>>519080312
lol lad. let me go through the first part since you think it undermines literally anything:
"The commodity is then sold precisely for what it is worth, or for what it really costs the person who brings it to market;"
in smiths natural price, the commodity (that has already been produced by wage-labor) already has profit included. the price of the commodity itself implies profit, or else there would be no point in producing it!
"for though in common language what is called the prime cost of any commodity does not comprehend the profit of the person who is to sell it again, yet if he sells it at a price which does not allow him the ordinary rate of profit in his neighbourhood, he is evidently a loser by the trade;"
smith here rebukes the older concept of "prime cost" because it DOES NOT include the profit required for producing a commodity. that is what he means by "does not comprehend the profit"
"since by employing his stock in some other way he might have made that profit. His profit, besides, is his revenue, the proper fund of his subsistence."
this means no one would produce a commodity if it didn't have profit, because there is an associated opportunity cost. you would be a loser.
much like marx says, and the formulation M->C->M, the capitalist only produces commodities for profit. theres no point otherwise. the only thing he adds is a moral character where the profit constitutes exploitation