 (2010): 181–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.