How Late-Developing Countries Develop Productive Forces – Starting from Marx’s “Critical Notes on Friedrich List’s Book *The National System of Political Economy*”

Friedrich List was an early thinker in the history of political economy to put forward a theory of productive forces. His representative work, *The National System of Political Economy*, attempts to explore, from the national conditions and history of European and American countries, the possibility of how backward Germany could catch up with and surpass the early-developing countries such as Britain and France through the development of productive forces in the 19th century. In response to this, as early as 1845, in his “Critical Notes on Friedrich List’s Book *The National System of Political Economy*” (hereinafter referred to as “Critical Notes on List”), Marx fiercely criticized List’s theory of productive forces and stated that List, as a “German-style theorist,” was a “true German philistine.” However, with the rise of the “New Listian School” in academic circles both at home and abroad at the beginning of the 21st century, List’s theoretical contributions have once again become a hot topic of academic discussion. This year marks the 180th anniversary of the writing of “Critical Notes on List.” On the basis of revisiting this text, this article attempts to re-sort and interpret Marx’s theory of productive forces and its practical significance around the contemporary issue of “how late-developing countries develop productive forces,” thereby providing theoretical reference for the current research on advancing the development of new quality productive forces.

弗里德里希·李斯特是政治经济学思想史上较早提出生产力理论的思想家。其代表作《政治经济学的国民体系》试图从欧美国家的国情和历史出发，来探讨落后的德国在19世纪如何通过发展生产力来赶超英法等先发国家的可能性。对此，早在1845年写下的《评弗里德里希·李斯特的著作〈政治经济学的国民体系〉》（以下简称《评李斯特》）中，马克思就对李斯特的生产力理论进行了猛烈地批判，并表示李斯特这种“德国式理论家”是“真正的德国庸人”。但是，随着21世纪初“新李斯特学派”在国内外学界的兴起，李斯特的理论贡献再度成为学界热议的话题。今年适逢《评李斯特》一文写作180周年，本文试图在重温此文本的基础上，围绕“后发国家如何发展生产力”的时代议题，重新梳理和解读马克思的生产力理论及其现实意义，从而为现阶段推进发展新质生产力的研究提供学理借鉴。

I. The Path of National Productive Forces Development: The “Listian Conception” of Germany’s Rise

一、国家生产力的发展道路：德国崛起的“李斯特构想”

List was a pioneer of the 19th-century German Historical School, and his doctrine had a strong historicist and nationalist character. He spent his life traveling between Europe and the American continent, which allowed him not only to witness the new atmosphere of bourgeois rule brought about by the British Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution, but also to experience firsthand the revolution in productive forces brought about by the Industrial Revolution, which established the leading advantages of early-developing countries such as Britain and France. It was precisely out of concern over the widening gap between Germany and countries like Britain and France that “List’s doctrine essentially focuses on one theme: how, within the existing unjust international order, to vigorously cultivate productive forces and promote industrial development through effective means such as state intervention and tariff protection, so as to catch up with and surpass the advanced… This highlights a perspective of the latecomer, particularly reflected in the revelation of the power gap between leading and lagging countries… and the search for an effective catch-up development strategy.” [1]1 This passage summarizes the core theme of List’s thought as interpreted by modern scholars, emphasizing the perspective of a late-developing nation. Thus, List established the tone of the German Historical School, emphasizing the historicity and locality of economic development, opposing the then-popular stance of British classical political economy, and focusing on seeking a path to rise from Germany’s own interests.

李斯特是19世纪德国历史学派的先驱者，其学说具有强烈的历史主义和民族主义色彩。他的一生辗转于欧洲和美洲大陆，使得他不仅目睹了英国革命、美国革命和法国革命所带来的资产阶级统治的全新气象，更实地感受到工业革命所带来的生产力革命，奠定了英法等国作为先发国家的领先优势。正是出于对当时德国与英法等国的差距越来越大的忧虑，“李斯特的学说本质上关注一个主题，即如何在既存不公正的国际秩序中，借助国家干预、关税保护等有为手段，大力培植生产力，推进工业发展，俾以赶超先进……凸显了一种后发者的视角，特别体现为对领先国与落后国实力差距的揭示……以及对有效赶超发展战略的探寻”。可见，李斯特奠定了德国历史学派的基调，即强调经济发展的历史性和本土性，反对当时流行的英国古典政治经济学立场，侧重从德国的自身利益出发来寻求崛起之道。

List’s theory of productive forces, as the core of his conception of national strength, is theoretically premised on a critique of universal free trade. In List’s era, Britain was “the model for all countries,” becoming the object of emulation by various nations. Consequently, Adam Smith’s political economy became the cosmopolitan “popular school.” Although its thought essentially represented British interests, it catered to the needs of market development and the growth of the bourgeoisie, yet manifested as a universal cosmopolitan ideology, taking “the exposition of the principle of absolute commercial freedom throughout the world as its task.” [2]2 Friedrich List, *The National System of Political Economy* (1841), referring to Adam Smith’s school. List maintained a clear head on this matter, believing that Smith’s “popular school” “has, through the exaggerated claims of scholars… misled normal human consciousness.” [3]3 Ibid. List recognized that the crux of Smith’s economics lay first in its “boundless cosmopolitanism.” In his view, this so-called cosmopolitan economics assumed a boundless ideal state, placing various nations and peoples at undifferentiated stages of development, with countries automatically forming a lasting peaceful world federation and then a unified world market, “from which the great benefits of free trade are inferred. Thus cause and effect are confused.” [4]4 Ibid. This universal free trade proposition essentially reflected the interests of Britain. Because Britain, having undergone the Industrial Revolution, urgently needed to promote its industrial products to world markets, a universal free trade system was at that time the trade principle most capable of satisfying and maximizing British interests. Therefore, it was not the world market or world federation that required free trade, but rather Britain that intended to open up world markets through free trade to extract huge profits. It was on this basis that List criticized Smith’s economics for precisely confusing cause and effect. The so-called cosmopolitan free trade, for late-developing countries, would bring about a thoroughgoing disaster. He pointed out, “Once the time is ripe, a system of states led by Britain will be formed, and then the position of the continental European countries will plummet, and their peoples will become insignificant, unprofitable nations.” [5]5 Ibid. Within this British-style free trade world system, the German nation could only become an appendage of British industry and commerce, utterly unable to escape its backward fate.

李斯特的生产力理论作为其强国构想的核心，其理论前提是建立在对普遍自由贸易的批判基础上。在李斯特的时代，英国是“一切国家的榜样”，成为各国竞相模仿的对象。于是，亚当·斯密的政治经济学便成为世界主义的“流行学派”。虽然其思想本质上代表的是英国的利益，但它迎合了市场发展和资产阶级成长的需求，表现出来的却是具有普适性的世界主义思想，以“阐述全世界范围的商业绝对自由原则作为他的任务”。李斯特对此保持了清醒的头脑，认为斯密的“流行学派”“过去由于学者们的过分夸张……人类的正常意识曾被它所迷惑”。李斯特意识到斯密经济学的症结首先在于“无边无际的世界主义”。在他看来，这种所谓的世界主义经济学是假定了一个无边无际的理想状态，它将各个国家和民族置于无差别的发展阶段，各国自动结成持久和平的世界联盟，然后形成统一的世界市场，“由此推定自由贸易的巨大利益。这样就把因与果混淆了”。这种普遍的自由贸易主张，在本质上体现的其实是英国的利益。因为经历了工业革命的英国，其生产的工业产品亟需推广到世界各国市场，此时普遍的自由贸易制度对英国来说是最能满足其利益并使其最大化的贸易原则。所以，并不是世界市场亦或世界联盟需要自由贸易，而是英国意图通过自由贸易打开世界市场，来攫取巨额利润。正是在此基础上，李斯特批判斯密经济学恰恰是混淆了因果。所谓的世界主义自由贸易，对于后发国家而言，带来的将是一场彻头彻尾的灾难。他指出，“一朝时机成熟，就会组成一个以英国为首的国家体系，到那时欧洲大陆国家的地位将一落千丈，人民将成为不重要、没有收益的民族”。在这个英式自由贸易的世界体系里，德意志民族只能沦为英国工商业的附庸，而根本无法摆脱其落后的命运。

After exposing the lie of the so-called universal free trade of Smith and others, List further discovered a greater problem in Smith’s research method: confusing national economy with private economy, thereby treating material wealth or exchange value in the private economy as the sole object of study, falling into “dead materialism” and “fragmented, narrow-minded individualism and egoism.” [6]6 Ibid., List’s critique of Smith’s method. In List’s view, Smith’s work, titled *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations*, was a misnomer, as it was utterly incapable of answering real-world questions at the national level, such as by what methods early-developing countries obtained and maintained their dominant positions, and how historically once-powerful countries lost their dominant positions. In response, List emphasized taking history as a basis to explore the true secret of national wealth growth and national strength. By reviewing the histories of European countries and combining this with his own personal experience, he discovered that “the degree of development of a country depends mainly… on the degree of development of its productive forces.” [7]7 Ibid. For example, even if the United States was severely weakened in the War of Independence, after winning independence, its productive forces increased boundlessly, and within a few years its national strength grew unprecedentedly; while Germany, after suffering blows such as famine, epidemics, and war, often managed to preserve most of its productive forces and could quickly restore a certain degree of prosperity. For a country, “the power of producing wealth is infinitely more important than wealth itself.” [8]8 Ibid. On this basis, List proposed that “the sources of national productive forces are the mental and physical powers of individuals, their social, political, and institutional conditions, the natural resources at the country’s disposal, or the tools (i.e., the material capital of agriculture, industry, and commerce) that the country possesses as the material products of the previous mental and physical efforts of individuals.” [9]9 Ibid. Thus, List’s connotation of national productive forces was extremely broad and complex, encompassing many elements from the individual, to society, to the state. From a morphological perspective, it included both material productive forces and spiritual productive forces, and List particularly emphasized the role of the latter. Then, regarding the question of how backward Germany could develop national productive forces, List systematically proposed his theory of national productive forces, mainly composed of three parts: the theory of state intervention, the theory of industrial priority, and the theory of trade protection.

在戳穿了斯密等人所谓普遍自由贸易的谎言之后，李斯特进一步发现，斯密的研究方式存在更大的问题，即将国家经济和私人经济混为一谈，从而将私人经济中的物质财富或交换价值视为唯一的研究对象，陷入了“死板的唯物主义”和“支离破碎的狭隘的本位主义和个人主义”。在李斯特看来，斯密把他的著作命名为《国家财富的性质和原因的研究》是有名无实，他根本无法回答国家层面的现实问题，比如先发国家是凭借什么方法获得并保持其优势地位，而历史上一度强盛的国家又是如何失去优势地位。对此，李斯特强调以历史为依据，来探寻国家财富增长和国力强盛的真正奥秘。他通过回顾欧洲各国历史并结合自己的亲身经历，发现“一个国家的发展程度，主要……决定于它的生产力发展程度”。比如美国在独立战争中即便元气大伤，但在赢得独立后，生产力获得无限提高，短短几年国力就获得空前增长；而德国在遭受饥荒、流行病、战争等打击之后，往往由于保住了大部分的生产力，总能迅速恢复一定程度的繁荣。对于一个国家而言，“财富的生产力比之财富本身，不晓得要重要多少倍”。在此基础上，李斯特提出“国家生产力的来源是个人的身心力量，是个人的社会状况、政治状况和制度，是国家所掌握的自然资源，或者是国家所拥有的作为个人以前身心努力的物质产品的工具（即农业的、工业的与商业的物质资本）”。可见，李斯特的国家生产力内涵十分广泛而庞杂，囊括了从个体、社会到国家的诸多要素。从形态上来看，它既包括物质生产力，也包括精神生产力，而且李斯特尤其强调后者的作用。那么，对于落后德国如何发展国家生产力的问题，李斯特系统提出了他的国家生产力理论，主要由三个部分构成，分别是国家干预论、工业优先论和贸易保护论。

First, List emphasizes that state intervention is the realistic prerequisite for promoting the development of productive forces. For late-developing countries, only under the intervention of a strong state force can they embark on the path of catching up with and surpassing powerful countries. Precisely because of his esteem for the role of the state, List even directly named his economics “national economics,” claiming that “a main feature of my theoretical system is the state… the entire structure of my theoretical system is based on this point.” According to List’s research, when a country transitions from agriculture to handicraft manufacturing and maritime trade in its early stages, the most rapid and advantageous method is to implement free trade. However, to truly achieve comprehensive and favorable development of industrial manufacturing, it can only be accomplished through state intervention. Specifically, in foreign relations, the state uses interventionist means such as trade tariffs to protect its own interests, and can also use means such as war to stimulate and develop its own productive forces; in domestic governance, the state promotes the progress of productive forces by coordinating development among industrial sectors such as agriculture, industry, and commerce, and by emphasizing the development of education and science and technology. At the same time, the state’s laws and public institutions themselves have a direct driving effect on the development of productive forces: “Although laws and public institutions do not directly produce value, they produce productive forces.” [10]10 Friedrich List, *The National System of Political Economy*, trans. Sampson S. Lloyd (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1885), p. 210. The original English translation reads: “Laws and public institutions do not directly produce value; they produce productive power.” Furthermore, List also prominently emphasizes the irreplaceable role of the evolution of national spirit in developing productive forces, even strongly advocating the importance of spiritual productive forces. In his view, when seeing Britain’s leading advantage, the German nation must not become disheartened; “above all, we must have sufficient national spirit, act immediately, seize the most critical points, and strive to advance.” By arousing and consolidating the national spirit, backward Germany will unleash a powerful spiritual productive force.

首先，李斯特强调国家干预是推动生产力发展的现实前提。对于后发国家而言，只有在强有力的国家力量的干预之下，才能走上赶超强国的发展道路。正是由于对国家作用的推崇，李斯特甚至将其经济学直接命名为“国家经济学”，声称“我的学说体系中一个主要特征的是国家……我的理论体系的整个结构就是以这一点为基础的”。据李斯特的研究，当一个国家从农业转向手工制造业和海运贸易的初期，最迅速有利的方法是实行自由贸易，但是要真正使工业制造业获得全面有利的发展，就只能通过国家干预的方式才能完成。具体而言，在对外交往中，国家通过贸易关税等干预手段来保护本国利益，也可以通过战争手段等方式，来刺激和发展本国的生产力；在对内治理中，国家通过协调农业、工业、商业等产业部门之间的发展，重视发展教育和科学技术，来促进生产力的进步。与此同时，国家的法律和公共制度对生产力发展本身就具有直接的推动作用，“法律和公共制度虽然不直接生产价值，但它们是生产生产力的”。此外，李斯特还突出强调了民族精神的进化对于发展生产力具有不可替代的作用，甚至极力推崇精神生产力的重要性。在他看来，当看到英国的领先优势时，德意志民族不能灰心丧气，“尤其重要的是我们要有充分的民族精神，立刻行动起来，抓住最紧要的关键，努力进取”。通过唤起和凝聚民族精神，将使落后的德国焕发出强大的精神生产力。

Second, List proposes that the core of developing a country’s productive forces lies in prioritizing the development of industry, which is the necessary path for late-developing countries to join the ranks of advanced countries. “Industry is the mother of science, literature, art, enlightenment, freedom, beneficial institutions, as well as national power and independence.” The progress of industry can promote the rational layout and overall development of a country’s industrial structure, especially for Germany, which was still primarily agricultural at the time, it can substantially change the backward state of industry. Industry can transform natural resources and natural forces into production capital; at the same time, industrial progress can not only absorb surplus agricultural population but also indirectly promote the enhancement of agricultural technological content and contribute to the improvement of animal husbandry. Thus, “when one sector improves, it prepares the way for and promotes improvements in all other sectors… in short, the entire industrial force of a country constitutes an indivisible whole.” Meanwhile, industry is the product of science and technology; the combination of science and industry produces immense mechanical power. As the integration of science and industry deepens, the level of productive forces will continuously improve, manifesting in the constant emergence of new products, new inventions, and new processes that save labor and raw materials, thereby continuously stimulating more enterprising and innovative spirit. Therefore, industrial progress not only brings about a tremendous transformation in the overall economic landscape of a country but also exerts a significant impact on the spiritual outlook of its people. List believes that industry is conducive both to the development of the people’s physical strength and to the enhancement of their intellectual capacity and the arousal of a universal civilizing force, promoting the formation of a new national spirit. From this perspective, “a country, to be able to protect itself, should make the fullest possible use of its material and human resources to establish industry and promote its development. Without industrial development, the foundation on which national independence rests is extremely inadequate.”

其次，李斯特提出发展国家生产力的核心在于优先发展工业，这是后发国家跻身先进国家行列的必由之路。“工业是科学、文学、艺术、启蒙、自由、有益的制度，以及国力和独立之母。”工业的进步可以推动国家产业结构的合理布局和总体发展，尤其是对当时仍以农业为主的德国而言，可以大幅改变工业落后的现状。工业可以将自然资源和天然力量转化为生产资本，同时工业进步不仅可以吸收过剩的农业人口，还能间接推动农业技术含量的提升，有助于畜牧业的改良。于是，“一个部门有了改进时，就为其他一切部门的改进做好了准备，起了推进作用……总之国家的全部工业力量构成了一个不可分割的整体”。同时，工业是科学与技术的成果，科学与工业的结合产生出巨大的机械力量。随着科学与工业结合的不断深入，生产力的水平将得到不断提高，这就表现为节约劳动力和原材料的新产品、新发明、新工艺的不断涌现，从而不断激发出更多的进取精神和创新精神。所以，工业进步不仅对整个国家经济面貌形成巨大改观，而且对国民的精神面貌产生巨大影响。李斯特认为，工业既有利于国民体力的发展，又有利于国民智力的增强和激发普遍的文明力量，促进形成新的民族精神。由此看来，“一个国家要能保护自己，应该尽其可以利用的物质和人力资源，建立工业，并促进工业发展。如果没有工业的发展，国家独立赖以存在的基础就是极不充分的”。

Finally, List argues that trade protection is an effective way for late-developing countries to strengthen their own productive forces. Facing the British-dominated trade system at the time, Germany, in order to develop national productive forces and strengthen national industry, had to impose protective tariffs. In List’s view, “the theory of productive forces in national economics not only explains why protective tariffs are necessary but also explains how protective tariffs should be applied.” The goal of protective tariffs is to protect and promote the natural development and growth of national industry and manufacturing, shielding them from damage caused by dumping competition from foreign products. “Tariffs are not only a means of protecting domestic industry but also a weapon for a country to protect itself and resist the brutal acts of foreign countries.” Therefore, even Britain, as the leading country, still did not abandon the policy of protective tariffs at the time; its true motive was to protect British industry. As is well known, the protective tariff system is a double-edged sword, with both advantages and disadvantages. List points out that in practical application, it must be determined “according to the specific circumstances and relative conditions of the backward country in its relationship with the more advanced country.” For German national industry, in the early stages of development, protective tariffs must be set very lightly; foreign competition should not be excluded from the outset, as this is conducive to stimulating domestic industry to grow under pressure. Then, “they should be gradually increased as the country’s spiritual and material capital, as well as its technical capabilities and enterprising spirit, grow.” At the same time, different sectors should be treated differently according to specific circumstances: important industrial sectors (industries significant for national independence and autonomy; for Germany at the time, these were textiles such as cotton, wool, and linen) require key protection, while other secondary sectors can be moderately protected. After the overall domestic industrial system has grown and strengthened, protective tariffs can be gradually reduced again, ultimately enabling domestic industry to compete and freely compete with industries of advanced countries in both domestic and international markets, striving to gain and maintain an advantageous position.

最后，李斯特认为贸易保护是后发国家壮大自身生产力的有效方式。在面对当时英国主导的贸易体系，德国为了发展国家生产力，壮大民族工业，必须征收保护性关税。在李斯特看来，“国家经济学说的生产力理论不仅阐释保护性关税何以必要，而且还说明保护性关税该如何运用”。保护性关税的目标就是要保护和促进民族工业制造业的自然发展和壮大，免受国外产品倾销性竞争的伤害。“关税不仅仅是保护国内工业的方法，而且也是国家用以保护自己、抗击外国粗暴行径的武器。”因此，即便是作为领头羊的英国，在当时仍然不放弃保护关税政策，其真正的动机就是保护英国的工业。众所周知，保护关税制度是一柄双刃剑，有利有弊。李斯特指出，在实际运用时必须根据“落后国家在它对比较先进国家所处关系中的特有情况以及相对情况来决定”。对德国民族工业而言，在发展初期，保护关税必须定得十分轻微，不能一开始就排除国外竞争，这样有利于刺激本国工业在压力中成长，然后“随着国家的精神与物质资本以及技术能力与进取精神的增长而逐渐提高”。同时，不同的部门应当根据具体情况区别对待，重要的工业部门（对国家独立自主具有重要意义的产业，对当时的德国而言就是棉、毛、麻等纺织业）需要重点保护，其他次要部门可以适度保护。在本国工业体系整体发展壮大之后，可以再度逐步降低保护关税，最终实现本国工业在国内外市场上与先发国家工业同场竞技、自由竞争，努力获得优势地位并保持下去。

II. The Truth of Productive Forces and the Leapfrog Development of Late-Developing Countries: Marx’s Critique and Transcendence of List

二、生产力的真相与后发国家的跨越发展：马克思对李斯特的批判与超越

According to the view of Wendler, author of “The Biography of List,” Marx was likely very familiar with List’s views before writing “Review of List.” [11]11 Eugen Wendler, *Friedrich List: Eine Biographie* (Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 2013). Wendler is a German economic historian specializing in List’s life and work. Because from 1842 onward, he solicited contributions from Brüggemann and others, compiling and publishing several articles criticizing List. [12]12 Karl Heinrich Brüggemann (1810–1887) was a German journalist and publicist; Marx corresponded with him and contributed to his newspaper, the *Rheinische Zeitung*, in the early 1840s. Of course, it was only in the “Review of List” that Marx relatively systematically put forward his critique of List. Overall, Marx believed that List merely used spiritualistic phrases to prattle about national productive forces, using the hollow ideal of so-called German resurgence as a pretext while ignoring the reality of productive forces—the impoverished condition of workers—degrading human beings into things, “repeatedly talking about protective tariffs and ‘truly German’ factories,” and “creating for himself an ‘idealized’ economics completely different from the secular economics of France and England.” [13]13 Karl Marx, “Review of Friedrich List’s Work ‘The National System of Political Economy’,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 4 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 268. The original text reads: “repeatedly talks about protective tariffs and ‘truly German’ factories” and “created for himself an ‘idealized’ economics completely different from the secular economics of France and England.” For backward Germany, this kind of economics would only lead to alienated productive forces. Specifically, Marx refuted List’s theory point by point from the perspectives of the hypocrisy of the German bourgeoisie, the confusion of the industrial system, and the essence of trade protection.

按照《李斯特传》作者文德乐的观点，马克思应该在写作《评李斯特》之前就对李斯特的观点非常熟悉了。因为他从1842年开始就向布吕格曼等人约稿，编发了多篇批判李斯特的文章。当然只有到了《评李斯特》一文中，马克思才较为系统地提出对李斯特的批判。总体而言，马克思认为李斯特不过是用一种唯灵论的词句空谈国家生产力，借着所谓德国崛起的空洞理想为幌子，而无视生产力的现实——工人贫困的状况，将人贬低为物，“不断重复地讲保护关税和‘真正德国的’工厂”，“为自己创造了一种与世俗的法国和英国的经济学完全不同的‘理想化的’经济学”。而这种经济学对于落后的德国而言，只会导致异化的生产力。具体来说，马克思是从德国资产者的伪善、工业制度的混淆和贸易保护的实质等角度出发，对李斯特的理论进行逐一批驳。

First, Marx criticized List’s theory of state intervention as containing “the hypocrisy of the German bourgeois who pursues domination.” When List, in a righteous tone, criticized cosmopolitan economics as representing the interests of the British bourgeois, he exalted the German national spirit and “the national union of the nation’s productive forces,” as if he were the spokesman for German national interests. By sorting through the actual conditions in Germany, Marx pointed out that the so-called national interests were nothing more than the common interests of “a bunch of German philistines who want to get rich” – the German bourgeois – and that the national spirit was merely a contrived idealist interpretation. The emergence of the German bourgeois benefited from Napoleon’s Continental System [14]14 The Continental System was Napoleon’s blockade of British trade, imposed from 1806 to 1814, which inadvertently protected nascent German industries from British competition. and grew stronger through industry and mining. However, at that time, compared with the British and French bourgeois, their power was still relatively weak, and they had not yet seized state power. As Engels pointed out, “The bourgeoisie in France and England was already very powerful; it had overthrown the aristocracy and risen to become the ruling class of its own country, while the German bourgeoisie still does not have such strength to this day.” Because the German bourgeois had to exploit the proletariat domestically to extract profits and faced competition from the British and French bourgeois externally, they had no choice but to appeal to the state to intervene in the economy in the name of safeguarding national interests, providing protective tariffs for the German bourgeois. Thus, there emerged the situation where “the German bourgeois, through Mr. List, proves to the state … that he has a superior insight into the state’s economic knowledge … he demands that the state act in his interests, but he presents this demand as a recognition of the state, i.e., a recognition of the state’s right to intervene in the sphere of civil society.” As for why they constantly invoked the national spirit to intervene in the development of productive forces, even infinitely elevating productive forces from material productive forces to spiritual productive forces, Marx believed that this was List’s consistent method of using spiritualist beautification to conceal his true purpose. In reality, in order to make their pursuit of wealth conform to popular beliefs and not violate their own religious concepts, the German bourgeois packaged material wealth as “infinite productive forces” with a spiritual essence, claiming that their ultimate goal was to consolidate the national spirit and develop human capacities – the essence of this discursive strategy was precisely the exploitation of the characteristics of the German religious nation.

首先，马克思批判了李斯特的国家干预论内含着“追求统治权的德国资产者的伪善”。李斯特在义正辞严地批判世界主义经济学代表了英国资产者利益时，高扬德意志民族精神和“国家生产力的国家联合”，仿佛他就是德国国家利益的代言人。马克思通过对德国现状的梳理，指出所谓的国家利益不过是一帮“想发财的德国理想化的庸人”——德国资产者的共同利益，民族精神更是经过矫揉造作的唯心主义解释。德国资产者的产生受惠于拿破仑的大陆体系，依靠工业和采矿业而壮大起来，但由于此时与英法资产者相比，其势力仍然比较弱小，尚未掌握国家政权。正如恩格斯所指出的，“法国和英国的资产阶级已经十分强大，它们已把贵族打倒并上升为本国的统治阶级，而德国的资产阶级到现在也还没有这样的力量”。由于德国资产阶级对内要剥削无产阶级来攫取利润，对外要面对英法资产阶级的倾轧，所以他们不得不诉诸维护国家利益的方式来请求国家干预经济，为德国资产阶级提供保护性关税。于是，就出现了“德国资产者通过李斯特先生向国家证明……他对国家的经济知识有高超见解……他要求国家按他的利益行事，可是他却把这种要求说成是对国家的承认，即承认国家有权干预市民社会的领域”。至于为何动辄以民族精神来介入生产力的发展，甚至将生产力从物质生产力无限提升为精神生产力，马克思认为这是李斯特一贯采用的以唯灵论式美化手法来掩盖其真实目的。实际上，德国资产者为了使其追逐财富的行为既符合大众信仰又不违背自身宗教观念，将物质财富包装成具有精神本质的“无限的生产力”，声称其终极目标在于凝聚民族精神和对人的能力的发展——这种话语策略的本质，正是利用了德国宗教民族的特性。

Second, Marx believed that List’s theory of industrial priority actually confused the forces awakened by industry with industry itself. In this regard, Marx discovered the inherent contradiction between the forces awakened by industry (the workers) and industry itself (the capitalist industrial system), pointing out that productive forces would inevitably break through the shackles of the capitalist industrial system. The true intention of the German bourgeois was to realize the exploitation of workers under the British factory system, but they were unwilling to openly acknowledge its brutal nature. Instead, they claimed to establish so-called harmonious production organizations, which in reality only reflected “the wolf has the same (identical) interests as its fellow wolves.” Therefore, List’s praise of industrial productive forces was actually praise of the bourgeoisie. In Marx’s view, modern productive forces were unconsciously created by industry, but their conditions of existence were inhuman. Hence, workers necessarily opposed the industrial system, especially the domestic industrial system that directly enslaved them. “The first step in breaking the fetters of industry is to free the forces now activated by industry from the conditions, the money chains, in which they now operate, and to examine these forces themselves. This is the first call to man: to liberate their industry from buying and selling, to understand present industry as a transitional period.” It can be seen that although the forces awakened by industry were at that time slaves of the bourgeois, they would in the future smash their chains, blow up the industrial shell of the bourgeois and their private property, and become the bearers of human freedom and liberation. Thus, the forces awakened by industry were not only forces for transforming nature but also the key to blowing up capitalist private property.

其次，马克思认为李斯特的工业优先论其实混淆了工业唤起的力量与工业本身。对此，马克思发现了工业唤起的力量（工人）与工业本身（资本主义工业制度）之间的内在矛盾，指出生产力必然会突破资本主义工业制度的束缚。德国资产者的真正意图在于实现英国工厂制度对工人的剥削，却不愿公开承认其残酷的本性，反而宣称建立所谓和谐的生产组织，实际上只是体现“狼同它的狼伙伴有同一的（同样的）利益”。所以，李斯特对工业生产力的赞美实际是对资产阶级的赞美。在马克思看来，现代生产力是工业无意识创造的，但其生存条件是非人的，因此工人必然反对工业制度，尤其是直接奴役他们的本国工业制度。“打破工业的羁绊的第一个步骤，就是摆脱工业力量现在借以活动的那种条件、那种金钱的锁链，并考察这种力量本身。这是向人发出的第一个号召：把他们的工业从买卖中解放出来，把目前的工业理解为一个过渡时期。”可见，工业唤起的力量在当时虽然是资产者的奴隶，但将来必将砸碎锁链，炸毁资产者及其私有制的工业外壳，成为人类自由解放的承担者。于是，工业唤起的力量不仅是改造自然的力量，更是炸毁资本主义私有制的关键。

Finally, Marx pointed out that List did not realize that free trade and protective tariffs were essentially identical, both embodying the concretization of the logic of capital at different stages. List naively believed that free trade naturally represented the interests of Britain, while protective tariffs represented the interests of Germany. In Marx’s view, protective tariffs provided weapons for the bourgeoisie to seize domestic dominance, while free trade cleared obstacles for their global expansion, and the working class was always the sacrificed object. Regarding List’s stance on protective tariffs, Marx, when participating in the Brussels Free Trade Conference in September 1847, exposed its clear bias: it protected only machine-based large-scale industry, not traditional handicrafts, intending to replace manual labor with machinery and promote the comprehensive establishment of the capitalist mode of production. However, although this system helped the development of large-scale industry at a specific historical stage, it would ultimately plunge the country into difficulties – “The protective tariff system is nothing but a means of establishing large-scale industry in a given country, that is, of making it dependent on the world market; but once it becomes dependent on the world market, it becomes more or less dependent on free trade as well.” Therefore, the inevitable result of protective tariffs was to bind the country to the chariot of capital’s expansion into the world market. The “favorable” conditions brought by capital expansion would ultimately be dissolved by the mechanism of competition. The positioning of workers as “special productive forces” kept them forever at the bottom of the crushing logic of capital. It can be seen that Marx’s critique pierced through the surface of economic policies, directly pointing to the irreconcilable class contradictions under the capitalist system.

最后，马克思指出李斯特没有意识到自由贸易与保护关税制度在本质上是一致的，即都体现为资本逻辑在不同阶段的具象化。李斯特天真地以为自由贸易天然地代表着英国的利益，而保护关税则体现着德国的利益。在马克思看来，保护关税是为资产阶级夺取国内统治地位提供武器，自由贸易则为其全球扩张扫清障碍，而工人阶级始终是被牺牲的对象。针对李斯特的保护关税立场，马克思在1847年9月参加布鲁塞尔自由贸易会议时就揭露其鲜明的倾向性，因为他只保护机器大工业，而不维护传统手工业，意在通过机器替代手工劳动，推动资本主义生产方式的全面确立。但是，这种制度虽然在特定历史阶段有助于大工业发展，最终却会使国家陷入困境之中——“保护关税制度不过是为了在某个国家建立大工业的手段，也就是使这个国家依赖于世界市场，然而，一旦它对世界市场有了依赖性，对自由贸易也就有了或多或少的依赖性”。因此，保护关税的必然结果是将国家绑上资本拓展世界市场的战车。而资本扩张带来的“有利”条件终将被竞争机制消解。工人作为“特殊生产力”的定位，使其永远处于资本逻辑碾压的最底层。可见，马克思的批判穿透了经济政策的表象，直指资本主义制度下不可调和的阶级矛盾。

In the process of criticizing List’s theory of productive forces, Marx repeatedly used the concept of “productive forces” and subsequently gradually constructed his own landmark theory of productive forces, thereby surpassing vulgar national economists like List. Marx’s transcendence over List is reflected in two aspects: on the one hand, he examined the truth of how backward Germany developed productive forces from the standpoint of the proletariat, thus transcending List’s narrow perspective rooted in the German bourgeoisie; on the other hand, in terms of solutions, he discovered the essence of Germany’s backwardness through the internal contradiction between productive forces and relations of production, thereby overcoming List’s limitation of developing productive forces through protective tariffs without touching the Prussian monarchy.

在批判李斯特生产力理论的过程中，马克思多次使用“生产力”这一概念，并在此后逐步建构起自己的具有标志性意义的生产力理论，从而完成了对李斯特等庸俗国民经济学家的超越。而马克思对李斯特的超越性体现在，一方面，他从无产阶级的立场出发来考察落后德国发展生产力的真相，因而超越了李斯特出于德国资产阶级的偏狭视角；另一方面，他在解决方式上通过生产力与生产关系内部矛盾的方式来发现德国落后的实质，进而克服了李斯特在不触碰普鲁士王权的前提下，以保护关税的方式来发展生产力的局限性。

As is well known, the theory of productive forces occupies a core position in the entire theoretical system of historical materialism, and the origins of many of Marx’s major innovative ideas can almost be traced back to his theory of productive forces. Overall, Marx’s theory of productive forces can be understood from two levels: the micro and the macro. At the micro level, starting from political economy, Marx systematically analyzed the elements, dynamics, and structure of productive forces, providing mature theoretical tools for dissecting the productive forces of capitalism. At the macro level, standing on the standpoint of historical materialism, Marx revealed the scientific law of the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, and pointed out that productive forces are the decisive force in the development of human society. It is in this sense that we say Marx’s theory of productive forces provides scientific guidance for how late-developing countries develop productive forces.

众所周知，生产力理论在整个历史唯物主义理论体系中占据着核心地位，马克思诸多重大创新思想的源头几乎都能追溯到他的生产力理论上。总体来看，马克思的生产力理论大致可以从微观和宏观两个层面来理解：在微观上，马克思从政治经济学出发，系统分析了生产力的要素、动力、结构，为解剖资本主义生产力提供了成熟的理论工具；在宏观上，马克思站在唯物史观的立场上，揭示了生产力与生产关系矛盾运动的科学规律，并指出生产力是人类社会发展的决定性力量。正是在此意义上，我们说马克思的生产力理论为后发国家如何发展生产力提供了科学的指导。

Specifically, at the micro level, Marx follows the principle that “the anatomy of man is a key to the anatomy of the ape,” proceeding from the reality of capitalist society to study the material conditions of the productive forces and the process of emergence and development of their internal contradictions. During the period of writing “Critical Notes on List,” Marx’s main task was to criticize List’s concept of productive forces. In *The German Ideology*, Marx for the first time positively expounded the question of productive forces, but at that time the focus was on the contradictory movement between productive forces and the form of intercourse, especially advancing, from the perspective of the division of labor, the question of alienated productive forces under the conditions of private property raised in “Critical Notes on List.” Thereafter, although Marx continued to deepen his understanding of the question of productive forces at the micro level, it was not until the writing of *Capital* and its manuscripts that the classic definition of productive forces was formally established – “productive forces, i.e., the capacity to produce,” in other words, “productive forces are of course always the productive forces of useful, concrete labor.” In the *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy)*, Marx explicitly distinguished productive forces into “subjective” and “objective,” i.e., “including both the subjective productive forces, which appear as individual characteristics, and the objective productive forces.” Subjective productive forces refer to the labor capacity of human beings as subjects, externalized as laborers, among which intellect increasingly becomes an important factor; objective productive forces refer to the productive capacity of material elements, externalized as means of labor and objects of labor, among which instruments of production occupy the primary position. The constituent elements of productive forces include not only simple elements such as laborers, objects of labor, and means of labor, but also involve organization and management, natural forces, and science and technology. It should be pointed out that science and technology have always been regarded by Marx as an important driving force for the development of human society. Marx pointed out: “Productive forces develop continuously with the continuous progress of science and technology.” Through the analysis of the capitalist mode of production, Marx revealed the essential characteristic of science being embedded within the structure of productive forces. In the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–63*, Marx devoted a special chapter, “Machinery, Natural Forces and the Application of Science,” to systematically demonstrate the internal connection between productive forces and science and technology. In Engels’ view, Marx attached great importance to the role of science and technology in promoting productive forces: “In Marx’s view, science is a revolutionary force that plays a driving role in history. Every new discovery in any theoretical science – even if its practical application could not yet be foreseen at all – filled Marx with heartfelt joy, and when he saw a discovery that immediately had a revolutionary impact on industry, on general historical development, his joy was extraordinary.”

具体来说，在微观层面上，马克思遵循“人体解剖对于猴体解剖是一把钥匙”，从资本主义社会的现实出发，去研究生产力的物质条件及其内部矛盾的发生、发展的过程。在撰写《评李斯特》时期，马克思的主要任务是批判李斯特的生产力概念。而在《德意志意识形态》中，马克思首次正面阐述了生产力问题，但此时的焦点是生产力与交往形式的矛盾运动，尤其是基于分工的视角下推进《评李斯特》中提出的私有制条件下异化的生产力问题。此后，马克思虽然一直在深化生产力问题在微观层面的理解，但一直到《资本论》及其手稿的写作中，才正式确立了经典的生产力定义——“生产力，即生产能力”，换言之，“生产力当然始终是有用的、具体的劳动的生产力”。而在《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》中，马克思将生产力明确区分为“主体的”和“客体的”，即“既包括表现为个人特性的主体的生产力，也包括客体的生产力”。主体生产力是指作为主体的人的劳动能力，外化为劳动者，其中智力日益成为重要因素；客体生产力是指物质要素的生产能力，外化为劳动资料和劳动对象，其中生产工具占据首要地位。生产力的构成要素不仅包括劳动者、劳动对象、劳动资料等简单要素，还涉及组织管理、自然力和科学技术。需要指出的是，科学技术始终被马克思视为推动人类社会发展的重要动能。马克思指出：“生产力是随着科学和技术的不断进步而不断发展的。”通过对资本主义生产方式的剖析，马克思揭示出科学内嵌于生产力结构之中的本质特征。在《政治经济学批判（1861—1863年手稿）》中，马克思曾专辟一章“机器、自然力和科学的应用”来系统论证生产力与科学技术的内在关联。在恩格斯眼中，马克思极为重视科学技术对生产力的推进作用，“在马克思看来，科学是一种在历史上起推动作用的、革命的力量。任何一门理论科学中的每一个新发现——它的实际应用也许还根本无法预见——都使马克思感到衷心喜悦，而当他看到那种对工业、对一般历史发展立即产生革命性影响的发现的时候，他的喜悦就非同寻常了”。

If at the micro level the particularity of productive forces is the key to decoding the mode of production in a specific society, then at the macro level the universality of productive forces constitutes the fundamental driving force for the transition of human social formations. To penetrate the micro-level appearances of capitalist society, we must grasp at the macro level the general law of human history – the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production. Admittedly, in “Critical Notes on List,” Marx’s theoretical understanding had not yet reached the level of the relationship between productive forces and relations of production, but terms in the text such as “industry,” “real social organization,” and “conditions of existence” already approximate the connotation of relations of production. At the same time, Marx’s explicit proposal to break the fetters of industry and cast off the chains of money is already quite close to the expression of his mature period. Of course, the most classic formulation of this scientific law is found in the 1859 “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*”: “In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material productive forces. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.” Therefore, Marx’s macro-level system of productive forces can be understood as a composite structure. Its external operational mechanism is manifested as the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production – existing relations of production both constitute the boundary for the quantitative change of productive forces and become the object to be broken through for the qualitative change of productive forces. At the same time, its internal structure contains a dynamic mechanism led by instruments of production. Instruments of production, as the core benchmark, not only determine the technological level of a specific historical stage but also shape the interactive relationship between laborers and the means of labor. This is because the innovation of instruments of production will completely reconstruct the structural connection between productive forces and relations of production. It is precisely on the basis of the above theory that Marx was able to fully unfold the construction of the materialist conception of history, which involves understanding the world and transforming it.

如果说在微观层面，生产力的特殊性是解码特定社会下生产方式的密钥，那么在宏观层面，生产力的普遍性则构成了人类社会形态跃迁的根本动力。我们要穿透资本主义社会的微观表象，就必须从宏观上把握人类历史的一般规律——生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动。固然，在《评李斯特》中，马克思的理论认知尚未到达生产力与生产关系的高度，但是文中的“工业”“现实的社会组织”“生存条件”等词汇已近乎生产关系的内涵。同时，马克思明确提出打破工业的羁绊，摆脱金钱的锁链，已经相当接近成熟时期的表达。当然，对这一科学规律最为经典的表述是在1859年的《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中提出的：“人们在自己生活的社会生产中发生一定的、必然的、不以他们的意志为转移的关系，即同他们的物质生产力的一定发展阶段相适合的生产关系。这些生产关系的总和构成社会的经济结构，即有法律的和政治的上层建筑竖立其上并有一定的社会意识形式与之相适应的现实基础。”因此，马克思宏观层面的生产力系统可以理解为一种复合架构。其外部运作机制体现为生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动——现存生产关系既构成了生产力量变的边界，又成为生产力质变的突破对象。同时，其内部结构则内含着由生产工具引领的动力机制。生产工具作为核心标杆，不仅决定着特定历史阶段的技术水准，更形塑着劳动者与劳动资料之间的互动关系。这是因为生产工具的革新将彻底重构生产力与生产关系的结构性关联。正是在上述理论基础上，马克思才得以全面展开认识世界与改造世界的唯物史观构建。

Compared with List, who was confined solely to the development of the bourgeoisie in backward Germany, Marx always focused on the fate of the broadest proletariat, especially the question of the prospects of the proletarian revolution in the vast number of late-developing countries. In Marx’s initial theoretical conception, the communist revolution was to occur simultaneously in developed countries such as Britain, France, and Germany. Of course, “simultaneous occurrence” only outlined a historical development trend; the speed of the actual development of the communist revolution in reality depended specifically on the level of development of the productive forces, that is, “whether this country has a more developed industry, more wealth, and a relatively greater quantity of productive forces. Therefore, the communist revolution will be slowest and most difficult in Germany, and fastest and easiest in Britain.” Thus, for Germany, as a late-developing country, to achieve communism, the primary prerequisite was highly developed productive forces. Thereafter, when Marx turned his gaze from European society to the broader Eastern society, how the communist revolution in Eastern countries could be realized became the focus of his attention in his later years. After a careful investigation of Eastern society, especially the revolutionary potential of Russia, Marx put forward the famous view of the leapfrog development of late-developing countries – the real possibility for the Russian commune to cross the “Caucasian passes of the capitalist system” [15]15 “Caucasian passes of the capitalist system” (卡夫丁大峡谷) is a metaphor Marx used, drawing on a historical reference to the Roman army’s defeat at the Caudine Forks, to denote the stage of capitalist development with its attendant sufferings; to “cross” it means to bypass the capitalist mode of production.: “Russia may not pass through the Caucasian passes of the capitalist system, but may apply to the commune all the positive achievements created by the capitalist system.” This is because the Russian commune, as a primitive form of common land ownership, was closer in relations of production to the “higher form of communist common ownership.” Once the Russian revolution completed the leap in relations of production, it would in turn promote Russia to “increase the total quantity of productive forces as quickly as possible,” thereby enabling it to obtain as soon as possible “the material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.” Therefore, the key for Russia, as a late-developing country, to achieve leapfrog development lay in, on the basis of fully absorbing “all the positive achievements of the capitalist system,” opening up a window of possibility for the liberation of productive forces through autonomously adjusting relations of production.

相较于李斯特仅仅局限在落后德国的资产阶级自身发展上，马克思则始终关注最广泛的无产阶级的命运，尤其是广大后发国家的无产阶级革命的前途问题。在马克思最初的理论构想中，共产主义革命是在英法德等发达国家中同时发生。当然，“同时发生”所勾勒的只是一种历史发展趋势，共产主义革命在现实中发展的快慢具体取决于生产力发展水平的高低，也就是“这个国家是否有较发达的工业，较多的财富和比较大量的生产力。因此，在德国实现共产主义革命最慢最困难，在英国最快最容易”。可见，作为后发国家的德国要实现共产主义，首要的前提是具备高度发达的生产力。此后，当马克思将目光从欧洲社会转向更为广阔的东方社会时，东方国家的共产主义革命如何实现则成为他晚年关注的焦点。在经过对东方社会尤其是俄国革命潜能的缜密考察之后，马克思提出了后发国家跨越式发展的著名观点——俄国公社跨越“卡夫丁大峡谷”的现实可能性，“俄国可以不通过资本主义制度的卡夫丁大峡谷，而把资本主义制度的创造的一切积极的成果用到公社中来”。这是由于俄国公社作为原始的土地公有制在生产关系上更接近“高级的共产主义的公共占有形式”，当俄国革命完成了生产关系的跨越之后，将反过来推动俄国“尽可能快地增加生产力的总量”，从而使其尽快获得“无产阶级解放的物质条件”。因此，俄国作为后发国家实现跨越式发展的关键就在于在充分吸收“资本主义制度的一切肯定的成就”基础上，通过自主调整生产关系来为解放生产力打开可能性的窗口。

III. How to Develop New Quality Productive Forces in the New Era: The Contemporary Enlightenment of Marx’s “Critical Notes on List”

三、新时代如何发展新质生产力：马克思《评李斯特》的当代启示

Since the “October Revolution,” how late-developing countries can escape poverty and achieve modernization by developing productive forces, in the hope of catching up with developed countries, has always been a core issue in socialist economic theory, and is also a common focus of concern for current developing countries. At present, with the iterative development of emerging technology industries such as digitalization and intelligence, China is continuously achieving leapfrog development by developing new quality productive forces. It is in this sense that Marx’s classic theory of productive forces, especially the insights he put forward 180 years ago in “Critical Notes on List,” provides us with a powerful theoretical basis and practical guidance for advancing the construction of new quality productive forces at the current stage.

“十月革命”以来，后发国家如何通过发展生产力来摆脱贫困、实现现代化，期望赶超发达国家，始终是社会主义经济理论的核心问题，同时也是当前发展中国家共同关注的焦点议题。当前，随着数字化、智能化等新兴技术产业的迭代式发展，我国通过发展新质生产力，不断实现跨越式发展。正是在此意义上，马克思的经典生产力理论，尤其是180年前他在《评李斯特》中提出的真知灼见为我们现阶段推进新质生产力建设提供了有力的理论依据和现实指导。

First, developing new quality productive forces must rely on scientific and technological innovation. Xi Jinping has stated: “New quality productive forces are advanced productive forces with high technology, high efficiency, and high quality, led by innovation, breaking away from traditional modes of economic growth and paths of productive forces development, and conforming to the new development philosophy.” As a developing country, China must firmly grasp the core engine of scientific and technological innovation to achieve a leapfrog development of productive forces, by developing new quality productive forces to break through technological bottlenecks in key areas and reshape new advantages in global competition. The essence of new quality productive forces lies in promoting a qualitative leap in productive forces through disruptive technological innovation, and their development trend is directly related to the country’s development and security. Currently, the global technological revolution exhibits characteristics of convergence and breakthroughs across multiple fields; frontier areas such as information technology, biotechnology, and quantum technology are restructuring human production and lifestyles, while great-power competition has evolved into an arena of high-tech fields. Facing the reality that China still has a “bottleneck” predicament in core technologies, it is urgent to construct a three-in-one development path of “research breakthroughs—integration—transformation.” At the same time, it is necessary to build a coordinated development system of “innovation chain—industrial chain—value chain,” driving industrial upgrading with high-tech supply and forming a deep integration of scientific and technological innovation with industrial innovation. This requires, on the one hand, strengthening the principal role of enterprises in innovation, promoting precise alignment between research directions and enterprise needs, so that enterprises truly become the core carriers of technology integration and industrial transformation; on the other hand, accelerating the transformation and application of scientific and technological achievements, shortening the innovation cycle from laboratory to production line through the construction of carriers such as concept verification centers. Practices such as the global networking of the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System and the vertical integration of the new energy industry chain show that only by embedding technological breakthroughs into the entire chain of industrial upgrading can the exponential effect of scientific and technological innovation be achieved. Furthermore, it is particularly crucial to build a collaborative innovation ecosystem of industry, academia, research, and application. By improving the science and technology financial support system, optimizing the intellectual property protection mechanism, and cultivating new forms of science and technology services, a virtuous cycle of basic research, technology development, and achievement transformation can be formed. This requires not only government guidance for innovation elements to gather in strategic fields but also giving full play to the decisive role of the market in resource allocation, so that innovation vitality can continuously burst forth under market testing.

首先，发展新质生产力必须依靠科技创新。习近平提出：“新质生产力是创新起主导作用，摆脱传统经济增长方式、生产力发展路径，具有高科技、高效能、高质量特征，符合新发展理念的先进生产力质态。”作为发展中国家，我国要实现生产力跨越式发展必须牢牢抓住科技创新这一核心引擎，通过发展新质生产力突破关键领域技术瓶颈，重塑全球竞争新优势。新质生产力的本质在于以颠覆性技术创新推动生产力实现质的跃升，其发展态势直接关系到国家的发展与安全。当前全球科技革命呈现多领域汇聚和突破的特征，信息技术、生物科技、量子技术等前沿领域正重构人类生产生活方式，而大国博弈已演变为高技术领域的角力场。面对我国在核心技术上仍存在“卡脖子”困境的现实，亟需构建“攻关—融合—转化”三位一体的发展路径。同时，要构建“创新链—产业链—价值链”协同发展体系，以高科技供给驱动产业升级，形成科技创新与产业创新的深度融合。这就要求一方面强化企业创新主体地位，推动科研方向与企业需求精准对接，使企业真正成为技术集成与产业转化的核心载体；另一方面加速科技成果转化应用，通过建设概念验证中心等载体，缩短从实验室到生产线的创新周期。北斗导航系统的全球组网、新能源产业链的垂直整合等实践表明，只有将技术突破嵌入产业升级全链条，才能实现科技创新的指数效应。此外，尤为关键的是构建产学研用协同创新生态。通过完善科技金融支持体系、优化知识产权保护机制、培育科技服务新业态，形成基础研究、技术开发、成果转化的良性循环。这不仅需要政府引导创新要素向战略领域集聚，更要发挥市场在资源配置中的决定性作用，让创新活力在市场检验中持续迸发。

Second, developing new quality productive forces must promote the reform of relations of production associated with scientific and technological development, providing suitable growth soil for liberating and developing productive forces. According to Marx’s theory of productive forces, relations of production must adapt to the development of productive forces; once relations of production lag behind the development of productive forces, they become an obstacle to the development of productive forces. Although China has made major breakthroughs in some cutting-edge fields in the process of scientific and technological development, it must be recognized that the monopoly and deliberate blockade of core technologies by developed countries still exist, the allocation of China’s scientific and technological innovation resources is scattered, the efficiency of transforming scientific and technological achievements is not high, and the upgrading of the modern industrial system has not yet been completed. This shows that some existing relations of production cannot fully meet the needs of developing new quality productive forces. In response, Xi Jinping has pointed out: “Relations of production must adapt to the requirements of the development of productive forces. To develop new quality productive forces, we must further comprehensively deepen reform and form new types of relations of production that are compatible with them.” The so-called new types of relations of production have at their core the construction of an institutional ecology that stimulates the potential for disruptive technological innovation and accelerates the industrial application of scientific and technological achievements, encompassing multiple dimensions such as property rights protection, factor circulation, and market incentives. Advancing this systematic project requires a two-way breakthrough: both breaking down institutional barriers formed by traditional path dependence and simultaneously building a governance system that supports the transformation of the technological-economic paradigm. On the one hand, by deepening reforms across all fields, focus on improving the market-based allocation mechanism for innovation factors, eliminating institutional obstacles to the flow of core factors such as talent, capital, and data, and constructing an innovation ecosystem conducive to the incubation and diffusion of disruptive technologies. On the other hand, establish a flexible regulatory framework and dynamic adjustment mechanism, guide high-quality resources to gather in strategic emerging industries, leverage institutional innovation dividends to stimulate a leap in total factor productivity, and ultimately form a development pattern of benign mutual promotion between productive forces and relations of production.

其次，发展新质生产力必须推动与科技发展相关联的生产关系的革新，为解放和发展生产力提供适合的生长土壤。根据马克思的生产力理论，生产关系必须适应生产力的发展，一旦生产关系滞后于生产力的发展时，就会成为生产力发展的阻碍。虽然当前我国在科技发展的过程中，在部分尖端领域取得了重大突破，但必须看到发达国家在核心技术上的垄断以及刻意封锁仍然存在，我国科技创新资源的配置分散，科技成果的转化效率不高，现代产业体系的升级尚未完成，这就说明现有的一些生产关系无法完全满足发展新质生产力的需要。对此，习近平指出，“生产关系必须与生产力发展要求相适应。发展新质生产力，必须进一步全面深化改革，形成与之相适应的新型生产关系”。所谓新型生产关系，其核心在于构建激发颠覆性技术创新潜能、加速科技成果产业化应用的制度生态，涵盖产权保护、要素流通、市场激励等多元维度。推进这一系统工程需要我们进行双向突破：既要打破传统路径依赖形成的制度壁垒，又要同步建设支撑技术经济范式转换的治理体系。一方面，通过深化全领域改革，重点完善创新要素的市场化配置机制，消除人才、资本、数据等核心要素流动的制度性障碍，构建有利于颠覆性技术孵化与扩散的创新生态系统。另一方面，建立弹性监管框架和动态调整机制，引导优质资源向战略性新兴产业集聚，通过制度创新红利激发全要素生产率跃升，最终形成生产力与生产关系良性互促的发展格局。

Finally, developing new quality productive forces also requires handling the relationships among various factors of production. Unlike traditional productive forces’ dependence on a single factor, the cultivation of new quality productive forces emphasizes the deep coupling of intelligent factors such as knowledge and data with traditional factors. This requires us to break through the physical boundaries and institutional barriers to the circulation of factors of production and build a more resilient factor allocation system. Especially in the context of digital technology transforming traditional production, the reform of factor allocation needs to achieve strategic breakthroughs from multiple dimensions. The urgent task is to establish a collaborative innovation network for factors of production. This requires resolving the dual-structure contradiction of the factor market: both removing administrative restrictions on the cross-regional flow of labor and constructing a gradient transfer mechanism for technology transfer. For example, through digital infrastructure construction, achieve penetrating integration of data factors with traditional industries, and use cross-border e-commerce platforms to reconstruct the factor linkage methods of the global value chain. At the same time, a value transformation system for factors of production must be constructed. Addressing the dilemma of data factor rights confirmation and the spillover effects of knowledge, it is necessary to explore a revenue distribution mechanism of “contribution quantification + risk sharing,” such as forming a linkage model of carbon factor pricing and ecological compensation in the green industry transformation, transforming factor advantages into sustainable competitive advantages. In addition, the governance framework for factors of production must be improved. Implement classified governance strategies according to the characteristics of different factors of production: strengthen intensive allocation mechanisms for physical factors such as land and energy, establish flexible regulatory sandboxes for virtual factors such as technology and data, and achieve dynamic optimization of factor allocation through carriers such as factor exchanges and cross-border flow pilot zones, accelerating the improvement of total factor productivity. The reform of the factor market should also grasp strategic balance: not only integrating into the global factor cycle through opening up but also building a security barrier for key factors.

最后，发展新质生产力还要处理好各种生产要素之间的关系。不同于传统生产力对单一要素的依赖，新质生产力的培育强调知识、数据等智能要素与传统要素的深度耦合，这就要求我们必须突破生产要素流通的物理边界与制度藩篱，构建更具韧性的要素配置体系。尤其在数字技术变革传统生产的背景下，生产要素配置改革需要从多维度展开战略突破。当务之急是建立起生产要素协同创新网络。这就需要破解生产要素市场的二元结构矛盾：既要破除劳动力跨域流动的行政限制，又要构建技术转移的梯度承接机制。比如通过数字基础设施建设实现数据要素与传统产业的穿透式融合，借助跨境电商平台重构全球价值链的要素链接方式。同时，必须构建生产要素价值转化体系。针对数据要素确权困境与知识溢出效应，需探索“贡献度量化+风险共担”的收益分配机制，比如在绿色产业转型中形成碳要素定价与生态补偿的联动模型，将要素优势转化为可持续的竞争优势。此外，还要完善生产要素治理框架。针对不同生产要素特性实施分类治理策略，对土地、能源等实体要素强化集约化配置机制，对技术、数据等虚拟要素建立弹性监管沙盒，通过要素交易所与跨境流动试验区等载体，实现生产要素配置的动态优化，加快促进全要素生产率提升。而对生产要素市场改革还应当把握战略平衡，不仅要通过开放融入全球要素循环，而且要筑牢关键要素的安全屏障。

Furthermore, although List’s theory of productive forces is confined by the limitations of his era and class, preventing him from penetrating the essence of the development of productive forces, after we have fully sublated his class standpoint and dissolved the one-sidedness of his theory, we find that his doctrine, particularly some of its measures, still possesses a certain referential value for the current development of new quality productive forces. This is also the main reason for the rise of “neo-Listian economics.” According to List’s view, state intervention, protective tariffs, and national spirit are crucial for late-developing countries to develop their productive forces. In terms of the current international and domestic situation, these three elements undoubtedly have distinct practical relevance. Specifically: First, developing new quality productive forces precisely requires leveraging the advantages of the new-type nationwide system for mobilizing resources. [20]20 The “new-type nationwide system for mobilizing resources” (新型举国体制) refers to a state-led institutional mechanism that combines centralized coordination with market mechanisms to concentrate national resources on strategic technological breakthroughs, a concept updated from the earlier planned-economy “nationwide system” (举国体制). The primary task at present is to focus on national strategic needs and implement breakthroughs in core technologies. In key fields such as quantum computing, chip manufacturing, and high-end equipment, we must intensify independent research and development efforts, using breakthrough innovations to cultivate and develop new drivers of growth. This requires giving full play to the advantages of the new-type nationwide system for mobilizing resources, concentrating forces to accomplish major tasks, establishing a response mechanism that dynamically tracks the world’s scientific and technological frontiers, and forming a sustainable capacity for original scientific and technological innovation. Second, developing new quality productive forces also requires breaking through the current complex situation of international trade protectionism. In recent years, China’s external economic environment has undergone drastic changes, and the development of new quality productive forces has encountered severe tests. In particular, certain countries have adopted trade protectionist policies and imposed long-term blockades on China in the field of core technologies. In the long run, tariff barriers have no real winners. Therefore, when facing tariff pressure from the United States, China has also responded in kind with appropriate measures. Third, developing new quality productive forces even more requires promoting the great national spirit of the Chinese nation. Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized: “Spirit is the soul on which a nation relies for long-term survival. Only when a nation reaches a certain height in spirit can it stand firm and forge ahead courageously in the torrent of history.” [21]21 This quotation is from Xi Jinping’s speech at the commemoration of the 95th founding anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army, August 1, 2017, emphasizing the role of national spirit in overcoming challenges. Chinese civilization has nurtured a great national spirit through its long historical accumulation. The great national spirit provides us with a powerful spiritual driving force to overcome various difficulties and obstacles and to meet challenges. Only by facing difficulties head-on and striving to catch up can we open up a new situation for accelerating the development of new quality productive forces. (Author’s affiliation: Southeast University)

此外，虽然李斯特的生产力理论囿于时代和阶级的局限，无法深入生产力发展的本质，但是当我们在充分扬弃其阶级立场、消解其理论的片面性之后，就会发现他的学说特别是部分举措对于当前发展新质生产力仍然具有一定的借鉴价值，这也是“新李斯特经济学”兴起的主要原因。根据李斯特的观点，国家干预、保护关税以及民族精神对于后发国家发展生产力而言是至关重要的。就现阶段的国际国内形势而言，这三者无疑具有鲜明的现实针对性。具体来说，第一，发展新质生产力正需要发挥新型举国体制的优势。当前首要任务是聚焦国家战略需求，实施核心技术攻坚。在量子计算、芯片制造、高端装备等关键领域加大自主攻关力度，以突破性创新培育发展新动能。这就需要发挥新型举国体制优势，集中力量办大事，建立动态跟踪世界科技前沿的响应机制，形成可持续的科技原始创新能力。第二，发展新质生产力还需要破局当前复杂的国际贸易保护形势。近年来我国外部经济环境发生剧烈变化，新质生产力的发展遭遇严峻考验。特别是个别国家，实施贸易保护主义政策，并在核心技术领域针对我国进行长期封锁。长远来看，关税壁垒没有真正的赢家。因此，我国在面对美国的关税施压时，同样也以恰当的方式还以颜色。第三，发展新质生产力更需要弘扬中华民族的伟大民族精神。习近平多次强调：“精神是一个民族赖以长久生存的灵魂，唯有精神上达到一定的高度，这个民族才能在历史的洪流中屹立不倒、奋勇向前。”中华文明在长期的历史积淀中孕育了伟大民族精神。伟大民族精神为我们克服各种艰难险阻，应对挑战提供了强大精神动力。只有迎难而上，奋起直追，才能为加快发展新质生产力打开新局面。（作者单位：东南大学）

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗