| London 23 June
1868.
Dear Fred,
Best thanks for the
£ 10.
Tussychen
u.
Jennychen
sind beide leider
sehr unwohl – Halsentzündung u. Erbrechen. Wenn die Sache
nicht besser wird to-day, muß ich einen Doctor rufen. Unser
Allen
ist seit einer Woche plötzlich
paralysirt, so daß er sein Haus nicht verlassen kann.
Vésinier
stänkert hier in
d
er
French branch
gegen
Dupont
u.
Jung
, die er
beide „als Bonapartisten“ verschreit. Während
meiner Abwesenheit
wohnte er einer Sitzung des Cent
ral
Council bei (wozu er
kein Recht hat) u. hat einen fabelhaften
Bericht
in die „
Cigale
“ (Brüßler Blatt)
geschrieben
.
Es war grade Diskussion über den Sitz des
Congresses.
Lafargue
kann unmöglich
zeichnen, da er Frenchman, ausserdem mein son in
law. Zeichne
A. Williams
oder something of the sort. Am besten wärs wenn
Sam Moore
zeichnete.
Salut
D
KM
Gestern by accident fiel mir
eine schöne Stelle 
| bei
A. Smith
in d
ie
Hand. Nachdem er erklärt, daß labour d
ie
prime cost etc u.
annähernd
, wenn auch mit
beständigen Widersprüchen, d
as
Richtige gesagt; nachdem er ditto erklärt: “The
profits of stock, it may perhaps be thought, are
only a different name for the wages of a particular
sort of labour, the labour of inspection and
direction. They are, however, altogether different,
are regulated by quite different principles, and
bear no proportion to the quantity, the hardship, or
the ingenuity of this supposed labour of inspection
and direction”; schlägt er plötzlich um, u. will
wages, profit, rent als d
ie
„components parts of natural price“ (bei ihm =
value) entwickeln.
Da
findet sich u.a. folgendes Schöne:
“When
the price of any commodity is neither more nor less
than what is sufficient to pay the rent of the land,
the wages of the labour, and the profits of the
stock employed in raising, preparing, and bringing
it to market, according to their natural rates, the
commodity is then sold for what may be called its
natural price. The commodity is then sold
precisely for what it is
worth
, or
for what it really
costs the person
who brings it to market;
for
though in common language
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; since,
by employing his stock in some other way, he might
have made that profit. (Die Existenz d
es
Profits in
der
‚Nachbarschaft‘!
als Erklärungsgrund desselben!) His profit,
besides
, is
his revenue
, the proper fund of his
subsistence. As, while he is preparing and bringing
the goods to market, he advances to his workmen
their wages, or their subsistence; so
he advances to himself
, in the
same manner, his own subsistence, which is generally
suitable to the
profit
which
he may reasonably expect from the sale of his goods.
Unless they yield him this profit, therefore
,
they do
not reply him what they may very properly be said
to have cost him
.” Diese zweite Manier den
Profit in die prime cost – weil bereits vorgefressen
– zu pressen, ist wirklich schön.
Derselbe
Mann
, bei dem d
as
Organ des Pissens u. der
Generation auch geistig zusammenfallen, hatte
vorher gesagt:
“As soon
as stock has accumulated in the hands of particular
persons ...
the value
which
the
workmen add
to the
materials ...
resolves itself
into two parts
, of which the one pays their
wages, the other the
profits of
their employer
upon the whole stock of
materials and wages which he advanced.”