Those who have studied economics know that Adam Smith emphasized the importance of division of labor for the economic development. This part remains the most well-known in the whole chapters of the Wealth of Nations. Although having a deep respect for Smith’s scholarship and his analysis of how division of labor leads to the higher productivity and to the economic development, there have been economists who were not satisfied with his explanations. Friedrich List was one of them. List said that one has to cooperate with other members of the society to achieve a good performance, thus obtaining a higher level of production. It is true enough that Smith had emphasized this point when talking about division of labor in factories, but he did not extend his argument to the case of division of labor in the society, so List. List applies the argument to the division of labor in a country, without extending the case to the international division of labor. According to List, this would be impossible due to wars and recessions, both of which could lead to the collapse of trade between the nations.  This communitarian way of understanding division of labor finds its echo in the German Ideologies written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. In their understanding of human nature, one works with others in every form of production. In capitalist societies the division of labor depends on members’ ability and coincidence, while in communist counterparts people can choose their professions based on their own will. Thus, Marxian image of a good society is different from that of the forerunner of the German Historical School. List was basically of the opinion that the economic productivity can be increased by the cooperation between the players and by some kind of coordination from above. Marx and Engels tend to think that the slight decline of productivity can be allowed in the case of developed countries. Nobody denies the Smithian assertion that division of labor leads to the economic development, but the substantial content of the message is totally different if one interprets it in a communitarian way.