{[London,] 11 October 1867 

Dear Kugelmann, 

D’abord,” best thanks for your two letters.© You would give me 
great pleasure if you were to write as often as your time allows. But 
you must not expect an exactly equal response, as my time is in any 
case scarcely sufficient now for the multifarious correspondence 
which I am obliged to conduct with a variety of parties. 

First, before turning to the subject of my book,° a preliminary 
word or a wordy preliminary. I fear that Borkheim is, malgré lui, 
on the point of doing me a very bad turn. He is publishing his 

4 the first volume of Capital - > Firstly - « of 29 September and 8 October 1867 (see 
this volume, pp. 433 and 438) - 4 the first volume of Capital - ¢ despite himself 

‘Geneva speech’ in 4 languages, French, German, English, and 
Russian.“ He has, furthermore, provided it with a baroque and 
tasteless preface, overladen with quotations. Between ourselves— 
and in the interests of the party—I must tell you the plain truth. 
Borkheim is a capable man and even an homme d’esprit? But when 
he takes up the pen, beware! All tact and taste leave him. Nor 
has he the necessary education. He is like those savages who 
imagine that they are enhancing their appearance by tattooing 
their faces with all possible gaudy colours. Banality and sen- 
sationalism always get the better of him. Almost his every phrase 
instinctively dons cap and bells. If he were not so vain through 
and through, I could have prevented the publication and made it 
clear to him that it was his good fortune that people had not 
understood him in Geneva except for a few good powrts from his 
speech. On the other hand, I owe him a debt of gratitude for the 
part he played in the Vogt affair,“ and he is a personal friend of 
mine. There are in his speech, etc., a number of phrases in which 
he has fatuously garbled‘ certain views of mine. My enemies (Vogt 
has already hinted in the Neue Ziircher-Zeitung that I am the secret 
author of the speech) will now have the greatest fun in making 
me responsible for Mr Borkheim, his follies and eccentricities, 
instead of attacking my book. If anything of that kind should 
occur, you will have to use Warnebold, etc., to place some short 
articles in the newspapers to which you have access, to expose 
these tactics and, without insulting Borkheim in any way, 
nevertheless to state quite plainly that only ill intention or an 
exceedingly uncritical mind could identify things that are so 
disparate. The baroque and confused manner in which our views 
are reflected in Borkheim’s mind (from the moment he ceases to 
speak and starts to write), will naturally offer the vile press-canc the 
most welcome excuse for an offensive and might even indirectly 
serve to harm my book. 

However, if, as I scarcely dare to hope, since Borkheim is 
meticulously despatching his progeny to all the newspapers, the 
press says nothing about it, you must do absolutely nothing to break 
this solemn silence. 

If Borkheim were not a personal friend, I should publicly 
disown him. You will understand my fausse position’ and at the 

a §. Borkheim, Ma perle devant le congrés de Genéve. - > a man of some wit - © The 
original has: verkladderadatscht—from Kladderadatsch, a German satirical weekly. - 
4 in his note on the congress of the League of Peace and Freedom in Geneva, see Neue 
Ziircher-Zeitung, No. 254, 13 September 1867. - ¢ false position 

same time my vexation. Here one is presenting to the public a 
work that has cost much trouble to write (and perhaps no work of 
this kind has ever been written in more difficult circumstances), 
with the purpose of giving the greatest possible lift to the party 
and of disarming even ill-disposed critics by the very method of its 
exposition, and at that same moment a member of the party clad 
in cap, bells and motley insists on standing next to one in the 
market-place and provokes a barrage of rotten apples and eggs, 
which may hit one in the head even as a party member! 

Your manoeuvres against Vogt in Geneva have greatly satisfatt? 
me.*’ I am glad you like my book. 

Concerning your questions: 

Ernest Jones had to speak as a party man to Irish men in 
Ireland, in other words, since the big landownership there is 
identical with English proprietorship of Ireland, he had to speak 
against the big landownership. You must never look for any 
matters of principle in Hustincs speeches by English politicians, but 
only for what is immediately expedient. 

Peonage is the advancing of money against future labour. The 
consequences of these advances are the same as with ordinary 
usury. The worker does not merely remain in debt throughout his 
life, thus performing forced labour for his creditor, but the 
relationship is inherited by the family and the next generation, 
who thus actually belong to the creditor.*” 

The completion of my second volume‘ depends chiefly on the 
success of the first. This I require in order to find a publisher in 
England, and, without the latter, my material circumstances will 
remain so difficult and disruptive that I shall be able to find 
neither time nor peace for speedy completion. Naturally, these are 
things which I do not wish Mr Meissner to know. It thus now 
depends on how skilful and active my party friends in Germany 
are, whether the second volume takes a long or a short time to 
appear. Considered criticism— whether from friend or foe—can 
only be expected to appear gradually, as one needs time to read 
and digest such a compendious and, in parts, difficult work. But 
its immediate success will not be decided by considered criticism, 
but, to put it bluntly, by making a noise and beating the drum, 
which compels even the adversaries to speak. To begin with, it is 
less important what is said than that something should be said. 
Above all, no time must be lost! 

I have sent your last letter to Engels for him to send you the 

a gratified 

necessary suggestions. He can write about my book better than I 
can myself. 

My kindest compliments to your dear wife.* One of these days I 
shall send her a recipe for reading the book. 

Yours 
K. M. 

Please keep me au fait with all developments in Germany 
respecting Volume I. 

Paul Stumpf (Mainz) has written me a letter? in which he calls 
Borkheim’s speech ‘my’ speech, and as at present I have no time to 
write to Stumpf, you would oblige me by writing to him yourself 
to tell him the true situation and to advise silence when Borkheim’s 
pamphlet appears. Entre nous‘ Stumpf tends to put his foot in it 
himself whenever he takes up the pen.