Allen Oakley's pretension of summarising Marx' criticism of List does little is here honour to Marx.
Obviously, he has not understood much of List nor of List's criticism of the British free trade school.
Oakley: "In his endeavor to foster this image of the 'spiritual harmony' of capitalism, List went on to argue that political economy should concern itself with the *means* for creating wealth (as a flow of exchange value)
Arno:
Quite the opposite: Not as a flow of exchange value but a productive capacity.
The second half of this piece is not on List and more quasi-religious, but in the beginning of this second half Oakley says that, because skilled labor is less able to be manipulated and is more self-willed it is desirable to develop unskilled labour only as 'a component of a mechanical system.' It was Marx's conclusion again that capitalism could not be *human* system: "The bourgeois see in the proletarian not a *human being
Arno: Well, for whatever it is worth Rakesh, List would have agreed in the need for education and skilled labour.
Oakley: . It was Marx's argument that these conditions are based upon the existence of private property.
Arno: Rosseau romantic ideas all over again.
Property is disposition. And this is an instrument that can be used pragmatically for the public benfit. There are degrees and no black and white positions in reality here.
Rosseau claimed Black! - and neo-liberals claim White!
List and the whole tradition of the German Historical School were pragmatists. I find this more constructive.
I find on the other hand some similarities between neo-liberals and vulgar-Marxism that are interesting:
The (capitalist) state is evil Workers (capital) have no fatherland Protectionism favours local industrialist as against the interests of workers (merchant capital)
The Historical School economists were less one-sided I would say, and in general argued that "it depends" - on the circumstances: Time, place, stage of development, etc. etc.
Best wishes!
Arno