London, 23 May 1868 

Dear Frep, 

It appears to me that you are on the wrong track with your fear 
of presenting such simple formulas as M—C—M, etc.'' to the 
English review philistines. On the contrary. If you were forced, as 
I am, to read the economic articles of Messrs Lalor, Herbert 
Spencer, Macleod, etc., in The Westminster Review, etc., you would 
see that all of them are fed up with the economic trivialities—and 
know their readers are fed up, too—so they try to give their 
scribblings some flavour through pseupoPHILOSOPHICAL OF PSEUDOSCIEN- 
Tiric sLANG. The pseudocharacter in no way makes the writing 
(content=0) easy to understand. On the contrary. The trick lies in 
so mystifying the reader and causing him to rack his brain, that he 
may finally be relieved to discover that these Harp worvs are only 

a Demokratisches Wochenblatt 

fancy dress for loci communes.’ Add to this that the readers of the 
Fortnightly and The Westminster Review flatter themselves that they 
are the Loncest HEADS OF England (let alone the rest of the world, 
naturally). Even apart from that, if you had seen what Mr James 
Hutchinson Stirling dares to present to the public as The Secret of 
Hegel,” not only in books but also in reviews,—Hegel himself 
would not understand it—you would realise—Mr J. H. Stirling is 
regarded as a great thinker—that you are really being too timid. 
People demand something new, new in form and content. 

Since you want to start with Chapter II (you must not, 
however, forget to draw the reader’s attention somewhere to the 
fact that in Chapter I he will find a new treatment of that value 
and money stuff) the following should, in my opinion, be used 
for the beginning, naturally in the form agreeable to you. 

In his investigations into currency Th. Tooke“ underlines that 
money in its function as capital flows back to its starting point 
(REFLUX OF MONEY TO ITS POINT OF Issue), but in its function simply as 
currency does not flow back. This distinction, noted by Sir James 
Steuart,* among others, long before Tooke, serves the latter simpl 
for a polemic against what the preachers of the currency PRINCIPLE 
claim to be the influence the issue of credit money (Banknotes, etc.) 
exercises upon commodity prices. Our author, however, makes 
this peculiar form of circulation of money which functions as 
capital (SERVE IN THE FUNCTION oF capital?, A. Smith‘) the starting point 
for his investigation into the nature of capital itself, and in the 
first place for an answer to the question: How is money, this 
independent form of value, converted into capital? (‘Conversion INTO 
capital’ the official expression.) 

All sorts of businessmen, says Turgot, ‘ont cela de commun qu’ils 
achétent pour vendre... leurs achats sont une avance qui leur 
rentre’! Buying to sell, this is in fact the transaction in which 
money functions as capital, and which conditions its reflux to 1Ts 
POINT OF ISSUE, in distinction to selling to buy where it need only 
function as currency. The differing sequence of the acts of selling 
and suyinc imposes upon money two different circulation move- 
ments. What is hidden behind this is the different behaviour of 

6 

a platitudes - > An allusion to J. H. Stirling’s work The Secret of Hegel: Being the 
Hegelian System in Origin, Principle, Form, and Matter. - © Th. Tooke, An Inquiry into 
the Currency Principle...- 4 J. Steuart, An Inquiry into the Principles of Political 
Oeconomy. - © A. Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 
Vol. 1, Edinburgh, 1814, p. 441. - f ‘have in common that they buy to sell... their 
purchases are an advance which returns to them’ (Turgot, Réflexions sur la formation et la 
distribution des richesses. In: Oeuvres de Turgot, Vol. 1, Paris, 1844, p. 43). 

the value itself expressed in money form. To illustrate this, the 
author gives the following formulas, etc., etc., for the two different 
circulation movements. 

I believe that you will make the matter easier for yourself and 
the reader by quoting the formulas. 

I shall reply later to the other points of your letter. Of the 
carbuncles there remains only one, also soon finished. Last 
Wednesday I gave a lecture (asout °/, of an hour) on wages 
(especially the form of the same) to about 100 German pickep 
workers.*’ I was very unwell that day, and I was advised to 
telegraph that I could not come. However, this was impossible, 
since some of the people had come from very distant parts of 
London. So I went there. The business went off very well, and 
after the lecture I felt better than before. 

I have made concessions to my family doctor Lafargue in that I 
have not yet visited the Museum* again. But I have perhaps, during 
the past weeks, meditated too much ar Home. 

I shall, if possible, come to Manchester with Tussychen at the end 
of next week (say Saturpay>). But you will have to send me the 
money for the fares and some sHituincs which I shall leave for my 
wife. 

Tussychen, oF course, has reminded me of the trip asouT every 

day. 

Enclosed new Liebknecht stuff. 

Salut. 

Your 
K. M.