>From this quote we can see that Marx seems to accept Smith’s distinction that capital is not a political power.
I honestly don't see how you came to that conclusion from what you quoted.
First of all, you have to take into account when Smith published his work - 1776. This is decades before the French Revolution, and practically a century before the wave of bourgeois revolutions that defined Marx's time. Smith was, at the time, absolutely correct about people with fortunes not necessarily gaining any political power. From the bit about
>a certain command over all the labour
you can certainly gather that, regardless of his current political power, the non-aristocratic rich were gathering a fair amount of de facto power that would need to be formally recognized one way or another (chop chop, you filthy aristos).
Marx, living as he does in the time of the bourgeoisie's ascension to political power, writes that
> His power is the purchasing power of his capital, which nothing can withstand.
What part of 'power which nothing can withstand' makes you think Marx is saying that the bourgeoisie lack political influence?
>What Marx means by stored-up labour?
Capital is value that has been created by labor.
>Isn't capital today more than that?
It really, really isn't. I assume you're thinking of finance capital. In the final analysis, the only non-fictional part of finance capital is the interest paid on debt. Debt is, essentially, a claim on future labor.
>How are prices concealed in late capitalism today?
Message too long. Click
to view full text.