It’s Ricardian. Marx took up the categories of “political economy” (what Raya later called “bourgeois thought of bourgeois mode of production”) and implodes them by uncovering the real social relations behind these seemingly given “things.” Ricardo was a part of classical political economy and one of the best since he was able to understand the movement of the categories better than the vulgar economists. But he still sided with the view of private property as a natural human condition and ascribed a kind of supernatural power to labor that we see Marx sharply diverging from in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. The Marxist orthodoxy (social democracy, Lenin (with some exception), Stalin, and Trotsky) took Marxism as a “new political economy”, a corrective to “bourgeois political economy” (which is a redundancy). They essentially made Marxism Ricardian by missing the whole method of “diremption,” imploding the categories of political economy instead of trying to mediate them externally. Which is partly why orthodox Marxism found itself merely trying to better manage capitalism than overthrow it.
Marx’s “corrective” to Ricardo, if we leave aside his overall methodology which sees relations instead of things (or things as a mode of expression of relations), is that he puts forward the unity between the “division of labor” and “private property,” the first referring to the activity of alienation, while the latter refers to its result (which is why in his debate with Proudhon he says he doesn’t “side” with labor against property because they are the same thing). Furthermore, he took Ricardo’s category of “labor” (reified as inherently one-sided) and split it into “living labor” and “labor-power.” Is isn’t labor as activity that is commodified and sold but workers capacity to work. People aren’t paid for their labor but their ability to labor which must be reproduced through the wage. If they were paid for their labor, they would be paid the full value of what they create which makes no sense because that tears the entire rug out from under wage labor, surplus value, and profit and therefore capitalism as a whole. Ricardo knows workers doesn’t get paid for all of their labor but he is never able to theoretically clarify what it is that becomes commodified. He was trapped by the fetish of relations as things in perpetuity.
And this is why some of my fellow Wobblies fall short when they reproduce the both incorrect and tautological phrase that “profits are stolen wages.” Wages and profits both are forms of alienated labor.