Talk:Friedrich List

List's Successful Economic Model
List was the only person who thought seriously about the obvious fact that international trade is not necessarily best for each nation considered as a separate entity.

List's theory of development seems to me to be: a) Opening up of a backward economy to the global economy   b) Protectionism for weak industries, once these have got started c) A careful opening up when the new industries mature

This was model for the growth of both the USA and Germany, and a perfect match for all successful moves from agriculture to industrial life. The Republic of India also fits, Nehru favouring protectionism and some opening-up in recent years. The East Asian 'Tiger' economies were also very protectionist when they were growing fast, as was Japan.

From a Listian viewpoint, the Soviet block's success with an ultra-protected economy in the 1930s and 1940s was entirely to be expected. The error was then to be inconsistent and half-hearted in opening up while they were still world class.

From a Listian viewpoint, Mao was correct to close off China in the 1950s and Deng was correct to open up again in the 1980s, but to do so cautiously.

Of course List was politicaly a liberal and would probably have disapproved of both Mao and Deng. But the broad theory can be considered separately from the man's other opinions, just as Einstein's Theory of Relativity is accepted as true by people who would not share his belief in Socialism, Zionism and Pacifism (or would agree with some but not all of his political views).

--GwydionM 20:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The industialization programs of both Stalin and Mao were based on forced labor, so they hardly fit the theory of List. Actually, the whole point of his theory is to take politics into account, so considering the economic part of the theory separately from its political part is contrary to the very spirit of List's book. He insisted on writing on political economy.--Sredni vashtar 22:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Whilst it is clearly the case that List was a political economist that is not to say he would have disapproved of the protectionist economic techniques used by Chinese leaders in the twentieth century (regardless of their ethical implications). A radical distinction between List's own political/ethical views (i.e. that forced labour is un-ethical) and his prescription for successful emergence into the international trading system is essential. I agree with user GwydionM and also think that this debate does not need to be pursued as it is a distraction from recollecting List's theories. (Dm85 (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

Lyndon LaRouche & List
The followers of Lyndon LaRouche seem to be enthusiasts for List. Whether the feeling would have been returned is more doubtful. Myself, I discovered List independently and have a low opinion of LaRouche. Despite which, I have pointed to their sites where these seem usefull.

I'd be interested if anyone has information about the LaRouchian claim that "In September of 1931, the Friedrich List Society held a top-secret seminar in Berlin." Did such a body actually exist? I've googled, and every reference I've found has a LaRouchian flavour.

--GwydionM 20:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The Friedrich List Society did exist back then, whether or not it exists today I do not know. If you speak German, you will probably find more reference to this society meeting. OR if you are really interested, why not look at who wrote the article(s) on the LaRouche pages and email them asking for the sources. Chances are that it will take the person seconds to remember and reply. What is a LaRouchian flavour? Did you know that the LaRouche Movement re-published some of List's writings?

The Friedrich List Society DID hold a meeting in 1931 discussing how to deal with the global and national economic crisis. Several books are written on this.

Borchardt, Knut and Hans Otto Schötz (eds.). (1991). Wirtschaftspolitik in der Krise. Die (Geheim-)Konferenz der Friedrich List-Gesellschaft im Sept.1931 über Möglichkeiten und Folgen einer Kreditausweitung, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft

Brügelmann, Hermann. (1956). Politische Ökonomie in kritischen Jahren. Die Friedrich List-Gesellschaft E.V., von 1925-1935., with an introduction by Edgar Salin, Tübingen: Mohr, Gr.-Oktav. XIX, 192 p.

The Friedrich List Society closed itself down in 193? but refounded itself after WW II. It does exist today but is unfortunately not very energetic. The Friedrich List Society's journal does not differentiate itself very much from mainstream economic journals. This may be one reason for the low activity and popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnomd (talk • contribs) 08:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

arnomd

Point of view ?
This article seems quite ecstatic about List. There should be a place for the contradictors' opinion, first of all. And why not mentioning List's nationalistic opinions ?


 * Whose contradictory opinions? Also List wasn't a nationalist in the modern sense - he saw a 'cosmopolitical world' as the desirable long-term outcome.  --GwydionM 17:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article has a tone of praise that is not quite fitting. For instance, it mentions List's predictions about the rise of the US and Russia, but does not mention that, according to List, Holland and Denmark would be condemned to permanent economic backwardness unless they sought political union with Germany. Lots of his predictions were mixed with wishful thinking and pretty much off the mark, in fact. I think this should be somehow mirrored in the article, otherwise the readers get a wrong idea. --Sredni vashtar 22:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to correct the article's faults. WAS 4.250 15:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just changed a sentence in the introductory section, which claimed List was an inspiration for the European Union. I know of no such thing, and the source given in fact is about List's arguing in favour of the Zollverein. It also states that he was celebrated by the Nazis, which might be something worthy of inclusion, also with regard to the conversation below about his views on Jews... Inkathi 04 October 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkathi (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Restored the section about List's view of Jews
Someone who finds it 'non-notable' still has no right to remove it. It is one of the obvious questions that would be asked regarding a pioneer of economic nationalism in Germany.

If you don't agree, WAS 4.250, please take it to a mediator.

--GwydionM 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you willing to add to the article to explain why "It is one of the obvious questions that would be asked regarding a pioneer of economic nationalism in Germany."? WAS 4.250 18:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Googling for his name yields 814,000 hits while googling for his name and the word "jew" yields 796 hits. Less than one hit in a thousand has both. As near as I can tell there is no connection between this man and "jew" except for those who think everything is connected to "jew". The jew section must be deleted or adequately explained. It is not enough to assert that what someone somewhere once might have said he thought about jews must be on this page. WAS 4.250 19:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Duhring took up List's ideas. Duhring was a pioneer of modern anti-semitism, frequently references as such.  I wanted the Wikipedia to give accurate information about what List himself thought.

Googling for "Eugen Dühring" shows 24,500 hits so he is nothing compared to List. The List article should not be spammed with the entrails of some miscreant who sits on his coattails and spews forth antisemitism. WAS 4.250 23:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've restored the direct quotations from Henderson and List himself, removing anything that might be deemed original to me. It is very relevant, because anyone who looks into the subject will discover the link.


 * Remember that the Wikipedia is global. English-speakers take little notice of List and there isn't any English-language book about Dühring.  Elsewhere, who knows?

If you don't agree with this, please take it to mediation, Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-28 Friedrich List.


 * --GwydionM 12:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)--


 * I agree with WAS 2.50. --Northmeister 20:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
I'm going to offer to mediate Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-28 Friedrich List.

Let me describe myself first.
 * I am Jewish (though an atheist) and since this issue does involve anti-Semitism you may want to reject me as mediator on these grounds
 * I understand economic theory though am not an economist
 * I do not know anything about Duhring, List or LaRouche

So two questions;

jbolden1517Talk 15:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you all agree to mediation with me as the mediator?
 * 2) Assuming yes can you explain to me why there is a claim the List/Duhring/Jewish link is original research?


 * I'm willing to go to mediation, although I don't feel terribly strongly about the issue. I removed the section in question as someone who knows very little about List, but who read the section in question and saw absolutely no sources that justified its inclusion.  So, as one of the editors who removed the original research, I'll quote Jimbo's dictum from WP:NOR:

The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up. From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder:
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. (emphasis in original).
 * At no point were any citations given to any third parties who discuss List's view of Jews as significant in and of themselves. Without that, the decision to include an entire section on them, replete with weasel words such as "List seems to have taken" and novel, unsourced statements such as "Marx was clearly well aware of what List was on about but chose never to deal with it directly" is a fantastic example of original research.  The author of that section &mdash; as near as I can tell &mdash; seems to have decided that List's view of Jews is significant, and has strung together some disjoint factoids to support that thesis.  If List's view of Jews is indeed significant, then it should be trivial to find some reliable sources who discuss it directly, rather than having Wikipedia editors make the ridiculous inference that Marx's not discussing List's perspective on Jews is dispositive proof of something or other. Nandesuka 15:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This whole affair I recently came upon, seems to be about Duhring and not List. List was to the best of my knowledge, not an anti-semite; although Duhring seems to have been.  Whether Duhring was or not is not a point for this article.  List was primarily an economist who influenced the economic views of Bismarck's Germany; yet the other policies Bismarck took up were influenced from elsewhere.  I see no point in mentioning Duhring nor Duhring's views. So I am not sure why a previous editor insists on including them; when List did not influence Duhring's apparent anti-semitism. --Northmeister 16:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Three of us agree that it does not belong for the reasons stated above. One person who has refused to even discuss the matter with us (read the history of this page) has called for mediation. I think as mediator your response should be swift direct and obvious. Or is it not obvious? WAS 4.250 16:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The entire argument presented to us for keeping the material has been to state twice If you don't agree with this, please take it to mediation. Three against one with this presented as the argument on the side of the one. Why? What's going on? Do you think the argument given to the mediators on the mediation page makes sense compared to the above arguments? I don't. And even if you side totally with the lone uncommunicative one; then it is three against two. But numbers aren't important. Having a good article is. And including info on List's opinions about jews would turn this now good article into a worse article by including data that is given undue weight. And even if you think it should be in there, I would not wish to roll over and let you make the article worse thru this weird don't talk without a mediator present strategy. WAS 4.250 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to clarify that the problem is not "including info on List's opinions about Jews" but including such info without a strong justification that such info is relevant, and comes from reliable sources. Nandesuka 17:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly right. Which is why my very first words in response was Are you willing to add to the article to explain why. The replacement text provided was far better in being sourced but still represented undue weight due to a lack of sources establishing that any reputable authority thought his views on jews was worth mentioning. I deleted the initial subsection in question. Nandesuka deleted its unchanged replacement. And then the better but still unacceptable due to undue weight replacement text was deleted by Northmeister. In the mediation complaint an issue was also made about an unrelated sentence that I found to be unsourced and so removed it. WAS 4.250 18:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel you are right as is WAS 4.250. The prime problem is the POV statement "List seems to have taken a neutral view of Jews, and to have viewed them as economically useful." which proceeds a quote from "National System."  This quote: "Up to the time of Philip II... Spain possessed all the elements of greatness and prosperity, when bigotry, in alliance with despotism, set to work to stifle the high spirit of the nation. The first commencement of this work of darkness was the expulsion of the Jews, and its crowning act the expulsion of the Moors, whereby two millions of the most industrious and well-to-do inhabitants were driven out of Spain with their capital." (The National System of Political Economy, p 58.) which does not back up the original POV statement inferring that List only viewed Jews in a neutral point of view or that he viewed them only useful economically. The quote given actually says otherwise. List was commenting upon Spain's reasons for expulsion of Jews and Moors in larger context of Spanish policy.  There seems to be no good source or reason to back up the original sentence and what follows the original paragraph about Marx and Duhring.  Why include information like this?  What purpose does this have?  Where is the scholarly source to back up the supposition?  It seems quite odd to me.  There is no justification to include List's views of Jews no more than any reason to include his views of any people, including the Moors; as it was a quip and did not make up his life's work - which was essentially economics related. --Northmeister 19:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I worked with Northmeister at American System and while I claim nothing for myself with regard to indepth knowledge about List I have a great deal of confidence in Northmeister in this regard. WAS 4.250 20:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am happy to accept mediation. If the objection is to mentioning Dühring, I think this unfair but I am willing to compromise.  Just say:
 * Unlike later German nationalists, List was not hostile to Jews.


 * This is relevant because List was a German and a believer in economic control at the level of nations. There are obvious points of similarities to what followed.

--GwydionM 17:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Duhring
OK I have a question for both sides. Is
 * 1) List famous mainly as Duhring's teacher / predecessor / economic mentor
 * 2) much more famous in his own right
 * 3) somewhere in-between

I'm getting the impression its #2. Its seems like everyone agrees that List didn't write about Jews very often, which means the section isn't important. OTOH Duhring may have (though the Eugen Dühring article only mentions them for a few lines. I'm thinking List's views belong in the Duhring article as a footnote to this line, Duhring's economic views derive largely from those of Friedrich List. On other matters - particularly their attitude to Jews - the two men held very different opinions.  In other words pull out the quote without the context and attach to that line.  But that is dependent on #1 not being true.  jbolden1517Talk  01:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * List's stature stands equal to Adam Smith in regards to Germany and economic practices there prior to WWI and especially under Bismarck. His "National System of Political Economy" is a response to Smith's "Wealth of Nations" that was at the time much respected.  List also commented on the American economic system based on the policies of Hamilton in his "Outlines of American Political Economy." He has a picture in the US Capital due to his influence on American economic thought and the respect he held here that has essentially been forgotten in modern America.  Duhring is a side-issue and since List influenced many in the German Historic School of economics; I would suppose he might have influenced Duhring; but Duhring does not carry the stature of List nor are Duhrings anti-semitic views the result of List. So the whole inclusion of Duhring is a red-herring of some sort and not noteworthy nor a part of any synthesis of academia that I am aware of. Thus, number two by far. --Northmeister 02:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Engels's Anti-Dühring, he may well be better known. Engels also makes the connection between Dühring and List. I don't think it fair to expunge the link, even though I don't approve of the man. --GwydionM 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Gwydion I'm going to take your response as agreeing with Northmeister regarding the relative importance of Duhring and List (option #2). I'll make the edits I was suggesting see Eugen_Dühring and Friedrich_List


 * What is your point of including Duhring? He is not as notable as List; nor it is his views of Jews relevant here; nor was Duhring a mentor. Thus my question?  And if you are to include this individual, we need scholarly sources to indicate the connection. Like I said, whether he liked or not Jews is just as irrelevant as whether he liked the French or not; unless it was a prime motive for his economics. --Northmeister 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am willing to accept the mediator's intervention; however the common agreement here was that Duhring's reputation in economics is not equatable to Lists. To mention Duhring, seems to me to be an odd attempt to associate this individual with anti-semitism; which is the farthest thing from the truth by Gwydion own admission. So I am unsure why there needs to be mention of Duhring in List's article. What I am getting at - is I would like to know the source and reason for his inclusion here or links to him. From what I have read of Duhring, he was a socialist and List was certainly not - List was a Capitalist of the National or American school of interventionist nation centered capitalism - which was the philosophy of Bismarck and Lincoln's GOP. Hence, I would like to know the source and the reasoning. I am always willing to listen to why - with Duhring I don't see the relevance - enlighten me. --Northmeister 01:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember the link doesn't mention anything about Duhring. The point of the link is that List was an influence on Duhring (in economics) not the other way around.  I'm trying not to draw too much attention but we could do something like:


 * Eugen_Dühring Dühring was a famous follower of List's economic theories
 * or rephrase however you like. We can talk about a drop but I'm not sure I can get consensus on that.  This setup was a suggestion to see where we stand.   When List died Duhring was 13 so there is no question there was no influence in the other direction.
 * As an aside Britannica has about 35% more on Duhring than on List (though no mention of the connection).

jbolden1517Talk 02:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. America and Germany were the prime believer's in List who strongly opposed the then "British System" of economics rooted in Smith and Cobden supporting Free Trade, which is why his picture hangs at the United States Capitol building. Down-playing List is a sport among economists who also downplay Carey or the entire history of the USA prior to modern times. Its unfortunate, but true, for our children's future. Just look at any Abraham Lincoln biography; it overlooks his earlier career which was primarily economic in nature as a politician - supporting the Whig program (he was a Whig first) of Henry Clay.  The history of the Civil War overlooks the issue of the tariff, which the south opposed so much along with interventionist economic policies of the likes of Hamilton and Clay that they actually did not include "to promote the general welfare" in their Constitution and actually forbid protective tariffs. Yet, we are told it was slavery alone - not quite.  But, I am off point.  If List influenced Duhring, that is fine, to be frank never heard of this character til now. I just need a source that says that - other than propaganda from Engles or Marx who were forwarding their own economic views. Certainly Duhring must had written his economic principles came from List or that he was inspired by him or an academic somewhere must have put two and two together. I have never seen the connection - so I challenge the very conclusion until a connection can be made; which if it can be shown me - I am fine with the present situation you have worked out - if not then I must insist on removal of that unsourced material or original research. --Northmeister 03:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair to me. Of course if there is no connection between Duhring and List then we should pull the quote from the Duhring article as well.  OK the ball is now entirely in Gwydion's court so we can wait for her to comment.  jbolden1517Talk  03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

economist vs political economist
List would be more accurately described as a Political Economist. In his time economics meant political economy. 70.29.108.115 (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

List, in fact, was primarily a journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkathi (talk • contribs) 18:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

List and Dühring
Henderson is clear about the link, that's the portion of the quote that was deleted;


 * Eugen Dühring, a lecturer at the university of Berlin, declared that List's doctrines represented 'the first real advance' in economics since the publication of The Wealth of Nations.


 * That's pretty weak. I've said that Fallen (album) is the best new group album since Nevermind that doesn't mean you can cite Amy Lee in my bio.  We need http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Upcoming_albumso say his economics from List or a long quote tying the two together something strong to show that List was a real influence.  Otherwise I don't see any reason to contrast List's ideas with Dühring's.   jbolden1517Talk  01:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

People should check a few facts before trying to lay down the law. You need only check my user page to discover my gender, for instance.


 * You were the one who asked for mediation. jbolden1517Talk  01:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To repeat, in English-speaking culture, Dühring is best known from Engels's criticism. His works don't seem to have been translated, nor is there a English-language book about him apart from Engels.


 * So quote him in German or use German wikipedia or .....

Engels also mentions the link: you only have to look in the index of Anti-Dühring. Or look at the stuff that has been deleted;


 * "It would be better to read Herr Duhring's chapter on mercantilism in the 'original', that is, in F. List's National System, Chapter 29..."

--GwydionM 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Duhring is not notable enough to include him in List's article from my observation. If you want to state that one of Duhrings motivations or inspirations for his economic views was List in his biography, then List is notable enough to do that. --Northmeister 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to continue this on the mediation page. --GwydionM 17:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've closed out the mediation and issued a comment/response. jbolden1517Talk 15:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Friedrich List. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104012325/http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/list.htm to http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/list.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060117032728/http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/soros2.html to http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/soros2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Dual Citizenship
I see this mentioned in the opening paragraph but it doesn't mention what his other citizenship was. Germany was not a united country prior to 1871 so I assume he was a citizen/subject of the kingdom of Wurttemburg? I'm pretty sure actually at that point in time dual citizenship didn't exist in the US and that you had to renounce fealty to any king in order to be a citizen. Can someone verify whether he actually somehow retained his citizenship in the kingdom of Wurttemburg?108.51.54.169 (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Friedrich List. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626025135/http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2004/Bolsinger.pdf to http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2004/Bolsinger.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012125147/http://www.atholbooks.org/timecapsule/articles/list_europe.html to http://www.atholbooks.org/timecapsule/articles/list_europe.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1989, MiNr 3238.jpg