F. Neumann Behemoth

RETHINKING FRANZ NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH1
Duncan Kelly2
Abstract: Because of its characterization of National Socialism as a form of totalitarian monopoly capitalism, many critics of Franz Neumanns pioneering book of
1942, Behemoth, have rejected what they see as a crude Marxist analysis of the subject.
This not only does little justice to the richness of Neumanns book, it also distorts its
central focus. By contrast, this paper suggests that a proper appreciation of the impact
of Max Weber in general, and Carl Schmitt in particular, on the development of
Neumanns thought permits a more detailed assessment of both the merits and the
shortcomings of his most famous analysis.
Introduction and Receptions

If one accepts that the fundamental political opposition in Germany is the
economic conflict, that the decisive friend/enemy grouping in Germany is
that between labour and capital, it is therefore apparent that under the conditions of such political contradictoriness it is no longer possible to govern
through Parliament.3
Franz Neumann is best known as the author of what remains a standard work
on the subject of National Socialism.4 His Behemoth, first published in 1942,
is acknowledged today by one of the foremost experts on the subject as a
masterly attempt to analyse the National Socialist state.5 Indeed, recent
works that have attempted to fuse state theory with a historical understanding
of the period typically begin with Neumanns analysis.6 It has, however, been
a long time since Franz Neumann was discussed in any detail in a major
English-language journal concerned with the history of political thought.
Because of Neumanns association with the SPD, the Institut fr
Sozialforschung, and because of his characterization of National Socialism as
My thanks to Andrew Gamble, Mike Kenny and Keith Tribe for their comments on
earlier versions of this paper, and to Iain Hampsher-Monk, Gail Prosser and an anonymous reviewer of the journal for further help. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of The British Academy.
2 Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, Northumberland Road, Sheffield,
S10 2TU. Email: [email protected]
3 Franz Neumann, Letter to Carl Schmitt, 7 September 1932, Reform und Resignation: Gesprche ber Franz Neumann, ed. Rainer Erd (Frankfurt am Main, 1985),
pp. 79 f.
4 Franz L. Neumann, Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism,
19331944 (New York and Evanston (1942), 1966).
5 Ian Kershaw, The Nazi Dictatorship (London, 1993), p. 20.
6 Jane Caplan, National Socialism and the Theory of the State, in Re-evaluating the
Third Reich, ed. T. Childers and J. Caplan (New York, 1993), pp. 101 f; Jane Caplan,
Government Without Administration (Oxford, 1990), pp. 3218.
1
HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT. Vol. XXIII. No. 3. Autumn 2002
Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
RETHINKING NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH
459
a form of totalitarian monopoly capitalism,7 Behemoth is widely perceived

to be either a Marxist or an economistic analysis, or both and this is what
critics have homed in on. But, as Keith Tribe most recently has reiterated,
Neumanns personal trajectory, and in particular his legal studies before he
wrote Behemoth, are largely ignored in most commentary, with the result that
the real architectonic in Kants sense of the term of this most famous
book is widely misunderstood.8 Legal analysis is the centrepiece of Behemoth, and underscores the lasting thematic core of the book, which concerns
the problem of order and the power of coercion in modern society.9 Such
legal analysis can be seen to stem not only from the influence of his socialdemocratic teachers, such as Weimars most famous labour lawyer Hugo
Sinzheimer, but also from his engagement with the work of Carl Schmitt in
particular, and Max Weber in general.10
Appropriately, the crucial position of the state in securing political order is
clearly stated in the Preface to Behemoth. Equally, however, both the Preface
and the title suggest that the polycratic National Socialist regime is inherently
irrational and does not in fact represent a state; rather, writes Neumann, the
Behemoth is an orderless, non-state system.11 This account, puzzling at first
blush, can be properly understood only in terms of Neumanns conceptualization of the state in general, and his examination of National Socialism in particular. Moreover, given the importance of Behemoth for our understanding of
National Socialism, this essay attempts to show how Neumanns analysis can
be seen as the culmination of a fruitful if not unproblematic acquisition
and transformation of the language of political-legal thought derived primarily from Schmitt, and secondarily from Weber. This makes for a richer understanding of the structure and argument of Behemoth itself. It also shows that
work to be continuous with much of his prior thinking, rather than forming the
basis for a new appreciation of the autonomy of the political after the publication of Behemoth in 1942, as Martin Jay in particular has suggested.12
Background to the Sovereign State
Born in 1900 in the Polish-German border town of Kattowitz, Neumann
began his legal studies at the University of Breslau in 1918, moving between
Neumann, Behemoth, p. 261.
The most well known selection of his work in English, The Democratic and Authoritarian State, ed. Herbert Marcuse (New York, 1957) (hereafter DAS), includes none of
Neumanns Weimar output, and only two selections predate 1945.
9 Keith Tribe, Capitalism, Totalitarianism and National Socialism, in K. Tribe,
Strategies of Economic Order (Cambridge, 1995), p. 170.
10 Peter Intelmann, Zur Biographie von Franz L. Neumann, 1999, 5 (1990),
pp. 1452, pp. 19 f.
11 Neumann, Behemoth, p. xii.
12 Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination (Berkeley (1976), 1996), p. 118.
7
8

460
D. KELLY
Leipzig and Rostock during the winter and summer semesters. It was, however, his move in 1919 to the new University of Frankfurt am Main, where he
would take his first legal exams in 1921, that provided the catalyst for his
move towards the SPD and highlighted his capacity for practical action.13
Here, for example, he established the first socialist student group with Leo
Lwenthal and Ernst Fraenkel. Although Neumann fought on the side of the
soldiers and workers councils of 1918 and 1919, his revolutionary political
impetus ended there. From this point onwards, as Intelmann observes, he had
made the decisive move towards the SPD as the body best placed to instigate
meaningful political change a partnership that continued formally until
1933, and then in exile.14 By 1923 he had also recorded what would remain his
general assessment (Haltung) of Marxism.15 In his doctoral dissertation of
that year, Rechtsphilosophische Einleitung zu einer Abhandlung ber das
Verhltnis von Staat und Strafe, he suggested that historical materialism is a
prize theoretical method (eine Methode der Erkenntnis), but that it cannot
offer an adequate guide to political action.16
After completing his studies, he worked for three years as an assistant to
Hugo Sinzheimer, passing his Assessorexamen in 1927. He immediately set
up in private practice with Fraenkel a partnership that would last until his
emigration and they quickly built up a large caseload. During this period,
Neumann wrote much more than is typically acknowledged often on legal
and trade union issues and lectured alongside Hermann Heller and Carl
Schmitt at the Hochschule fr Politik in Berlin. He also worked closely with
the SPD, soon becoming its legal adviser.17 His desire to fuse practice with a
corresponding interest in legal theory, however, was already clear from the
first dissertation, and in this regard there are two main points to observe. First,
Neumann adduced a positive-legal (positivrechtliche), rational relationship
between state, punishment (Strafe) and democracy.18 Second, the dissertation
laid the preparatory legal foundations (Grundlagen) with which he could later
investigate such relationships (principally those pertaining to the state and
democracy) sociologically. Despite Jays accusation of infidelity towards the
autonomy of politics, Neumann was certainly not a crude determinist.19
13 Rolf Wiggerhaus, The Frankfurt School, trans. Michael Robertson (Oxford
(1986), 1995), p. 224.
14 Intelmann, Zur Biographie von Franz L. Neumann, p. 15.
15 Ibid. Cf. Neumann, Behemoth, pp. 1112; Peter Intelmann, Franz L. Neumann:
Chancen und Dilemma des politischen Reformismus (Baden-Baden, 1996), p. 93.
16 Intelmann, Zur Biographie von Franz L. Neumann, p. 19. Cf. Franz Neumann,
Economics and Politics in the Twentieth Century (1951), DAS, p. 263.
17 See Tribe, Capitalism, pp. 172 f.; Intelmann, Zur Biographie von Franz L.
Neumann, p. 21; Wiggerhaus, Frankfurt School, p. 224.
18 Intelmann, Franz L. Neumann, p. 85.
19 Intelmann, Zur Biographie von Franz L. Neumann, p. 15. See also Franz
Neumann, The Rule of Law (Leamington Spa, 1986), p. 16. This is a publication of

461
For these foundations, as was also the case with Schmitts thought, particularly during the Weimar Republic, the method of analysis owed much to
both Max Weber and Hans Kelsen.20 But whereas Schmitt denied that the
sociological-political and legal elements of law are in fact distinct, an
opposition to Kelsen in particular and legal positivism in general that developed strongly after the First World War,21 Neumann found Kelsens famous
separation of legal science from practical questions helpful.22 He reiterated
this point some thirteen years later in his second dissertation, suggesting that
in this separation of the categories of essence and existence, of ethical norm
and legal norm, lies the merit of Kelsens pure theory of law.23 This was a
continuation of the neo-Kantian themes pursued in the first dissertation,
possibly showing the influence of his supervisor, Max Ernst Mayer.24
Neumann utilized the separation in a significant way, though: distinguishing
between ideal-type conceptual discussion, and sociological investigation of
culturally significant (deutend) developments is typically Weberian, and
Neumann, as Weber had before him, wrote that the state is not simply
pace Kelsen synonymous with law, or more specifically, with the legal
order (Rechtsordnung).25
According to Weber, the state is not only the most important and powerful
political association; it is also a means to an end. For Weber, the central purpose of the modern state should be to fulfil the objective cultural tasks of the
Neumanns second doctoral dissertation, written under Harold Laski and Karl
Mannheim, The Governance of the Rule of Law. An Investigation into the practical theories, the legal system and the social background of the contemporary society, London
School of Economics (1936).
20 Intelmann, Zur Biographie von Franz L. Neumann, pp. 16, 18. Cf. Reinhard
Mehring, Carl Schmitts Lehre von der Auflsung des Liberalismus: Das Sinngefge der
Verfassungslehre als historisches Urteil, Zeitschrift fr Politik, 38 (1991),
pp. 20016, pp. 213 ff. A detailed defence of my position regarding Schmitts proximity
to Weber, which cannot be dealt with here, is provided in a forthcoming book, D. Kelly,
The State of the Political. Conceptions of Politics and the State in the Thought of Max
Weber, Carl Schmitt and Franz Neumann.
21 Carl Schmitt, Political Theology (1934 edition), trans. G. Schwab (Cambridge,
MA (1922), 1985), pp. 10, 15. Cf. Peter Caldwell, Popular Sovereignty and the Crisis of
German Constitutional Law (Durham and New York, 1997), pp. 1012.
22 Intelmann, Zur Biographie von Franz L. Neumann, p. 18. Cf. Neumann, The Rule
of Law, p. 237. Kelsen suggested that with his master concept of the reconstructed legal
norm (Rechtssatz), the origin of every legal norm could be traced, until the highest level
of norms in the legal system is reached, [that is] the level of the constitution. The validity
of positive law norms beyond the constitution can then simply be assumed. See Stanley
Paulson, The Neo-Kantian Dimension of Kelsens Legal Theory, Oxford Journal of
Legal Studies, 12 (1992), pp. 31132, pp. 3256.
23 Neumann, The Rule of Law, p. 13.
24 Cf. Intelmann, Franz L. Neumann, p. 93, n. 45.
25 Intelmann, Zur Biographie von Franz L. Neumann, p. 18; Weyma Lbbe,
Legitimitt kraft Legalitt (Tbingen, 1990), esp. pp. 2633.

462
D. KELLY
nation it is not an object to be passively worshipped.26 It was also

Neumanns view that the state is a tool to be used. Nevertheless, as Weber had
also always made clear, the state is a relationship of domination or rule
(Herrschaftsverhltnis), an argument that builds upon his more general claim
that every (jede) human relationship in fact contains an irreducible element of
domination or Herrschaft within it.27 This also illustrates Webers incorporation of the work of his famous Heidelberg friend and colleague, Georg
Jellinek, whose empirical-sociological, or Soziallehre, approach to the state
he strongly supported. Indeed, Jellineks discussion of the state as the strongest social power factor clearly resembles Webers account, especially in his
famous lecture on the vocation of politics.28 However, Jellineks analytical
split between the legal and empirical-sociological elements of the state convinced neither Weber nor indeed Kelsen, though for different reasons.29
Although Weber fully appreciated Jellineks distinction made with the cool
objectivity of the man of science30 between legal and political change, for
him questions of the legality and the legitimacy of the political order had always
to be linked to broader typologies of social action and political rule.31 This idea,
Max Weber, The Meaning of Ethical Neutrality in the Sociological and Economic Sciences (1917), in The Methodology of the Social Sciences, ed. and trans.
Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch (Glencoe, IL, 1949), pp. 467; Max Weber, The
National State and Economic Policy (1895), in Weber: Political Writings, ed. Peter
Lassmann and Ronald Spiers (Cambridge, 1994) (hereafter Political Writings), p. 17.
27 Max Weber, Letter to Robert Michels, 21 December 1910, in Max Weber
Gesamtausgabe II/6, Briefe 19091910, ed. M. Rainer Lepsius and Wolfgang J.
Mommsen, with Birgit Rudhard and Manfred Schn (Tbingen, 1994), p. 761; Max
Weber, The Profession and Vocation of Politics (1919), in Political Writings, pp. 310 f.
28 Cf. Georg Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre (Berlin (1900), 1921), p. 93; Weber,
Vocation of Politics, p. 311.
29 Cf. Andreas Anter, Georg Jellineks wissenschaftliche Politik. Positionen,
Kontexte, Wirkungslinien, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 39 (1998), pp. 50326;
Gangolf Hbinger, Staatstheorie und Politik als Wissenschaft im Kaiserreich: Georg
Jellinek, Otto Hintze, Max Weber, in Politik, Philosophie, Praxis. Festschrift fr Wilhelm Hennis zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. H. Maier, U. Matz, K. Sontheimer and P.L.
Weinacht (Stuttgart, 1988), pp. 14361; Kenneth Dyson, The State Tradition in Western
Europe (Oxford, 1980), p. 175. I also discuss the relationship in more detail in Kelly, The
State of the Political. For Kelsens disagreements, see Hans-Joachim Koch, Die
staatsrechtliche Methode im Streit um die Zwei-Seiten Theorie des Staates (Jellinek,
Kelsen, Heller), in Georg Jellinek Beitrge zu Leben und Werk, ed. S. Paulson and
M. Schulte (Tbingen, 2000), esp. pp. 37784.
30 Georg Jellinek, Verfassungsnderung und Verfassungswandlung. Eine
Staatsrechtliche-politische Abhandlung (Berlin, 1906), p. 44; Anter, Georg Jellineks
wissenschaftliche Politik, p. 503.
31 Lbbe, Legitimitt kraft Legalitt, p. 64. See also Max Weber, Objectivity in
Social Science and Social Policy (1904), in Methodology, ed. and trans. Shils and Finch,
p. 99, Die Objektivitt sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis,
26

463
that law is to some extent a function of society, also represents a foundational assumption of Neumanns writings.
When these general considerations are borne in mind, therefore,
Neumanns proximity to both Weber and Schmitt, and hence his proper place
within the particularly strong German traditions of both Allgemeine
Staatslehre and Staatsrechtslehre, is clear in the following summary of his
position written in 1936:
I call every sociologically sovereign institution a state. Therefore the state
cannot, according to this definition, be a legal order (Hans Kelsen): neither
can it be a fiction, nor an abstraction. For in all these three cases we could
not speak of state sovereignty but only of the sovereignty of organs of the
state. In this definition it is further evident that state and society are both
quite distinct phenomena. The specific relationship existing between state
and society is, formally speaking, that the acts of the sovereign state relate
to the society and that these are at the same time caused by the social factors
operating in that society.32
He continues:
We have defined the state as a sovereign institution. Sovereignty contains
as a legal moment the original right of the sovereign to issue general norms
and individual norms (commands, decisions). In consequence of this dualism of the right of issuing general and individual norms there exists the possibility of an antagonism between the then existing series of general norms
and the then issued individual norms . . . Where the state in case of such a
conflict has the right in the interests of its self-maintenance to break
through partially the series of norms by means of individual norms, or even
to suspend the whole series, a situation arises which we do not intend to discuss here [surely an allusion to Schmitts Die Diktatur]. Alone important
for us here is that [the] state has done this thing, and is continually doing it.
In [such] cases the exercise of sovereignty is a power decision in the sense
of Carl Schmitt.33
As Weber had suggested, the modern bureaucratic state possesses the monopoly of legitimate violence within a given territory and functions, separate
from society, sine ira et studio. In this it is clearly sociologically sovereign
in Neumanns terms, and the highest form of political association. However,
although the modern state is the sole source of legitimate law, and hence of
(rational-legal) legitimate authority in general, as already implied, it cannot
be seen as being based on some ideal conception of the legal order.34 Specifically, the state can properly be understood only in terms of its empirical
Gesammelte Aufstze zur Wissenschaftslehre, ed. Johannes Winckelmann (Tbingen,
1973), pp. 200 f.
32 Neumann, The Rule of Law, p. 23. Emphasis added.
33 Ibid., pp. 23 f. Cf. p. 26.
34 Max Weber, Economy and Society, trans. C. Wittich and G. Roth (2 vols., Berkeley, 1978), Vol. 2, p. 666.

464
D. KELLY
and historical development.35 Correlatively, its legitimacy can be explained

only in terms of the relationship between a belief in legitimacy on the part of
the ruled, the claims to legitimacy made by the legal-political order, and the
actual forms of obedience that underpin the different types of Herrschaft that
Weber famously identified.36 This historical analysis, framed by ideal-type
heuristic definitions of central terms, is a particular feature of the writings of
both Weber and Schmitt, and it is a method of working that is carried on by
Neumann. The fact that Neumann writes of Schmitts discussion of sovereignty after three years of Hitlers rule, however, illustrates an engagement
that remains under-explored, though is still more often mentioned than the
uneasy rumblings produced by the relationship between Schmitt and Walter
Benjamin, for example.37 Furthermore, the best way of exploring this relationship is to consider Neumanns assessment of the Weimar constitution itself,
the terrain on which Schmitts argumentation in particular is absolutely central to his thinking.
The Decisionless Constitution and Monopoly Capitalism
The crux of the debate about the Weimar constitution, as outlined by Schmitt
and continued by Neumann, revolved around a discussion of the nature of the
constitution in particular, and the concept of sovereignty in general. However,
Schmitts understanding of the constitution is highly specific and existential,
and it might be helpful here to offer an outline of it.
For Schmitt, constituent power which is unified political will forms
the (existential, rather than norm-based) foundation of any constitution.
Constituent power therefore defines the boundaries of the concrete decisions
made about forms of political existence, and shapes the nature of political
order.38 Moreover, his claim that the legitimacy of the modern democratic
state lies in its specific position as the political unity of a people a unity
that can also be achieved through representation by a leader, for example39
means that, for Schmitt, constitution and state are synonymous.40 The legitimacy of the Weimar constitution, then, stemmed from the revolutionary
For a helpful discussion, see Roland Axtmann, The Formation of the Modern
State: A Reconstruction of Max Webers Arguments, History of Political Thought, XI,
(1990), pp. 295311.
36 Cf. David Beetham, The Legitimation of Power (Basingstoke, 1991); Stefan
Breuer, Das Legitimittskonzept Max Webers, Die Begrndung des Rechts als historisches
Problem (Schriften des historischen Kollegs Kolloquien, 45), ed. D. Willoweit (Oldenbourg, 2000), esp. pp. 10 f.
37 See, however, Horst Bredekamps superb essay, From Walter Benjamin to Carl
Schmitt via Thomas Hobbes, trans. M. Thorson Hause and J. Bond, Critical Inquiry, 25
(1999), pp. 24766.
38 Carl Schmitt, Verfassungslehre (Berlin (1928), 1997), pp. 76 f.
39 Ibid., pp. 90, 212. Emphasis added.
40 Ibid., pp. 3 f., 7.
35

465
constituent power of the people, for the constitution was formed in the wake
of the 1918 revolution. The constitution, qua state, represents the political
unity of the people. However, the concept that best unlocks these interrelated
ideas is that of sovereignty. Schmitts argument in this respect, as outlined
most famously and clearly in Political Theology, suggests that the sovereign
entity is defined by its ability to decide upon the state of exception.41
Underpinning this is the related assumption that for a legal order to make
sense, a normal situation must exist, and he is sovereign who definitively
decides whether this normal situation actually exists.42 The sovereign figure,
therefore, by deciding on the exceptional situation, gives meaning to the
argument that the exceptional situation produces the order of the norm.
Under the Weimar constitution, however, the whole issue of sovereignty
was confused. Article 48, for example, gave the Reichsprsident sovereign
emergency powers to abrogate the constitution if need be, that is, to act as a
dictator. Simultaneously in Article 76 it was claimed, for example, that the
constitution could be amended by legislation. Given Schmitts highly specific
understanding of the constitution, he thought these attempts to legislate in
procedural terms for decisions that by their very nature cannot be legislated
for confused the question of sovereignty, rendered dictatorship . . . subordinate to the sovereign constitution, and actually threatened the legitimacy of
the constitution itself.43 Furthermore, although Schmitts focus on the existential basis of the constitution and state put forward a powerful critique of legal
positivism, as was common in legal discussions under Weimar, his argument
also formed a more general attack on liberalism.44 For Schmitt, liberal belief
in procedural neutrality and the rule of law treats the political sphere (i.e. the
state) as if it were just another association among many to be regulated and
controlled. Against this, in a pointed critique of contemporary pluralist social
theory, he suggested that the specificity of the political, and hence the state,
can actually be found in the particular degree of intensity it involves, which is
altogether alien to other spheres. This intensity stems, as he had earlier argued,
from the states central role in distinguishing between friends and enemies, and in gauging levels of antagonism between them.45 The two major
threats to the unity of the contemporary state were therefore pluralism and liberalism, and his broad criticisms of the Weimar constitution as just outlined
provide a necessary initial context within which to locate Franz Neumanns
41 For the rapid development and impact of Schmitts arguments regarding sovereignty and emergency constitutional powers, see John P. McCormick, Carl Schmitts
Critique of Liberalism (Cambridge, 1997), esp. pp. 14153.
42 Schmitt, Political Theology, p. 13.
43 Caldwell, Popular Sovereignty, p. 107.
44 Ibid., pp. 82 f.
45 Carl Schmitt, Staatsethik und pluralistischer Staat, Kant-Studien, 35 (1930),
pp. 2842, esp. pp. 367; Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political (1932 edition), trans.
George Schwab (Chicago (1927), 1996), esp. pp. 19, 43, 44.

466
D. KELLY
constitutional discussions. Neumann too saw in pluralism the disease of the

Weimar Republic.46
In 1937, Neumann provided a clear illustration of his analysis of Weimar
that is of particular relevance here, for it shows the real extent of his immersion in Schmitts arguments. In The Change in the Function of Law in Modern Society, Neumann wrote of the imbalance between the first and second
parts of the Weimar constitution.47 Examining the latter half of the document,
he argued that the old classical and the new social rights are juxtaposed in an
unrelated manner. Therefore, he thought it justifiable to say that the Weimar
constitution was a decisionless constitution.48 Such a formulation immediately recalls Schmitts writings, and makes a more general point about the
nature of the constitution, one which it is important to clarify here, for it was
Schmitt who famously characterized elements of the second half of the constitution as a dilatorisch Formelkompromi. He thought those articles relating
to the legal relationship between church and state, for example, a typically liberal fudge. Furthermore, according to Schmitt the economic sections of the
constitution (largely drawn up by Sinzheimer) were also an unhappy mixture
of both capitalism and socialism, and illustrated a compromise on basic values
towards which no true constitution could afford to be neutral.49 Again, liberal
faith in the neutrality of the rule of law is seen as an attempt to evade the
necessity of the political decision through compromise and negotiation.50
Indeed, the continual drain on state unity brought about by the disputes
between political parties based on fragmented, sectional interests, for example, had exemplified these problems for Schmitt during Weimar in a particularly acute form. 51 Therefore, when Neumann describes the Weimar
Part I of the Weimar Constitution detailed the Organisation and Functions of the
Reich, detailing the major governmental powers and administrative tasks and divisions
of the Republic, whilst Part II concerned the Fundamental Rights and Duties of Germans in terms of the individual, the community, religion and religious association.
48 Franz Neumann, The Change in the Function of Law in Modern Society (1937),
DAS, p. 50. The Weimar Constitution is translated in The Democratic Tradition, ed.
Elmar M. Hucko (Leamington Spa, 1987), pp. 14990. Neither Hugo Preuss (assigned
the task of drafting the constitution) nor Max Weber wanted to incorporate rights into
the constitution at all. See Caldwell, Popular Sovereignty, p. 73.
49 Cf. Schmitt, Verfassungslehre, esp. pp. 325; Carl Schmitt, Legalitt und
Legitimitt (1932), in C. Schmitt, Verfassungsrechtliche Aufstze aus den Jahren
19241954. Materialien zu einer Verfassungslehre (Berlin (1958), 1985), pp. 26374;
Vittorio Hsle, Carl Schmitts Kritik an der Selbstaufhebung einer Wertneutralen
Verfassung in Legalitt und Legitimitt, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fr
Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, 61 (1987), pp. 134, esp. pp. 6 ff.
50 See also Carl Schmitt, The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations (1930),
trans. John P. McCormick and Matthias Konzett, Telos, 96 (1993), pp. 13042.
51 See Arnold Brecht, Die Auflsung der Weimarer Republik und die politische
Wissenschaft, Zeitschrift fr Politik, 2 (1955), pp. 291308, p. 296.
46
47

467
constitution as decisionless, he is not only referring to the problematic relationship between what he terms the old classical and the new social rights,
he is also questioning the source of sovereignty within the constitution,
though in such a way that will nevertheless lead him to challenge the import of
Schmitts fears about constitutional change based on an opposition between
constitutional legitimacy (unified, original political will) and legality (procedural neutrality). To recall, Schmitt argues that:
the distinction between the written and unwritten constitution is in truth
the opposition of the constitution (in its positive sense) and the constitutional law which is based on it [zugrunde lag].52
Neumann, however, does not think that constitutional amendments drastically

affect the very being of the constitution itself, and argues that Schmitts
account simply makes it impossible to undertake modest political change
through constitutional means. For instance, as Caldwell has suggested,
Schmitts thought in this regard seems incapable of understanding, let alone
theorizing, reformist socialism:53
In truth, however, the basic laws, taken together, are no longer construed in
terms of liberties which are anterior to the state. None of the definitions that
are to be found in the second part of the Constitution contain a statement
that such and such a law (Recht) is inviolable or holy. Even property is not
guaranteed in terms of an inviolable basic law . . . but is instead guaranteed
by the Constitution. In just the same way, all the basic laws are secured in
terms of the Constitution, that is to say, solely by its second part. Consequently, the extraordinarily stimulating theory of Carl Schmitt is in error
when he claims that the specific resolutions that the German people have
embodied in their constitution (and, in particular, the political resolutions
anchored in the basic laws) cannot be altered, since this would result in the
constitution abolishing itself . . . The theories of Carl Schmitt compel revolution if a development of the Constitution is desired.54
The central problem for Neumann is that there is a tension between the
essence of the Weimar constitution and how it has come to be interpreted and
implemented. In this respect, another side of his argument is particularly
52 Schmitt, Verfassungslehre, p. 386. Ernst-Rudolf Huber, Verfassung und
Verfassungswirklichkeit bei Carl Schmitt, in E.-R. Huber, Bewahrung und Wandlung
(Berlin, 1972), p. 19, characterizes this as the central problem (Kernproblem) of every
constitutional theory.
53 Caldwell, Popular Sovereignty, p. 227, n. 109.
54 Franz L. Neumann, The Social Significance of the Basic Laws in the Weimar
Constitution (1930), in Social Democracy and the Rule of Law: Otto Kirchheimer and
Franz L. Neumann, ed. Keith Tribe, trans. K. Tribe and L. Tanner (London, 1987) (hereafter SD), pp. 29 f. Emphasis added. Cf. Jrgen Bast, Totalitrer Pluralismus: Zu Franz
L. Neumanns Analysen der politischen und rechtlichen Struktur der NS-Herrschaft
(Tbingen, 1999), p. 77, n. 102, who also extraordinarily calls this a polemic
against Schmitt.

468
D. KELLY
important. This concerns his understanding of the contemporary period as an

era of monopoly capitalism. In fact, he suggests that during the period of
monopoly capitalism, which in Germany began with the Weimar republic,
legal theory and legal practice have undergone a decisive change.55 The principal question he poses, however, is to what extent monopoly capitalism actually corresponds with the personal and legal preconditions for the capitalist
economy.56 Where Schmitt is searching for the sources of political order
broadly understood, Neumann is examining the contemporary period to
explore the necessary conditions for a specifically capitalist order.57 Furthermore, although suggesting that the aforementioned preconditions (private
property, freedom of contract and trade, the right of inheritance) no longer
exist for private entrepreneurs under monopoly capitalism, he nevertheless
argued that all legal principles . . . are secured now as before.58 The crucial
development, therefore, is that capitalist rights of freedom . . . have lost their
meaning in the context of the economy of monopoly capitalism. These rights,
never simply legal in their implications, retain their valid original meaning
only in terms of the free market, because in monopoly capitalism such freedom no longer exists in the relation between the monopolist and the
non-monopolist, for the monopolist dictates.59 Under modern conditions,
therefore, expressions of liberty in the capitalist economy lose their significance, representing instead the masking functions of the freedom of contract.60 According to this analysis, the market is subordinated to the
interventionist activity of the state on the one side and to the power of
monopolists on the other, so that in many areas the self-regulating property of
the market is suppressed. Freedom of contract is simply a formality,
because a monopolist or government bureaucracy has replaced the private
entrepreneurs.61 Simultaneously, the classical liberal state of the nineteenth
century, which has become ever more interventionist, has blurred the distinction between state and society and therefore threatens the sovereign state as
Neumann understands it.62 Yet, as previously suggested, it is not simply the
case that there is a disjuncture between legal norm and substratum in the field
of economic law, but also . . . [that] an equal contradiction exist[s] between the
Neumann, The Change in the Function of Law in Modern Society, DAS, p. 47.
Emphasis added.
56 Franz Neumann, On the Preconditions and the Legal Concept of an Economic
Constitution (1931), SD, p. 44. Cf. Harold James, The German Slump (Oxford, 1986),
p. 123; Bast, Totalitrer Pluralismus, pp. 20513.
57 Tribe, Capitalism, p. 178.
58 Neumann, Preconditions, SD, p. 46.
59 Ibid., p. 47.
60 Ibid., pp. 48 f. Cf. Neumann, The Change in the Function of Law in Modern Society, DAS, pp. 635, on the reification of property, and Neumann, Behemoth, pp. 448 f.
62 See Carl Schmitt, Der Hter der Verfassung (Tbingen, 1931), pp. 78 f.
55

469
norms of constitutional law and the concrete contemporary situation of the

constitution,63 the elements of which are discussed in more detail below. The
principal questions of interest to Neumann can nevertheless be outlined thus:
Why has the constitution been interpreted and implemented in the way that it
has? What does this mean in general for the political position he prescribes? Is
the contemporary state capable of fulfilling the tasks he thinks it should be
geared towards?
Strong Social Democracy, Rechtsstaat and the Weak Total State
Focusing on Article 109 of the constitution, which states that all Germans are
equal before the law, Neumann distinguishes between negative and positive
notions of the concept of equality. In its negative guise, equality is the typically liberal presentation of the freedom to make contracts, to acquire property and so on. The positive element of equality for Neumann, however, is
something more. It implies that not only is each . . . provided with the legal
potential to share the goods of society, but it [positive equality] can also offer
the real possibility implied in the demand. Furthermore, it is also his contention that just as there are two sides to the concept of equality, so too has
democracy a Doppelnatur. He suggests not only that equality before the law
is the founding principle of democracy, but also that at the basis of the idea
of democracy there lies the conception of popular sovereignty, a conception
which posits an identity of ruler and ruled.64 Besides being precisely the same
as Schmitts formulation of democracy and popular sovereignty,65 however,
Neumann also paralleling Hugo Sinzheimer argues that bourgeois
democracy [the Rechtsstaat] corresponds with the negative concept of equality, whilst the actions of a social democracy concern the promotion of the
rise of the working class.66 Moreover, the negative principle of equality simply
cannot be comparable with the principle of equality outlined in Article 109 of
the constitution, because the Constitution is the creation of the working
class, and the equality it is concerned with is that of the labouring person.67
By implying that a social conception of democracy should concern itself
with the positive conception of equality, Neumann advocates a volitional
Neumann, The Change in the Function of Law in Modern Society, DAS, p. 49.
Neumann, Social Significance, SD, p. 32; William Scheuerman, Between the
Norm and the Exception. The Frankfurt School and the Rule of Law (Cambridge, MA,
1994), pp. 48 f.
65 Carl Schmitt, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (1926 edition), trans. Ellen
Kennedy (Cambridge, MA (1923), 1985), p. 25; Schmitt, Verfassungslehre, pp. 226 ff.
66 Scheuerman, Norm and Exception, pp. 32 f. Emphasis added. Cf. Intelmann, Franz
L. Neumann, pp. 71 ff., 158.
67 Neumann, Social Significance, SD, p. 37; Volker Neumann, Kompromiss oder
Entscheidung? Zur Rezeption der Theorie Carl Schmitts in den Weimarer Arbeiten Franz
L. Neumanns, Recht, Demokratie und Kapitalismus, ed. J. Perels (Baden-Baden, 1984),
pp. 69 f.; Intelmann, Franz L. Neumann, p. 128.
63
64

470
D. KELLY
theory of action. He argues that a precondition of the social democracy he supports is material equality and that such equality can be properly brought about
and maintained through the actions of the state, in some form of post-capitalist
society.68 It is this idea of using the state as a means to an end that provides a
crucial link back to Weber, though as Neumann (borrowing largely from
Schmitt) would point out, under contemporary conditions it was not at all
clear that the state was up to this task. Nevertheless, given that Neumann
understood equality under Weimar to be negative equality, it is worthwhile
examining the similarities once again between Neumann and Schmitt concerning the nature of the Rechtsstaat.
For Schmitt, the development of the Rechtsstaat corresponds to the rise of a
modern, bourgeois and individualist political order.69 Its ambivalence centres
on the question of whether the individual rights it purports to protect are to be
created or presupposed, in much the same way as liberal constitutionalism, for
Schmitt, confuses the question of how a constitution is itself constituted.70
Nevertheless, Neumann keenly observes the positive propaganda that
accrued to the bourgeoisie by only calling its state a Rechtsstaat.71 Thus,
writing in 1934 under a pseudonym, he lamented the fact that both his and
Hermann Hellers attempts to promote the ideals of a social Rechtsstaat
based on the old ideals of 1789 had failed under criticism from both socialist (Otto Kirchheimer) and bourgeois (Carl Schmitt, Albert Hensel) camps.72
His understanding of the Rechtsstaat suggests that it only develops clearly if
it is considered in the context of the economic, political and philosophical system of liberalism. Therefore, general law and the division of powers
which for Neumann represents not only a differentiation of powers as
Montesquieu had elaborated, but also a distribution of powers between social
groups within the Rechtsstaat have the sole and exclusive aim of securing
freedom and property.73 A truly progressive development of the generality of
law, therefore, would be to complete the process of legal rationalization
begun under the Rechtsstaat in order to achieve the positive notion of equality
he supports. Otherwise, as he makes clear in discussing competitive
capitalism:
See Chris Thornhill, Political Theory in Modern Germany (Oxford, 2000), p. 96.
Schmitt, Verfassungslehre, esp. pp. 12533, 13857. Cf. Ernst Wolfgang-Bckenfrde,
The Origin and Development of the Concept of the Rechtsstaat, in E. WolfgangBckenfrde, State, Society and Liberty, trans. J.A. Underwood (Leamington Spa, 1991),
esp. pp. 58 ff., 6170.
70 Caldwell, Popular Sovereignty, pp. 85 f., 105.
71 Neumann, Rechtsstaat, SD, p. 67. Cf. Neumann, The Rule of Law, p. 293.
72 Cf. Neumann, Rechtstaat, SD, p. 68; Bast, Totalitrer Pluralismus, p. 77;
Intelmann, Franz L. Neumann, p. 94.
73 Neumann, Rechtsstaat, SD, pp. 68 f.
68
69

471
If one does not draw . . . distinctions, and sees in the generality of the law,
nothing but a requirement of capitalist economy, then of course, one must
infer with Carl Schmitt that the general law, the independence of judges,
and the separation of powers, must be abolished when capitalism dies.74
Under conditions of monopoly capitalism and mass-democracy, however,

the prognosis is different:
absolute control of the administration is decisive in parliamentary mass
democracy . . . the independence of judges is a myth and . . . the modern
administrative state based on intervention must have an entirely different
understanding of the relation between the three powers than that which
existed in the liberal Rechtsstaat.75
As Scheuerman has argued, here we can again see Neumanns suggestion

that only when material and social equality has been achieved, necessarily in
some kind of post-capitalist society, will general law have a meaningful
place.76 Indeed, in the context of a discussion about land expropriation under
Weimar, he considers the issue of legal generality in more detail.77 Suggesting
that although Article 109 of the constitution had been disingenuously abused
by certain lawyers presumably Schmitt again in order to protect private property, positive equality need not simply be realised through general
laws. That is the fallacious conclusion of Rousseau. Furthermore, Neumann
writes that against such an assertion, it must be maintained that material
equality can as well be established by means of individual interferences.78
Indeed, he suggests that the case for the generality of law is absurd under
monopolistic conditions, and that it is therefore correct to challenge such an
assertion:
The revival of the concept of the generality of the law and its indiscriminate
application to the spheres of economic and political activities served therefore as a tool against the sovereignty of Parliament, which under the
Weimar Constitution represented not only the interests of the landlords and
the bourgeoise [sic] but to a large extent those of the working class. The
general law was intended to be applied as a means of maintaining the existing property order, and it was used as a factor designed to discredit the
Neumann, The Rule of Law, p. 257. Emphasis added.
Neumann, Rechtsstaat, SD, pp. 72 f.
76 Scheuerman, Norm and Exception, p. 57.
77 Most famously, the Expropriation Bill of 1926. For details, see Hans Mommsen,
The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy, trans. Elborg Forster and Larry Eugene Jones
(Chapel Hill (1989), 1996), pp. 23942. Schmitt was critical of the bills alleged parliamentary absolutism. Cf. Carl Schmitt, Die Auflsung des Enteignungsbegriff (1929),
Verfassungsrechtliche Aufstze, pp. 11617. See also Ingeborg Maus, The 1933 Break
in Carl Schmitts Theory (1969), in Law as Politics. Carl Schmitts Critique of Liberalism, ed. David Dyzenhaus (Durham and London, 1997), p. 203.
78 Neumann, The Rule of Law, pp. 2745. Emphasis added.
74
75

472
D. KELLY
sovereignty of Parliament. By this the generality of the law took the place of
a natural law. It was in fact nothing but a hidden natural law.79
Neumanns central claim, then, was that the democratic elements of the
Weimar constitution could be upheld and promoted only through the intervention of a strong, sovereign state. Indeed, the fact that the social equality he
desires can be brought about only through the activities of such a strong interventionist state offers a very particular development and modification of
Schmitts position.80 Both thought that the contemporary state was weak and
that Parliament was no longer able to provide adequate political leadership.
For Schmitt, however, this is the logical conclusion of the rechtsstaatlich elements of the constitution, which stand opposed to its properly political foundations and tend simply to relativize state power.81 Democracy and
liberalism have now to be disentangled. Neumann, on the other hand, suggested that the ideals of liberty under the Rechtsstaat were not only compatible with a competitive market society and a minimal state, but that the
non-interventionist state of liberalism was certainly negative but it was never
weak. It was, rather, just as strong as its economic and social structure made
necessary;82 and the force which integrated that society, based upon personal, political, and economic freedom, into a State, was the conception of the
nation (the irrational basis of society).83 He wished, therefore, to radicalize
the Rechtsstaat rather than renounce it, and to complete the process of legal
rationalization begun under it, for this would allow the sovereign state to
defend a positive principle of equality. This is, in fact, precisely the challenge
he had earlier laid down for a socialist political theory of the state to develop and concretely present the positive social content of the second part of
the Weimar Constitution.84
This can be further explained by listing in more detail the major discrepancies
Neumann perceives between contemporary constitutional norms and reality.85
79 Ibid., p. 276. See also Otto Kahn-Freund, Das soziale Ideal des Reichsarbeitsgerichts
(1931), quoted in Tim Mason, The Origins of the Law on the Organization of National
Labour of 20 January 1934. An Investigation into the Relationship Between Archaic
and Modern Elements in Recent German History (1974), in Nazism, Fascism and the
Working Class, ed. Jane Caplan (Cambridge, 1995), p. 97. Cf. Alfons Sllner, Franz
Neumann, Telos, 50 (1980), pp. 1719, pp. 172 f.
80 Volker Neumann, Kompromiss, p. 68: the position [Stellung] of the state marks
the difference between the political theory of Schmitt and Neumann.
81 Caldwell, Popular Sovereignty, p. 102.
83 Ibid., pp. 186, 205.
84 Franz L. Neumann, The Social Significance of the Basic Laws in the Weimar
Constitution (1930), SD, p. 43; Intelmann, Franz L. Neumann, pp. 97, 123.
85 The six points quoted in this paragraph are drawn from Franz Neumann, On the
Preconditions and the Legal Concept of an Economic Constitution (1931), SD,
pp. 4951.

473
First, although Germany is a parliamentary democracy, numerous social

power groups have appropriated to themselves control of the state decisionmaking process. These processes, pluralism, are indicative of the type of
system that contradicts the idea of the Weimar Constitution, which treats Parliament as the supreme source of decision in the state.86 Second, judicial
rights of review over parliamentary legislation illustrate the immense danger
to democracy that exists when such judicial review coexists with the predominant bourgeois interpretation of basic laws.87 Third, Neumann points
out the increasingly autonomous domination of the public economic sector
or Polykratie, to use an expression of Popitz which was adopted by Carl
Schmitt, the effect of which has been the weakening of the state. Fourth, he
notes that Parliament, the sovereign decision-making organ, is furthermore
paralysed by federalism. In fact, he suggests that the problems of pluralism
and Polykratie are combined in federalism. Fifth, there is parliamentary failure in the sphere of administration: The parliamentary system of government has led to an unprecedented assumption of power by the bureaucracy.
Consequently, it is in the sphere of the economy that the impossibility of parliamentary control is clearly in evidence. His sixth and final statement concerns the limited activity not to say inactivity of Parliament . . . based
on the class equilibrium prevailing in the parliamentary arena.88
For all the detail and obvious relevance of Neumanns presentation, the
analysis outlined above is almost exactly the same as that offered by Schmitt
in his account of the contemporary total state.89 In the first presentation in
1929, for example, of Schmitts essay on the guardian of the constitution, he
had argued that pluralism, polycracy and federalism were the central
challenges facing the constitutional order.90 For both Schmitt and Neumann,
moreover, modern Parliament has ceased to be an arena capable of providing
meaningful deliberation and the production of a general, or supra86 On this general understanding of parliamentary sovereignty, see Detlef Lehnert,
Hugo Preu als moderner Klassiker einer kritischen Theorie der verfaten Politik.
Vom Souvernittsproblem zum demokratischen Pluralismus, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 33 (1992), pp. 3354, p. 45. Cf. Neumann, The Rule of Law, pp. 269 ff.; Franz
Neumann, The Decay of German Democracy, Political Quarterly, 4 (1933),
pp. 52543, pp. 5267.
87 Cf. Hermann Heller, Rechtsstaat or Dictatorship (1929), trans. Ellen Kennedy,
Economy and Society, 16 (1987), pp. 12742.
88 Cf. Franz Neumann [Leopold Franz], Rechtsstaat, the Division of Powers and
Socialism (1934), SD, p. 72.
89 Cf. G. Haverkate, Deutsche Staatsrechtslehre und Verfassungspolitik, in H. Boldt
et al, Staat und Souvernitt, in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexicon
zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, Band 6, ed. O. Brunner, W. Conze and
R. Koselleck (Stuttgart, 1985), esp. pp. 834; Andrew Arato and Jean L. Cohen, Civil
Society and Political Theory (Cambridge, MA, 1997), pp. 23341.
90 Carl Schmitt, Der Hter der Verfassung, Archiv des ffentlichen Rechts, 16
(1929), pp. 161237.

474
D. KELLY
parliamentary will it has, rather, become the stage [Schauplatz] where

compromises are reached between the various partners in the class struggle.91
Indeed, Schmitt understands the contemporary total state in a quantitative
rather than a qualitative manner. Because of its increased intervention into
ever more public arenas, the position of the state as the highest form of political unity has been challenged and the distinction between state and society
blurred.92 Parliament reflecting this fragmentation and blurring of boundaries is actually a central threat to the constitution.
Herein lies Schmitts principal justification for presidential government.
Moreover, there is a general agreement in the works of Weber, Schmitt and
Neumann about the principal underlying factor that has brought about such
parliamentary weakness; it is the negative political impact of mass democracy.93 For example, adapting the works of Weber, Friedrich Naumann and
Hugo Preuss or, more specifically, criticizing their desire to incorporate the
working class into the state, Schmitt clearly suggests that the combination
(Verbindung) of democracy and contemporary social reform has altered the
particular or individual (Eigenart) character of Parliament. Today, it is no
more the representative of political unity; it becomes [rather] an exponent of
the interests and moods of the masses of the voters. Therefore, properly representative government is, or rather should be, representation against (gegen)
Parliament.94 Both Schmitt and Neumann seem to accept Webers criticisms
of a legislature beholden to particularistic interest groups. Indeed, Webers
discussion of Parliament turned on its ability to perform the vital task of leadership selection. After the First World War, Webers view was that Parliament
was no longer fit for this task, and he too promoted the position of the
Reichsprsident, though in a manner somewhat more constitutionally constrained than Schmitts.95
Conversely, the positive spin on the idea of the total state initially discussed by Schmitt in connection with Italian fascism96 suggests that a genuine, that is political, state is always a (qualitative) total state, as it offers a
complete presentation of the whole of political life. This term, indeed, would
Neumann, The Rule of Law, p. 272. The quoted source here is Otto Kirchheimer. It
could easily be Schmitt the formulation is near identical. Cf. Schmitt, Hter der
Verfassung, esp. pp. 7396, 117.
92 Carl Schmitt, Machtpositionen des modernen Staates (1933), Verfassungsrechtliche
Aufstze, p. 371.
93 Carl Schmitt, Preface to the Second Edition (1926): On the Contradiction between
Parliamentarism and Democracy, in Schmitt, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy,
esp. p. 15.
94 Schmitt, Verfassungslehre, pp. 314 f. Cf. Max Weber, Suffrage and Democracy in
Germany (1917), Political Writings, p. 129.
95 Max Weber, The President of the Reich (1919), Political Writings, pp. 3048.
96 Wolfgang Schieder, Carl Schmitt und Italien, Vierteljahreshefte fr Zeitgeschichte,
37 (1989), pp. 121.
91

475
shortly become a central category of National Socialist self-understanding

in the tryptich of Staat, Bewegung and Volk three concepts that form the
title of one of Schmitts first publications under the Hitler state.97 Moreover,
our more familiar understanding of the total state, corresponds to the Cold
War characterization of both National Socialism and Soviet communism as
totalitarian.98 In itself, as Kershaw remarks, this was unusual in political
science typologization in attempting to lump together systems which, in their
self-image, were wholly antagonistic towards each other.99 But, as already
suggested, neither Neumann nor Schmitt uses the term in this all too common
manner it has a peculiarly German intonation.100 While both agree on the
debility of Parliament under Weimar, the litmus test of the contemporary situation for Neumann, however, is the potential of this total state to fulfil a critique of liberal political economy which conceived . . . [of] a regulated
post-capitalist economy under the direction of a coherent sovereign state.101
Integration and the Economic Constitution
Schmitt suggested in his most famous work that the equation state = politics
becomes void at the moment when state and society penetrate each other.102
Precisely such penetration, in the form of interest groups and the domination
of political parties, is the leitmotiv of a movement away from the strict separation of state and society, which both Schmitt and Neumann take to be representative of liberalism in its classical form. The historical development of
liberalism and parliamentary government threatens to undermine the democratic requirement of homogeneity found in the writings of both Schmitt and
Neumann. As already implied, however, Neumanns account disputes the
necessarily conflictual conclusions resulting from Schmitts analysis, and
instead points towards the virtues of compromise and cooperation.
His analysis here owed much to the integrationist theories of both Rudolf
Smend and Hermann Heller.103 In fact, rather than looking to the notions of
decision and sovereignty with all that they imply in the work of Schmitt,
Neumann sought compromise and pluralism through the idea of an
Carl Schmitt, Staat, Bewegung, Volk (Hamburg, 1933).
Tribe, Capitalism, pp. 180 f.
99 Ian Kershaw, The Nazi State. An Exceptional State?, New Left Review, 176
(1989), pp. 4770, p. 50.
100 See Tribe, Capitalism, p. 181. Cf. Kershaw, Nazi Dictatorship, pp. 20, 33;
Intelmann, Franz L. Neumann, p. 225.
101 Keith Tribe, Introduction to Neumann, Economy and Society, 10 (1981),
pp. 31628, p. 325; Intelmann, Franz L. Neumann, pp. 174 ff.
102 Schmitt, Concept of the Political, p. 22; Schmitt, Legalitt und Legitimitt, p. 343.
103 See for example Rudolf Smend, Verfassung und Verfassungsrecht (1928), in his
Staatsrechtliche Abhandlungen und andere Aufstze (Berlin, 1955), pp. 119276. On
Heller and Smend, see Caldwell, Popular Sovereignty, Ch. 5.
97
98

476
D. KELLY
economic constitution, to further develop [Fortentwicklung] the Weimar

constitution without the need for revolution.104 Essentially, if malign
party-political influence were forbidden (Verboten) from interfering with
the freedom of association for the maintenance and improvement of labour
and economic conditions guaranteed by Article 159 of the constitution, then
some compromise coalition could be brokered between the state and various
economic agencies (Wirtschaftsvereinigungen) that would be of great benefit to the working class.105 The social conflict between capital and labour
might then achieve a temporary resolution.106 The purpose of an economic
constitution, therefore, was to guide and reinforce state control of both capitalism and contemporary politics. That this requires a strong state, however,
is illustrated in Hellers famous point that social democracy would rather
have an authoritarian as opposed to a total (i.e. weak) state.107
Denying, therefore, the necessary distinction between friend and enemy
constitutive of Schmitts account of the political, Neumann looked instead to
co-operation and association to aid in the maintenance and development of the
state. Indeed, he devoted a book-length study to the problems of freedom of
association and the position of the trade unions within the system of the
Weimar constitution.108 It is therefore worth outlining a little more specifically what goes into such an economic constitution, which he suggests is
not identical with the legal norms which regulate the organisation of the
economy, but which according to prevailing constitutional law . . . cannot
have priority over the state constitution.109
As Karl Renner, another formative influence on Neumanns thinking, had
previously argued, fundamental changes in society are possible without
accompanying alterations of the legal system, because it is not the law that
causes economic development. A corollary of this is that economic change
does not immediately and automatically bring about changes in the law;
indeed, development by leaps and bounds is unknown in the social substratum, which knows evolution only, not revolution.110 Building on these related
Volker Neumann, Kompromiss, pp. 689; Intelmann, Franz L. Neumann, p. 84.
Volker Neumann, Kompromiss, p. 72.
106 For wider reflections on this theme, see Albert Hirschman, Social Conflicts as
Pillars of Democratic Market Society, Political Theory, 22 (1994), pp. 20318,
esp. pp. 213 ff.
107 Hermann Heller, Ziele und Grenzen einer deutschen Verfassungsreform, in
Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 2, ed. M. Drath et al (Leiden, 1971), p. 415.
108 Franz L. Neumann, Koalitionsfreiheit und Reichsverfassung. Die Stellung der
Gewerkschaften im Verfassungssystem (Berlin, 1932). Cf. Volker Neumann,
Kompromiss, pp. 6770; Intelmann, Zur Biographie von Franz L. Neumann, p. 22.
109 Neumann, Economic Constitution, SD, pp. 52 f.
110 Karl Renner, The Institutions of Private Law and Their Social Functions, trans.
Agnes Schwarzschild (London (1929), 1949), pp. 252 f. Cf. Raimund Loew, The Poli104
105

477
assumptions, Neumann asserted that the economic constitution is intended to

provide the possibility of some form of state and social intervention into the
natural course of economic activity, that is, into the condition of economic
freedom.111
An economic constitution was necessary because the Weimar constitution by no means guarantees freedom of contract, of trade and of enterprise as such prior rights . . . [rather] these rights are merely constitutionally secured and . . . from the beginning (and without exception) this
guarantee has been a strictly limited one. Neumann continues, suggesting
that as time has gone on, the meaning of the Weimar constitution has been
transformed into its opposite; in particular the protection of property
secured by Article 153 has expanded immensely.112 Crucially this meant
that not only the possession of tangible objects but also any subjective
right has become the object of the right of private property. Such developments, therefore, rather than precluding state intervention, meant that the
corollaries of Article 153 Articles 156 and 165 made intervention a
necessity.113 Put simply, the economic constitution is the system of norms
which orders state and social intervention into economic freedom, which
is solely an enhanced legal freedom.114 It is not identical with the legal
norms which regulate the organisation of the economy; rather, it is a
strengthening of the legal position of labour in relation to capital.115 As
Neumann explains, the basic law adequate to the economic constitution is
the freedom of association anchored in Article 159 of the Reich Constitution.116 Thus, cartels, concerns and individual businesses must be subject to the control of the strong central state. 117 Moreover, in the
organisation of the economic constitution, ultimate control will rest with
the state in all decisive economic matters, a position ironically similar to
Schmitts discussion of the relationship between the strong total state and
the economy.118
To reach this understanding, however, Neumann again utilizes Renners
method. He recognizes that legal norms can remain constant in the midst of
tics of Austro-Marxism, New Left Review, 118 (1979), pp. 1553; Bast, Totalitrer
Pluralismus, pp. 22537.
111 Neumann, Economic Constitution, SD, p. 56.
112 Ibid., pp. 56 f. Emphasis added. Article 153 concerns property and expropriation.
113 Ibid. Article 156 concerns the transfer of suitable private economic undertakings
which are suitable for socialisation and Article 165 concerns workers representation.
114 Ibid., pp. 57 f.
115 Ibid., pp. 52 f.
116 Ibid., p. 65.
117 Thornhill, Political Theory, pp. 101 f; Intelmann, Franz L. Neumann, p. 162 ff.
118 Neumann, Economic Constitution, SD, p. 63. Cf. Carl Schmitt, Gesunde
Wirtschaft im starken Staat (1932), translated as Strong State and Sound Economy, in
Renato Cristi, Carl Schmitt and Authoritarian Liberalism (Cardiff, 1998), pp. 21232.

478
D. KELLY
economic change, but also notes that law and economy are mutually constituting. Therefore, and this is the aspect of Renners account of most importance to Neumanns analysis:
to decide the function of the law in general, we have to study inductively all
social orders as they appear in the course of history, from the most primitive
to the most highly developed. By this method we obtain the general categories of the social order and at the same time the general functions of the
law.119
Freedom and Rational Law

Building on his attempt to shore up economic freedom by legal means,
Neumanns wider attention focuses on the dual nature of freedom and the rule
of law. As he makes clear in The Rule of Law, Neumann defines freedom
here correlated with liberty as did Hobbes, in terms of the absence of
external impediment.120 Therefore, in the political sphere legal freedom
exists for every type of behaviour not prohibited by the law. However, freedom in the sociological sense means something completely different. For we
call someone completely free in a sociological sense if he has the legally free
choice between at least two equal opportunities.121 Over and above this, the
conclusion Neumann draws is that freedom in a philosophical sense is the
real possibility of human self-assertion, the ending of the alienation of man
from himself this philosophical understanding evidently presupposing
the two prior conceptualizations.122 The spectre of Marx is evident in this definition, which highlights an understanding of the ideological character of legal
freedom under capitalism.123 It also serves to bolster conceptually the links
between freedom and equality. Fundamentally, however, Neumann is principally concerned with the relationship between capitalism and freedom, and in
this he is truly heir to Webers legacy. Famously, in a series of articles written
between 1917 and 1918 on Parliament and Government in Germany under a
New Political Order, which would certainly have had a major influence on
119 Neumann, Economic Constitution, SD, pp. 58 f.; cf. Renner, Institutions,
pp. 252300. See also Scheuerman, Norm and Exception, p. 46; cf. Neumann, The Rule
of Law, p. 232. Neumann and Kirchheimer introduced Schmitt to Renners work in
Schmitts 1931 seminar on constitutional theory in Berlin. Cf. Carl Schmitt,
Freiheitsrechte und institutionelle Garantien der Reichsverfassung (1931), in Schmitt,
Verfassungsrechtliche Aufstze, p. 168; Bredekamp, Benjamin to Schmitt, p. 261.
120 Neumann, The Rule of Law, p. 32. Cf. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Richard
Tuck (Cambridge (1651), 1991), p. 145. See also Quentin Skinner, Thomas Hobbes on
the Proper Signification of Liberty, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (1990),
pp. 12151.
121 Neumann, The Rule of Law, pp. 32 f. Emphasis added.
122 Ibid., p. 35.
123 Cf. Thornhill, Political Theory, pp. 946; Neumann, The Rule of Law, pp. 212 f.,
254 f.; Intelmann, Franz L. Neumann, p. 86.

479
both Schmitt and Neumann, Weber questioned how individual freedom was
to be maintained under modern, bureaucratized conditions.124 Equally, in earlier reflections on the historical triumphs of liberalism that are included within
his essays on the 1905 Russian Revolution, Weber wrote that:
it is vital that liberalism continue to see its vocation as fighting against both
bureaucratic and Jacobin centralism and working at the permeation of the
masses with the old individualistic basic idea of the inalienable rights of
man, which have become as boring to us Western Europeans as black
bread is for the person who has enough to eat.125
Moreover, he asked, how can such ideals as liberty and democracy exist at all
for any length of time under the domination of capitalism? In fact (Weber
continues) they are only possible where they are backed up by the determined
will of a nation not to be ruled like a flock of sheep. Therefore, we individualists and supporters of democratic institutions must swim against the
tide of material constellations.126
The questions and sentiments are exactly the same as Neumanns.
Neumann, however, subdivided the rights of man, and offered a distinction
between liberalism and democracy again reminiscent of Schmitt, in order to
separate inalienable liberties, which can only be removed by the legislature
in the process of constitutional amendment, from those that can be removed
by the simple legislative process. Apart from such positive constitutional
law distinctions, Neumann further compartmentalized these rights according to their subject matter economic or social rights to freedom, for
instance.127 The point of this was to show that from political rights the rights
of the status activus must be divorced.128 That is, Neumann is here reinforcing the distinction between liberal and democratic rights, because liberalindividual rights as currently understood would appear to have little use in the
kind of post-capitalist society based on material and social equality that he is
keen to promote.129 Moreover, given that he has already defined democracy
once again in Schmitts terms, it is clear that his work continues to remain
very much within the latters frame of reference.130
124 Max Weber, Parliament and Government in Germany under a New Political
Order (191718), Political Writings, p. 159.
125 Max Weber, Bourgeois Democracy in Russia (1906), in The Russian Revolutions, ed. and trans. P. Baehr and G.C. Wells (Oxford, 1995), p. 108. My emphasis.
126 Ibid., p. 109.
127 Neumann, The Rule of Law, pp. 367.
128 Ibid.
129 Cf. Franz Neumann, On the Concept of Political Freedom, Columbia Law
Review, 53 (1951), pp. 90135, pp. 934 f.; Scheuerman, Norm and Exception, p. 57.
130 See Neumann, Rechtsstaat, SD, p. 73: Democracy rests upon equality. Popular
sovereignty means identity of the rulers and the ruled.

480
D. KELLY
But despite the similarities between their analyses, as William Scheuerman

has argued, Neumann remains highly critical of Schmitts concept of the
political. In his Koalitionsfreiheit und Reichsverfassung, for example, he suggested that Schmitts account must necessarily perceive all inhibitions and
controls on state power as unpolitical.131 Moreover, he suggested that the
political exists not only [nicht nur] where there is an existing [wirksam]
friendenemy opposition [gegensatz], but also where disputing forces
(streitende Krfte) are present which desire to contribute [beitragen] to the
construction [Aufbau] of a state-type body [Staatswesen].132 This clearly
indicates a much more pragmatic view of the political than that espoused by
Schmitt. The general tenor of the objection suggests to me, however, to suggest that although Neumann took up many of his ideas, he seems to have
missed something in Schmitts point that it is precisely the contemporary
insertion of the state into numerous, properly apolitical, arenas which characterizes the weak total state. Those inhibitions on state power that
Neumann mentions have become political ones, which is what leads Schmitt
famously to call for a clearly political process of depoliticization. 133
Scheuerman also suggests that, according to Neumann, Schmitts separation
of normal and emergency powers presupposes a problematic distinction
between the dynamic and static features of political reality.134 Given the way
Schmitt understands the normal situation as itself produced by the exceptional, Neumanns criticism here also seems to need more detail.135 Indeed, a
subtler attempt at a critique of Schmitt can be found in Benjamins work,
which pointedly turns his political theology against itself. By outlining a
view of history able to account for the fact that under fascism the state of
exception in which we live is not the exception but the norm, Benjamins
demand for a true state of exception, unlike Schmitts, represents a messianic hope for political liberation from a barbaric past.136
Nevertheless, as previously indicated, Neumanns integrationist vision
was a common position within the SPD generally, and goes some way to
explaining the policy of Tolerierungspolitik towards Weimars presidential
Neumann, Koalitionsfreiheit, p. 125, quoted in Scheuerman, Norm and Exception, p. 40.
132 Neumann, Koalitionsfreiheit, p. 127, quoted in Volker Neumann, Kompromiss,
p. 68.
133 Cf. Gopal Balakrishnan, The Enemy. An Intellectual Biography of Carl Schmitt
(London, 2000), pp. 150 ff.; Schmitt, Age of Neutralizations, passim.
135 Cf. Schmitt, Political Theology, p. 13; Carl Schmitt, Die Diktatur. Von den
Anfngen des modernen Souvernittsgedankens bis zum proletarischen Klassenkampf
(Berlin (1921, rev. 1928), 1978), pp. 136 f.
136 Walter Benjamin, Theses on the Philosophy of History, in Illuminations, ed.
Hannah Arendt, trans. H. Zohn (London, 1992), pp. 248 f.; Bredekamp, Benjamin to
Schmitt, p. 264.
131

481
regimes.137 The understanding of social change as driven by a powerful state

operating within strictly defined limits remains a constant; like Heller,
Neumann calls for predictable or measurable interference by the state.138
Scheuerman, however, deems this potentially progressive characterization a
failure. The Schmittian counterpoising of a fragmented contemporary liberalism with a homogeneous democracy, he suggests, becomes the basis for a
peculiar defense of what we can only describe as authoritarian laborism, promoted in particular under Brnings rule during late Weimar.139
Neumanns call for predictable state interference was nonetheless based
on a defence of rational law, such law as he also saw challenged in the
Freirecht or as it is termed in The Rule of Law, the school of free discretion approach to legal analysis. This approach focused on the gap
between the legal norm and its concrete application, highlighting the importance of the role of judges, for example, who in their intermediary interpretation of legal norms were seen as central to the implementation of the law. The
approach also has many present-day champions. According to Neumann,
however, this type of analysis tries to abolish formal rational law and replace
it by material norms, and irrational decisions.140 Moreover, Neumanns position here is wholly compatible with the arguments of Max Weber, who
observed that this flight into the irrational was precisely a result of the
increasing rationalization of the legal system itself. More concretely, he also
suggested that it is by no means certain that those classes which are negatively privileged today, especially the working classes, may expect safely
from an informal administration of justice those results which are claimed for
it.141 This passage is, as one might expect, critical for Neumann, and although
it leads into a further development in his ongoing confrontation with Schmitt,
it also returns Weber to the foreground.
Decisionism is not Sovereignty
Despite his continued engagement with Schmitt, one can more clearly detect
in The Rule of Law, written only three years after the demise of Weimar, the
main lines of Neumanns hostility towards him. After stating that functional
legal thought, which lies at the bottom of all our investigations, starts from the
assumption that law is not a substance in itself, but a function of society,
137 Thornhill, Political Theory, p. 104; Ellen Kennedy, Hermann Heller and the Politics of Toleration in Late Weimar, History of Political Thought, V (1984), pp. 10927,
pp. 11011.
138 Neumann, The Rule of Law, p. 32. Emphasis in original.
139 Scheuerman, Norm and Exception, pp. 57 f.
140 Neumann, The Rule of Law, pp. 278, 280: the political attitude of the judiciary;
their hostility to democracy.
141 Weber, Economy and Society, Vol. 2, p. 893. See also Neumann, The Change in
the Function of Law in Modern Society, DAS, pp. 55 f.

482
D. KELLY
Neumann vents his spleen at so-called decisionistic legal thought in a passage worth quoting fully:
Decisionistic legal thought has, in fact, nothing to do with law. In this kind
of legal thinking, law is nothing but a technique for transforming the political will into legal form. In decisionism law is nothing but an arcanum for
the maintenance of power. It is an arcanum dominationis, and it is characteristic that in political theory the doctrine of the arcana arose at the time
when theology lost its dominating influence.142
Neumanns authority for the historical clause at the end of this quotation is
none other than Carl Schmitt.143 The irony of this (surely purposeful) reference is that the very type of thought that Neumann decries is in fact that which
he (now, in 1936) views Schmitt as practising.144 As is well known, in Behemoth Schmitt was presented as the leading ideologist of National Socialism, a
non-state in which there is no longer any such thing as the rule of law.
Indeed, the impassioned paragraph that ends The Rule of Law had already outlined the position of law in contemporary Germany:
We therefore sum up: That law does not exist in Germany, because law is
now exclusively a technique of transforming the political will of the Leader
into constitutional reality. Law is nothing but an arcanum dominationis.145
The implication of his argument, which suggests that for law to exist there
must be a state, nevertheless corresponds with Schmitts Weimar writings.
Indeed, the rapid call for the transcendence of the state by such National
Socialist party hacks as Otto Kllreutter, was a direct challenge to Schmitts
ideas and played at least a bit part in his ousting from the heights of the Nazi
legal establishment.146 For example, Neumann quotes from Schmitt to the
effect that the people under the totalitarian, National Socialist state are
treated as essentially unpolitical, and located mainly within the private
sphere. The unified constituent will of the people, which stood at the root of
the democratic state, is now forgotten, for the people here exist simply to be
Neumann, The Rule of Law, p. 285. Emphasis added.

Schmitt, Die Diktatur, pp. 13 f.
144 It is thus with great anticipation that we await something of a rewriting of this
work as announced by Pasquale Pasquino in his excellent, though brief, discussion
Locke on Kings Prerogative, Political Theory, 26 (1998), pp. 198208, p. 198. Cf.
Neumann, The Rule of Law, p. 23.
145 Neumann, The Rule of Law, p. 298. Cf. Neumann, Behemoth, p. 453.
146 Neumann, The Rule of Law, pp. 288 f. Cf. Peter C. Caldwell, National Socialism
and Constitutional Law: Carl Schmitt, Otto Koellreutter, and the Debate over the Nature
of the Nazi State, 19331937, Cardozo Law Review, 16 (1994), pp. 399427; Caplan,
Government Without Administration, pp. 334 ff; Volker Neumann, Der Staat im
Brgerkrieg (Frankfurt am Main, 1980), p. 148.
142
143

483
ruled.147 This analysis obviously stood in sharp contrast to most other

National Socialist propagandist accounts of the role of the Volk. Neumann
therefore detects even at this late stage an equivocation in Schmitts thought
as it relates to the theorization of the new Nazi regime.148 As Keith Tribe has
suggested, it would have been easy for Neumann to present Schmitt as just as
much of a crude ideologue in The Rule of Law as he does in Behemoth. The
principal reason why he does not do so is because Schmitt had offered his
theory of sovereignty, dictatorship and decision as grounded in historical
example, guided in particular by Pufendorfs question: quis iudicabit, or who
decides? Neumann therefore devotes a substantial part of the research to challenging such an interpretation, ranging widely over the entire history of western political thought.149
Schmitts most famous definition of sovereignty concerns the ability to
decide upon the state of exception.150 For Neumann, however, both sovereignty and the rule of law are constitutive elements of the modern state, yet
ultimately both are irreconcilable with each other, for highest might and
highest right cannot be at one and the same time realised in a common
sphere.151 This is why he then distinguishes between legal and sociological
definitions of sovereignty, observing that in the latter sense, an element of both
right and power is included.152 The distinction, however, as already suggested, retains those normativist elements that Schmitt will not permit.
147 Carl Schmitt, Staat, Bewegung, Volk, p. 12, quoted in Neumann, Behemoth,
pp. 65 f. Cf. Neumann, Behemoth, pp. 2889, 347, n. 11; Joseph Bendersky, Carl Schmitt:
Theorist for the Reich (Princeton, NJ, 1987), pp. 222 ff.; and Caldwell, National Socialism and Constitutional Law, pp. 40719.
148 Caldwell, National Socialism and Constitutional Law, p. 417, n. 84. In Behemoth,
Neumann references Schmitts work up until 1938 without discussing the question of his
anti-semitism, which Raphael Gross has argued was present from at least 1933, Carl
Schmitts Nomos und die Juden , Merkur, 47 (1993), pp. 41020, now further
detailed in R. Gross, Carl Schmitt und die Juden (Frankfurt am Main, 2000). Cf. Gnter
Meuter, Blut oder Boden. Anmerkungen zu Carl Schmitts Antisemitismus, Deutsche
Vierteljahrsschrift fr Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, 70 (1996), pp. 22755.
Neumann would have been aware of the reference to Joll Jolson, i.e. Friedrich Julius
Stahl, made in Staat, Bewegung, Volk, from which he quotes extensively. The sniping
reference to the nineteenth-century Jewish philosopher Friedrich Julius Stahl-Jolson
continues in Carl Schmitt, The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes (1938),
trans. George Schwab and Erna Hilfstein (Westport, CT, 1996), pp. 6970, though cf. the
unconvincing rationale on p. 75, notes 4 and 5. The notorious speech, Die deutsche
Rechtswissenschaft im Kampf gegen den Judischen Geist, Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung,
41 (15 October 1936), pp. 11939, would also have attracted attention. See, however,
149 Keith Tribe, Introduction to Neumann, p. 327, n. 9.
150 Schmitt, Political Theology, p. 5.
152 Ibid., p. 25.

484
D. KELLY
Neumann thinks that Schmitt obfuscates the centrality of the (norm-based)

legal order for politics.153 In fact, he suggests that:
Two notions of law must be distinguished, a political and a rational notion.
In a political sense, law is every measure of a sovereign power, regardless of
its form or content. Law is then will and nothing else. The rational concept
of law, on the other hand, is determined by its form and content, not by its
origin. Not every act of the sovereign is law. Law in this sense is a norm,
comprehensible by reason, open to theoretical understanding, and containing an ethical postulate, primarily that of equality. Law is reason and will.154
This clearly builds on Webers discussion of modern law as rational formalism. Weber suggested that although the validity of law under conditions of
modernity is logically derived from abstract norms, it is dependent upon
either textual considerations legal propositions which accord with logical
correctness or empirical validity, which has as its basis the probabilistic
assumption that people will, in fact, obey.155 Here too law is reason and will.
Neumanns combined critique of decisionistic thinking and contemporary
monopoly capitalism therefore culminates in what Scheuerman terms a
neo-Marxist reworking of Webers concept of legal rationalization, because
Neumann wants both radical (and explicitly anti-capitalist) social and economic reforms and all of the virtues of liberal general legal norms. He therefore tries to show not only that social and economic equality and classically
liberal legal modes are compatible but that they need each other. Thus, the
real elective affinity is between social democracy and formal law.156 For
Scheuerman, Neumann is attempting to prove that:
modern politics still needs state organs holding a monopoly on the instruments of coercion (and law, unlike morality, must still be backed up by the
possibility of state-based force), yet he hopes that this monopoly can take a
significantly more acceptable form than it has in the past, and that the state
should no longer need to act in a manner incompatible with general legal
norms or above and against a system of neatly codified formal law.157
Reforming Rationalization
The implication of this reading is that Neumanns history of occidental legal
thought tells the story of a long attempt to extinguish its inherent decisionist
or normless elements. Because of this, it also represents a curious mirror
image of Schmitts own generalizations about political history since the six153
154
Scheuerman, Norm and Exception, p. 41.

Neumann, Behemoth, p. 440. Emphasis added. Cf. Neumann, The Rule of Law,
p. 45.
155
156
157
Weber, Economy and Society, Vol. 1, p. 311.

Scheuerman, Norm and Exception, pp. 163, 101. Emphasis added.
Ibid., p. 103. Emphasis added.

485
teenth century.158 Indeed, the distinction he draws in Behemoth, quoted above,

between political and rational law has come about precisely because of the
breakdown of traditional conceptions of law with their intimate ties to morality. Rationalization leads towards a general Weberian Entzauberung, whilst
simultaneously supporting an interpretation of law that (potentially) sees it
simply as a neutral tool, rather than thoroughly entangled with, and indeed
functional for, the regnant social order.159 Neumanns subsequent social
democratic resolution of this disenchantment suggests that general law will
be meaningful only in some sort of post-capitalist society, where material and
social inequalities are absent.160 In the meantime, therefore, non-general
forms of law are necessary.161 But, in attempting to democratize Weber:
Neumanns concession that general law can only be of limited significance
in contemporary non-homogeneous social settings makes his positions
even more peculiar than Webers . . . Intent on emphasizing the ethical significance of the general legal norm, yet having to concede that law today
often cannot take a classical structure, Neumanns alternative analysis
acquires nothing less than tragic qualities.162
Yet, as Scheuerman has further pointed out, there are perhaps two general
points worth reminding ourselves of here. One is, simply, that Neumann
wishes to defend something akin to a Weberian account of the state against
what he sees as Schmitts decisionism. The other, subtler, undertaking is his
re-working of Webers account of legal rationalization. Indeed, taking
Webers remarks about the potential fate of the working classes under
deformalized law very seriously, Neumann suggests that a focus on
deformalized law is actually the epitome of an irrationality, but this is an irrationality that actually serves to bolster the ruling class. These irrational
trends come from above and not below, and they benefit the most secure
core sector of the capitalist economy. It is therefore in the interests of this secure sector to hinder the completion of those processes of rationalization that
would fulfil the necessary preconditions for the implementation of general
law. Neumann suggests, alongside Weber, that the decline of liberal
parliamentarism is due to the rise in strength of the working class, whose
incorporation via political parties into Parliament makes it a potential agent of
social change, although it has weakened Parliament at the same time. It is this
potential strength that has led to the renewed focus on deformalized law.
Moreover, although right to identify regulatory laws immediate roots in the
158
159
Cf. Neumann, The Rule of Law, Part II; Schmitt, Age of Neutralizations, p. 141.
Scheuerman, Norm and Exception, pp. 107 f. Cf. Neumann, The Rule of Law,
p. 28.
160 Neumann, The Rule of Law, p. 137. Cf. Andrew Levine, The End of the State (London, 1987); Thornhill, Political Theory, pp. 967; Neumann, Rechtsstaat, SD, p. 71.
161 See Neumann, Decay of German Democracy, pp. 530 f.

486
D. KELLY
democratisation process, Weber obscures its intrinsically antidemocratic

nature.163 The particularism of deformalized law is advantageous to the leading powers behind the contemporary monopoly-capitalist regime, as it has
always been advantageous to ruling elites, for it is the working classes and not
these elites who would be most likely to benefit from the implementation of
rational or classical law.164 Therefore, in extremis, the shifting power cartels
of National Socialism that he later identifies the NSDAP, the army, the
upper civil service, monopoly capital can be seen as extant reactions to
those democratic achievements of the German working class, a particularly
stark attack, that is, on the legacy of 1918.165
Excursus: Exile Continuity or Transformation?
The enactment of The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service (Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentum) of 7 April 1933
transformed Neumanns position. The so-called Aryan clause of this law,
sanctioning the retirement of Jewish officials, both retrospectively legalised the hounding from office of Jewish judges, lawyers, teachers and officials and supplied a pseudo-legal justification for the exclusion of Jews from
other professions.166 His own Jewish identity aside, Neumann was also one of
those who would have been deemed communistically active (kommunistisch
bettigende), given his status as a prominent SPD member, by the supplement
to the law of 20 July.167 Indeed, although the precise effects of the law are, statistically at least, difficult to discern, it was Jewish officials, known Communists, social democrats, and Centre party members or sympathisers, [who]
were the most common victims.168 Neumann, along with his wife, Inge, and
their son, Thomas, therefore joined the predominantly Jewish emigration
from Germany in May 1933, bidding farewell to his friend and partner
Fraenkel with the words Ive had enough of world-history! [Mein Bedarf an
Ibid., pp. 1279. Cf. Neumann, The Rule of Law, esp. p. 280: The material rationality of such legal standards of conduct in this we have to correct Max Weber was in
fact identical with irrationality. Emphasis added.
164 Scheuerman, Norm and Exception, pp. 1279.
165 Neumann, Behemoth, p. 193. Cf. Tim Mason, The Legacy of 1918 for National
Socialism (1971), reprinted in T. Mason, Social Policy in The Third Reich. The Working
Class and the National Community (Leamington Spa (1977), 1993), pp. 1940.
166 Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wipperman, The Racial State: Germany
19331945 (Cambridge (1991), 1996), p. 78. Fraenkel remained his war service partially ameliorating the laws impact. See Nazism 19191945, Vol. 2, State, Economy and
Society, 19331939, ed. Jeremy Noakes and Geoff Pridham (Exeter (1984), 1995), p. 224.
167 Intelmann, Zur Biographie von Franz L. Neumann, p. 24; Nazism, ed. Noakes
and Pridham, Vol. 2, pp. 2205.
168 Caplan, Government Without Administration, pp. 146 f.; David Bankier, The Germans and the Final Solution (Oxford (1992), 1996), pp. 6871.
163

487
Weltgeschichte ist gedeckt].169 Of course, his move to London was hardly

unproductive, and he remained more than close to SPD opposition circles in
England.170 He also worked to clarify his position relating to Marxist accounts
of the state, engaging with the work of Laski and Mannheim. Nevertheless,
this period was still largely a continuation of his engagement with the paradoxical nature of the contemporary situation in Germany.171
If Not a State, Then What?
If law is both a rational and political process, and indeed if law is a function of
its society, based on his promotion of pluralism, compromise and integration,
how can Neumann rationally explain what he has already termed irrational
National Socialism? This arcanum dominationis stands outside the rule of
law, but if it is assumed that some measure of integration is required to sustain any form of social and political order . . . then for a system to maintain
itself in being there has to be some process at work which generates this necessary minimum of integration.172 That Neumann viewed this tension as
especially problematic is outlined in a fascinating book proposal he wrote in
1936. In this document, Law as an Integrating and Disintegrating Element in
Modern Society. A Sociological Analysis of the Forces which Strengthen or
Weaken Rational Elements in Law, Neumann terms rational law a general
rule of law as opposed to arbitrary individual commands. He proposes to
trace its progressive degradation since the nineteenth century, and then to
focus on twentieth-century irrational legal thought. And the reason?
What seems to me a possible solution is that irrational law prevails where the
state is confronted with the question of the role of rational law in the totalitarian state . The role of such rational law integrative or disintegrative is
the central question.173 Here, obviously, is the critical step towards Behemoth although problems with and commitments to the Institut fr
Sozialforschung meant that serious work on the book only began in the summer of 1939.174 Further, as Intelmann recounts, Neumanns work sparked an
internal controversy within the Institute because his theory of totalitarian
Ernst Fraenkel, Gedenkenrede auf Franz L. Neumann, Reformismus und
Pluralismus (Hamburg, 1963), p. 175, quoted in Intelmann, Zur Biographie von Franz
L. Neumann, p. 24.
170 Intelmann, Zur Biographie von Franz L. Neumann, pp. 2536.
171 Tribe, Capitalism, p. 182. Cf. Franz L. Neumann [Leopold Franz], On the Marxist Theory of the State (1935), SD, pp. 7584. On the differences between Laski and
Neumann, see Tribe, Capitalism, pp. 184 f.; Scheuerman, Norm and Exception, p. 138.
173 Ibid.
174 Cf. Intelmann, Zur Biographie von Franz L. Neumann, pp. 3641; Wiggerhaus,
Frankfurt School, pp. 22630; Jay, Dialectical Imagination, pp. 1449.
169

488
D. KELLY
monopoly capitalism was clearly at odds with Friedrich Pollocks predominant account of National Socialism as a form of Staatskapitalismus.175
That National Socialism was a new arrangement was crucial to Pollocks
argument; it constituted a break with previous history. Neumann saw no such
temporal caesura. Rather, for him there was a clear continuity between competitive and monopoly capitalism.176 To Pollock, of course, it was the new
coordinating role of the state that was truly dramatic it had taken over the
previous functions of the market. As a corollary of this, he described a fusion
between state bureaucracy and capital from which the cadres of political leadership under a totalitarian variant of the more general trend towards state capitalism were formed. This totalitarian variant was National Socialism.177 Both
Neumann and Pollock nevertheless agreed that a Marxist analysis of the concentration and centralization of capital could explain the inherent trend
towards monopolization,178 and equally both agreed that capitalist crises had
in no way been ameliorated or evaporated. Correlatively, state intervention
had increased to an unprecedented degree.179 Pollock suggested that private
capitalism had been superseded, as the state now assumed important functions
of the private capitalist, and that although capitalist institutions continued to
play a significant role, this new state form was not socialist.180
Whereas Neumann saw National Socialism as a totalitarian form of monopoly capitalism, Pollock thought it had, by transforming quantity into quality, mutated into a state capitalism with the attendant central features of vast
state planning buttressed by an all-powerful bureaucracy.181 Crucially,
though, everybody who does not belong to this group is a mere object of
175 See esp. Intelmann, Franz L. Neumann, pp. 24551; Intelmann, Zur Biographie
von Franz L. Neumann, p. 42; David Held, An Introduction to Critical Theory (Oxford
(1980), 1990), p. 365; Jay, Dialectical Imagination, pp. 161 f.
176 Bast, Totalitrer Pluralismus, Ch. 2, part III.
177 Friedrich Pollock, Is National Socialism a New Order?, Studies in Philosophy
and Social Science, 9 (1941), pp. 44055.
178 See Neumann, The Rule of Law, p. 266.
179 Pollock, Is National Socialism a New Order?, p. 454. See also Held, Critical
Theory, p. 57. Cf. James, German Slump, p. 123.
180 Pollock, Is National Socialism a New Order?, p. 450, also quoted in Held, Critical Theory, p. 58.
181 Neumanns point that total integration did not exist has been developed by many
subsequent historians. See Mason, Social Policy, pp. 44, 71, 242 f., 273; Tim Mason,
The Workers Opposition in Nazi Germany, History Workshop Journal, 11 (1981),
pp. 12037; Ian Kershaw, Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich
(Oxford (1983), 1991), esp. pp. 329 f.; cf. Ulrich Herbert, Labour and Extermination:
Economic Interest and the Primacy of Weltanschauung in National Socialism (1987),
Past and Present, 138 (1993), pp. 14495; Ulrich Herbert, The Real Mystery in Germany: The German Working Class During the Nazi Dictatorship, in Confronting the
Nazi Past, ed. Michael Burleigh (London, 1996), pp. 2336.

489
domination.182 Neumann was sharply critical of the account. He disputed it

empirically, suggesting that the German state does not in fact own all capital.
Theoretically, moreover, if state capitalism were true, it would mean that the
workers exploitation is political, and is no longer a result of his position in
the productive process. The new economy, therefore, would be one without
economics.183 Neumann then continued this line of attack, suggesting that
even if state capitalism actually exists, the term itself is a contradictio in
adiecto.184
His most important criticism, succinctly relayed in a chapter title of Behemoth, relates to the idea of politics without, or indeed above, economics, for
this tends towards a potentially lethal political fatalism. He cannot accept this
profoundly pessimistic view, believing that the antagonisms of capitalism
are operating in Germany on a higher and, therefore, more dangerous level,
even if these antagonisms are covered up by a bureaucratic apparatus and by
the ideology of the peoples community.185 The rational character of the state
under National Socialism, according to Pollocks analysis, is off the mark. It
is, rather, precisely the weakness of the contemporary state the point he
has taken from Schmitt that ensures the continuation of market forces
rather than their transcendence by the state.186 Moreover, Neumann wrote that
rational law, after all, serves to protect the weak and is therefore of little use
to monopolists. Nor, it should be added, is it of any use to fascists.187 Neumann
also rejected, however, the famous distinction drawn by his old friend
Fraenkel, between the Prerogative State and Normative State, in his noted
book The Dual State.188 So what kind of position was he left with?
Neumann clearly adapted his analyses of the destructive tendencies of
Weimar and extrapolated from them in an attempt to explain National Socialism. Indeed, as he wrote to Horkheimer in 1941, his original manuscript had
three hundred machine-copied pages on the collapse of Weimar, which,
182 Friedrich Pollock, State Capitalism: Its Possibilities and Limitations, Studies in
Philosophy and Social Science, 9 (1941), p. 201, quoted in Held, Critical Theory, p. 59.
183 Neumann, Behemoth, p. 222.
184 Ibid., p. 224.
185 Ibid., p. 227. Cf. Tim Mason, The Primacy of Politics. Politics and Economics in
National Socialist Germany (1968), Nazism, Fascism and the Working Class,
pp. 5376; Nazism, ed. Noakes and Pridham, Vol. 2, pp. 23358, esp. p. 238; Caplan,
National Socialism and the State, pp. 1059.
186 Tribe, Capitalism, p. 191; Neumann, Behemoth, p. 523; Scheuerman, Norm and
Exception, pp. 139 f.
188 Ernst Fraenkel, The Dual State (Oxford, 1941). Cf. Neumann, Behemoth, p. 516,
n. 63; Intelmann, Franz L. Neumann, pp. 2738. On Fraenkels debts to Schmitt, see
Pasquale Pasquino, Politische Einheit, Demokratie und Pluralismus. Bemerkungen zu
Carl Schmitt, Hermann Heller und Ernst Fraenkel, in Der Soziale Rechtsstaat, ed. J. Perels
(Baden-Baden, 1984), esp. pp. 37780.

490
D. KELLY
unfortunately, he had to cut down to sixty. He was equally perturbed at not

having another year to work on the text.189 The fundamental problem with
which he grappled, however, has already been mentioned to what extent
the irrational chaos of National Socialism is amenable to rational (legal)
analysis. It is perhaps unsurprising that with these types of questions, and
under the destructive impact of the NS-Zeit, Neumann should have chosen to
call his text, with its attendant theological and apocalyptic connotations,
Behemoth. But Neumann makes his analysis more concrete here by directly
quoting Hobbess use of Behemoth to designate the Long Parliament in England during the seventeenth century as a non-state, a chaos, a rule of lawlessness, disorder and anarchy. He then applied the same criteria to the National
Socialist system.190 Maybe it was also a reply to the use made of the mythical
symbol of the Leviathan by Schmitt in his curious work of the previous
year.191 Correlatively, perhaps his call for both the military and psychological
defeat of Behemoth is an early example of his ability to go to war alongside
others of the Frankfurt school who would soon take up positions in the Oh So
Social Office of Strategic Services.192 Conjecture aside, what remains important here is the continuing critique in Behemoth of a deformalized law,
which forms the basis of his attack on Schmitts account of, in particular,
concrete order thinking.193
Rational Categories, Irrational Object
Neumann identified the nation as the integrating element in a system of competitive capitalism.194 It is the nation that has, historically, justifie[d] a central
coercive authority, namely, a central state.195 The ideological cement supplied by the nation remains too under National Socialism, and much recent
work presupposes it. The correlation of the state with sovereignty now, however, is wholly absent. In fact, the conflation of party and state typified early
on in the NS regime is, Neumann concludes, self-contradictory, and their
extremely equivocal relation can only be legally solved through the uniIntelmann, Zur Biographie von Franz L. Neumann, p. 41.
Neumann, Behemoth, p. xii. For an illuminating discussion of the terms, see Patricia Springborg, Hobbess Biblical Beasts Leviathan and Behemoth, Political Theory,
23 (1995), pp. 35375.
191 Cf. Carl Schmitt, Leviathan, pp. 710, 812, 85; Neumann, Behemoth, pp. 475 f.;
Bast, Totalitrer Pluralismus, p. 301, n. 115.
192 See Barry Katz, The Criticism of Arms: The Frankfurt School Goes to War,
Journal of Modern History, 59 (1987), pp. 43978. For the quip about the OSS, see Francis Stonor Saunders, Who Paid the Piper? (London, 2000), p. 34 and passim.
193 Maus, 1933 Break , pp. 20612; Neumann, Behemoth, p. 448.
194 Cf. Karl Renner, The Development of the National Idea (1917), AustroMarxism, ed. T. Bottomoore and P. Goode (Oxford, 1978), pp. 123 f.
189
190

491
fying figure of the leader.196 Yet legally, neither element party or state
controls the other. Because the party is not an organ of the state . . . its position cannot be defined in terms of our traditional jurisprudence.197 The nub of
the argument, explicitly directed against Schmitt (among others), is that little
light is shed by the formula that party and state are different but not separate,
combined but not merged.198 Here is the crucial analytical claim:
Our task will be to show that this is not quite true, that there is a definite pattern of political and constitutional theory, although this pattern does not fit
the rational categories of political thought as we know it, whether liberal,
absolutist, democratic or autocratic.199
In an interesting continuation of his dialogue with Schmitt, Neumanns

argument shows that rather than bringing forth the truly political total state,
National Socialism in fact undermines the real source of legal and political
power, sovereignty, which is specific to the political sphere. Truly, this is
another variation on Hegels famous pronouncement that Germany is no longer a state. As Thornhill suggests:
For Neumann, the very fact that the moment of genuine politics has been
attenuated by technical and pluralist (private-legal) modes of coercion is
responsible for the triumph of Hitlers party. Hitlers system, Neumann
argues, is not political at all, but a mere sporadic refraction of economic
interests. It has triumphed because of the absence, not the primacy, of the
political.200
What Neumann suggests instead is that there is no realm of law in Germany,

although there are thousands of technical rules that are calculable,201 and
these technical rules provide a key source of the order he seeks. Having
rejected the theses of both Pollock and Fraenkel, on the grounds that the German economy is a mixture of a cartellized, monopolized system governed by a
totalitarian state,202 he is perhaps left with little else. It is a curious feature of
his account that although the promise is to explicate the political and constitutional theory of National Socialism, a Behemoth impervious to rational (as
Neumann understands the term) analysis, he nevertheless tries to fit his own
discussion into just precisely such a formulation. The combination of monopoly capitalism with a command economy is good for business, but the obvious exceptionality of the National Socialist state is not a question of a
different kind of economic substructure; in effect, capitalism is still
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
Ibid., pp. 82, 72.

Ibid., pp. 734.
Ibid., p. 74, quoting Schmitt, Staat, Bewegung, Volk, p. 21.
Ibid. Emphasis added.
Thornhill, Political Theory, p. 127. Emphasis added.
Ibid., p. 261.

492
D. KELLY
capitalism.203 As noted, he suggests a high degree of continuity between the

Weimar and National Socialist periods in terms of the legal underpinning of
economic practice, and it is therefore not surprising that the economy provides the other major source of order in Behemoth. Such continuity existed
largely because there was nothing akin to what we might call a National
Socialist economics.
Although the drive towards war has often been seen as crucial to explaining
the order of National Socialism, Neumanns general point is that any conception of economic rationality, such as that which underpins an explicitly
competitive-capitalist economy, is rendered secondary to the political rationality now favoured.204 There are obvious wider links, which have been drawn
in subsequent research, between such political calculations and the path to
genocide. But, as Keith Tribe formulates the problem, within the Third Reich
economic ambition was regarded as a purely personal matter.205 Indeed, as
Richard Overy continues, the Reichswerke Hermann Gring was just one
example of German economic imperialism.206 The problem then is one of
expression:
we are confronted with a form of society in which the ruling groups control
the rest of the population directly, without the mediation of that rational
though coercive apparatus hitherto known as the state. This new social form
is not yet fully realized, but the trend exists which defines the very essence
of the regime.207
Furthermore, Neumann firmly rejected the alleged transcendence of the

state by the Fhrerprinzip outlined by various party lawyers, though the role
of the leader for any kind of integration was obviously crucial. Therefore:
we are not concerned with the sophistry of this new theory of transubstantiation implied by the identification of the Leader and the people, but rather
with the consequences which derive from such a theory. This advanced
National Socialist constitutional theory, although attacked even by Carl
Schmitt, clearly admits that it is not the state which unifies political power
but that there are three (in our view, four) co-existent political powers, the
203 Neumann, Behemoth, pp. 292, 361. Cf. Peter Hayes, Industry and Ideology: IG
Farben in the Nazi Era (Cambridge, 1987), esp. pp. 21318; Neil Gregor, Daimler Benz
in the Third Reich (New Haven and London, 1999).
204 Cf. Peter Hayes, Polycracy and Policy in the Third Reich: The Case of the Economy, in Re-evaluating the Third Reich, ed. Childers and Caplan, pp. 197 ff., 203; Martin
Broszat, The Hitler State, trans. J.W. Hiden (London (1969), 1981).
205 Tribe, Capitalism, p. 196. Cf. Gotz ly, Final Solution. Nazi Population Policy and the Murder of the European Jews, trans. B. Cooper and A. Brown (London
(1995), 1999), p. 259.
206 Richard Overy, The Reichswerke Hermann Gring. A Study in German Economic Imperialism, in R. Overy, War and Economy in the Third Reich (Oxford, 1995),
pp. 1645.

493
unification of which is not institutionalized but only personalized. It may be

readily admitted that in constitutional law, as in any other field, the theories
of the peoples community and leadership are a mere shield covering the
powers of the enormously swollen bureaucratic machines. But at least a
grain of truth may be contained in these theories; to wit, that it is difficult to
give the name state to four groups entering into a bargain. In fact, except for
the charismatic power of the Leader, there is no authority that co-ordinates
the four powers, no place where the compromise between them can be put
on a universal valid basis.208
Thus, German constitutional life is characterised by its utter shapelessness . . . [and] it follows that from our point of view it is doubtful whether Germany can be called a state.209 Neumann clearly thinks the regime is rife with
contradictions, between the Fhrer and the high-level bureaucratic
machines in fact between the four principal political powers he has identified and also, importantly, between rulers and ruled. He sees therefore the
necessity of the destruction of Behemoth, but also recognizes the possibility
for conscious political action of the oppressed masses, which . . . [could] utilise the breaks in the system.210 Nevertheless, while there is a fairly clear
presentation of the problem linked to a detailed analysis of the present, there is
no clear picture of what the fully realised picture of the new social form
might look like. Indeed, whilst Neumann posits the problem of order or integration as a crucial feature of modern democracies, his own account of
National Socialism remains somewhat incomplete. This is not simply due to
the enormity of the subject matter. By tying sovereignty and state so closely
together, he actually remains incapable of theorizing anything that does not
conform to his pre-established norms of social and political theory. He
remains tied, in other words, to his understanding that the state is the highest
form of sovereignty, and that sovereignty contains elements of both might and
right. The new social form that Neumann sees coming into existence in Germany clearly is not a state in this sense, and whilst it possesses all the coercive
power of such a body, it is neither sovereign nor legitimate in the terms that
Neumann understands.211 Therefore, if National Socialism was a chaotic
non-state, could he do anything other than provide a detailed contextual
description of it?
Ibid., pp. 469 f. Emphasis added. The Schmitt reference refers to his Der
Reichsbegriff im Vlkerrecht, Deutsches Recht (1939), pp. 3414. Cf. Peter Stirk, Carl
Schmitts Vlkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung, History of Political Thought, XX
(1999), pp. 35774, pp. 367 f.
209 Neumann, Behemoth, p. 522. On the new power of retroactive legislation,
Neumann cites Constant approvingly: retroaction is the most evil assault which the law
can permit . . . a retroactive law is no law at all. See Neumann, The Rule of Law, p. 222;
and also Neumann, The Change in the Function of Law in Modern Society, DAS, p. 36.
211 Ibid., p. 470.
208

494
D. KELLY
Many present-day accounts of the NS-Zeit have also illustrated the importance of bureaucratic efficiency and technical procedures for economic
restructuring. Indeed, some of the most provocative and controversial recent
German work has outlined the often eager complicity of various academics
and influential political decision-makers in particular in adapting their scientific procedures to fit the new economic order.212 This kind of research
could actually square the circle, so to speak, of Neumanns account. The overall ascription of rationality to, in particular, the planning elite, nevertheless
runs against the grain of his basic understanding.213 There is no space here to
go into detail about the relationship between Neumanns writings and discussions about the Third Reich and modernization.214 It will have to suffice to
observe that for contemporary research, the problems of systemic order and
the rational reproduction of an irrational regime remain paramount.
Certainly, though, one of the most basic and highly provocative argument[s] within Behemoth is that some version of an identifiably modern
state apparatus controlling the exercise of coercion remains a civilizational
achievement worth defending.215 It is precisely the universal fulfilment of the
rule of law, as opposed to its curtailing, that is to say, the completion of legal
rationalization as a basis for meaningful social change, which Neumann has
attempted to argue for in a complex mixture of sources. Such a mixture has led
Thornhill to characterize Neumann as an anti-Schmittian Schmittian . . .
[and] simultaneously . . . an anti-Marxist Marxist.216 He is perhaps right. Perhaps the fact that Neumann had trouble explaining Nazism through the use of
his categories should not be that surprising. However, if what is modern
about National Socialism is the deliberate reconstruction of a social and political order by the application of the modern instrumentaria of power and domination,217 then Neumann did at the very least ask the right questions. He
obviously also went a long way towards providing us with answers, indeed
answers on which we still rely. The problems faced by Neumann are the same
as those facing researchers today who, as they delve deeper into the structures
of the Third Reich, confront those modern aspects of the regime, and
Gotz ly, The Planning Intelligentsia and the Final Solution , in Confronting
the Nazi Past, ed. Burleigh, p. 153. Cf. Norbert Frei, Wie modern war der Nationalsozialismus?, Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 19 (1993), pp. 36787, esp. pp. 385 ff.;
Michael Burleigh, A Political Economy of the Final Solution? Reflections on Modernity, Historians and the Holocaust, in M. Burleigh, Ethics and Extermination (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 1709.
213 See Herbert, Labour and Extermination, pp. 173 ff.
214 See Tribe, Capitalism, passim.
216 Thornhill, Political Theory, p. 115. Cf. Neumann, The Change in the Function of
Law in Modern Society, DAS, pp. 40 f.; Caplan, Government Without Administration,
p. 199.
212

495
particularly now ask awkward questions about the impact of the NS-Zeit
on post-war German economy and society.218
Re-Reading Behemoth
That Neumanns thought during the period under consideration in this paper
owes so much to Schmitts categories casts the well-known portrait of
Schmitt in Behemoth as the clearest representative of Nazi ideology in a different light. The key point for Neumann is that under National Socialism the
state per se has ceased to exist, and without the state there is simply a
decisionistic, situation-specific, deformalized or dematerialized law that
owes little, if anything, to the general rule of law he seeks to defend. As a representative of such decisionistic thought, Schmitt has become not simply
authoritarian, but also irrational, and he can therefore legitimately be viewed
as a Nazi ideologue. Whether there was indeed a break in Schmitts thought
in 1933 is itself a vexed question, and depends on whether one views his
Weimar writings as a quantifiable progression towards an overtly fascist politics. Neumanns observations in both the quoted letter that forms the epigraph
to this paper, and most of the work referred to here, suggests that he did not
take such a view. This is clearly a difficult question. This is no reason to
ignore it, however, and ignored it often has been.
By reconstructing Franz Neumanns route to Behemoth, I hope to have
shown that it is much too simple just to suggest that his political writings, at
least before the end of the war, are determined by the dictates of a clearly
defined social-democratic reformism. Although there is, of course, an element of truth in such a broad general characterization, this neat ideological
label not only hides important differences within social-democratic politics
itself, but also in this case ignores a, perhaps the, major protagonist in
Neumanns political writings before the end of the war.219 Equally, there is
also a wider point to be made here. In their related concerns about the nature
of the modern state and questions of political-legal rationality and legitimacy,
the works of Weber, Schmitt and Neumann clearly touch on themes that go
beyond the confines of Weimar democracy and National Socialist
218 For one recent overview, Martin Urban, Die Hintermnner der Mrder,
Sddeutsche Zeitung, 24 October 2000, p. V2/13.
219 Neumanns views on Schmitt obviously changed. His last, unfinished work contains an important reference. See Franz Neumann, Notes on the Theory of Dictatorship
(1954), DAS, pp. 23356: Strange as it may seem, we do not possess any systematic
study of dictatorship, ibid., p. 233. His note, p. 254, n. 1, states that Schmitts work Die
Diktatur is the most significant exception, but his analysis is not acceptable. Emphasis
added. Neumann tragically died in a car crash in 1954 before he could develop a more
acceptable account. On the post-war relations between Neumann and Schmitt, see
Michael Salter, Neo-Fascist Legal Theory on Trial: An Interpretation of Carl Schmitts
Defence at Nuremberg from the Perspective of Franz Neumanns Critical Theory of
Law, Res Publica, 5 (1999), pp. 16194.

496
D. KELLY
dictatorship. Indeed, the current resurgence of interest in the work of Carl

Schmitt, for example, illustrates a much broader and renewed concern with
the nature of the political and the general problems of political association,
themes that have been absent from much recent liberal political philosophy.220
The aim of this paper, however, has been somewhat more modest. I have
attempted to trace, perhaps somewhat unfashionably, the influence of
Weber and Schmitt, though in particular the influence of Schmitt, on the construction of Franz Neumanns most famous and lasting work.221 In so doing, I
hope that a deeper appreciation of the merits, and shortcomings, of this essential book is more easily achieved.
Duncan Kelly
UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
David Runciman, History of Political Thought: The State of the Discipline, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 3 (2001), pp. 84104, pp. 97, 100.
221 See Francis Oakley, Anxieties of Influence: Skinner, Figgis, Conciliarism and
Early-Modern Constitutionalism, Past and Present, 151 (1996), pp. 60110, for an elegant defence of the utility of the concept of influence in the history of political thought.
220


F. Neumann Behemoth

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F. Neumann Behemoth

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

F. Neumann Behemoth

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RETHINKING FRANZ NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH1

Introduction and Receptions

HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT. Vol. XXIII. No. 3. Autumn 2002

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

RETHINKING NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH

a form of totalitarian monopoly capitalism,7 Behemoth is widely perceived

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

RETHINKING NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

nation it is not an object to be passively worshipped.26 It was also

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

RETHINKING NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

and historical development.35 Correlatively, its legitimacy can be explained

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

RETHINKING NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

constitutional discussions. Neumann too saw in pluralism the disease of the

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

RETHINKING NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH

Neumann, however, does not think that constitutional amendments drastically

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

important. This concerns his understanding of the contemporary period as an

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

RETHINKING NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH

norms of constitutional law and the concrete contemporary situation of the

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

RETHINKING NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH

Under conditions of monopoly capitalism and mass-democracy, however,

As Scheuerman has argued, here we can again see Neumanns suggestion

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

RETHINKING NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH

First, although Germany is a parliamentary democracy, numerous social

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

parliamentary will it has, rather, become the stage [Schauplatz] where

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

RETHINKING NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH

shortly become a central category of National Socialist self-understanding

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

economic constitution, to further develop [Fortentwicklung] the Weimar

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

RETHINKING NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH

assumptions, Neumann asserted that the economic constitution is intended to

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

Freedom and Rational Law

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

RETHINKING NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

But despite the similarities between their analyses, as William Scheuerman

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

RETHINKING NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH

regimes.137 The understanding of social change as driven by a powerful state

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

Neumann, The Rule of Law, p. 285. Emphasis added.

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2005

RETHINKING NEUMANNS ROUTE TO BEHEMOTH