Главная Журнал «Россия и Запад: диалог культур» Главная Рубрики Исторический контекст взаимодействия культур Igor Pavlovskiy "Perception of Lorenz von Stein’s Theory in the Russian Community of the 19th Century"

Igor Pavlovskiy "Perception of Lorenz von Stein’s Theory in the Russian Community of the 19th Century"

Igor Pavlovskiy –

Doctor of History, Professor

Faculty of Foreign Languages and Area Studies

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Tel.: (499)783-02-64

Email: ipavlovskiy@mail.ru


Perception of Lorenz von Stein’s Theory in the Russian Community of the 19th Century

The name of the German scholar Lorenz von Stein is not well-known today, though in the late 19th – early 20th cc. his public administration theory was world famous and had a major influence on the intellectual climate of the time. In Russia Stein’s ideas were received with far greater enthusiasm than in any other country outside Germany, although they were evaluated differently and did not secure Stein any consistent supporters. This article explores the reasons for the unusual interest in Stein’s work in Russia and the duality of the stance adopted by the representatives of the Russian intelligentsia. Their approaches to Stein do not only provide additional criteria with which to evaluate the scholar’s place but also give an opportunity to reflect on the national peculiarities of the Russian outlook.

Key words: Lorenz von Stein, public administration theory, political ideas of the 19th century, Russian community

Today the name of Lorenz von Stein seems to have been almost completely forgotten. However, in the 19th century he was a world-famous scholar, known no less (and perhaps even more) to Russians than to his fellow Germans. Stein played an important part in forming the political ideas of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, there is a wide gap between the role he actually played and the way it was perceived by the intellectual public. There were only a few people in Germany and Russia who could understand Lorenz von Stein, yet although not one of these few fully accepted any of his political or philosophical ideas, he was still greatly appreciated. So, for example Schmoller referred to him as "the father of social policy."[1] Ludwig Gumplowitsch, though observing that before Stein there had been no such unique blend of "idealism and realism," nevertheless considered him one of the brightest phenomena of the last stage in the evolution of the "legal state" concept (alongside with Moll and Gneist.)[2] The German encyclopaedia Gross Brochaus, in a short reference to the life and activity of the scholar, qualified him as a precursor of "modern bourgeois democracy,"[3] and W. Gerik in his book about Stein wrote in 1966 that "his merit is that he formulated the concept of executive power, which could meet the requirements ...of the modern mass democratic party state."[4]

Despite  posthumous  praise,  in  his  lifetime  Stein  was  taken  for  a supporter and  disseminator of socialist and other radical left ideas. Following his death, although scientific discussions in Germany focused on whether Stein actually was, and to what extent, Marx's spiritual mentor,[5]and debates in Russia addressed the dilemma of whether or not a scholar could demand from Lorenz von Stein what  he did not demand from himself,[6] the name of Lorenz von Stein was totally forgotten by the whole of the German and Russian reading public, and almost completely ignored by the writers of the time.

Lorenz von Stein was born on November 15, 1815, in the small town of Borby near Eckernförde. His father was a nobleman who could not hand down the title to his son, and his mother, though coming from a bourgeois family, could not leave anything to him either. Thus Lorenz had barely enough money to receive the education that subsequently was to become the source of his scarce income.

Upon leaving a primary military and grammar school, Stein headed for Kiel and then Jena for higher education. As early as that time law and philosophy became his favourite subjects. After obtaining his diploma, he worked for two years at the Schleswig-Holstein office of Copenhagen and then moved to Berlin, where he attended lectures by Hegel, who was in the apogee of his glory. Stein wrote and submitted his doctoral thesis in 1840.

Then, by the Ministry of Home Affairs in Prussia, he was sent to Paris to get acquainted with modern revolutionary ideas and to estimate the possible prospects of their becoming widespread. Apart from his reports to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the trip resulted in Stein's book The Socialism and Communism of Today's France, which appeared in 1842 and made the author world-famous. In this book Stein predicted, in particular, that in the near future a social revolution would occur in Europe, and that the proletariat, with its accompanying social requirements, would enter the political scene. His name became even better known and more respected in 1848, when the social revolution that he had predicted took place in Europe.

During this time, Stein accounts for the historical process by the evolution of property relations; this was the reason why he was long-after associated with economic determinism.

In 1846 Stein received a place as extraordinary professor at the University of Kiel, but as early as 1848 he was dismissed for participating in the separatist movement of the Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein, a part of Denmark at that time. Later on, he represented the government of the rebellious duchy in Paris and then went back to Kiel to become a deputy of Landtag. On the restitution to power of Denmark in 1850, he was deprived of his department and banished from Schleswig-Holstein.

Stein's economic conditions soon improved, however, following the publishing of his book The History of Social Movement in France Since 1789. Further, his books began to be published as regularly as 1 - 2 per year, bringing him some profit.

From 1856 till 1888 Stein held the post of professor at the University of Vienna. It was there that he died, two years after having retired.

Lorenz von Stein's scientific heritage comprises more than 70 large (several volumes thick) and medium-sized works. His main subjects are the history of the state, society, property and evolution of law. He also attempted to work out an exact science of the public administration system. Stein's ideas had a great influence on such conservative politicians as Otto von Bismarck. Also, he was the first to try compiling not the history of kings but that of peoples, with their particular and individual ways of living.

Stein perceived human history as an ever-lasting opposition of personal and non -personal principles, most tangibly manifested in the struggle between the state, which embodies the personal trend, and the society, which reveals the impersonal component in people’s community. The state means uniting people for common goals, and as such, according to Stein, it represents a supreme incarnation of a human personality, too weak to realize on its own the necessities of life. Society is, however, an impersonal base, decomposing the global union to fulfill the private interests of groups, classes, social strata, households and individuals. One cannot exist without the other, in Stein's opinion.

Any union of people bears two principles: the separating one (private interests), and the consolidating one (common objectives). If the former conquers the latter, the alliance will be doomed to failure.  If the state suppresses or ignores the needs and processes of the society, it deprives itself of its power, ruins its citizens whose welfare is the source of its might, and saps the life of the community, while stripping it of its only possibility of creative living, i.e. inequality of property status. The aim and purpose of the state at all times of human history, as seen by Stein, consists of trying to raise the lower strata to the level of the propertied without destroying the latter. However, he admits that violence towards the upper classes can be exerted for the sake of social stability.

Stein's attitude towards the state seems to have evolved over time. Thus, in 1842 he wrote that "the idea of the state is not an individual, but his unique supremacy. It is in this integration of separate individuals that the latter can gain its utmost perfection. Freedom is the individual's right within the state, whereas equality is a right in the society."[7] In 1850 he had already modified this view and stated that "if the community is self-reliant, if does not depend on an individual person’s life, and if it is personal...then it must possess an independent will, according to which it manifests itself as an autonomous entity, realises its self-determination and performs its deed. On the contrary, if one fails to find a self-reliant will and independent actions in the community, one cannot deny that there is personal life in it, analogous to our individual living. For such independent will, the community is the state. To define the latter, it may be sufficient to say that the state is a people's community, manifesting itself as the will and actions of an individual. In a definition, formulated like that, something is obviously missing. Why not put it simply: the state is a community, acting as a personality, an independent universal individual in general?"[8]

One of the first clearly-formulated attempts to compare the state to a personality was made by the materialist Hobbes, who associated it with the biblical personage of Leviathan. In Germany similar ideas were put forward by Schelling and his disciples Ahrens, Wagner and Krause. One can also find oblique statements on the same subject in the works by Hegel and Leopold Ranke. Stein was not a pioneer in this domain. His innovation consisted in not merely presenting the state as an individual, emphasising, so to speak, the affinity of functions and resorting to an allegory to better illustrate his views. No, it is the state that Stein considers to be an individual with its own soul, will, intellect etc., of a superior, true type in contrast to that of a particular person. This attitude towards the state was new. It was and has been regarded as sustained allegory, though Stein, to all appearances, took his vision of the state-incarnate very seriously.

Naturally, said state-individual required an incarnation, realisation and a bearer of this idea. For Stein it could be only kingdom, monarchy, and headed by a king.[9] This is not to suggest that he was against self­government, parliaments, various sorts of people's representatives and participation of all social strata in legislation.  In this paper  I  shall try  to prove that not only was Stein actually in favour of all these institutions,  but that he thought that without them the very  idea  of  the  state-individual would be completely pointless . The state, personified by the monarch, wages a constant struggle to keep one class from subsuming the others. In doing that, the king from time to time uses only the lower class as a support, and sometimes opposes himself to an entire hostile society.[10]

As one of the most pertinent examples of the state fulfilling its duty, Stein recalls Solon, who won the struggle with the patriarchal aristocracy of ancient Greece in order to abolish debt slavery for his compatriots and land arrears.[11] "The essence of the state," says Stein, "is that the highest level of each individual’s perfection comprises the highest level of that of the whole. The utmost development of the individual is, consequently, the main objective of the state."[12] To achieve this, the state should raise, as it were, its citizens to participate in working out their will, that is, legislation, and its fulfillment.[13] Therefore, he concludes, the state idea always requires ‘representation’.[14]

What made Stein think that it was in the case of monarchy that the state would perform the above-mentioned functions to the best? First, a king is easiest identified by the people as the embodiment of the state. Second, making decisions and performing the state's concrete acts of will can be more conveniently handled by an individual than by a collective body. Third, kings are not dependent on the election procedure, their royal power being secured by birth. Thus, the guarantor of freedom, according to Stein, is a strong state power, with the monarch as its head.

Many of the opinions written about Stein's theory coincide with that of Alexander L. Blok, the famous Russian poet's father, who stated that "though rejecting Stein's political views, I do not have any doubt that this remarkable scientist still remains one of the most useful guides on the slippery road of state science."[15] This paradoxical attitude towards Stein has been expressed by almost all scientists who have taken the trouble to read his works.

However, the majority of scholars denied that Stein's concepts were original. They were attributed to Hegel or Saint-Simon, Machiavelli or Adam Smith, and even to Harrison, Krause, Wagner or Ahrens. Even such devoted admirers as Masaryk did not recognise the completeness of his doctrine. Stein himself counted among his teachers Leibnitz, Wolf Krause and the French Utopians. There is some reason to believe that Immanuel Kant was also one of the philosophers who greatly influenced Stein. However, in spite of this seemingly great variety of mentors and inspirers, Stein's theory is fully independent and absolutely complete. It is so complete and non-fitting into any other philosophical systems that the Russian scholar LT. Tarasov, sent in 1870 to Vienna to study Lorenz von Stein's philosophy, wrote that it is possible to listen to his lectures "only if one accepts in total his system of views."[16]

Both his contemporaries and philosophers of later periods treated him and his works with great care. They were frightened by something in him, either by the fact that he wrote openly about a possible extinction of Western societies, or by the prescriptions he offered for avoiding the coming catastrophe. He and his conceptions could not be squeezed into any trend of social science.

Stein cannot be regarded as a liberal because he believed the state to be the supreme and only possible incarnation of the personality.Yet he cannot be classified as reactionary, for he demanded from the state active social policy in order to satisfy the lower classes' striving for freedom. He is not a Marxist or even a socialist, for he was an ardent supporter of the concept of private property. He claimed that the history of mankind began only with the advent of property, and that the capitalist economy of his time was highly explosive for the very reason that 90% of property was concentrated in the hands of a small group of people. This claim notwithstanding, Stein felt that proletarian power could be nothing but dictatorship or chaos. But he was not an adherent of the official Prussian or any other German government circles that were trying to cope with this danger. Thus, Stein was sceptical about the Prussian constitution of 1850, for he viewed it as existing on paper only and reproached its authors for not being willing to create democratic fundamental law that would meet people's aspirations. In all of his works, he returned over and over to his general theme: either European states must carry out social reforms or a run of social uprisings would begin.

That is who the real Lorenz von Stein was. He was no more reactionary than any other man of the state of his time. He was no more revolutionary than is necessary for a scientist who aspires to the independent way of thinking. He was an extraordinary professor in an ordinary university, writing and teaching the boring subject of administration.

The part he actually played in the development of social science was far more significant. And here we are faced with several paradoxes. A scholar who devoted all his scientific work to prove that maximum effort, including deep social reforms, should be put forth in order to prevent social revolutions, became for some people a symbol of support for the social revolution idea, censured by him, whereas for others he was a representative of reactionary junkets, eager to stop the social progress at all costs.

In the course of present scholarship, we are faced with a subjective evaluation of the scholar and the part he played. It is worthwhile mentioning here that among foreigners it was Russians who took the greatest interest in Lorenz von Stein's works. Somewhat less interest was taken by Italians, still less by the former subjects of the Austro-Hungarian Empire: Czechs, Hungarians, and Slovaks, and finally, the Japanese took the least interest of all. What accounts for so much attention of Russian intellectuals to Lorenz von Stein's papers? On the one hand, it is the absence of the language barrier – all teachers and professors in Russian universities in the second half of the 19th century knew the German language almost as well as their mother tongue. But among the former subjects of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, northern Italians in the late 19th century also continued in the tradition of speaking German. However, from that area one can find far fewer research works on Stein's papers. Therefore, Russia's apparent interest in Stein's works obviously reflects some inner intellectual kinship, which, in this way or another, manifested itself, in spite of great discrepancies. To specify the nature of the relationship is beyond the scope of the present article, its aim being more concrete; that is, to describe the general tendencies in evaluating Stein and his theory by representatives of the Russian intelligentsia. Defining these trends will provide us with additional criteria with which to evaluate Stein's place as a scholar; further, it gives us another chance to reflect on the national peculiarities of the Russian outlook.

I will begin by describing similarities in Russian and German perceptions of Stein. Both in Russia and in Germany those who were fond of socialist and communist ideas became engrossed in Stein's books. This was perhaps for the simple reason that information about these phenomena of social science, although interesting to many people, was available only to those who were reading works and compilations by Elpers, Stein and others. For example, August Bebel, a well-known member of the socialist movement in 1871 wrote: "Without Lorenz von Stein's works on the development of socialism and communism in France... we would know the literature on the subject only by hearsay."[17] Mikhail Bakunin, in his "confession," as it were, written in a prison cell of the Peter and Paul Fortress and addressed to Nicholas I, also noted that Lorenz von Stein's books had opened to him the door to the world of socialist and communist ideas.[18] In the same manner, the role of Stein's works was written about by A. I. Turgenev.[19]

This is actually quite astonishing, for the scholar himself in his works decries socialist and communist movements as having no prospects. A possible proletariat power he characterises as nothing but "dictatorship of chaos."[20] This was known by the German supporters of communist theory; thus, Engels wrote about the necessity to urgently collect a party library so that young socialists would study the socialist literature not only through"Stein's and Elpers's compilations."[21]

Therefore, either due to the lack of authentic books on relevant issues or because of the fascinating form of their presentation, socialist and communist ideas were studied in Russia through the works by Lorenz von Stein, who was highly sceptical about them himself.

A different interpretation can also be made. It can be said that the established perception speaks for the presence in Stein's books of a very strong social-political impetus, of which Stein himself did not even suspect, which could help young Bebels and Bakunins to ignore criticisms of ideas expounded. Perhaps it was even a reflection of Stein himself being attracted by the idea of revolution or willing to understand the cause of his contemporaries’ interest towards socialist and communist theories that led Stein to the condescension-mixed-with-hidden-curiosity that added specific savour to his words when read by young worshippers of the radical left.

At least, this peculiarity was well observed in Russia by the staff of the IIIrd Department of His Majesty's office. And anyone suspected of any kind of disloyalty towards the government, (such as, for example, Slavophile I.S. Aksakov, arrested in 1848) was questioned together with others at an inquiry and encouraged to answer the following question: "Among your books there happened to be those by Stein, on socialism and communism and Mickiewicz's poems. When and where did you purchase them, do you cherish any communist or other thoughts hostile to our regime, and if you do, please explain how you have been lead to them?"[22] This was put in the above way not because the servants of the IIIrd Department did not read books by Stein. As is well known, among the officers of this institution it would be rare to find one without university education. Obviously, what they were after was not the content of Stein's books, but what in them interested the majority of his readers.

The Russians read Stein's works with pleasure, not only his books on socialism and communism, but also those on general history, as well as those devoted to the issues of the evolution of law, property institutions and so on (where he developed his ideas of the legal state as the crown of political structure of the society.) It is quite possible that it was his sceptical, distanced manner of writing that evoked confidence and feelings of objectivity within representatives of the Russian intelligentsia. For example, one may read the comments of a well known lawyer and historian of state doctrines, the last Russian Emperor's future tutor, N. Chicherin. In his diary of 1849, he writes: "following my inner command I went on studying philosophy. To do that I turned back to studying Greeks and began reading Plato and Aristotle in the original, first with the help of a translation, and then using only the text in Greek. Alongside I studied the history of law: on German law I read Eichhorn, on French law I dealt with Warnkönig and Stein."[23] Here one should pay attention not so much to the fact that the name of Stein is placed near those of Plato and Aristotle, but that on the history of French law, the famous jurist, while speaking fluently all European languages, chose text by the Germans Warnkönig and Stein. Is this a sign of a unique confidence in the Germans in general, or in Lorenz von Stein in particular?

Another specific feature of the perception of Stein pertains to Russia more than to Germany. This consists of the fact that representatives of Russian social science could not remain indifferent toward Stein's ideas. In spite of this, in Russia one could find Hegelians, Kantians, Schellingians, Marxists, Voltaireans, Saint-Simonists, and even Lassalians. But there were no Steinists. His thoughts did not fit into any contemporary trends. Nevertheless, the range of impressions produced by his works was extremely wide. If he was criticised, it was frequently in a most severe way, as by N. Khlebnikov: "Thus, even in the abstract, speaking theoretically, Stein's system is beneath criticism, being absurd from the historical point of view..."[24], or N. Nelidov, who reproached Stein for his ideas being inapplicable and useless: "the main thought of Stein's books, his concept of state, is not based on extensive data obtained by observation...but is taken from the outside, as a result of abstract thinking."[25]

When being praised, however, he was extolled to the skies, as, for example by Nikolay Bunge, a professor of Kiev State University, Minister of Finance, and inspirer of the famous monetary reform by Count Witte. In 1895 Bunge regarded Stein as a leader of scholars who dealt with state sciences.[26] Boris Chicherin referred to Stein as the most talented scholar in Germany.[27] Highly positive and enthusiastic comment on Stein's works was added by Gradovsky, who considered him the founder of the theory of executive power,[28] and by professor Andreyevsky, who stated that the books by Stein have left all papers on police far behind."[29] Here there is one more very important point to make: there was nobody to fully share Stein's thoughts and assume them as his own. Even the well-known Russian economist Vladimir Bezobrazov, a close friend, used only a few of Stein's concepts in his own papers on economy.[30]

Let us return to Alexander L. Blok. He accepted none of Stein's ideas, and still considered Stein "one of the most helpful guides on the slippery ways of state theory." What a paradox! What is it that made Stein so useful and indispensable to a new generation of scholars? Is it his habit of brain storming wildly, and then carefully analysing his casuistic assumptions? If this is all, why produce such extraordinary and enthusiastic responses? It may be deduced that Stein made Russian scholars feel a kind of ecstasy, the cause of which they were unable to explain. The Germans' attitude towards him was far more dispassionate: they qualified him in accordance with their views as a follower of this or that trend of social theory, put a corresponding label on him and did not worry about him anymore. For Russian scholars, even Stein's death gave them continued occasion for not-quite-correctly trying to ascertain truth across the pages of periodicals.[31]

The Russian government demonstrates the same sort of strange inconsistency towards Stein. For instance, in 1879, as a result of Bezobrazov's petition, they awarded Stein one of the highest Russian orders for his work Theory of Administration[32] (immediately after this, Austria, for his Verwalungslehre regranted him the noble rank he had lost in 1848). On the other hand, during approximately the same period, the Russian Committee of Ministers ordered the collection and destruction of all Russian versions of his book The History of Political Movement in France from 1789 to the Present. At the present, there exists only a single copy of the work, photographed, which is displayed in the Lenin State Library (Moscow). The strange thing about all this is that these two works so differently estimated by the Russian government are two links of the same chain, and to pull one of them means to drag out the other. If Stein had not seen a great danger in the social tendencies of the time, he would not have created the doctrine of administration, which, according to him, was the essential means of coping with this threat. Had he not been an admirer of freedom, he would not have become a supporter of "social reform monarchy." If Stein had not contrived his "staatbürgerliche Gesellschaft" ("the legal state"), he would not have been searching for a monarch as a personal guarantor of this legal order.

This duality of character and interrelations was in 1905 observed by L. A. Tikhomirov, a well-known Russian theoretician and monarchist: "It is worthwhile to mention that Lorenz von Stein himself, to whose books the theory of civil system owes its existence was in fact a monarchist and expected the Monarchic Supreme power to control class struggle. He also, however, was a supporter of the extensive self-government of social groups, local, corporative bodies, etc."[33]

Here too, the Russians and Germans demonstrated different approaches to Stein. The Germans believed that the crowning achievement of their investigations of Stein was to have his theory properly placed within the system of social and state doctrines, whereas the Russians made an attempt to comprehend and accustom themselves to the scholar's ideas and to make them their own. Thus N. Bunge warned those setting out to peruse Stein's books: "Stein's investigations become comprehensible to the one who feels his outlook most keenly and assumes it as his own."[34]

For some Russians, merely "getting inside" their German colleague's ideas turned out to be not enough. These Russians went so far as to travel to Vienna and attend Stein's lectures, as did, for instance, I. Tarasov: "Lorenz Stein's lectures from the very first moment produce a very strong impression of brilliancy and originality. Good humour, anecdotes, a map on the wall, a conversation-like style of presentation...Stein's course on administration studies far better satisfies one's interest than do lectures on political economy. In delivering the course, Lorenz Stein each time revealed his unusually vivid and original mind and unparalleled erudition, while setting a unique example of a most thorough analysis and even startling us with his power of systematising... At home, free from any desire to monopolize conversation or audience...he proves to be exceptionally supportive, contributing his minor comments, extremely wide reading and, most of all, his serenity during discussions."[35]

As can be inferred, Russian scholars thrust themselves even into their German colleague's home in order to better understand him. It is interesting that all of them, almost with one accord, spoke about the use derived from studying Stein's books. But, however, they still had no intention of assuming his ideas. Incidentally, the above-cited Tarasov was not an admirer of his hospitable German colleague at all. What kind of usefulness can be found then? For Russians, combining the monarchic form of government with the ideas of all-embracing self-government, which sounded like a paradox for the West, was not new.[36] Russians proceeded from their historical traditions, putting forward the idea of combining not merely monarchist, autocratic force of government and broad local self-government, thus marrying freedom and autocracy, of not only proletariat democracy being either chaos or dictatorship, but any democracy in general being arbitrary or serving as a cover of this or that force's dictatorship.[37] They may certainly have read on this theme in Immanuel Kant's books, but also may have learnt from the experience during the "Time of Troubles" of the 12th – 13th centuries, the mid 1400's, the beginning of the 17th century, the Razin time, the Pugachov movement and so on. In Russian history there is much to be remembered and even more from which to learn.

The unusual interest in Lorenz Stein, to my mind, can be accounted for by two circumstances. The first is that Russian society of the time imbibed both Western ideas and Western ways of thinking, the interest towards anything from the West being very keen during this period in Russia. On the other hand, the idiosyncrasy of the Russian character consists in wishing to fully drain the cup of truth. From this point of view, all West European theories were impeding Russian people, for while imposing constraints of West European concepts, the Russians subconsciously set out to seek getting free from them, aiming, in their cognition of the world, at something more sublime than the human mind could offer. On this path, the books and concepts of Lorenz von Stein gave them much food for thought and a standpoint from which to overcome stereotyped thinking of the West. Lorenz von Stein presented the Western alternative, as it were, to the Western way of thinking.

Perhaps it is this feature of the Russian character – this search, this desire for the ultimate truth, leaving intermediate ones behind, and this interest towards Lorenz Stein as a scholar who was critical and self-reliant when considering Western ideas in their entity, that evoked the following idea of Russia in Stein's mind: "The state of Slavonic race is Russia. It is unconstitutional in its essence. As a result, the Slavonic state formation shall always be great in major deeds and never in minor."[38]

Literature:


  1. Aksakov, I. S. "Letters to relatives 1844 - 1849."(in Russian) Moscow, 1988.
  2. Andreyevsky, I. Ye."Police Law." (in Russian) Saint Petersburg, 1874.
  3. Bebel, August. "Die Notwendigkeit der Gründung einer allgemeinen Partei- Bibliothek." Vorwärts (Leipzig), N. 21, vol. 20.02.1871.
  4. Bezobrazov, V. P."Materials for societal physiology in Germany."(in Russian) Moscow,1858.
  5. Bezobrazov,W. "Offener Brief an Herrn Dockter Lorenz von Stein."Centrallblat für Eisenbahn und Dampfschiffahrt der Österreichischen Monarchie. 9 Jg. 1879.
  6. Blasus, Dirk. "Lorenz von Stein vom Königtum der sozialen Reform und ihren verfassungspolitischen Grundlagen." Forsthoff, Ernst (Hrsg). "Lorenz von Stein. Gesellschaft-Staat-Rech." Frankfurt, u.a. 1972. pp. xv, 50.
  7. Block A.L. “State power in the European society. On the political theory by Lorenz von Stein and French political system.” (in Russian). St. Petersburg, 1880.
  8. Bunge, N. Kh. "Essays on political-economic literature." (in Russian) Saint Pe­tersburg, 1895.
  9. Chicherin, B.N. "History of political theories, part V." (in Russian) Moscow, 1902.
  10. Chicherin, B.N. "Memories." (in Russian) Moscow, 1991.
  11. Chizhov, N. Ye. “Law and its content according to Lorenz von Stein.” Odessa, 1890. (in Russian).
  12. Engels, F. and Marx, K. v.3, p. 458 (Russian edition).
  13. Gerik, W. “Die vollziehende Gewatt in der Staatstheorie Lorenz von Steins,” Diss. Münster, 1966.
  14. Gradovsky, A.D. "Policy, history, administration." (in Russian) Saint-Petersburg, 1871.
  15. “Gross Brochaus. Bd. 16 Lorenz von Stein. Wiesbaden, 1957.
  16. Gumplowitsch, L. “Rechtstaat und Sozialismus.” Insbruck, 1881.
  17. Kersten, Kurt. "Michael Bakunins Beichte aus de Peter-Paulus Festung." Berlin, 1926.
  18. Khlebnikov, N. "Law and state in their mutual relationship." (in Russian) War­saw, 1874.
  19. Nechayev, V. and Lange, N. “A Russian boon about Lorenz Stein.” Juridicheskiy Vestnik, Feb. 1891. (in Russian).
  20. Nelidov, N.K. "Juridicial and political bases of the civil service." (in Russian) Yaroslavl, 1874.
  21. Pobedonostsev, K.P. "The great lie of our time." (in Russian) Moscow, 1993.
  22. Schmoller, Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung. “Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im deutschen Reiche,” 61 Jg., 1937.
  23. Stein, Lorenz von. “Der Socialismus und Communismus des heutigen Frank-reichs.” Leipzig, 1842.
  24. Stein, Lorenz von. “Gegenwart und Zukunft der Recht – und Staatswissenschaft,” Stuttgart, 1876. P. 143.
  25. Stein, Lorenz von. “Geschichte der socialen Bewegungen in Frankreich von 1789 bis auf unsere Tage.” 1 Bd. Leipzig, 1850.
  26. Stein, Lorenz von. “Lehrbuch der Finanzwirtschaft.” Wien, 1878.
  27. Stein, Lorenz von. “Lehrbuch der Finanzwissenschaft.” 3 Aufl. Leipzig, 1875.
  28. Stein, Lorenz von. “Lehrbuch der Volkswirtschaft.” Wien, 1878.
  29. Stein, Lorenz von. “System der Staatswissenschaft.” Bd. 2. Stuttgart und Augsburg, 1856.
  30. Stein, Lorenz von. “Verwaltungslehre. I Aufl. Die Lehre von de vollziehended Gewlt.” Stutgart, 1865.
  31. Stein, Lorenz von."Verwalungslehre." Bd. 1, Die vollziehende Gewalt. Stuttgart, 1869.
  32. Struve, Peter von. “Zwei bisher unbekannte Aufsätze von Karl Marx aus den vierzigen Jahren.” Neue Zeit 14 (1896), Bd. 2.
  33. Tarasov, I.T. “Two years in the West to study.” (in Russian) Kiev, 1879.
  34. Tikhomirov, L. A. "Monarchic State System." (in Russian) Saint Petersburg, 1992.
  35. Tsymbayev, N. I. "Slavophile movement: from the history of the Russian social-political theory of the XIXth century." (in Russian) Moscow, 1986.
  36. Turgenev, A. I. "A Russian's Chronicle: Diaries." (in Russian) Moscow, Lenin­grad, 1964.
  37. Winkler, Arnold. ‘Die Entstenhung des “Kommunistischen Manifestes.’ Ein Untersuchung und Klarung. Wien, 1936.



[1] Schmoller, Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung. “Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im deutschen Reiche,” 61 Jg., 1937. p. 40.

[2] Gumplowitsch, L. “Rechtstaat und Sozialismus.” Insbruck, 1881. pp. 150-168.

[3] “Gross Brochaus. Bd. 16 Lorenz von Stein. Wiesbaden, 1957.

[4] Gerik, W. “Die vollziehende Gewatt in der Staatstheorie Lorenz von Steins,” Diss. Münster, 1966.

[5] See Struve, Peter von. “Zwei bisher unbekannte Aufsätze von Karl Marx aus den vierzigen Jahren.” Neue Zeit 14 (1896), Bd. 2, p. 4, 48; and Winkler, Arnold. ‘Die Entstenhung des “Kommunistischen Manifestes.’ Ein Untersuchung und Klarung. Wien, 1936. pp. 102-105.

[6]See Chizhov, N. Ye. “Law and its content according to Lorenz von Stein.” Odessa, 1890. p. 150 (in Russian); also Nechayev, V. and Lange, N. “A Russian boon about Lorenz Stein.” Juridicheskiy Vestnik, Feb. 1891. (in Russian).

[7] Stein, Lorenz von. “Der Socialismus und Communismus des heutigen Frank-reichs.” Leipzig, 1842. p. 117.

[8] Stein, Lorenz von. “Geschichte der socialen Bewegungen in Frankreich von 1789 bis auf unsere Tage.” 1 Bd. Leipzig, 1850. p. 16.

[9] Stein, Lorenz von. “Verwaltungslehre. I Aufl. Die Lehre von de vollziehended Gewlt.” Stutgart, 1865. p. 4.

[10] Stein, Lorenz von. “Lehrbuch der Finanzwirtschaft.” Wien, 1878. p. 137.

[11] Stein, Lorenz von. “Lehrbuch der Finanzwissenschaft.” 3 Aufl. Leipzig, 1875. p.2.

[12] Stein, Lorenz von. “Lehrbuch der Volkswirtschaft.” Wien, 1878. p. 137.

[13] Stein, Lorenz von. “Gegenwart und Zukunft der Recht – und Staatswissenschaft,” Stuttgart, 1876. P. 143.

[14] Stein, Lorenz von. “System der Staatswissenschaft.” Bd. 2. Stuttgart und Augsburg, 1856. P. 34.

[15] Block A.L. “State power in the European society. On the political theory by Lorenz von Stein and French political system.” (in Russian). St. Petersburg, 1880. p. 1.

[16] Tarasov, I.T. “Two years in the West to study.” (in Russian) Kiev, 1879. p.3.

[17] Bebel, August. "Die Notwendigkeit der Gründung einer allgemeinen Partei- Bibliothek." Vorwärts (Leipzig), N. 21, vol. 20.02.1871.

[18] See Kersten, Kurt. "Michael Bakunins Beichte aus de Peter-Paulus Festung." Berlin, 1926. p. xxv.

[19] Turgenev, A. I. "A Russian's Chronicle: Diaries." (in Russian) Moscow, Lenin­grad, 1964. pp. 244, 500, 527.

[20] Blasus, Dirk. "Lorenz von Stein vom Königtum der sozialen Reform und ihren verfassungspolitischen Grundlagen." Forsthoff, Ernst (Hrsg). "Lorenz von Stein. Gesellschaft-Staat-Rech." Frankfurt, u.a. 1972. pp. xv, 50.

[21] Engels, F. and Marx, K. v.3, p. 458 (Russian edition).

[22] Aksakov, I. S. "Letters to relatives 1844 - 1849."(in Russian) Moscow, 1988.pp. 506 - 507.

[23] Chicherin, B.N. "Memories." (in Russian) Moscow, 1991.p. 66.

[24] Khlebnikov, N. "Law and state in their mutual relationship." (in Russian) War­saw, 1874.p. 166.

[25] Nelidov, N.K. "Juridicial and political bases of the civil service." (in Russian) Yaroslavl, 1874.p. 24.

[26] Bunge, N. Kh. "Essays on political-economic literature." (in Russian) Saint Pe­tersburg, 1895.p. 181.

[27] Chicherin, B.N. "History of political theories, part V." (in Russian) Moscow, 1902. pp. 27-28.

[28] Gradovsky, A.D. "Policy, history, administration." (in Russian) Saint-Petersburg, 1871. pp. 188, 347.

[29] Andreyevsky, I. Ye."Police Law." (in Russian) Saint Petersburg, 1874. pp. 168, 170.

[30] Bezobrazov, V. P."Materials for societal physiology in Germany."(in Russian) Moscow,1858. p.15-16.

[31] see reference # 6

[32]Bezobrazov,W. "Offener Brief an Herrn Dockter Lorenz von Stein."Centrallblat für Eisenbahn und Dampfschiffahrt der Österreichischen Monarchie. 9 Jg. 1879.

[33] Tikhomirov, L. A. "Monarchic State System." (in Russian) Saint Petersburg, 1992. p. 514.

34 Bunge, N. Kh. See footnote #26.

35 Tarasov, I.T. See footnote #16, p. 18.

[36] See Tsymbayev, N. I. "Slavophile movement: from the history of the Russian social-political theory of the XIXth century." (in Russian) Moscow, 1986.

[37] Pobedonostsev, K.P. "The great lie of our time." (in Russian) Moscow, 1993. p. 60.

[38] Stein, Lorenz von."Verwalungslehre." Bd. 1, Die vollziehende Gewalt. Stuttgart, 1869.p. 38.


 
Нравится Нравится  
Из сборников конференции Россия и Запад:

Школа юного регионоведа


Основная информация
Запись в школу:

Заполните форму по ссылке - запись
E-mail: regionoved2005@yandex.ru
https://vk.com/public149054681


Выпуски журнала "Россия и Запад: диалог культур"

№ 1, 2012 г.  
№ 2, 2013 г.  
№ 3, 2013 г.  
№ 4, 2013 г.  
№ 5, 2014 г.  
№ 6, 2014 г.  
№ 7, 2014 г.  
№ 8, 2015 г.  
№ 9, 2015 г.  
№ 10, 2016 г.  
№ 11, 2016 г.  
№ 12, 2016 г.  
  № 13, 2016 г.  
№ 14, 2017 г.  
 
№ 15, 2017 г.