economists in general. If the bourgeoisie is destined to create “a world after its own image,” drawing “even the most barbarian nations” into the “civilization” of modem industrial society54—and modem industry ineluctably drove the vast majority of persons into such misery that social revolution was inevitable—all the lucubrations of the developmental economists were irrelevant in terms of history. Whatever his subsequent qualifications, Marx remained convinced throughout his life that industrialization and economic modernization were inevitable. Marx spoke of economic development as the result of “tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results. The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.”55 What he sought was an economic system governed by a universal plan rather than one driven by a lust for personal gain. As a consequence, Marx saw little to choose between developmental strategies. He recommended free trade and laissez-faire to less-devel- oped economies only because under their auspices the contradictions of modem industrial society would mature most rapidly—accelerating the circumstances that would “eventuate in the emancipation of the proletarians”56 through abolition of the market. Marx and Engels conceived economic development, industrialization, and modernization, in general, as part of an inevitable process of historical maturation that must necessarily involve all peoples and all parts of the globe. Because of its inevitability, they were indifferent about how economic growth and development might be achieved. They were even prepared to grant that the policies recommended by protectionists like Hamilton and List might be recommended in some circumstances. In various places Marx and Engels spoke of the United States, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and China, together with some of the colonized territories, as making recourse to all the strategies recommended by List in order to transform traditional economies into those that were industrially advanced.57 Marx understood List’s system as an effort to establish “manufacture upon a large scale in any given country.” While prepared to grant as much, he went on to argue that whatever the intention, the “national system” of development, by fostering industry, would ultimately drive the developing community into the world market—to engage the same reality of social revolution faced by nations that had achieved industrialization without the benefits of protectionism.58 Engels had made essentially the same argument as early as 1845.59 By the time The Communist Manifesto appeared in early 1848, Marx and
economists in general. If the bourgeoisie is destined to create “a world after its own image,” drawing “even the most barbarian nations” into the “civilization” of modem industrial society54—and modem industry ineluctably drove the vast majority of persons into such misery that social revolution was inevitable—all the lucubrations of the developmental economists were irrelevant in terms of history. Whatever his subsequent qualifications, Marx remained convinced throughout his life that industrialization and economic modernization were inevitable. Marx spoke of economic development as the result of “tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results. The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.”55 What he sought was an economic system governed by a universal plan rather than one driven by a lust for personal gain. As a consequence, Marx saw little to choose between developmental strategies. He recommended free trade and laissez-faire to less-devel- oped economies only because under their auspices the contradictions of modem industrial society would mature most rapidly—accelerating the circumstances that would “eventuate in the emancipation of the proletarians”56 through abolition of the market. Marx and Engels conceived economic development, industrialization, and modernization, in general, as part of an inevitable process of historical maturation that must necessarily involve all peoples and all parts of the globe. Because of its inevitability, they were indifferent about how economic growth and development might be achieved. They were even prepared to grant that the policies recommended by protectionists like Hamilton and List might be recommended in some circumstances. In various places Marx and Engels spoke of the United States, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and China, together with some of the colonized territories, as making recourse to all the strategies recommended by List in order to transform traditional economies into those that were industrially advanced.57 Marx understood List’s system as an effort to establish “manufacture upon a large scale in any given country.” While prepared to grant as much, he went on to argue that whatever the intention, the “national system” of development, by fostering industry, would ultimately drive the developing community into the world market—to engage the same reality of social revolution faced by nations that had achieved industrialization without the benefits of protectionism.58 Engels had made essentially the same argument as early as 1845.59 By the time The Communist Manifesto appeared in early 1848, Marx and