But first I would like to mention the sources that I forgot the first time:
* 1841 means: List, Friedrich. (1841). Das nationale System der politichen Ökonomie, 8 utg., Stuttgart
und Berlin: Cotta, reprint 1925; Jena: Verlag Gustav von Fischer (In English: The
National System of Political Economy) List, Friedrich. (1841). The National System of Political Economy, Phil.: Lippincott & Co.,
1856, London: Longmans Green, 1904 and 1928, reprint Fairfield N.J.: Augustus
M.Kelley, 1991
* 1837 a means: List, Friedrich. (1837 a). The Natural System of Political Economy, English ed.1927,
from the original in French, Le System Naturel de l' Economie Politique. Et la patrie,
et l`humanité, translated by W.O.Henderson, reprinted in London: Frank Cass, 1983
So, to the point of foreign policy:
Rajneesh quoted:
>List was thus to the first to develop the theory that
>Hitler brought to full flower in Mein Kampf and the National Socialist
>foreign policy
It is quite true that List advocated an expansion of the German customs union - the "Zolleverein". However, again and again he emphsizes the need for peaceful means and the use of treaties and international law that respects all equaly much.
On the one hand he writes: "the German protective system only accomplices its object in a very imperfect manner, so long as Germany does not spin for herself the cotton ... : so long as she possesses no perfect system of transport by river, canal, or railway: so long as the German Zollverein does not include all German maritime territories and also Holland and Belgium." (* 1841, p.426)
And on the other hand:
"An effective Continental system can only originate from the free union of the Continental powers, and can succeed only in case it has for its object (and also effects) an equal participation in the advantages which result from it, for in that way only, and in no other, can the maritime powers of second rank command respect from the predominant power of England in such a way that the latter without any recourse to the force of arms will concede all the just requirements of the less powerful states. Only by such an alliance as that will the Continental manufacturing powers be able to maintain their relations with tropical countries, and assert and secure their interests in the East and the West.
In any case the British, who are ever too anxious for supremacy, must feel it hard when they perceive in this manner how the Continental nations will reciprocally raise their manufacturing power by mutual commercial concessions and by treaties; how they will reciprocally strengthen their navigation and their naval power; how they will assert their claim to that share for which they are fitted by nature in civilising and colonising barbarous and uncultivated countries, and in trade with tropical regions. Nevertheless, a glance into the future ought sufficiently to console the britons for these anticipated disadvantages." (* 1841, p.422-423)
"Thus in a not very distant future the natural necessity which now imposes on the French and Germans the necessity of establishing a Continental alliance against the British supremacy, will impose on the British the necessity of establishing a European coalition against the supremacy of America. Then will Great Britain be compelled to seek and to find in the leadership of the united powers of Europe protection, security, and compensation against the predominance of America, and an equivalent for her lost supremacy.
It is therefore good for England that she should practise resignation betimes, that she should by timely renunciations gain the friendship of European Continental powers, that she should accustom herself betimes to the idea of being only the first among equals. (* 1841, p.423-424)
" The great principle of "free ships, free goods" has already been enunciated by Catherine the Great of Russia and by George Washington. But so far it has not been possible to secure the universal acceptance of this principle. It is obvious- proof is hardly required - that the universal acceptance and strict observation of this principle of international law would remove most of the disastrous consequences that war brings to all branches of industry. The author can see no way of achieving this aim unless the proposed doctrine of international law is universally accepted. (* 1837 a, p. 127)
If, however, there came a time when the maritime powers of the second and third rank were in a position to force England to accept the doctrine of "free ships, free goods it could be done only if they collaborated closely. The best way to secure this co-operation would be through a world trade congress, as we have already proposed. Such a conference would be the simplest way of showing the nations on the Continent where their common interests lay. Even if the nineteenth century should pass without the doctrine free ships, free goods" being generally accepted, the twentieth century will surely see its adoption.
When that time comes England will be the country to advocate the adoption of the principle and people will discuss how best to check the arbitrary power of the United States of America. "(* 1837 a, p. 128)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari Sent: Thursday, September 24, 1998 5:34 PM To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: RE: friedrich list, THE ULTIMATE GLOBALIST
OK this thread has gone on long enough.
>From Franz Neumann's Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National
Socialism:
"The influence of the so called state or Katheder socialists upon the ultimate development of National SOcialist racism seems far more important. The writings of Friedrich List and Adolph Wagner clearly show the factors that contributed to the triumph of racial ideas. These men were attempting to coutneract socialist theories of class struggle by repudicating liberal political thought and by setting up a state capitalist scheme that would 'incorporate' the working classes and imbue the whole people with the spirit of racial superiority...England must recongize, List declares, that Germany cannot become strong on the basis of free trade. Free trade is a fit doctrine only for a nation that is already powerful. Germany is disunited and weak, and only protective tariffs can assure her political unity and economic power. Germany has to become strong so that she is able to keep Englands's competitors, France and Russia, at bay...List was thus to the first to develop the theory that Hitler brought to full flower in Mein Kampf and the National Socialist foreign policy attempted to realize during the years preecding the German Russia non aggression pact of 1939: a redivision of the earth between Germany and England on the basis of German racial superiority." (pp104-106)
best, rakesh