Hermann Heller (1891–1933) was a German constitutional lawyer and political theorist, best known for his pioneering work in constitutional law and democratic theory. A staunch opponent of National Socialism, he championed democracy, individual rights, and a version of ‘democratic socialism’ that fused socialist ideals with a strong rejection of authoritarianism. Although he died young, at just 42, his intellectual legacy remains significant – particularly in times of democratic crisis.
Dr Thilo Scholle, in addition to his role as a department head in a federal ministry, is a prolific writer on the intellectual history of the German labour movement and theories of the state. His books include monographs on Paul Levi, Hugo Haase, and Hermann Heller, all published by Hentrich & Hentrich.
Lutz Vössing spoke with Thilo Scholle about the multifaceted work and brief life of Hermann Heller.
When did you first come across Hermann Heller, and what was your initial impression?
I first encountered Hermann Heller while studying law, in the anthology Streitbare Juristen published by the journal Kritische Justiz. At the time, what struck me most was his fate as a Jew and Social Democrat forced into exile – an emblematic figure of what’s often called the ‘other tradition’: a socially grounded conception of law, distinct from the dominant legal positivism of the period.
What kind of family did Heller come from, and how did it shape his political outlook?
Heller was born in Teschen, a town in the former Habsburg Empire – today located on the border between Slovakia and Poland. His family belonged to the Jewish middle class; his father worked as a solicitor. What proved especially formative was the deep immersion in German cultural and intellectual life that his parents and social environment instilled in him – an orientation he carried with him throughout his life.
Do we know what Heller read or what particularly influenced him?
Sadly, Hermann Heller’s personal library has not survived. But from his political education work, we know he placed great importance on opening up the cultural canon to the working class – a canon which, in his view, was shared with the bourgeoisie. He showed little interest in cultivating a distinct ‘labour movement literature’; instead, he believed that cultural integration was crucial to democratic citizenship.
When did his political engagement begin?
Heller became politically active at the end of the First World War, giving his first lectures to works councils on core questions of the emerging democratic order. Within just a few years, he had established himself not only in the Social Democratic youth movement, but also more broadly, as a prominent political educator and intellectual guide.
The Weimar Republic was in crisis almost from the beginning. What was Heller’s stance?
Heller was an early and committed supporter of the Republic. During the Kapp Putsch in 1920, he was actively involved in resisting the coup, working alongside figures such as Gustav Radbruch, who would later become Justice Minister. He was also deeply engaged in adult education, first in Kiel and then in Leipzig. Heller believed that democracy could only function if the wider public possessed the intellectual tools for meaningful participation – and he worked tirelessly to provide them, especially for younger generations.
You mentioned that Heller represents the ‘other tradition’. How does this differ from more dominant currents of legal thought?
Heller’s tradition sees the legal and constitutional order not as something imposed from above, but as an expression of society’s self-organisation. This sharply contrasts with the dominant view at the time, which saw the state as standing above society – remote, static, and beyond democratic influence. For Heller, the constitution was a dynamic framework allowing different social forces and classes to contend with one another, and ideally, to be brought into renewed balance. Central to this vision was the belief that democracy loses its legitimacy if it fails to ensure a minimum level of social cohesion.
Heller was aligned with the right wing of the SPD. Why was that?
Unlike many in the labour movement, Heller hadn’t been shaped by its institutions or by personal experiences of social exclusion. His commitment to social democracy was rooted instead in his desire to breathe life into and defend the fledgling Republic. He rejected both internationalism and historical materialism as frameworks for political analysis, and instead embraced the nation as a legitimate – and necessary – space for democratic action.
What was Heller’s criticism of Marx and his theoretical tools?
Heller valued Karl Marx’s economic analysis highly. What he rejected, however, was the deterministic element he saw in Marx’s theory – specifically, the idea that history follows a fixed, inevitable course of development.
What was his understanding of the nation?
Heller viewed the nation primarily as a cultural community.– one that could take centuries to form but could also be reshaped over time. That said, from today’s perspective, some of his language is troubling. He occasionally referred to notions like a ‘community of blood’, which carry problematic connotations. However, Heller rejected any racial definition of nationhood. For him, belonging to a nation was never based on biology or ethnicity – access to the nation was always open to newcomers.
Heller’s 1925 work Socialism and Nation is sometimes cited by right-wing extremists. How should this be understood?
This kind of appropriation is not only inappropriate, given Heller’s personal history as a persecuted Jew under the Nazi regime – it also distorts his ideas. Heller had nothing in common with völkisch (ethno-nationalist) ideology. On the contrary, he was a fierce critic of fascism and publicly opposed the rise of National Socialism. These modern attempts to claim Heller’s work for the far right are cynical efforts to misuse the legacy of an anti-fascist thinker to legitimise ideas that he would have strongly opposed.
Why was Heller seen as an outsider in legal scholarship?
In part, simply because of his politics: he was one of the few legal scholars in the Weimar Republic to openly support social democracy and to stand firmly by the Republic. But his ideas also set him apart. Heller believed that capitalism was neither a natural endpoint nor a sacred order. He warned that growing social inequality could undermine the Republic’s very foundations. In his view, even the bourgeoisie should support the evolution of democracy into a social democracy – precisely to preserve political stability. His vision of democracy as a tool for social transformation went far beyond the mainstream thinking of legal scholars at the time.
How did Heller connect law with social justice?
For Heller, law was the framework through which social justice could be realised. That meant, on the one hand, creating democratic institutions where society could negotiate its future. On the other, it meant using law to shape specific areas of life – like the economy – in more just and equitable ways.
What was Heller’s conflict with Carl Schmitt?
At first, in the early years of the Weimar Republic, Heller and Schmitt had a reasonably cordial relationship. But from the late 1920s, Heller began to see Schmitt as one of the legal thinkers aligning with emerging fascist ideas – and he said so publicly. Their opposition came to a head in 1932 during the court proceedings on the Preußenschlag (the Prussian coup), where Heller represented the Social Democratic parliamentary group in Prussia, while Schmitt represented the Reich government. Later, entries in Schmitt’s diary reveal antisemitic hostility directed personally at Heller.
Was Heller just a theorist, or was he also involved in political activism?
Heller was more than a theorist – he was an early example of a public intellectual within the labour movement. He ran seminars for young socialists, gave talks to social democratic student groups, and took part in public radio debates. Towards the end of the Weimar Republic, he often spoke at events organised to defend democracy, such as those held by the pro-democratic Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold.
Why is he almost forgotten today?
Fortunately, he hasn’t been entirely forgotten. But his academic career lasted just 15 years, and he died young, in exile in Spain in 1933. That meant he couldn’t restart his work after the fall of Nazism. Unlike other thinkers, he didn’t have time to found a school of thought or train a generation of followers. And the kind of legal scholarship that focuses on social justice has remained largely outside the academic mainstream in Germany.
What can we still learn from Heller today?
For Heller, democracy was always at risk if its social foundations – such as equality and participation – were allowed to erode. He insisted that no sphere of power, including the economy, should be beyond democratic influence. In that sense, Heller remains a pioneering voice for the idea of a genuinely social democracy.
Text: Lutz Vössing
Main photo: Hermann Heller. Photo: AdsD, NL Hermann Heller, 1/HHAR000001A
This article is part of the series Civil Engagement and Democracy in German History: Jewish Experiences and Perspectives, first published in German as Engagement & Demokratie in der jüdisch-deutschen Geschichte by the Freunde und Förderer des Leo Baeck Instituts. You can read the original German article here: https://fuf-leobaeck.de/2025/04/hermann-heller-vordenker-der-sozialen-d…
