Chen Liangbin: How Latecomer Countries Develop Productivity—Starting from Marx's "Draft of an Article on Friedrich List's Book: The National System of Political Economy"
Friedrich List was one of the earliest thinkers in the history of political economy to propose a theory of productive forces. His magnum opus, The National System of Political Economy, attempted to explore the possibility of how an underdeveloped 19th-century Germany might catch up with and surpass advanced nations like England and France by developing its productive forces, based on the national conditions and history of European and American countries. Regarding this, in his 1845 draft Draft of an Article on Friedrich List’s Book: Das Nationale System der Politischen Oekonomie (hereafter Critique of List), Marx launched a fierce critique of List's theory of productive forces and characterized this "German theorist" as a "true German Philistine." However, with the rise of the "Neo-Listian School" in domestic and international academia at the beginning of the 21st century, List’s theoretical contributions have once again become a topic of heated debate. This year marks the 180th anniversary of the writing of the Critique of List. Based on a restudy of this text, this article attempts to re-examine and interpret Marx’s theory of productive forces and its contemporary relevance surrounding the epochal issue of "how latecomer nations develop productive forces," thereby providing a scholarly reference for current research on promoting the development of new quality productive forces.
I. The Developmental Path of National Productive Forces: The "Listian Vision" for Germany's Rise
List was a pioneer of the 19th-century German Historical School [1], and his teachings possess a strong historicalist and nationalist character. His life was spent traveling between the European and American continents, allowing him not only to witness the entirely new vista of bourgeois rule brought about by the English, American, and French Revolutions but also to experience firsthand the revolution in productive forces brought by the Industrial Revolution, which established the leading advantages of early-developed nations like Britain and France. It was precisely out of concern for the widening gap between Germany and nations like Britain and France that "List’s doctrine essentially focused on one theme: how to utilize proactive means such as state intervention and tariff protection within an existing unjust international order to vigorously cultivate productive forces and promote industrial development, so as to catch up with the advanced... highlighting the perspective of a latecomer, specifically manifested in revealing the power gap between leading and backward countries... and searching for an effective catch-up development strategy." It is evident that List set the tone for the German Historical School—namely, emphasizing the historical and indigenous nature of economic development, opposing the then-prevailing positions of British Classical Political Economy, and focusing on seeking a path to rise based on Germany’s own interests.
List's theory of productive forces serves as the core of his vision for national strength; its theoretical premise is built upon a critique of universal free trade. In List’s era, Britain was "the model for all nations" and became an object of emulation. Consequently, Adam Smith’s political economy became the "popular school" of cosmopolitanism. Although its ideological essence represented British interests, it catered to the needs of market development and bourgeois growth, presenting itself as a universal cosmopolitan ideology that took as its "task the exposition of the principle of absolute commercial freedom throughout the world." List maintained a clear head regarding this, believing that Smith's "popular school" had "in the past, through the exaggerations of scholars... confused the normal consciousness of mankind." List realized that the crux of Smithian economics lay first in its "boundless cosmopolitanism." In his view, this so-called cosmopolitan economics assumes a boundless ideal state, placing different nations and peoples at an undifferentiated stage of development, where nations automatically form a lasting peaceful world alliance and then a unified world market, "deducing from this the immense benefits of free trade. This confuses cause and effect." This advocacy for universal free trade essentially reflects British interests. Having undergone the Industrial Revolution, Britain urgently needed to export its industrial products to global markets; thus, a universal system of free trade was the trade principle that best satisfied and maximized British interests. Therefore, it was not the world market or a world alliance that required free trade, but rather Britain that intended to use free trade to open the world market and seize massive profits. On this basis, List critiqued Smithian economics for confusing cause and effect. For latecomer nations, so-called cosmopolitan free trade would bring about a total catastrophe. He pointed out that "as soon as the time is ripe, a system of nations headed by England will be formed, and at that time the status of continental European nations will plummet, and their people will become insignificant, unprofitable nations." In this British-style free trade world system, the German nation could only be reduced to a dependency of British industry and commerce, never escaping its backward fate.
After piercing the lie of Smith’s so-called universal free trade, List further discovered a greater problem in Smith's research method: the conflation of national economy with private economy. This led to viewing material wealth or exchange value in the private economy as the sole object of study, falling into "dead materialism" and "fragmented, narrow parochialism and individualism." In List's view, Smith’s naming of his work An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was in name only; he was utterly unable to answer realistic questions at the national level, such as what methods early-developed nations used to acquire and maintain their dominant positions, or how nations that were once powerful in history lost their advantage. To this end, List emphasized using history as a basis to explore the true mystery of national wealth growth and national strength. By reviewing the history of European countries and combining it with his own experiences, he discovered that "the degree of development of a nation is primarily... determined by the degree of development of its productive forces." For example, even though the United States was severely weakened during the Revolutionary War, after winning independence, its productive forces increased infinitely, and its national strength grew unprecedentedly in just a few years; while Germany, after suffering blows such as famine, epidemics, and war, was always able to quickly restore a degree of prosperity because it preserved the majority of its productive forces. For a nation, "the power of producing wealth is therefore infinitely more important than wealth itself." On this basis, List proposed that "the source of national productive forces is the mental and physical powers of individuals, the social and political conditions and institutions of the individuals, the natural resources available to the nation, or the instruments owned by the nation as material products of previous mental and physical efforts of individuals (i.e., agricultural, industrial, and commercial material capital)." It is evident that List's connotation of national productive forces is very broad and complex, encompassing numerous elements from the individual and society to the state. Morphologically, it includes both material productive forces and spiritual productive forces, with List placing particular emphasis on the role of the latter. Regarding how a backward Germany could develop national productive forces, List systematically proposed his theory, which consists of three main parts: the theory of state intervention, the theory of industrial priority, and the theory of trade protectionism.
First, List emphasized that state intervention is the practical premise for promoting the development of productive forces. For latecomer nations, only under the intervention of a strong national power can they embark on a development path to catch up with and surpass powerful nations. Due to his promotion of the state's role, List even named his economics "National Economics," [2] claiming, "A primary characteristic of my system is the nation... the entire structure of my theoretical system is based on this point." According to List’s research, when a country transitions from agriculture to manufacturing and maritime trade in its early stages, the fastest and most beneficial method is to practice free trade; however, to truly achieve the comprehensive and favorable development of industrial manufacturing, it can only be accomplished through state intervention. Specifically, in foreign relations, the state protects national interests through interventionist means such as trade tariffs, and can also stimulate and develop national productive forces through means such as war; in internal 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, science, and technology. Meanwhile, the nation's laws and public institutions have a direct promotional effect on the development of productive forces themselves: "Although laws and public institutions do not directly produce value, they produce productive forces." Furthermore, List highlighted that the evolution of the national spirit plays an irreplaceable role in developing productive forces, and he even highly praised the importance of spiritual productive forces. In his view, when seeing Britain’s leading advantage, the German nation must not lose heart: "It is particularly important that we have a sufficient national spirit, act immediately, grasp the most critical points, and strive forward." By awakening and condensing the national spirit, the backward Germany would radiate powerful spiritual productive forces.
Second, List proposed that the core of developing national productive forces lies in prioritizing industrial development, which is the inevitable path for latecomer nations to join the ranks of advanced countries. "Industry is the mother of science, literature, the arts, enlightenment, freedom, beneficial institutions, and national power and independence." The progress of industry can promote the rational layout and overall development of the national industrial structure; especially for Germany, which was still dominated by agriculture at the time, it could significantly change the status of industrial backwardness. Industry can transform natural resources and natural powers into productive capital; meanwhile, industrial progress can not only absorb surplus agricultural populations but also indirectly promote the technical content of agriculture and help improve animal husbandry. Thus, "when one sector is improved, it prepares the way for and promotes the improvement of all other sectors... in short, the entire industrial power of the nation constitutes an indivisible whole." At the same time, industry is the result 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, manifested in the constant emergence of new products, inventions, and processes that save labor and raw materials, thereby continuously stimulating more enterprising and innovative spirits. Therefore, industrial progress not only brings about a huge change in the overall economic landscape of the nation but also exerts a significant influence on the spiritual outlook of the people. List believed that industry is conducive to both the development of the people's physical strength and the enhancement of their intelligence and the stimulation of universal civilizing forces, promoting the formation of a new national spirit. From this perspective, "for a country to be able to protect itself, it should establish industry and promote industrial development using all available material and human resources. Without industrial development, the foundation upon which national independence rests is extremely insufficient."
Finally, List believed that trade protection is an effective way for latecomer nations to strengthen their own productive forces. In the face of the British-led trade system of the time, Germany had to impose protective tariffs to develop national productive forces and strengthen national industry. In List's view, "the theory of productive forces in national economic doctrine not only explains why protective tariffs are necessary but also explains how they should be applied." The goal of protective tariffs is to protect and promote the natural development and strengthening of national industrial manufacturing, shielding it from the harm of predatory competition from foreign products. "Tariffs are not only a method of protecting domestic industry but also a weapon used by the state to protect itself and resist foreign aggression." Therefore, even as a leader, Britain still did not abandon its protective tariff policy at that 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 pointed out that in actual application, decisions must be made according to "the specific circumstances and relative situation of the backward country in its relationship to more advanced countries." For German national industry, in the early stages of development, protective tariffs must be set very lightly and must not exclude foreign competition from the start; this helps stimulate domestic industry to grow under pressure, and then "gradually increase as the nation's spiritual and material capital, as well as technical capacity and enterprising spirit, grow." Meanwhile, different sectors should be treated differently according to specific circumstances; important industrial sectors (industries of significant importance for national independence and autonomy—for Germany at that time, these were textiles such as cotton, wool, and linen) require focused protection, while other secondary sectors can be moderately protected. After the domestic industrial system as a whole has developed and strengthened, protective tariffs can be gradually reduced again, eventually allowing domestic industry to compete on the same stage and freely with the industries of early-developed nations in domestic and international markets, striving to obtain and maintain a dominant position.
II. The Truth of Productive Forces and the Leapfrog Development of Latecomer Nations: Marx's Critique and Transcendence of List
According to the view of Eugen Wendler, author of a biography of List, Marx should have been very familiar with List's views even before writing the Critique of List. This is because he [context continues]...
Beginning in 1842, [Marx] commissioned manuscripts from figures such as Brüggeman, editing and publishing several articles criticizing List. Of course, it was only in the "Draft of an Article on Friedrich List’s Book" that Marx systematically presented his critique. Broadly speaking, Marx argued that List was merely engaging in spiritualist rhetoric regarding national productive forces, using the hollow ideal of a so-called German uprising as a pretext while ignoring the reality of the productive forces—the impoverished condition of the workers. Marx accused List of reducing human beings to objects, "constantly repeating talk of protective tariffs and 'truly German' factories," and "creating for himself an 'idealized' economy quite different from the mundane French and English political economy." For a backward Germany, such an 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 obfuscation of the industrial system, and the true essence of trade protection.
First, Marx criticized List's theory of state intervention for harboring the "hypocrisy of the German bourgeois seeking dominance." While List righteously criticized cosmopolitan economics as representing the interests of the British bourgeoisie, he championed the German national spirit and the "national association of state productive forces," as if he were the spokesperson for the German national interest. By analyzing the current state of Germany, Marx pointed out that the so-called national interest was nothing more than the collective interest of the German bourgeoisie—a bunch of "idealizing German philistines who want to get rich"—and that the national spirit was merely a product of affected, idealistic interpretation. The emergence of the German bourgeoisie benefited from Napoleon's Continental System [3], and they grew strong by relying on industry and mining. However, compared to the British and French bourgeoisie at the time, their power was still relatively weak, and they had not yet seized state power. As Engels pointed out, "The French and English middle classes [bourgeoisie] are already powerful enough to have overthrown the nobility and to have raised themselves to the position of the ruling class in their respective countries, whereas the German middle class does not yet possess such power." Because the German bourgeoisie needed to exploit the proletariat internally to grab profits while facing the pressure of British and French bourgeois competition externally, they were forced to resort to the defense of national interests and request state intervention in the economy to provide protective tariffs.
Thus, it appeared as though "the German bourgeois, through Herr List, proves to the state... that his superior insight into the economic knowledge of the state... demands that the state act according to his interests, yet he frames this demand as a recognition of the state, acknowledging its right to intervene in the realm of civil society." As for why List frequently invoked the national spirit to intervene in the development of productive forces—even infinitely elevating productive forces from material to spiritual ones—Marx believed this was List's habitual use of spiritualist beautification to conceal his true aims. In reality, to ensure their pursuit of wealth was consistent with public belief and did not violate their own religious concepts, the German bourgeoisie packaged material wealth as "infinite productive forces" with a spiritual essence. They claimed their ultimate goal was to foster national spirit and develop human capabilities—an empty discourse strategy whose essence lay in exploiting the religious and national characteristics of the German people.
Second, Marx believed List’s "industry-first" theory confused the power evoked by industry with industry itself. To this end, Marx discovered the internal contradiction between the power evoked 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 bourgeoisie was to implement the exploitation of workers found in the British factory system, yet they were unwilling to openly admit its cruel nature. Instead, they claimed to establish a so-called harmonious production organization, which in fact only reflected that "the wolf has the same (identical) interest as his fellow wolf." Therefore, List's praise for industrial productive forces was actually praise for the bourgeoisie. In Marx's view, modern productive forces were created unconsciously by industry, but their conditions for existence were inhuman; therefore, workers would inevitably oppose the industrial system, especially the domestic industrial system that directly enslaved them. "The first step toward breaking the fetters of industry is to escape the conditions under which industrial power now operates, those chains of money, and to examine this power itself. This is the first call to humanity: to liberate their industry from buying and selling, and to understand current industry as a period of transition." It can be seen that although the power evoked by industry was the slave of the bourgeois at that time, it would eventually smash its chains, blow up the industrial shell of the bourgeois and their private property, and become the bearer of human liberation. Thus, the power evoked by industry is not only a force for transforming nature but also the key to blowing up capitalist private property.
Finally, Marx pointed out that List failed to realize that free trade and the protective tariff system are identical in essence; both are concrete manifestations of the logic of capital at different stages. List naively believed that free trade naturally represented British interests, while protective tariffs embodied German interests. In Marx's view, protective tariffs provided a weapon for the bourgeoisie to seize domestic dominance, while free trade cleared obstacles for their global expansion, with the working class always being the sacrificed party. Regarding List’s protectionist stance, Marx exposed its clear bias when he attended the Brussels Free Trade Congress in September 1847, noting that List only protected large-scale machine industry and did not defend traditional handicrafts. List intended to push for the comprehensive establishment of the capitalist mode of production by replacing manual labor with machines. However, while this system helps the development of large-scale industry at a specific historical stage, it ultimately lands the nation in a predicament—"the protective system is nothing but a means of establishing large-scale industry in any given country, that is to say, of making it dependent upon the world market, and from the moment that dependence upon the world market is established, there is already more or less dependence upon free trade." Therefore, the inevitable result of protective tariffs is to tie the nation to the chariot of capital as it expands into the world market. The "favorable" conditions brought by capital expansion will eventually be dissolved by the mechanism of competition. The positioning of workers as a "special productive force" keeps them perpetually at the bottom, crushed by the logic of capital. Thus, Marx's critique penetrated the surface of economic policy to point directly at the irreconcilable class contradictions under the capitalist system.
In the process of criticizing List’s theory of productive forces, Marx used the concept of "productive forces" many times, and thereafter gradually constructed his own landmark theory of productive forces, thereby achieving a transcendence over vulgar national economists like List. Marx's transcendence of List is reflected in two ways: on the one hand, he examined the truth of developing productive forces in backward Germany from the standpoint of the proletariat, thus moving beyond List's narrow perspective of the German bourgeoisie; on the other hand, regarding the solution, he discovered the essence of German backwardness through the internal contradictions between the productive forces and the relations of production. This allowed him to overcome List's limitations of trying to develop productive forces via protective tariffs without touching Prussian royal power.
As is well known, the theory of productive forces occupies a core position in the entire theoretical system of historical materialism. Almost all of Marx's major innovative ideas can be traced back to his theory of productive forces. Overall, Marx’s theory can be understood from both micro and macro levels: at the micro level, starting from political economy, Marx systematically analyzed the elements, dynamics, and structure of productive forces, providing a mature theoretical tool for dissecting capitalist productive forces; at the macro level, standing on the position of the historical materialist outlook [4], Marx revealed the scientific laws governing the contradictory movement between the productive forces and the relations of production, pointing out that productive forces are the decisive power 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 should develop their productive forces.
Specifically, at the micro level, Marx followed the principle that "the anatomy of man is a key to the anatomy of the monkey," starting from the reality of capitalist society to study the material conditions of productive forces and the process of their internal contradictions' emergence and development. During the writing of the critique of List, Marx's main task was to criticize List's concept of productive forces. In The German Ideology, Marx formally expounded on the problem of productive forces for the first time, but the focus then was on the contradictory movement between productive forces and forms of intercourse, especially pushing forward the issue of alienated productive forces under private property first raised in the critique of List from the perspective of the division of labor. Thereafter, although Marx continued to deepen his micro-level understanding of productive forces, it was not until the writing of Capital and its manuscripts that he officially established the classic definition: "Productive force is, of course, always the productive force of useful, concrete labor." In the Grundrisse (1857–1858 Manuscripts), Marx explicitly divided productive forces into "subjective" and "objective"—that is, "it includes the subjective productive force, which appears as a characteristic of the individual, as well as the objective productive force." Subjective productive force refers to the labor capacity of the human being as a subject, externalized in the laborer, in which intelligence increasingly becomes an important factor; objective productive force refers to the productive capacity of material elements, externalized in the means of labor and the objects of labor, among which the tools of production occupy the primary position. The components of productive forces include not only simple elements like laborers, objects of labor, and means of labor, but also involve organizational management, natural forces, and science and technology. It must be noted that science and technology were always regarded by Marx as an important kinetic energy driving the development of human society. Marx pointed out: "Productive forces develop continuously with the continuous progress of science and technology." By dissecting the capitalist mode of production, Marx revealed the essential characteristic of science being embedded within the structure of productive forces. In the 1861–1863 Manuscripts, Marx devoted a special chapter to "Machinery, Natural Forces, and the Application of Science" to systematically demonstrate the internal connection between productive forces and science and technology. In Engels' eyes, Marx attached great importance to the role of science and technology in advancing productive forces: "In Marx’s view, science was a historically dynamic, revolutionary force. However great the joy with which he welcomed a new discovery in some theoretical science... his joy was of a quite different kind when it was a question of a discovery which afforded immediate revolutionary changes in industry and in historical development in general."
If at the micro level, the specificity 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 forms. To penetrate the micro-phenomena of capitalist society, we must grasp the general laws of human history from a macro perspective—the contradictory movement between the productive forces and the relations of production. Admittedly, in the critique of List, Marx's theoretical cognition had not yet reached the height of "productive forces and relations of production," but words in the text such as "industry," "real social organization," and "conditions of existence" were already close to the connotation of relations of production. At the same time, Marx's explicit suggestion to break the fetters of industry and escape the chains of money was already quite close to his expressions in his mature period. Of course, the most classic formulation of this scientific law was proposed 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 forces of production. 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 architecture. Its external operating mechanism is manifested in the contradictory movement between the productive forces and the relations of production—existing relations of production constitute both the boundary of the quantitative change of productive forces and the object of breakthrough for their qualitative change. Meanwhile, its internal structure contains a dynamic mechanism led by the tools of production. As the core benchmark, tools of production not only determine the technical level of a specific historical stage but also shape the interaction between laborers and the means of labor. This is because the innovation of production tools will completely reconstruct the structural relationship between productive forces and the relations of production. It was on the aforementioned theoretical basis that Marx was able to fully deploy the construction of historical materialism for understanding and transforming the world.
Compared to List, who was limited to the self-development of the bourgeoisie in a backward Germany, Marx always focused on the fate of the broadest proletariat, especially the future of the proletarian revolution in the vast number of late-developing countries. In Marx's initial theoretical conception, the communist revolution would occur simultaneously in developed countries like Britain, France, and Germany. Of course...
"Simultaneous occurrence" outlines only a historical trend of development; the specific speed and difficulty of a communist revolution’s actual development depend on the level of development of the productive forces—that is, "whether this country has more developed industry, greater wealth, and a more considerable mass of productive forces. Therefore, the communist revolution will develop most slowly and with most difficulty in Germany, and most rapidly and easily in England." It is evident that for Germany, as a late-developing nation, to achieve communism, the primary prerequisite was to possess highly developed productive forces. Subsequently, when Marx shifted his focus from European society to a broader Oriental society, the question of how communist revolutions in Oriental nations would be realized became the focus of his later years. After rigorous investigation of the revolutionary potential of Oriental societies, particularly Russia, Marx proposed the famous thesis of "leapfrog" development for late-developing nations—the realistic possibility of the Russian commune bypassing the "Caudine Forks" [5]. He suggested that "Russia may, without passing through the Caudine Forks of the capitalist system, appropriate all the positive fruits of the capitalist system for use in the commune." This was because the Russian commune, as a form of primitive communal land ownership, was closer in terms of relations of production to the "higher form of communist public ownership." Once the Russian revolution completed the leap across relations of production, it would conversely drive Russia to "increase the total mass of productive forces as rapidly as possible," thereby allowing it to obtain the "material conditions for proletarian liberation" as quickly as possible. Therefore, the key for Russia, as a late-developing nation, to achieve leapfrog development lay in fully absorbing "all the positive achievements of the capitalist system" while independently adjusting relations of production to open a window of possibility for the liberation of the productive forces.
III. How to Develop New Quality Productive Forces in the New Era: Contemporary Enlightenment from Marx’s Critique of List
Since the "October Revolution," how late-developing nations can escape poverty and achieve modernization by developing productive forces, in hopes of catching up with and surpassing developed nations, has consistently been a core issue of socialist economic theory. It is also a central topic of common concern for current developing countries. Presently, with the iterative development of emerging technological industries such as digitalization and artificial 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 proposed 180 years ago in the Critique of List—provides a powerful theoretical basis and practical guidance for our current advancement of new quality productive forces.
First, the development of new quality productive forces must rely on scientific and technological innovation. Xi Jinping has stated: "New quality productive forces are led by innovation; they break away from traditional economic growth modes and development paths for productive forces. They feature high technology, high efficiency, and high quality, and constitute an advanced state of productive forces that aligns with the New Development Philosophy." As a developing nation, if China is to achieve leapfrog development in its productive forces, it must firmly grasp the core engine of scientific and technological innovation. By developing new quality productive forces, it can break through technical bottlenecks in key fields and reshape new advantages in global competition. The essence of new quality productive forces lies in driving a qualitative leap in productive forces through disruptive technological innovation; their developmental state is directly related to national development and security. At present, the global technological revolution is characterized by the convergence and breakthrough of multiple fields. Frontier areas such as information technology, biotechnology, and quantum technology are restructuring human production and lifestyles, while the competition between major powers has evolved into a wrestling match in high-tech fields. Facing the reality that China still encounters "chokepoint" [6] dilemmas in core technologies, there is an urgent need to construct a "trinity" [7] development path of "tackling key problems—integration—transformation." Meanwhile, we must build a collaborative development system of "innovation chain—industrial chain—value chain," driving industrial upgrading with high-tech supply to form a deep integration of technological and industrial innovation. This requires, on the one hand, strengthening the status of enterprises as the main subjects of innovation and promoting the precise alignment of research directions with corporate needs, so that enterprises truly become the core carriers of technical integration and industrial transformation. On the other hand, it requires accelerating the transformation and application of scientific and technological achievements, shortening the innovation cycle from the laboratory to the production line through the construction of concept verification centers and other carriers. Practices such as the global networking of the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System and the vertical integration of the new energy industrial chain demonstrate that technical breakthroughs can only achieve an exponential effect when embedded in the entire chain of industrial upgrading. Furthermore, the key is to construct a collaborative innovation ecosystem involving industry, academia, research, and application. By improving the financial support system for technology, optimizing intellectual property protection mechanisms, and cultivating new formats of technological services, a virtuous cycle of basic research, technology development, and result transformation can be formed. This requires not only government guidance to aggregate innovation factors in strategic fields but also the decisive role of the market in resource allocation, allowing innovative vitality to burst forth continuously through market testing.
Second, the development of new quality productive forces must promote the renovation of relations of production associated with technological development, providing suitable soil for the liberation and development of productive forces. According to Marx’s theory of productive forces, relations of production must adapt to the development of the productive forces; once relations of production lag behind, they become a fetter. Although China has achieved major breakthroughs in some cutting-edge fields during its technological development, we must recognize that monopolies and deliberate blockades by developed countries regarding core technologies still exist. China's allocation of technological innovation resources is fragmented, the efficiency of transforming technological achievements is not high, and the upgrading of the modern industrial system has not yet been completed. This indicates that some existing relations of production cannot fully meet the needs of developing new quality productive forces. Regarding this, Xi Jinping 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 deepen reform comprehensively to form a new type of relations of production that corresponds to them." The core of these so-called new relations of production lies in building an institutional ecosystem that stimulates the potential for disruptive technological innovation and accelerates the industrial application of scientific research—encompassing property rights protection, factor mobility, market incentives, and other multiple dimensions. Advancing this systemic project requires us to make breakthroughs in two directions: we must break the institutional barriers formed by traditional path-dependence, while simultaneously building a governance system that supports the transition of techno-economic paradigms. On one hand, by deepening reform across all fields, we should focus on improving the market-based allocation mechanism of innovation factors, eliminate institutional obstacles to the flow of core factors such as talent, capital, and data, and build an innovation ecosystem conducive to the incubation and diffusion of disruptive technologies. On the other hand, we must establish a flexible regulatory framework and dynamic adjustment mechanisms to guide high-quality resources toward strategic emerging industries. Through the dividends of institutional innovation, we can stimulate a leap in total factor productivity, eventually forming a development pattern where productive forces and relations of production promote each other in a virtuous cycle.
Finally, developing new quality productive forces requires managing the relationships between various factors of production. Unlike traditional productive forces' reliance on single factors, 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 flow of factors of production and build a more resilient factor allocation system. Especially against the backdrop of digital technology transforming traditional production, the reform of factor allocation needs strategic breakthroughs across multiple dimensions. The urgent priority is to establish a collaborative innovation network for production factors. This requires resolving the dual-structure contradictions in the factor market: we must abolish administrative restrictions on the cross-regional flow of labor and construct a gradient mechanism for technology transfer. For example, through digital infrastructure construction, we can achieve the pervasive integration of data factors with traditional industries and reconstruct the factor linkages of global value chains via cross-border e-commerce platforms. At the same time, we must build a value transformation system for production factors. To address the dilemmas of data factor rights confirmation and the effects of knowledge spillovers, we need to explore a benefit-sharing mechanism based on "quantification of contribution + risk sharing." For instance, in the green industrial transition, a linkage model of carbon factor pricing and ecological compensation can be formed, transforming factor advantages into sustainable competitive advantages. Furthermore, we must improve the governance framework for production factors. Categorized governance strategies should be implemented according to the characteristics of different factors: intensifying intensive allocation mechanisms for physical factors like land and energy, and establishing flexible regulatory "sandboxes" for virtual factors like technology and data. Through factor exchanges and cross-border flow pilot zones, we can achieve the dynamic optimization of factor allocation and accelerate the improvement of total factor productivity. Reform of the factor market should also maintain a strategic balance; we must not only integrate into the global factor cycle through opening up but also build a security barrier for key factors.
Furthermore, although Friedrich List’s theory of productive forces was limited by his era and class position, making it impossible for him to penetrate the essence of productive force development, once we fully sublate his class stance and dissolve the one-sidedness of his theory, we find that his doctrine—particularly some of his measures—still holds certain reference value for the current development of new quality productive forces. This is the primary reason for the rise of "Neo-Listian Economics." According to List, state intervention, protective tariffs, and the national spirit are crucial for late-developing nations to develop their productive forces. Given the current international and domestic situation, these three elements undoubtedly possess distinct practical relevance. Specifically: First, developing new quality productive forces precisely requires leveraging the advantages of the New Whole-Nation System [8]. The primary task at present is to focus on national strategic needs and implement "assaults" on core technologies. In key fields such as quantum computing, chip manufacturing, and high-end equipment, we must increase independent research efforts to cultivate new drivers of development through breakthrough innovation. This requires utilizing the advantages of the New Whole-Nation System to concentrate resources on major tasks, establishing a response mechanism that dynamically tracks the frontiers of world technology, and forming a sustainable capacity for original scientific innovation. Second, developing new quality productive forces requires breaking through the current complex situation of international trade protectionism. In recent years, China’s external economic environment has changed drastically, and the development of new quality productive forces has encountered severe tests. In particular, certain countries have implemented trade protectionist policies and targeted China with long-term blockades in core technological fields. In the long run, there are no real winners in tariff barriers. Therefore, when facing tariff pressure from the United States, China has appropriately responded in kind. Third, developing new quality productive forces even more urgently requires carrying forward the great national spirit of the Chinese people. Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized: "Spirit is the soul upon which a nation depends for its long-term survival. Only by reaching a certain spiritual height can a nation stand firm and forge ahead in the torrent of history." Chinese civilization has nurtured a great national spirit through long-term historical accumulation. This spirit provides us with powerful spiritual motivation to overcome various difficulties and respond to challenges. Only by facing difficulties head-on and racing to catch up can we open a new chapter for the accelerated development of new quality productive forces.