Ricardian Socialism...is this a new school?

[RadioRaheem84]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_socialism

Interesting stuff. Apparently there are Ricardians who take an even greater belief in Labor Theory of Value than Marx.

Just what is this school all about? Is it real socialism?

[Nolan]

I was under the impression they saw the free market as the path to socialism. But I'm not sure.

[¿Que?]

I was under the impression they saw the free market as the path to socialism. But I'm not sure.
Isn't that pretty standard Marxism, though. That a society goes through stages defined by the mode of production. So that capitalism is a stage that a society will go through in the path towards communism.

In fact, wasn't there a whole debate about the Soviet Union (and China), since it didn't go through the capitalism stage, and the question was, if socialism was possible without first going through capitalism?

[Nolan]

Isn't that pretty standard Marxism, though. That a society goes through stages defined by the mode of production. So that capitalism is a stage that a society will go through in the path towards communism.

In fact, wasn't there a whole debate about the Soviet Union (and China), since it didn't go through the capitalism stage, and the question was, if socialism was possible without first going through capitalism?

Well, I meant I thought they were some kind of mutualists or market socialists, except based on Smith and Ricardo instead of Marx or anarchist thinkers.

[Nolan]

Is it real socialism?

I guess, if youre into mutualism and that sort of thing. It's not the type of socialism I envision.

Here we go in a nutshell:


...the setting up of worker co-operatives in a communal property system.

[¿Que?]

Well, I meant I thought they were some kind of mutualists or market socialists, except based on Smith and Ricardo instead of Marx or anarchist thinkers.
Ah. I see. Sorry if I came across as a dick.

[Nolan]

Ah. I see. Sorry if I came across as a dick.

Yeah, I don't use "free market" to mean capitalism unless noted otherwise. :thumbup1:

[Nolan]

What do people think of Rousseauvian socialism? I don't have time to research it now.

[vyborg]

Ricardian socialism predated Marxism...dont you ever read Marx?? He speaks a lot about them. In the XX century there is a left wing tendency in ecoonmics that is ricardian (Bortkiewicz, Dimitriev, Sraffa, Garegnani, Steedman, Okishio, Morishima and so on). They made good contribution to economics, but they never understood what really marxian economics is.

[Dave B]

Isn't that pretty standard Marxism, though. That a society goes through stages defined by the mode of production. So that capitalism is a stage that a society will go through in the path towards communism.


In fact, wasn't there a whole debate about the Soviet Union (and China), since it didn't go through the capitalism stage, and the question was, if socialism was possible without first going through capitalism?



I seem to remember reading a long essay or whatever written by some academic(s) justifying the move to capitalism in China circa 1980 that was pulling out and using Lenin’s state capitalism quotes.

It was quite interesting just for the fact that they seemed to have most of them.


Lenin was pretty clear on the subject of needing a capitalist stage in 1905.

In 1918 you could say he hadn't changed his mind and that it was 'childnishness' to think otherwise.




The new Iskra-ists thoroughly misunderstand the meaning and significance of the category: bourgeois revolution. Through their arguments there constantly runs the idea that a bourgeois revolution is a revolution which can be advantageous only to the bourgeoisie. And yet nothing is more erroneous than such an idea. A bourgeois revolution is a

page 43
revolution which does not go beyond the limits of the bourgeois, i.e., capitalist, social and economic system. A bourgeois revolution expresses the need for the development of capitalism, and far from destroying the foundations of capitalism, it does the opposite, it broadens and deepens them. This revolution therefore expresses the interests not only of the working class, but of the entire bourgeoisie as well. Since the rule of the bourgeoisie over the working class is inevitable under capitalism, it is quite correct to say that a bourgeois revolution expresses the interests not so much of the proletariat as of the bourgeoisie. But it is entirely absurd to think that a bourgeois revolution does not express the interests of the proletariat at all.
This absurd idea boils down either to the hoary Narodnik theory that a bourgeois revolution runs counter to the interests of the proletariat, and that therefore we do not need bourgeois political liberty; or to anarchism, which rejects all participation of the proletariat in bourgeois politics, in a bourgeois revolution and in bourgeois parliamentarism. From the standpoint of theory, this idea disregards the elementary propositions of Marxism concerning the inevitability of capitalist development where commodity production exists. Marxism teaches that a society which is based on commodity production, and which has commercial intercourse with civilized capitalist nations, at a certain stage of its development, itself, inevitably takes the road of capitalism. Marxism has irrevocably broken with the ravings of the Narodniks and the anarchists to the effect that Russia, for instance, can avoid capitalist development, jump out of capitalism, or skip over it and proceed along some path other than the path of the class struggle on the basis and within the framework of this same capitalism.
page 44

All these principles of Marxism have been proved and explained over and over again in minute detail in general and with regard to Russia in particular. And from these principles it follows that the idea of seeking salvation for the working class in anything save the further development of capitalism is reactionary. In countries like Russia, the working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism. The working class is therefore decidedly interested in the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism. The removal of all the remnants of the old order which are hampering the broad, free and rapid development of capitalism is of decided advantage to the working class. The bourgeois revolution is precisely a revolution that most resolutely sweeps away the survivals of the past, the remnants of serfdom (which include not only autocracy but monarchy as well) and most fully guarantees the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism.


That is why a bourgeois revolution is in the highest degree advantageous to the proletariat. A bourgeois revolution is absolutely necessary in the interests of the proletariat. The more complete and determined, the more consistent the bourgeois revolution, the more assured will be the proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie for Socialism. Only those who are ignorant of the rudiments of scientific Socialism can regard this conclusion as new or strange, paradoxical. And from this conclusion, among other things, follows the thesis that, in a certain sense, a bourgeois revolution is more advantageous to the proletariat than to the bourgeoisie.


http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/TT05.html#c6 (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/TT05.html)

As was Stalin, where the ‘democratic revolution’ was a euphemism for the capitalist revolution.

J. V. Stalin THE PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY



"In other words, in so far as the Italian revolution will be a democratic and not a socialist revolution it would be a great mistake to dream of the rule of the proletariat and remain in the government after the victory; only before the victory can the proletariat come out jointly with the petty bourgeoisie against the common enemy. But who is arguing against this? Who says that we must confuse the democratic revolution with the socialist revolution? "


http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/PRG05.html (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/PRG05.html)


The Mensheviks were plugging and going along the line of the last paragraph of the famous Turati letter as mentioned in the Stalin article.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_01_26.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_01_26.htm)



And in the "but also from above, from the marble halls of the provisional government" piece in Lenin’s

THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. APRIL 12 (25) - APRIL 27 (MAY 10), 1905

http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/TC05.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/TC05.html)




...

[Communist]

.
Just as a friendly note.
I see the thread, despite a nice effort from vyborg, has been derailed.
And somehow Stalin makes an appearance. It will be his last. He has no connection to the OP, nor does Trotsky so don't bother.
Get back on topic or I will close this.
.

[Dave B]

Ouch!

Better get back on track then, the following may be of interest;



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch01b.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch01b.htm)




Perhaps I can be now forgiven then for side tracking, a bit.


As somebody mentioned the ‘connected’ Rousseau socialism, I think the clearest vision of it was in fact in his best selling novel where he describes a `why can't we all just get along together' sort of thing.

As in perhaps in the Ideal Household of the Wolmar's in the love story `La Nouvelle Heloise';



`There is never either sullenness or discontent in obedience because there is neither haughtiness nor capriciousness in the command (of the master). Because nothing is demanded which is not reasonable or expedient, and because the master and mistress sufficiently respect the dignity of man, even though he is a servant, so as to employ him
only with things that do not debase him."

"the servants know well that there most assured fortune is attached to that of their master and that they will never want for anything as long as the house is seen to prosper. In serving it, therefore, they are taking care of their own patrimony and increasing it by making their service agreeable; this is to their greatest self interest."



Letter X-to Lord Bomston



It is a great book by the way and people believed it was true.

Although having read Rousseau in some detail I think he was taking the piss n his other stuff as well and was using ‘satire’.

....

[ZombieGrits]

From what I can tell the Ricardian socialists predated Marx. Looks like they just advocated a capitalist economy, but one where the workers get a much larger cut of the profits; but they didn't actually do anything to try to bring this about and thus fall in with other such reformists that Marx so disliked. I don't understand the "Ricardian" moniker fully, I never had the dedication to slog through "The Principles of Political Economy" just to figure that out :D

[vyborg]

Some ricardian socialist was pretty radical (Hodgskin, Bray etc.). Marx studied them a lot and considered them great theoretician and comrades. But they were active too early, vis a vis the modern labour movement, hence their naivetè in terms of what socialism is, how to defeat capitalism, etc

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Ricardian socialism" was most likely similar to this (but don't critique it too much):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/prospects-russian-revolution-t126942/index.html?p=1719523

[RED DAVE]

.
Just as a friendly note.
I see the thread, despite a nice effort from vyborg, has been derailed.
And somehow Stalin makes an appearance. It will be his last. He has no connection to the OP, nor does Trotsky so don't bother.
Get back on topic or I will close this.
.Stalin, Trotsky and Lenin went into a bar together ... . :D

Anyway, I believe that Marx engaged in a critique of Ricardian socialism on the way to developing his system.

RED DAVE