Take the US. In 1750… it was one of the richest societies on earth, but it was, of course, pre-industrial. If it had pursued its comparative advantage in accordance with market principles, it would now be exporting fish, fur, agricultural products, etc.
Um, no, if it had pursued its comparative advantage in accordance with neoliberal principles, it would now be exporting fish, fur, agricultural products, etc.
Instead, it industrialized, but not by adherence to market principles. Rather, by radical violation of these principles consciously undertaken to change its comparative advantage (otherwise known as development).
But it was development in the direction of large-scale, export-oriented industry, with a generally centralist model of economic organization, and labor relations I suspect Chomsky wouldn't be too happy with.
He completely ignores a third possibility: decentralized, bottom-up development, with improved technology integrated into small-scale local economic organization.
High tariffs, subsidized internal improvements, and all that other Federalist-Whig nonsense, were not "progressive." Apparently Henry Clay was Chomsky's beau ideal of a statesman.