Spelling this out would take a lot of time and energy which I do not have
now. But: He worked out numerous proposals of how to reform government.
First he did so regarding the state of Wurtemberg where he was elected
parliamentarian for his town Reutlingen. He called for a constitutional and
liberal arrangement. This was the original reason he was jailed and
expelled.
Rakesh:
>2. Arno argues that List's concern with the public interest is equivalent
to his interest in the improvement of the conditions of labor but grants
that List found only a harmony of interest between industrial capital and
labor (another step back from the accomplishments of the classical
economists of course) and never offered a programme specifically on the
behalf of labor.
Arno: I did not grant "that List found only a harmony of interest" but admitted that this was the dominant trend. Also I DID point out that he discussed the problem of a conflict of interests in "Die Factorybill" (Werke 7: 384-397). However, any specific program on behalf of labour is missing.
But might I ask. Did your "heroes" AT THE SAME TIME offer any SPECIFIC program of this sort?
Rakesh:
>3.He argues that industrial development in itself is beneficial to labor
but does not engage the argument that behind protectionist walls backward
capitalists would only make the lives of labor even more miserable through
higher prices. Arno finds nothing reactionary in List's desire to return to
the old corrupt condition of monopoly by protective duties, of the
prohibitive system, of national economy. This is what Smith was of course
critiquing. Indeed Marx's criticism of List here anticipates Veblen in the
characterization of Germany as a "modern ancien regime" where "cotton barons
and iron champions turn themselves into patriots". (Marx's List critique as
summarizned by Bernard Semmel, The Liberal Ideal and the Demons of Empire.
John Hopkins.)
Arno: No I don't at all find protectionism reactionary as such, but I do find it strange that Rakesh (as well as Lenin) argue in favour of free trade which List saw as the policy that would always favour the strongest. I find it interesting that Rakesh apparently agrees with the monetarists an with the IMF on this issue.
Rakesh: 3. As if this wasn't a nail in the coffin, Arno lauds the Listian tendencies of Bismarck who of course unsuccessfully tried to annhilate the socialist movement and win popular assent to imperialist politics partly by enticement and even more by a series of enactments outlawing the Social Democratic Party and trade unions (1878-90). That is, the origins of the welfare state are in anti communism and imperialism. If we wants to put this in the lap of List, fine with me.
Arno: Yes I laud the Listian tendencies of Bismarck. Bismarck's act of outlawing any political movement was simply "anti-Listian". If you ever read his works in original and in full, instead of sticking to second hand sources, you will see this. Besides, Bismarck fought against any policy of acquiring colonies.
Rakesh: 4. List is doubtless a voice of nascent industrial bourgeosie as opposed to purely commercial and financial interests (which is all the lengthy quote shows). Of course this narrowing of popular opposition to these latter two fractions of capital-in particular finance-is anticipatory of Nazi demagogy-production versus finance, creative versus parasite, Aryan versus Jew. Doug deals with this problem in the conclusion to his book and Neumann's treatment of this is simply brilliant. See also the other work of the Frankfurt School Paul Massing Rehearsal for Destruction. Moreover, this is a step back from what Marx referred to as Ricardo's scientific honesty about the absence of harmony in the industrial proletariat/industrial bourgeosie relation.
Arno: Yes, "List is doubtless a voice of nascent industrial bourgeosie as opposed to purely commercial and financial interests"
It does not bother me that the Nazis, or whoever, claimed something somewhat similar. The nazis were also in favour of food and rest. And I agree.
Rakesh: 5. I find Arno's response to Neumann's argument that List's Memorandum anticipates the geopolitical strategy of Hitler not very persuasive. I will leave it at that. Arno wants to justify the civilizing aspects of imperialism but that was not the argument Neumann was making. Arno speculates that List may have been intoxicated at the time he wrote it.
Arno: Try reading several works of List in original and at length. You might grasp the general trend of his arguments.
Rakesh:
6. I will let the following bizarre statement speak for itself.
> [list] argued that Britain later on would do well to join this alliance,he
> later on changed his mind and wanted an alliance with Britain - and
> correctly: as Hitler wanted later. Both List and Hitler were wrong,
however,
> in their judgement of how willing the British aristocracy was to share
> power.
Arno: I you want to misinterpret me you will of course have no problem. That Hitler wanted to rule top-down should be fairly obvious. List, however had quite other and quite more humanitarian and democratic (!) ideas. So, the "partnership" in these two cases meant quite different things. Still, both may be called partnerships.
Rakesh: 7. List was at least honest that the relations between the imperialist countries and the colonies would not be equal. He did not want all international relations to be equal.
Arno: I just gave you some lengthy quotes proving the opposite - he spelled out the equality of international trade in his Natural System (1837), but I agree this concerned the Temperate Zone and not the Torrid Zone.
Rakesh: 8. I find Arno's interpretation of the miscegenation passage not very persuasive. List was not opposed to slavery in order to encourage miscegenation but because he was a voice of the industrial bourgeoisie.
Arno: Well, read his numerous utterings on slavery and speak again. You will see that this goes with a general tendency to speak for equal rights.
I will finish this comment with some quotes from the National System, 1841: (I have changed the word related to slavery into CAPITAL letters)
(Admittedly List here must have forgotten / disregarded, for instance, the history of China)
In a condition of merely agricultural industry, caprice and SLAVERY, superstition and ignorance, want of means of culture, of trade, and of transport, poverty and political weakness exist.
So the SLAVEholder increases by SLAVE-breeding the sum of his values of exchange, but he ruins the productive forces of future generations. All expenditure in the instruction of youth, the promotion of justice, defence of nations, &c. is a consumption of present values for the behoof of the productive powers. The greatest portion of the consumption of a nation is used for the education of the future generation, for promotion and nourishment of the future national productive powers.
The Christian religion, monogamy, abolition of SLAVERY and of vassalage, hereditability of the throne, invention of printing, of the press, of the postal system, of money weights and measures, of the calendar, of watches, of police, 'the introduction of the principle of freehold property, of means of transport, are rich sources of productive power. To be convinced of this, we need only compare the condition of the European states with that of the Asiatic ones. In order duly to estimate the influence which liberty of thought and conscience has on the productive forces of nations, we need only read the history of England and then that of Spain.