← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · PaleoconAvatar

Friedrich List: The Return of Race and Nation to Economics

Thread ID: 14045 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2004-06-04

Wayback Archive

PaleoconAvatar [OP]

2004-06-04 00:00 | User Profile

Friedrich List: The Return of Race and Nation to Economics

Karl Kammler

Worsening Trade Imbalances

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is concerned about the trade deficits the United States has been consistently running, calling the deficit “unsustainable” as it hovers above 4 percent of the gross domestic product. The de-industrialization of the First World, including the United States and Great Britain, caused by the relocation of factories overseas in search of the cheaper wage scales made possible by Third World peons, is ravaging these nations. How could these nations have gone so wrong? Put simply, they lost sight of the centrality of race and its vessel, the nation. Their leaders came to believe their own lies, and began following the free trade bromides intended only for the consumption of their competitors, culminating in the GATT and NAFTA agreements.

Friedrich List versus Adam Smith

Friedrich List (1789-1846) was a German-born economist and a trade policy advisor to the United States government during the first half of the nineteenth century. He published The National System of Political Economy (1840), a critique of the “English school” (or neoclassical) system of laissez-faire economics advocated by men such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and J.B. Say. List’s analysis and critique of the English school provides us with a tool for understanding how our “unsustainable” trade deficits arose, and points us toward real solutions to the problem.

The English school suffers from several fundamental errors in its theory, according to List. First, the English school possesses a blind cosmopolitanism that denies the “principle of nationality” in human affairs. Second, it has a “dead materialism” that recognizes only the “mere exchangeable value of things” and ignores the role of the political and the mental. Third, it promotes a hyper-atomistic individualism that severs the bonds of identity and unity between citizens in the nation. Predictably, List’s criticisms of the English school remain valid today precisely because the English school is based on a liberal, materialistic world view, holding that men are equal and interchangeable and capable of establishing a “harmony of interests” across borders.

List contrasts his system, which he calls the “theory of productive values” with that of the English school, the “theory of exchangeable values.” The difference between the two conceptions of political economy is best encapsulated by List’s metaphor of the value of a fruit tree. List makes the common-sense observation that “the tree which bears the fruit is of greater value that the fruit itself.” The fruit tree represents the non-material values and investments in the future that makes production and commerce possible. These investments include military defense and education—the “consumption of present values” for the sake of future generations. List condemns the neoclassicists for their implicit calculation that “a Newton, a Watt, or a Kepler is not so productive as a donkey, a horse, or a draught-ox.” List’s emphasis on “productive powers” necessarily implies a role for state power in order to promote the national interest over the individual interest, and important long-term goals rather than ephemeral short-term ones. List believes individuals, left to themselves, all too often choose short-term outcomes that sacrifice the national welfare in the long run, such as purchasing cheaper foreign products that destroy domestic industries, raise unemployment, and impoverish the would-be consumer.

Trade protectionism, oft-maligned by the Establishment, is a necessary component to encouraging national economic development. List argues that shielding domestic industry from predatory foreign competition provides it the opportunity to show its capability, bringing about better products and lower prices as competition within the home market expands. He recognizes that at first, this may involve both state intervention to erect a tariff wall, and a temporary increase in prices before the domestic industrial base expands enough to compensate for the change in the trading system. Wilmot Robertson, author of The Ethnostate, agrees that discipline over the long-term yields positive benefits for the economy, and is well worth the temporary sacrifice.

The Reality of Race and Nation

List’s defense of the principle of nationality anticipates and refutes the claims heard today from trendy egalitarians, that race does not exist, and that nations are but arbitrary lines drawn on a map. List would recognize these dismissals, as he criticized those who call the nation a “grammatical invention.” Far from being arbitrary, List’s definition of a nation is concrete and vivid, one well worth reminding ourselves. For List,

“Between each individual and humanity…stands the nation, with its special language and literature, with its peculiar origin and history, with its special manners and customs, laws and institutions, with the claims of all these for existence, independence, perfection, and continuance for the future, and with its separate territory; a society which, united by a thousand ties of mind and of interests, confines itself into one independent whole, which recognizes the law of right for and within itself, and in its united character is still opposed to other societies of a similar kind in their national liberty, and consequently can only under the existing conditions of the world maintain self-existence and independence by its own power and resources.”

List’s definition beautifully, albeit implicitly, captures the vision of racial nationalism, self-determination, and separatism. Earlier in time, and in the American context, The Federalist Papers expressed the explicit link between race and nation, identifying race as a crucial element of the nation-state. In Federalist No. 2, John Jay wrote with pride that the United States was comprised of “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language…very similar in their manners and customs.” This congruence testifies to a rich tradition, an alternative to the raceless, global pan-capitalism that reigns today, as well as to its Marxist competitor. List and Jay represent a vibrant intellectual heritage for guiding a nationalist trade policy, one rarely acknowledged by “mainstream” sources today.

The Folly of Believing One’s Own Lies

The “classical realist” scholar of international relations par excellence, E.H. Carr, noted that nations often cloak their own interest “in the guise of a universal interest for the purpose of imposing it on the rest of the world.” Carr points out that “the English-speaking peoples have formed the dominant group in the world” and that “current theories of international morality have been designed to perpetuate their supremacy.” Thus, those who promote the ideals of liberal internationalism and free trade are actually quite illiberal beneath the surface. List suggests as much about the English propensity to preach free trade to other nations while not following their own advice. Neither List nor Carr explicitly raise the question of whether such nations can mistakenly weaken themselves by believing their own lies. It is evident that in the realm of free trade, our leaders have made this blunder, and become the prisoners of their own ideology. Using liberalism as a weapon on others, they shot themselves in the foot.

As List traces the history of British trading relations, he demonstrates that the Empire played the game valiantly, and successfully—as long as it refrained from truly liberalizing its own markets. Indeed, the United States followed in its wake. “Playing the game,” however, was not enough to maintain economic security; it has now been shown that it is the player that counts, not merely the rules of the game or the moves made in that game. That player must retain knowledge of his identity, and act accordingly to preserve it. Britain and the United States lost sight of this rule, and fell into their own trap. List agrees that a nation is only as good as the quality of its people. The soft-headed among society may recoil at such a suggestion, but no human being (or group) can escape his nature, which science demonstrates is overwhelmingly heritable.

The Wealth and Work of the Jews

It is worth noting that the Jews have worked diligently to eliminate knowledge of the essential element of race among Whites. This tactic is an eminently realistic move on their part, since they have maintained that knowledge among themselves, in private, while promoting the lie of equality for the consumption of all other groups. Time will tell whether the Jews will ultimately succumb to their own trap of promoting racial equality in the same way the British and Americans had with promoting free trade.

An unfortunate flaw in List’s writings arises when he laments the expulsion of the Jews from England, because their departure left England “drained of a large amount of capital.” His statement implies that England would have been better off if the Jews had stayed, because their capital would have remained in the nation. By analyzing the issue only in economic terms, it does not occur to him to ask how the Jews accumulated such a large amount of capital in their hands, and whether that fact might have led to their expulsion. He apparently loses sight of his own argument favoring productive values over exchangeable values, especially since the English were merely protecting themselves in accordance with the principle of nationality that List supports. List nearly stumbled on some very “politically incorrect” terrain.

It is not surprising that the true nature and significance of the Jews in European financial affairs escaped List’s analysis. That nefarious race has a marked talent for chameleon-like infiltration and deception. Moreover, the Jews are the archetypal example of a rootless, or, as List might call them, a cosmopolitan, people. Their behavior in the context of the market economy is therefore reflective of their nature, which is readily apparent in the misdeeds of a Michael Milken, for instance. Their racial modus operandi consists of short-term plunder followed by flight, showing a total disregard for any concept of appreciation for locality or place. Ironically, List’s underestimation of the Jews confirms the larger validity of his project—one must take into account the principle of nationality.

An Economy for Us

The work of Friedrich List shows us that economies must be infused with life—the consciousness of blood. A system of economics that respects the central role of race is a system that is for someone, not one that operates indifferently by an “invisible hand.” It is a system designed and operated for us, a particular people with a distinct history and unique aspirations. Its central goal is not vague and empty notions of prosperity; its purpose is Life itself—to bring about healthy White families and thus the continuation and advancement of the race.

List points us toward a certain priority of values that can help Whites realize their destiny assigned them by the Creator. The full meaning of true political economy, or today’s “economics,” is far greater than altering the trade balance in a positive direction for the United States. Resolving the trade imbalance is a wise and practical aim, but prosperity is not an end in itself. This point differentiates the racial nationalist position from watered-down “conservative” or libertarian modes of thought. Too many Americans view tax cuts, for example, as ultimately the desirable policy goal of their political leaders. Prosperity is meaningless unless it secures the survival and progress of the race that made that prosperity possible in the first place.

Racial health is the apex of what List called “productive powers.” No responsible government can permit those productive powers to be sacrificed on the altar of “exchangeable values” in pursuit of a quick profit. Trade statistics and balance sheet figures may change from one moment to the next and material fortunes inevitably rise and fall. A long-term view of economics is more revealing—our race persists. Our genetic heritage forms the ultimate storehouse that must never be robbed.

edward gibbon

2004-06-04 00:22 | User Profile

List is often cited as the most influential economist in the Japanese recovery from World War II.

PaleoconAvatar

2004-06-04 00:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=edward gibbon]List is often cited as the most influential economist in the Japanese recovery from World War II.[/QUOTE]

He's well known and well regarded overseas, but many economics classes taught around this country don't even mention his name. A shame.

Valley Forge

2004-06-05 02:32 | User Profile

Who was the economist that came up with the concept of the "fortress economy"? Was it List?

I googled "fortress economy," but couldn't find an answer in the first few pages of hits.

PaleoconAvatar

2004-06-05 02:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Who was the economist that came up with the concept of the "fortress economy"? Was it List?

I googled "fortress economy," but couldn't find an answer in the first few pages of hits.[/QUOTE]

It was the German philosopher Fichte.

Exelsis_Deo

2004-06-11 04:41 | User Profile

It's truly awakening to realize that an economist 150 years ago foresaw the problems which plague the United States today. Unfortunately, the remedy to the situation cannot any longer be addressed by economic or political means. Things have truly gone so far beyond, that only a different approach to remedy even has any chance of making a difference.