London, 28 September 1891 

Dear Kautsky, 

I was on the point of writing to you about the programme when 
your letter arrived. 

Your draft programme is far better than the official one and I note 
with pleasure that Bebel will propose it be accepted. I shall back him 
up there. You have avoided the only fault of your first draft— 
length— and have outdone the official one in brevity. However 
I should like to make the following suggestions ?°°: 

Section 1, pp. 785/86 of the Neue Zeit, para. 2, line 3: Growth of the 
product of human labour rather than yield. Marx has pointed out how 
ambiguous is the word ‘yield which can mean not only the product 
itself but also its value, or even the total price that happens to be real- 
ised. 

Further: Private ownership of the means of production throughout. 
What is meant, of course, are the social means of production in their 

“ Katharina Sorge 

240 Engels to Kautsky. 28 September 189] 

entirety or again those of one distinct working individual, peasant or 
artisan-—in all these cases they are quite distinct and hence require 
the article. Omission of the article leaves one in doubt about the 
meaning, or so it seems to me, at any rate. 

Section 2, Neue <eit, p. 788, para. | has been edited somewhat inad- 
equately. ‘Which suffers under today’s conditions’ is much too 
weak. It would have been better to say that the ruling classes are also 
being intellectually and morally crippled by the class contradiction, 
more so indeed than the class that is oppressed. You could edit it into 
shape, provided you agree. The concluding sentence to the effect 
that the proletariat is the only class whose interests, etc., ... are pressing 
is also weak. I should prefer ‘whose liberation is impossible without 
the socialisation of the means of production’, or something of 
the sort. 

Para. 2. ....Without political rights they cannot embark on their 
economic struggles’-—or establish their organisation as a militant class 
(what they need for their economic struggles and their organisation 
as a militant class is a measure of political freedom and equal rights 
that will grow with their successes?}-— the remainder as in text. 

Unfortunately [ have no time for more than these brief suggestions 
as I’m inundated with jobs of every description. 

I haven’t yet managed to read Ede’s article.?9° 

In your first article you, too, dabble a bit in ‘Utopia’. When and in 
what country did the things happen which you describe between 
p. 726 (‘this metamorphosis was coincident with another’) and p. 730? 
It seems to me that for the sake of convenience you dished up a grand 
pot-pourri of the times and places of various schools of thought. But 
there’s nothing wrong in that; the great majority of your readers 
won’t notice and each can take from it whatever suits his own parti- 
cular book. 

Thank you for the newspapers. It’s a good thing that the party is 
strong enough to allow Liebknecht’s speeches to pass, yet suffer no 
harm; as regards the paper,* which is more important, there will of 
course be a change before long. I must confess that the old man amazes 
me by the extent to which he has lagged behind. However we are 
now a power and as such are perfectly well able to lug along with us 
an heirloom of this kind and accord him the satisfaction of believing 
he has settled everything the moment he invents a formula that sets 
his mind at rest over whatever matter has happened to crop up. 

* Vorwarts 

Mr J. Wolf has also sent me concoction." I have consigned it to my 
bookcase unread and there it will have to remain until I reach the 
preface to Volume III. The letter you posted in Neumiinster has 
now reached me. It reads: 

‘Zurich, 20 September 1891. Dear Sir, In the latest number of Conrad’s Jahrbiicher 
Stir Nationalikonomie und Statistik, a Jew from Brno by the name of Wolf, who teaches at 
the Polytechnic here, has the cheek to accuse you of having misconstrued Marx’s 
theory of value and hence of intending to suppress Volume ITI. Shall you give him 
a box on the ears? An Admirer.’ 

Hardly that, but I shall have to take a look at the rubbish never- 
theless. 

I wrote at once telling Schmidt that, while his solution was not the 
Marxian one, the book‘ contains such excellent stuff in other respects 
that I thought it the most important thing to have been done in the 
field of political economy since Marx’s death.?°° Now, however, as 
soon as I have attended to current business, I shall apply myself re- 
lentlessly to Volume III and everything else will be cast aside. 

C. Schmidt was in Berlin and, during the holidays, made a very 
good job of editing the Vorwérts; no doubt he will now take up the lec- 
tureship in Zurich secured for him by Stossel in defiance of the profes- 
sors. 

You are right to go to the Congress.?°' The chaps will have a great 
deal of fault to find with the Neue Zeit, but that can’t be helped. You 
should listen to everything, be as sparing as possible with your an- 
swers and afterwards go your own way. So long as Bebel is in charge 
there’s no doubt that everything will get back onto an even keel 
again. 

We over here will put the Gillesiad“ to thoroughly good use. Hynd- 
man & Co., who have seen the whole of their ambitious international 
intrigue with the Possibilists* come to grief in so lamentable a fash- 
ion, are furious, of course, and are at the back of the whole affair. Ob- 
viously we could want nothing better than that they should identify 
themselves with Gilles, though unfortunately they are already turn- 

* J. Wolf, ‘Das Ratsel der Durchschnittsprofitrate bei Marx’. Jahrbiicher fir National- 
ékonomie und Statistik, 2. Bd., 3. Folge.-" of Capital-‘ C. Schmidt, Die Durchschnittspro- 
filtrate auf Grundlage des Marx’schen Werthgesetzes.-" See this volume, pp. 237-38. 

ing away. Courage is not the strong point of some of these gentlemen, 
as you know, nor is a box or two on the ears something they relish. 
Regards from Louise. 

Your 
F.E.