Letter to Friedrich Engels, January 8, 1868

Author(s) Karl Marx
Written 8 January 1868


Source: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Correspondence (Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975).
Published in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 42, p.514

To Friedrich Engels in Manchester

First letter

DEAR FRED,

I have ditto received the Staats-Anzeiger and the Beobachter[1] from Kugelmann. I am returning you your Staats-Anzeiger today. Also the COPY Kugelmann sent me of the letter from the colonel[2] who arranged the whole thing.[3] Württemberg is now sufficiently provided. In my opinion,—with special regard to sales—Austria is now the most important. Notabene, if you have the patience to write more prescriptions.[4] Little Jenny, an expert in this respect, claims that you are developing great dramatic talent, or comic talent, in pursuing this action from 'different' viewpoints and in different disguises.

In the next few days—I am still a trifle limp, and do not feel much like writing—but as soon as I am quite on my feet I shall give Wilhelmchen[5] a good hiding. This is because of his identification of my views with the specific views of Wilhelm. Dühring's article[6] (he is lecturer at Berlin University) is very decent, particularly since I handled his master 'Carey' so roughly. Dühring obviously misunderstood various things. But the oddest thing is that he ranks me with Stein, because I pursue the dialectic, and Stein assembles thoughtlessly the greatest trivialities in clumsy hair-splitting, with a few Hegelian category conversions[7] . Have you already received Borkheim's Perle[8] ?

It appears that professional poesy is simply a mask for the driest sort of prosiness. Take, for example, the Freiligrath family. Kate travels (on her honeymoon) to Paris with Kröker, the young corn usurer. However, since this noble man has 'business' to do at the same time, he leaves her alone in one of the big Paris hotels for 2-3 days. Kate and the whole FAMILY find this quite in order. Kate even writes delightedly that in the hotel they call her 'mademoiselle' (after she had spent the night together with Kröker there), and that all the waiters and even the porter give her friendly 'nods'. But even more: Kröker (after this business trip to the provinces) returns from Paris immediately to London with Kate, and the whole family is delighted that the 'HONEYMOON' is to be postponed for 6 months, since business 'comes first'. After all, for a poet the HONEYMOON is only a flower of speech, and can be 'celebrated' before or after the accouchement, early or late (the facts were related by the Freiligrath boys[9] in my house). Kate even seems to have read Clauren, for she described herself—from Paris—as a 'grass widow'.

The Yankees will show John Bull what's what. What do you think of the latest rodomontades of the Russians?

Dwarf Alberich[10] was very delighted by your letter.[11] He is just off to the gymnastics school, where he is doing great things.

Salut.

Your

K. M

Second letter

Dear Fred

Ad vocem[12] Dühring.[13] It is a great deal from this man that he almost positively receives the section on Primitive Accumulation. He is still young. As a follower of Carey,[14] he is in direct opposition to the free-traders. Added to this he is a university lecturer and therefore not grieved that Professor Roscher, who blocks the way for all of them, should get some kicks.[15] One thing in his appraisal has struck me very much. Namely, so long as the determination of value by working time is left 'vague', as it is with Ricardo, it does not make people shaky. But as soon as it is brought into exact connection with the working day and its variations, a very unpleasant new light dawns upon them. I believe that an additional reason for Dühring to review my book at all was malice against Roscher. His fear of being treated like Roscher is certainly very easily perceptible. It is strange that the fellow does not sense the three fundamentally new elements of the book:

1) That in contrast to all former political economy, which from the very outset treats the different fragments of surplus value with their fixed forms of rent, profit, and interest as already given, I first deal with the general form of surplus value, in which all these fragments are still undifferentiated – in solution, as it were.

2) That the economists, without exception, have missed the simple point that if the commodity has a double character – use value and exchange value – then the labour represented by the commodity must also have a two-fold character, while the mere analysis of labour as such, as in Smith, Ricardo, etc, is bound to come up everywhere against inexplicable problems. This is, in fact, the whole secret of the critical conception.

3) That for the first time wages are presented as an irrational manifestation of a relation concealed behind them, and that this is scrupulously demonstrated with regard to the two forms of wages – time rates and piece rates. (It was a help to me that similar formulae are often found in higher mathematics.)

And as for Dühring's modest objections to the determination of value, he will be astonished to see in Volume 2 how little the determination of value 'directly' counts in bourgeois society. Indeed, no form of society can prevent the working time at the disposal of society from regulating production one way or another. So long, however, as this regulation is accomplished not by the direct and conscious control of society over its working time – which is possible only with common ownership – but by the movement of commodity prices, things remain as you have already quite aptly described them in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.[16]

Ad vocem Vienna. I am sending you various Vienna papers (of which you must return to me the Neues Wiener Tagblatt which belongs to Borkheim, and keep the rest), from which you will see two things: firstly how important Vienna is at this moment as a market place, since there is new life there[17] ; and secondly the way the matter should be handled there. I cannot find the address of Prof. Richter. Perhaps you have Liebknecht's letter which gives it. If not, ask him to send it to you, and then dispatch the article direct to Richter, but not via Liebknecht.

It seems to me that Wilhelmchen is by no means ALTOGETHER bona fide. He (for whom I have had to find so much time to make good his asininity in the Allgemeine Augsburger, etc.,[18] ) has so far found no time even to mention publicly the title of my book[19] or my name. He overlooks the affair in the Zukunft[20] so as not to be put in the embarrassing position of sacrificing his own independent greatness. And there was also no time available to say a solitary word in the workers' paper (Deutsche Arbeiterhalle, Mannheim), which appears under the direct control of his friend Bebel. In short, it is certainly no fault of Wilhelmchen that my book has not been totally ignored. First, he has not read it (although to little Jenny he made fun of Richter, who thinks that he needs to understand a book before he can publicise it), and secondly, after he had read it or claimed to have read it, he has had no time, although he has time, since I got him Borkheim's SUBVENTION, to write letters twice weekly to Borkheim; although, instead of sending the shares[21] to Strohn for the money, which was transmitted to him through me and obtained by my good offices, he asks for Strohn's address, in order to play his tricks with him directly, behind my back, and swamp him with epistles as he does Borkheim. In short, Wilhelmchen wants to make himself important, and in particular the public should not be distracted from its interest in Wilhelmchen. We must now act half as if we did not notice this, but still treat him with caution. As for his call to Austria, you cannot believe him until it has happened.[22] And secondly if it should come to this, we shall not dissuade him, but IF NECESSARY, simply explain to him what I explained to him when he joined Brass's Norddeutsche,[23] [24] that, if he should compromise himself again, he will be, if necessary, publicly disavowed. I told him this, in the presence of witnesses, when he moved off to Berlin at that time.

I think you can send articles direct to the enclosed Neue Freie Presse (Vienna). The present joint owner, Dr Max Friedländer (Lassalle's cousin and deadly enemy), was the person for whom I acted as a correspondent for a longish period for the old Vienna Presse and for the Oder-Zeitung.[25]

Finally, with regard to the Internationale Revue, Fox (who was sent to Vienna by an English paper to pay a visit and establish connections) asked me, from Vienna a few days ago, for a letter of introduction to Arnold Hilberg. I sent it to him, and at the same time told the said Hilberg in this letter that circumstances had prevented us writing, that we would do something this year, etc.[26]

Fortnightly Review. Professor Beesly, one of the triumviri who secretly direct this paper, has told his special friend Lafargue (whom he constantly invites to dine at his house) that he is morally certain (it completely depends upon him!) that a review[27] would be accepted. Lafargue would hand it in to him himself.

Ad vocem Pyat. In today's Times you will see the ADDRESS of the FRENCH DEMOCRATS about FENIANISM[28] (which appeared 4 weeks ago) and was sent in by Pyat.[29] What has happened is this. T h e French government has launched an investigation (particularly visites domiciliaires[30] at the homes of our correspondents in Paris) against the International Association as a société illicite.[31] Ditto probably sent to the British government letters about FENIANISM written by our Dupont.[32] Mr Pyat, who always ran down our 'Association' as non-revolutionary, Bonapartist, etc., is afraid of this TURN of things, and is swiftly seeking to give the appearance that he has something to do with the matter and is 'MOVING'.

Ad vocem Benedek[33] : can I have the journal for A FEW DAYS? YOU have now proven yourself twice a prophet, firstly a tactical prophet (in the Sevastopol affair), and secondly a strategic prophet (in the Prussian-Austrian affair).[34] But the sense of sensible men cannot predict the stupidities of which man is capable.

Ad vocem carbuncles. Consulted doctors. Nothing new. Everything which the gentlemen have to say indicates that one has to have private means to live in accordance with their prescriptions, instead of being a poor devil like me, poverty-stricken as a church-mouse. When you see Gumpert, you can tell him that I feel (up to THIS MOMENT that I write) a stinging prickle in my body, that is my blood. It seems to me that for this year I shall not be quite over the affair.

MY COMPLIMENTS TO MRS Burns .

Salut.

  1. ↑ F. Engels' reviews of Volume One of Capital for the Staats-Anzeiger für Württemberg and for the Beobachter.
  2. ↑ Adolf Friedrich Seubert
  3. ↑ In his letter to Engels of 30 November 1867, Kugelmann asked him to write several reviews of Volume One of Capital by Marx. Kugelmann was going to arrange for their publication with the help of Lieutenant-Colonel Seubert, a writer and an official of the Württemberg War Ministry, to whose daughter he was giving treatment. Seubert promised his assistance in getting the reviews published in such newspapers as Der Beobachter, Staats-Anzeiger für Württemberg and Schwäbischer Merkur. For the first two Engels wrote reviews.
  4. ↑ reviews of the first volume of Capital
  5. ↑ Liebknecht
  6. ↑ E. Dühring, 'Marx, Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, 1. Band, Hamburg 1867'
  7. ↑ A reference to L. Stein's System der Staatswissenschaft and Die Verwaltungslehre.
  8. ↑ S. Borkheim, Ma perle devant le congrès de Genève.
  9. ↑ Wolfgang and Otto
  10. ↑ Eleanor Marx
  11. ↑ This letter by Engels has not been found
  12. ↑ With regards to
  13. ↑ Marx refers to Eugen Dühring's review of the first volume of Capital. Eugen Dühring (1833-1921) – German philosopher and economist, representative of reactionary petty-bourgeois socialism, his philosophical views, an eclectic mixture of positivism, metaphysical materialism and idealism, supported by some German Social-Democrats, were criticised by Engels in his Anti-Dühring – Progress Publishers.
  14. ↑ Henry Charles Carey (1793-1879) – American vulgar economist, author of reactionary theory of harmony of class interests in capitalist society – Progress Publishers.
  15. ↑ A reference to the criticism of Roscher's vulgar economic views which Marx gives in the first volume of Capital (see Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1 (Moscow, 1972), pp 95, 157, 199, 209, 220, 251, 343, 576.) Wilhelm Georg Friedrich Roscher (1817-1894) – German vulgar economist, founder of so-called historical school of political economy – Progress Publishers.
  16. ↑ An allusion to Engels' essay 'Umrisse zu einer Kritik der National Ökonomie' ('Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy'), see Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844: Appendix – Progress Publishers.
  17. ↑ A reference to the prospects for the distribution of Volume One of Capital in Austria, where an upsurge of the labour and national movement made itself clear in those years. This had been caused by the crisis of the Austrian absolute monarchy aggravated by the defeat of the Habsburgs in the Austro-Prussian war of 1866. This situation compelled Austria's ruling circles to reorganise in 1867 the empire into the dual state of Austria-Hungary and introduce a constitution which guaranteed certain bourgeois freedoms and provided for bourgeois reforms.
  18. ↑ A reference to the help Marx gave Liebknecht when he was the London correspondent of the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung, i.e. from 1855 until 1862, when he moved to Berlin.
  19. ↑ the first volume of Capital in the Allgemeine Zeitung
  20. ↑ K. Marx, 'Plagiarism' (see Engels to Marx. 6 December).
  21. ↑ of the Demokratisches Wochenblatt
  22. ↑ See Engels to Marx. 7 January
  23. ↑ Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung
  24. ↑ After his return from London to Germany in 1862, Wilhelm Liebknecht was at one time a member of the editorial board of the Berlin Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung. Initially this was an opposition newspaper but after the formation of Bismarck's government it began to turn into its mouthpiece. When Liebknecht realised this, he left the newspaper.
  25. ↑ Neue Oder-Zeitung
  26. ↑ This letter by Marx has not been found.
  27. ↑ Engels wrote the review of Volume One of Marx's Capital for The Fortnightly Review much later, in May and June 1868. As can be seen from their subsequent correspondence, Marx and Engels exchanged opinions several times on the content and form of the article. In spite of Professor Beesly's request, the review was rejected by the editorial board and has only been preserved in manuscript form (MECW, Vol. 20).
  28. ↑ The mass eviction of the Irish from land and their emigration, caused by the transfer from small peasant renting to large-scale pasturing, led to the growing national liberation struggle in Ireland. As a result, the Fenian movement developed there in the 1850s and 1860s. The Fenians were Irish revolutionaries who named themselves after the 'Féne'—a name of the ancient population of Ireland. Their first organisations appeared in the 1850s in the USA among the Irish immigrants and later in Ireland itself. The secret Irish Revolutionary Brotherhood, as the organisation was known in the early 1860s, aimed at establishing an independent Irish republic by means of an armed uprising. The Fenians, who expressed the interests of the Irish peasantry (see Marx's letter to Engels of 30 November 1867), came chiefly from the urban petty bourgeoisie and intelligentsia and believed in conspiracy tactics. The British government attempted to suppress the Fenian movement by severe police reprisals. In September 1865 it arrested a number of Fenian leaders, among them Thomas Clarke Luby, John O'Leary, Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa and other editors of the banned newspaper The Irish People. They were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment (O'Donovan Rossa for life). The Central Council of the International organised a campaign in defence of the condemned prisoners
  29. ↑ F. Pyat, 'Adresse des Démocrates Français à leur Frères d'Irlande et d'Angleterre. Paris, 2 décembre 1867', The Times, No. 26015, 8 January 1868 (The French Democrats and the Fenians).
  30. ↑ searches
  31. ↑ illegal society
  32. ↑ Among the papers seized by the French police during the searches in the homes of members of the Paris Administration of the sections of the International late in 1867 was a letter to Murât, a member of the Paris Administration, from Eugene Dupont, the Corresponding Secretary of the General Council for France, of 23 November 1867. The letter informed the French members of the International about the campaign in support of the Fenian prisoners. The French authorities tried to use this letter to accuse the International of complicity in a Fenian plot. At a trial of the Paris Administration members which took place in March 1868, they were accused of forming an association without the sanction of the authorities. The court declared the Paris Section of the International disbanded and fined the Paris Administration members.
  33. ↑ Österreichs Kämpfe im Jahre 1866..., Bd. 1 (see Engels to Marx. 6 January)
  34. ↑ A reference to the numerous articles by Engels in which he analysed the military operations during the siege and defence of Sevastopol and which were amongst his reports on the Crimean war of 1853-56 (MECW, vols 12-14), and to the series of articles he wrote about the progress of the Austro-Prussian war of 1866, 'Notes on the War in Germany'.