Talk:Ricardian socialism

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ricardian socialism. 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/20150712235906/http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/utopia.htm to http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/utopia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The Ricardians' Relationship to Marx
The current article, in talking about the Ricardian socialists' relationship to Marx, is a bit misleading. It reads:

"Although Ricardian socialist thought had some influence on Karl Marx's theories, Marx rejected many of the fundamental assumptions of the Ricardian socialists, including the view that labor was the source of all wealth."

While this is true to the orthodox Marxist position -- such as that espoused by the source linked immediately after the sentence -- this does not capture the full extent of the debate about Ricardian socialism's influence on Marx. Other well-regarded scholars of Marx, such as GDH Cole (author of a well-respected multi-volume History of Socialist Thought in the 1950s) detect a strong influence on him, and see his divergences from them as evolutions in the theory rather than hard breaks; Post-Keynesians and Marxians influenced by Piero Sraffa, such as Ian Steedman, also see Marx as in this Ricardian socialist tradition, which is what precipitated Steedman's break from orthodox Marxism in favor of "Ricardian Marxism"; and I've found an article by one J.E. King of about the same length as the current source (https://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-abstract/15/3/345/11183/Utopian-or-Scientific-A-Reconsideration-of-the?redirectedFrom=fulltext) that says the exact opposite, that their influence on Marx is underrated.

While I think it may be too much to get into all of that in the article without adding a whole section about the debate, I would at least like to add the JE King source to this sentence and slightly rewrite it for balance's sake. I will proceed to do so, unless there are any objections. Feel free to revert it if I haven't followed the right protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:23C0:84B0:E458:F0B5:5493:3A48 (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)