27 July 1867. Dear Fred,

The two half-£5 notes received with best thanks. As for the address, Borkheim. He knows my situation, naturally with as much semi-darkness as I deem necessary towards him. I am even pleased if he knows that you are lending me money. Only you must write to me when the money is sent to him. I do not see why I should drag a third philistine into it. You are being sent ‘Fenians’ today. Your lines of yesterday have given me great pleasure and I need not explicate that further to you.

I have just received sheet 20. The whole will probably be 40 to 42 sheets. No clean proofs after those sent to you received up until today. Send those in your hand back to me on your departure.

What the inevitable objection of the philistine and vulgar economist mentioned by you is concerned (who naturally forget that while they calculate the paid labour under the name of wages, they also calculate the unpaid labour under the name of profit, etc.), it comes down scientifically to the question: How is the value of the commodity transformed into its price of production, in which 1) the whole labour appears as paid, in the form of wages; 2) the surplus labour, or surplus-value, however, assumes the form of a surcharge over the cost price (= price of the constant capital part + wages), under the names of interest, profit, etc.? Answering this question presupposes: I.) That the transformation, e.g., of the daily value of labour-power into wages or the price of daily labour, is presented. This is done in Chapter V of this volume. II.) That the transformation of surplus-value into profit, of profit into average profit, etc., is presented. This presupposes a previous presentation of the circulation process of capital, since the turnover of capital, etc., plays a role in it. This matter can therefore only be presented in Book 3 (Volume II contains Book 2 and Book 3). Here it will be shown whence the mode of conception of the philistine and vulgar economist originates, namely from the fact that in their brain only the immediate form of appearance of the relations is reflected, not their inner connection. If it were otherwise, what need would there be for science anyway? Now if I wanted to cut off all such objections in advance, I would spoil the whole dialectical method of development. On the contrary. This method has the advantage that it constantly sets snares for the fellows, which provoke them to an untimely display of their asininity. Incidentally, immediately following the § ‘The Rate of Surplus-Value’ which you last held, comes the § ‘The Working Day’ (struggle over the length of the working day), whose treatment demonstrates ad oculos how clearly the bourgeois gentleman is practically aware of the source and substance of his profit. This also shows itself in the case of Senior, where the bourgeois assures that his whole profit and interest derive from the last unpaid hour of labour.

Kind regards to Mrs Lizzy.
K. M.

On your return journey you must stay here a few days. By the way. I have in no way considered it advisable to initiate Herr Meißner into my private affairs.