That's an interesting claim—that Haskell doesn't need object-like abstractions. I think it's really worth examining. I've said in the past the Haskell (and the ML-family) is possibly the only language which takes seriously initial data. That said, it still needs jerry-rigged abstract types to be efficient and I'm happy calling codata "object-like".

So really what I believe is that Haskell does a better job of being OO-FP than Scala does. I think there's still a happier medium between the two, though.

I'm also really eager to explore the type theorist's definition of OO in order to tease and bend the generalists definition. I'm not sure I completely agree about the idea of names that you outline, though. Existential types (and their dualized universal presentation) present unique types which could be named. State-transformer style (and the state-like monads) present a notion of identity-as-entity.

Again from the perspective of Haskell being a stab in the direction of a type theorists FP-OO language I find all of these features really interesting.