Marx was salty about capitalism because he understood a truth of such a system: the owner of the means of production captures most of the economic value generated by productivity gains from technological improvements. Famous examples include Ford's moving assembly line, which cut production time from 12 hours to 90 minutes for the Model T. In today's money, Ford became a billionaire, while base worker pay was "only" increased by ~200%. I'm not here to argue if this property of the system is fair or not. I think it is, especially when you also recognize that the car's price was reduced by ~65%. What societal benefits did that bring about? Was it a fair exchange? I don't know. The question I'm interested in is what do you do, as the owner of the means of production, when technological improvements bring about radical increases in productivity?
What do you do when, through some mathematical wizardry, your 100 developers are suddenly able to output the workload of 1000 developers? You can "divide" and lay off 90% of your workforce, get a nice boost in short-term profitability and cash flow, reduce operating expenses and increase net income. You'll even get a nice morale-boosting stock price gain! But then, something interesting happens; the underdog company that competes with you and has only 15 developers all of a sudden has 50% more output capacity than you!
Oh no. You better have a big moat. It could also be the case that output capacity doesn't really matter as there is a limited amount of work to do. What do you do? Do you divide or do you multiply?