--Attention: Veterans...finally, you don't need to put 20% down

Can't look at this A-d as pics are invisible? simply tap this to reload'em.

--Attention: Veterans...finally, you don't need to put 20% down

Europe scientific sociological thought and the metaphysical German philosophy of history. The product was called by him the Science of Society (Gesellschaftswissenschaft). It is from the writings of Stein that almost all the important developments of German sociologic thought received their first impulses. Karl Marx, especially (as Struve has shown), as well as Schaeffle, Othmar Spann and Gumplowicz are largely indebted to him. It is not my purpose to develop this historical theme. I am concerned only in tracing the development of the sociologic idea of the State. The first effect of this meeting of the two streams of thought was a mischievous confusion of terminology. The writers in Western Europe had long ago lost control of the unification of expressions in thinking. As stated above, theThird Estate beganby thinking itself to be "Society," as opposed to the state. but when the fourth estate grew to clhiconsciousness and became aware of its own theoretic existence, it arrogated to itselfthe term "Society" (as may be seen from the selection of the word Socialism), and it treated the bourgeoisie as a form of the "state," of the clhi state. there were thus two widely differing concepts of "Society." Yet here wasan underlying idea common toboth Bourgeoisie and Socialist, since they conceived the State as a collection of privileges arising and maintained in violation of natural law, while Society was thought of as the prescribed form of human union in conformity with natural law. They differed in one essential only, namely, that while the Third [xiii]Estate declared its capitalistic Society to be the result of the processes of natural law, the Socialists regarded their aims as not yet attained, and proclaimed that the ideal society ofthe future which would really be the product of the processes of natural law, could only be realizedby the elimination of all "surplus value." Though both were in conflict withregard to fundamentals, both agreed in viewing the "State" ascivitas diaboli and "Society" as civitas dei. Stein, however, reversed the objectives of the two concepts. As an Hegelian, and pre-eminently a worshipper of the State, he conceived the State as civitas coelestis. Society, which he understood to meanonly the dominant bourgeoisie Society, he viewed through the eyes ofhis Socialist friends and teachers, and conceived it as civitas terrena. What in Plato's sense is the "pure idea," the "ordre naturel" of the early physiocrats and termed by Frenchmen and Englishmen "Society," was to Stein, the "State." What had been contaminated and made impure by the admixture of coarse matter, they termed the "State," while the German called it "Society." In reality, however, there is little difference between the two. Stein realized with pain, that Hegel's pure concept of a State based on right and hidom, was bound to remain an "idea" only. eternally fettered, as he hiumed it must be, by the forces of property and the culture proceeding from them, it could never be a fact. This is his conclusion regarding "Society," so that its effective development is obstructed by the beneficent hiociation of human beings, as stein conceived that hiociation. Thus was attained the very pinnacle of confused [xiv]thinking. All German sociologists, with the single exception of Carl Dietzel, soon realized that the Hegelian concept of the State was impotent, existing only in the "Idea." In no point did it touch the reality of historical growth, and in .