[London,] 24 August 1867 

Dear Frep, 

I have received no further corrected proofs* since the 2 last that 
I sent you. I am exceedingly vexed with Meissner. He has 
obviously held back what Wigand has sent him in order to send 
everything at once—and save 4d. postage! 

The same Meissner wrote me last week that he is printing a 
certain part of my preface specially (and he has indeed made the 
right choice) to send to the German newspapers. I wrote asking 
him to send me copies of it at once. I reckoned that you would 
translate the thing into English (I shall then give it to The 
Bee-Hive, which is taken by Mill, Beesly, Harrison, etc.), and 
Lafargue with Laura’s help into French for the Courrier frangais, 
finally I wanted to send one copy to my correspondent in 
America.** To save the 4d., Meissner has sent nothing. He will be 
sending it all together. But a great deal of time is lost in the 
process! 

The best points in my book are: 1. (this is fundamental to all 
understanding of the racrs) the two-fold character of labour 
according to whether it is expressed in use-value or exchange- 
value, which is brought out in the very First Chapter; 2. the 
treatment of surplus-value regardless of its particular forms as profit, 
interest, ground rent, etc. This will be made clear in the second 
volume especially." The treatment of the particular forms in 
classical political economy, where they are for ever being jumbled up 
together with the general form, is an olla potrida” 

Please enter your desiderata, critical remarks, queries, etc., on the 
corrected proofs. This is very important for me, as I am reckoning 
on a 2nd edition sooner or later.*°* As regards Cuarrer IV, it was a 
hard job finding things themselves, i.e., their interconnection’ But 
with that once behind me, along came one sive Book” after 
another just as I was composing the final version, and I was 
delighted to find my theoretical conclusions fully confirmed by the 

4 of the first volume of Capital - » hotchpotch - < recommendations - ¢ See previ- 
ous letter. 

racts. Finally, it was written to the accompaniment of carbuncles 
and daily dunning by creditors! 

For the conclusion to the 2nd book (Process of Circulation), which 
I am writing now,**’ I am again obliged to seek your advice on one 
point, as I did many years ago. 

Fixed capital only has to be replaced in natura* after, say, 10 
years. In the meantime, its value returns partially and gradatim,” as 
the goods that it has produced are sold. This procressive RETURN Of 
the fixed capital is only required for its replacement (aside from 
repairs and the like) when it becomes defunct in its material form, 
€.g., aS a machine. Prior to that, however, these successive RETURNS are 
in the capitalist’s possession. 

Many years ago I wrote to you that it seemed to me that in this 
manner an accumulation fund was being built up, since in the 
intervening period the capitalist was of course using the returned 
money, before replacing the capital fixe with it. You disagreed with 
this somewnar superriciatty in a letter.*? I later found that MacCul- 
loch describes this sivxine runD as an accumulation fund* Being 
convinced that no idea of MacCulloch’s could ever be right, I let 
the matter drop. His apologetic purpose here has already been 
refuted by the Malthusians, but they, too, admit the racr. 

Now, as a manufacturer, you must know what you do with the 
RETURNS ON Capital fixe before the time it has to be replaced in natura. 
And you must answer this point for me (without theorising, in 
purely practical terms). 

Salut. 

Your 

(Salut to Mrs Lizzy “!) 

The children are stil] at Royan, near Bordeaux.