Marx’s Critique of List from the Perspective of Common Prosperity

If a nation lacks the dimension of common prosperity in its modernization plan, what consequences and crises will it encounter? The first to confront this problem was Marx’s own Germany. And the reflection and debate on this issue not only became a major topic in the process of “German-style modernization,” but also, to a large extent, propelled Marx to found scientific socialism. Reviewing this fragment of Marx’s intellectual development and its implications is undoubtedly of great significance for building Chinese-path modernization.

一个民族如果在其现代化规划中没有共同富裕的维度，它会遭遇什么样的后果和危机？率先遭遇此问题的正是马克思的祖国德国。而关于这个问题的思考和争论不仅成为“德国式现代化”进程中的重大议题，甚至很大程度上推动了马克思创立科学社会主义。回顾马克思思想发展中的这个片段及其内涵，无疑对建设中国式现代化具有重要的启示意义。

Friedrich List, an economist nearly thirty years Marx’s senior, was famous for his tariff protection policy and was also the pioneer of the nationalist theory of productive forces. His critique of classical liberal economics, represented by Adam Smith, transformed political economy into national economics in the German sense. So-called national economics, plainly put, is the economics of the state, that is, the study of what measures and means the state should adopt to manage the economy in order to promote national prosperity. In List’s own words, it is “to study how a given country can achieve prosperity, civilization, and power through the means of agriculture, industry, and commerce.” The key to transforming political economy into national economics lies in shifting the object of economics from concern with value or the growth of wealth to concern with the growth of productive forces. The fundamental flaw in Smith’s economics is that the subject of economic activity is purely private; he confuses the principles of private economy with those of national economy, and indeed lacks the latter dimension entirely. For an individual seeking profit, the principle is to pursue maximum wealth in the cheapest way, but for a nation-state existing amidst competition and conflict, it must consider the overall interests of the state beyond wealth. From the perspective of the state, the cultivation of productive forces is far more critical than the growth of exchange value. When war—whether economic or military—arrives, wealth becomes fragile; it can easily be exhausted or destroyed. Only solid productive forces can protect the nation’s survival. This is what List repeatedly emphasized: “The power of producing wealth is infinitely more important than wealth itself.”

年长马克思近30岁的经济学家弗里德里希·李斯特，这位以关税保护政策闻名的经济学家，也是国家主义生产力理论的开创者。他对以亚当·斯密为代表的古典自由主义经济学的批判，将政治经济学转变为德国意义上的国民经济学。所谓国民经济学，直白地说，就是国家经济学，即研究国家应该采取哪些措施和手段来管理经济以促进国家繁荣。用李斯特自己的话来说，就是“研究一个既定的国家如何通过农业、工业和商业的手段实现繁荣、文明并获得力量”。实现政治经济学向国民经济学的转变，关键在于将经济学的对象从关心价值或财富的增长转变为关心生产力的增长。斯密经济学的根本弊端是他的经济活动的主体是纯然私人性的，他混淆了私人经济原则和国家经济原则，甚至根本就没有后面那个维度。对于一个谋利的个人而言，他的原则是以最便宜的方式追求财富最大化，但对于一个在对抗和竞争中存在的民族国家而言，它必须考虑财富之外的国家的整体利益。在国家的视野中，生产力量的培育远比交换价值的增长更为关键。当战争——无论是经济上的还是军事上的——来临的时候，财富会变得脆弱，它极容易被耗尽或摧毁，只有坚实的生产力能保护这个国家的生存。这也是李斯特一再强调的：“财富的生产力比之财富本身，不晓得要重要多少倍。”

Complementing List’s theory of productive forces was his strategy for the development of national productive forces. A country’s economic development generally passes through stages: primitive barbarism, pastoralism, agriculture, agriculture and industry, and agriculture, industry, and commerce. The state must adopt different trade policies at different periods to promote the rapid enhancement of national productive forces. The secret of Britain’s rise was its ability to formulate corresponding economic policies by assessing the situation. Even the free trade policy it then advocated was the measure most favorable to maintaining its economic advantage, in line with its powerful industrial position. For List, Germany was in the stage of transitioning from agriculture and industry to the simultaneous development of agriculture, industry, and commerce. The most appropriate approach was to implement necessary policies to establish a unified customs union, externally resisting the invasion of cheap industrial goods to protect domestic industrial seedlings, and internally eliminating tariff barriers to promote the union of production. It should be said that List’s propositions, both theoretically and practically, largely supported Germany’s modernization, and he indeed qualifies as the economic godfather of late-developing countries.

与李斯特的生产力理论相补充的，是他制定了国家生产力发展的策略。一个国家的经济发展大抵会经历原始未开化阶段—畜牧业阶段—农业阶段—农工业阶段—农工商业阶段。国家须在不同时期采取不同的贸易政策，以促进国家生产力的快速提升。英国崛起的秘诀就是它总能审时度势地制定相应的经济政策，即使是它彼时鼓吹的自由贸易政策，也是应和它强大的工业地位所采取的最有利维护其经济优势的措施。对李斯特来说，德国正处于从农工业阶段向农工商并举发展的阶段，最恰当的方式是施行必要的政策建立统一的关税同盟，对外抵制廉价工业品的入侵从而保护本国工业萌芽，对内消除关税壁垒从而推动生产的联合。应该说，李斯特的主张无论在理论上还是事实上，都很大程度上支持了德国的现代化，他也确实有资格成为后发国家的经济教父。

List was a figure Marx confronted from his university graduation onward, appearing directly or implicitly in many of the young Marx’s works. For such a scholar with a strong “modernization” mindset, Marx, who also valued productive forces, did not show him respect. It is precisely Marx’s critique of List that reveals the fundamental difference between socialist modernization and general modernization, especially capitalist modernization.

李斯特是马克思大学毕业后就一直面对的人物，他或直接或隐秘地出现在青年马克思的大量著作中。对于这样一位很具有“现代化”思维的学者，同样重视生产力的马克思却没有给予尊重。也正是马克思对李斯特的批判，展示了社会主义现代化不同于一般现代化，特别是资本主义现代化的根本差异。

List’s progressive significance lies in his profound recognition that, in modern times, industrial development is a matter of life and death for a country. However, he never reflected on the nature and structure of the state, or, more directly, there are no “people” (国民) in List’s national economics. List examined the problem of industry but did not examine the problem of human beings, nor the relationship between industry and politics. This problem had already become acute in Britain, where the industrial system and civil society were most developed: without a just political sphere and without common prosperity, the liberation of productive forces does not necessarily mean the liberation of human beings. Engels’ investigation of Britain demonstrated this: “The ‘national wealth’ of the English is very great, yet they are the poorest people in the world.” For List, Britain was both a rival and a model of modernization worthy of emulation. But for Marx, who had turned to communism, the British model was one to be wary of and must be surpassed. A mature capitalism can indeed promote a country’s productive forces, but it cannot overcome the labor antagonism and social division within the country under this system. Therefore, when excerpting from *The National System of Political Economy*, Marx accurately commented that List strongly emphasized division of labor and productive forces, but when he demanded association on the basis of division of labor, he did not abolish the interests that set labor in opposition to each other. List criticized Smith for creating a mythical individual who could exist as an independent economic subject detached from national constraints; now List faced a similar dilemma, creating a mythical state as if it were internally harmonious and unified, forming a single whole. But private property and the resulting polarization of wealth and poverty determined that this could only be a myth destined to shatter.

李斯特的进步意义在于，他深切认识到，在现代，工业发展对于一个国家来说是生死攸关的。但是，他却从没思考过国家性质和结构，或者更直接地说，李斯特的国民经济学里没有“国民”。李斯特考察了工业的问题，却没有考察人的问题，没有考察工业与政治的关系。这个问题已经很尖锐地在工业体系和市民社会都最发达的英国呈现出来了，那就是，没有公正的政治领域，没有共同富裕，生产力的解放并不必然意味着人的解放。恩格斯的英国考察表明了这一点：“英国人的‘国民财富’很多，他们却是世界上最穷的民族”。对于李斯特来说，英国是对手，也是值得效仿的现代化榜样。但对于转向共产主义的马克思来说，英国模式却是值得警惕和必须超越的。成熟的资本主义确实能够促进国家的生产力，却无法克服这一体系下国家内部的劳动对立和社会分裂。所以，马克思在摘录《国民体系》时很准确地评论道，李斯特非常强调分工和生产力，但当他在分工的基础上要求联合时，却没有废除使劳动相互对立的利益。李斯特批评斯密塑造了一种神话般的个人，他们仿佛能够脱离国家限制而自成经济主体；现在李斯特也面临类似的困境，即他塑造一种神话般的国家，仿佛它内部和谐统一而自成单一的整体。但是，私有制和其贫富分化的结果决定了那只能是注定破灭的神话。

If Smith’s political economy lacks “the political,” then List’s national economics lacks “the people.” As a loyal patriot, List tirelessly sought the prosperity of German industry, but his fervent patriotic propositions were exploited by self-interested asset-holders. Marx already saw that, under the capitalist private property system, what would prosper would be the German asset-holders, while the impoverished would be the German workers. In fact, those who most welcomed protectionist policies were precisely the German capitalists, who used them to develop industry and amass wealth, while leaving the hungry and disease-ridden workers to the state and society. List’s eyes were only on the power of production, not on the real workers engaged in production; his theory lacked relations of production and failed to recognize that what constitutes people’s real existence is their social relations. Thus, the various forms of alienation suffered by workers became a negligible price for promoting the development of productive forces. Marx once criticized British economics for causing the multiplication of the world of things to be directly proportional to the depreciation of the world of men, and this critique applies equally to List, the opponent of British economics.

如果说斯密政治经济学里缺乏“政治”，那么李斯特的国民经济学里则没有“国民”。作为一名忠诚的爱国者，李斯特孜孜以求于德国工业的繁荣，但他热忱的爱国主张却受到谋取私利的资产者的利用。马克思已然看到，在资本主义私有制体系下，繁荣的只会是德国资产者，贫乏的却是德国工人。事实上，最欢迎保护政策的正是德国资本家，他们借此发展了产业，攫取了财富，却把饥肠辘辘和疾病缠身的工人留给了国家和社会。李斯特的眼里只有生产的力量却没有从事生产的现实的工人，他的理论中没有生产关系，没有意识到构成人的现实存在的是他们的社会关系。所以，工人们遭遇的种种异化，也就成了促进生产力发展的不值一提的代价。马克思曾批判英国经济学导致物的世界的增殖与人的世界的贬值成正比，而这一批判对于作为英国经济学反对者的李斯特同样适用。

It is also because of the lack of concern for the nation’s people, and the absence of the fundamental goal of common prosperity for the people, that List’s nationalism ultimately fell into a paradox of self-negation. Nationalism has always had a deep tradition in German culture. What distinguishes List from nationalists before or contemporary with him is that the latter only emphasized the decisive significance of culture for the nation, whereas he, from a broader perspective, linked economy, politics, and culture together. He understood that a cultural nation could not become an internationally politically powerful nation without the development of a national economy. However, Marx saw the other side of List’s nationalist economics. Since protectionism is merely a means to smoothly implement the set of liberal economics within a single country, then when this backward country strengthens its national economy in a capitalist manner, the nationality of its ordinary people, formed on the basis of tradition, may be dissolved due to the differentiation and antagonism of interests. Marx said that the fatherland of the industrialist is money, their common interest formed against the domestic proletariat, and “the nationality of the worker … is not German nationality, but labor, free slavery, self-sale.” [1]1 Karl Marx, “Speech on the Question of Free Trade,” delivered January 9, 1848. The full passage reads: “But, generally speaking, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.” The specific quotation in the text is from an earlier passage in the same speech. When German capitalists exploit their own workers more ruthlessly than foreigners do, on what grounds can German workers be asked to regard them as compatriots? From Marx’s class perspective, protectionist economics uses the vision of national rejuvenation to conceal class antagonism within the nation-state under capitalist conditions. Therefore, Marx was fundamentally unwilling to make a binary choice between free trade and tariff protection. When discussing the British Corn Laws, Marx pointed out that whether the Corn Laws were repealed or not, the fate of the British worker was “death.” [2]2 The Corn Laws were tariffs and other trade restrictions on imported grain enacted in Britain (1815–1846). They were repealed in 1846 after a fierce political struggle. Marx’s point is that the repeal did not fundamentally alter the condition of the working class. Germany faced the same dilemma: no matter what prosperity tariff protection brought to Germany, as long as the social relations of private property were not adjusted, German workers would only share the same fate as British workers.

也是因为没有对国民的关切，没有人民共同富裕这个根本旨归，李斯特的民族主义最终陷入了自我否定的悖论。民族主义在德国文化中一直有着深厚的传统，李斯特不同于他之前或同时代民族主义者的地方在于，后者只强调文化对于民族的决定性意义，而他在更宽广的视野中将经济、政治和文化关联在一起，他明白，一个文化的民族要提升为一个国际上政治强大的民族，离不开民族经济的发展。但是，马克思却看到了李斯特民族主义经济学的另一面。既然保护主义只是为了在一国之内顺当施行自由主义经济学的那一套，那么，当这个落后国家以资本主义的方式增强国民经济时，它内部的普通民众基于传统而形成的民族性却有可能因为利益的分化和对抗而瓦解。马克思说，工业家的祖国是货币，是他们针对国内无产者而形成的共同利益，而“工人的民族性……不是德国的民族性，而是劳动、自由的奴隶制、自我售卖”。当德国资产者对本国工人的剥削比外国人更狠时，凭什么要求德国工人视他们为同胞？从马克思的阶级视角看来，保护主义经济学以国家崛起的愿景掩盖了资本主义状态下民族国家内部的阶级对抗。所以马克思根本不愿意在自由贸易和关税保护之间做二选一的抉择。在讨论英国的《谷物法》时，马克思指出，无论《谷物法》废除与否，英国工人的命运都是“死亡”。德国面临同样的困境，无论关税保护给德国带来怎样的繁荣，只要私有制的社会关系不调整，德国工人只会分享和英国工人一样的遭遇。

In *The German Ideology*, Marx briefly and profoundly discussed the national question: “The relations of different nations among themselves depend upon the extent to which each has developed its productive forces, the division of labor and internal intercourse.” [3]3 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (written 1845–46). The full passage continues: “Further, the extent of the division of labor within a nation depends on the stage of development reached by its productive forces.” The so-called internal structure of a nation naturally includes the consistency of interests and common prosperity among the members of this national community. However, to achieve a national community with flourishing productive forces and internal unity, classical political economy is insufficient, and List’s national economics is also insufficient. Marx, with his socialism, demonstrated the theoretical possibility of constructing such a national community, and its practical achievement has been entrusted to the cause of Chinese-path modernization, which takes the common prosperity of all the people as its fundamental requirement.

在《德意志意识形态》中，马克思简短而深刻地谈论了民族问题：“不仅一个民族与其他民族的关系，而且这个民族本身的整个内部结构也取决于自己的生产以及自己内部和外部的交往的发展程度。”所谓民族的内部结构，自然包括了这个民族共同体内部成员的利益一致和共同富裕。但是，要达成一个生产力繁荣而内部团结一致的民族共同体，古典政治经济学不行，李斯特的国民经济学也不行。马克思以其社会主义展示了构建这样一个民族共同体的理论可能，而它的实践成果，则交给了以全体人民共同富裕为根本要求的中国式现代化事业。

(The author is a professor at the School of Marxism, Sun Yat-sen University, and a Distinguished Research Fellow of the Research Center for Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, Guangdong Province.)

（作者系中山大学马克思主义学院教授、广东省习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想研究中心特约研究员）

Online Editor: Huihui

网络编辑：慧慧