- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 461 Hour
- Reading permission
Adam Smith was, for the most part thus right - if we allow a free market, the wealth will spread given everyone has an equal amount of labor power, more or less, at their disposal.
But that is rarely the case, because value of production almost never depends solely on amount of workers (or robots).
Even in such grassroot industries like farming, the quality of farmland, climate, and skills of the farmers have huge impact. Similarly in modern industries, mobile phones for example, there are reasons why some companies have bigger market share or profit margin than others, and those are much more than size of production lines.
I'll focus more on farming. For example in Europe and China, the climate in northern and southern parts is quite different. In Yunnan, albeit otherwise impoverished region, farmers can grow one crop or another aroun the year. But nothing grows in snow in the north.
In EU an attempt to level the playing field is to subsidize farmers in the climate-challenged areas, and thus make the game fairer for farmers competing freely in same market. Perhaps that is an example of socialist characteristics of EU.
Zimbabwe, and changes in land ownership arrangements there, is an example of skills of farmers having big impact on production.
This may be off the topic, but I just want to argue that value of production depends on many more dimensions than amount of workers or robots.
For example in modern industries, both manufacturing and service, the necessity and aspects of building a brand or other non-material value is something that I believe neither Marx nor Smith could consider in their time.
Therefore to me it is understandable why modern-day marxists do not emphasize the point you brought up - doing so requires them to neglect too many aspects of modern world, and renders their argument into theoretical debate about an alternative reality.