A State of Exception? Mass Expulsions and the German Constitutional State, 1871–1914

Fitzpatrick, Matthew P.

doi:10.1086/672529

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the interpretive debate about "the extent to which constitutionality, the rule of law, the separation of powers, and parliamentary norms were operative during the Kaiserreich," I fall into what Matthew Fitzpatrick calls the "optimistic" camp. 86 Not only Social Democrats' own decades-long commitment to parliamentary participation, free and open public debate, and the rule of law, but also many of their bitterest detractors' acceptance of the right of Socialists to participate in public discourse on an equal footing suggest this. 87 Even so, as Guettel, James Retallack, and others make clear, Social Democratic culture continued to embrace a revolutionary rhetoric that both inspired many party members and terrified their opponents, who sought to contain the threats posed by robust democratization.…”

Section: Mass Strike Opponents and The Taint Of The "General Strike"mentioning

confidence: 99%

The General Strike and the Specter of Anarchism in the German “Mass Strike Debate”

Paxton

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the quarter century before the outbreak of the Great War in 1914, German Social Democrats engaged in strenuous disputes about the most effective forms of political action. Central to this debate was the question of the utility of the “political mass strike,” a widespread work stoppage intended to achieve a political rather than an economic end, and potentially also to heighten workers’ consciousness of their political power. An aspect of the mass strike debate that has received less systematic attention is the role of anti-anarchist rhetoric, in particular regarding the “general strike,” in shaping the development of this intra-party conflict. Throughout the mass strike debate, German Social Democrats frequently came to explain their own ideology through the prism of their antipathy to anarchism. In associating the political mass strike with the anarchist general strike, Social Democratic reformists stigmatized the radicals in their own ranks who advocated the cultivation of workers’ revolutionary sentiments. On the other side, proponents of the political mass strike, such as Rosa Luxemburg, accused party moderates of succumbing, like anarchists, to a bourgeois mindset. Thus, throughout the Social Democrats’ mass strike debate, the accusation that one’s opponents adhered to an anarchist deviation from correct Marxist thought served as a tool to delegitimize their perspective. Insisting on the complete irrationality and folly of anarchists, and attributing to Socialist opponents those same failures, made the conflict sharper and more acrimonious, and less amenable to resolution, as it went to core issues of socialist identity.

show abstract

Section: Mass Strike Opponents and The Taint Of The "General Strike"mentioning

confidence: 99%

The General Strike and the Specter of Anarchism in the German “Mass Strike Debate”

Paxton

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Italy, Italian jurists like Luigi Lucchini, the editor of Rivista Penale, responded unfavorably to the French law, saying that it violated the "expression of liberty which dominates modern times" and which "absolutely overrides the actual need for protection against a class of persons who only may become dangerous" (Fitzpatrick 2013). Lucchini demonstrated a clear reaction against the spirit of positivist criminology and the countervailing liberal conviction that individuals should be equal under the law.…”

Section: Agamben Arendt Scott: Modern Nation-statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The pre-war German Gypsy policy outlined above was actually similar to Italian fascist Gypsy policy after 1937 in the sense that Germany admitted the existence of a resident Gypsies. Because the Kaiserreich, however, like liberal Italy, "was a Rechtsstaat characterized by multiple, constitutionally delineated sites of sovereign power that were subject to intense and often effective forms of political scrutiny and civic pressure," officials hesitated to round up and intern the Gypsies in the same way as the Italian fascist state (Fitzpatrick 2013). However, the state did rely on criminalization and the option to send recalcitrant Gypsies to the workhouse.…”

Section: Germany: Continuities and Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

Continuities and Discontinuities: Antiziganism in Germany and Italy (1900-1938)

Illuzzi

2020

Soci Histo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In both Germany and Italy before WWI, populations labelled as Gypsies found themselves in a “state of exception” which aimed at their elimination from the nation-state by targeting them with policies emanating from the executive. Both states adhered to the liberal idea of equality before the law, but used the flexibility provided by executive authority to pressure Gypsies to leave the state. After WWI, both Germany and Italy were forced to retain “Gypsies” inside the state as a result of changing geopolitical circumstances. However, in fascist Italy before WWII, executive authorities continued to operate in a “state of exception” and ceased adhering to the rule of law, interning Gypsies in concentration camps and seeking to eliminate them through forced assimilation. In Weimar Germany, legislative policies sought to eliminate Gypsies through bringing them inside of the law. The contradiction between increasingly racialized notion of Gypsy inassimilability and forced assimilation’s inevitable failures certainly laid the groundwork for extreme measures in both places during WWII.

show abstract

State-Building, Conquest, and Royal Sovereignty in Prussia, 1815–1871

Heinzen

2021

Hist. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since Bodin, scholars have been debating whether sovereignty is indivisible or rather decentred, multiple, and shared. This article adds to practice-oriented conceptualizations of sovereignty, which acknowledge the existence of jurisdictional pluralism in nineteenth-century state-building. Borrowing from imperial history, it contrasts the nominal supremacy of the Prussian crown – as embodied by the monarchical principle – with the residual sovereign rights of potentates that had lost their lands in Germany's successive wars of unification. The possession of ‘bare sovereignty’ allowed such mediatized princes and exiled rulers to maintain a presence in the lives of their former subjects. They did so by exercising privileges and functions of royalty which left vague in whose name was being governed. The Hohenzollerns for their part struggled (and to a certain extent proved unwilling) to assert exclusive dominion because right of conquest-based justifications had no firm standing in international law, alienated segments of domestic public opinion, and did not necessarily serve the interests of the state. The article argues, ultimately, that the resulting negotiation and contestation of monarchical sovereignty in Prussia speaks to global themes of state-building through state destruction in the Age of Empire.

show abstract

A State of Exception? Mass Expulsions and the German Constitutional State, 1871–1914

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

The General Strike and the Specter of Anarchism in the German “Mass Strike Debate”

The General Strike and the Specter of Anarchism in the German “Mass Strike Debate”

Continuities and Discontinuities: Antiziganism in Germany and Italy (1900-1938)

State-Building, Conquest, and Royal Sovereignty in Prussia, 1815–1871

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About