London, 20 August [1862] 

Dear Engels, 

I’ve had a whole series of mishaps over the bill. 

First Borkheim, who means very well but also enjoys bragging 
and chooses just the wrong moment to prevaricate post festum,* 
promised to discount the bill (out of his own pocket). He did so, 
knowing that Lassalle’s acceptance wasn’t to be had for some little 
while. Then, without a word to me, he sent it through Bruckner 
(Brothers) to Berlin so as to get it discounted by the said 
Bruckners. Perhaps—he pretends to have forgotten how it all 
began—he took fright in the meantime. 

Secondly: Baron Artful,” with whom I discussed the transaction 
on the eve of his departure“ when he declared himself ‘prepared 
to do anything’, writes today from Wildbad** whither I had sent 
him an advice‘: 

‘If I am to accept, I shall have to have a bond trom Engels himself in which he 
undertakes to put me in possession of the covering amount a week before due date. 
Not, of course, (!) that I doubt you wrote at his behest, but simply because, if I 
have to accept a bill which I cannot meet myself I must, if unforeseen 
circumstances are to be precluded and the worst comes to the worst, at least possess 

a personal written undertaking from the man who can and is to send me this 
remittance.’ 

I thereupon wrote the baron, who is now in Zurich (has left 
Wildbad) and ‘may’ be going on to Italy in a few days’ time, a 
very ironical letter, telling him that I would forthwith request you 
to send the bond to me. This I now do. 

Yesterday Borkheim read me his letter to you.” I'd be very 
glad if you would write to him privately saying he should do 
everything possible to obtain the money for me, since I am (and 
this is true) in dire need, while Lassalle’s return will be delayed by 
his adventures abroad. 

(By the by, [ wrote and told Izzy‘ that, on receipt of your bond, 
he should write to ‘Meyer’ Brothers in Berlin, who have the bill, 

a after the event - » Ferdinand Lassalle -« See this volume, p. 399. - ¢ ibid., 
pp. 406-07. - © ibid., p. 409. -f ibid. 

saying he will accept it on his return—if, that is, he’s not going to 
be long enough in any one place for the bill to be sent on for his 
acceptance.) 

Say what you will, pear Boy, it really is embarrassing to have to 
bother you as I do with my miséres! If only 1 knew how to start 
some sort of business! All theory, dear friend, is grey, and only 
BusiNess green.” Unfortunately, I have come to realise this too late. 

With the £20 advanced by Borkheim, I first of all paid the rates, 
then the shoemaker who was proposing to sue me, etc. I used £5 
to send my family to Ramsgate yesterday, since little Jenny could 
not remain here any longer. I cannot thank you enough for 
having made this possible. She’s the most perfect and gifted child 
in the world. But here she had to suffer twice over. Firstly from 
physical causes. And then she was afflicted by our pecuniary 
TROUBLE. How glad I was today that my wife and children were 
away and were thus spared the sight of Izzy’s letter! 

Can’t you come down for a few days? In my critique I have 
demolished so much of the old stuff that there are a number of 
points I should like to consult you about before I proceed.*' 
Discussing these matters in writing is tedious both for you and for 
me. 

One point about which you, as a practical man, must have the 
answer, is this. Let us assume that a firm’s machinery at the 
outset=£12,000. It wears out on an average in 12 years. If then 
£1,000 is added to the value of the goods every year,the cost of 
the machinery will have been paid off in 12 years. Thus far, 
A. Smith and all his successors. But, 1x ract, this is only an average 
calculation. Much the same applies to machinery having a life of 
12 years as, say, to a horse with a life—or useful life—of 10 years. 
Although it would have to be replaced with a new horse after 10 
years, it would in practice be wrong to say that '/,) of it died 
every year. Rather, in a letter to factory inspectors,” Mr Nasmyth 
observes that machinery (at least some types of machinery) runs 
BETTER in the second year THAN IN THE FIRST. AT ALL EVENTS, In the course 
of those 12 years does: not '/;, of the machinery have to be 
replaced in natura‘ each year? Now, what becomes of this fund, 
which yearly replaces '/;. of the machinery? Is it not, in fact, an 
accumulation fund to extend reproduction aside from = any 

« A paraphrase of Mephistopheles’ words (Goethe, Faust, Part I, Scene 4). - 
6 J. Nasmyth’s letter to the factory inspector Horner of 6 November 1852, 
Reports of the Inspectors of Factories to Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for the 
Home Department, for the Half Year ending 31st October 1856, London, 1857. - © in 
kind 

412 244, Engels to Marx. 21 August 1862 

CONVERSION OF REVENUE INTO capital? °° Does not the existence of this 
fund partly account for the very different rate at which capital 
accumulates in nations with advanced capitalist production and 
hence a great deal of capital fixe, and those where this is not the 
case? 

Piles or no piles, you might at least let me have a brief answer to 
this. 

As for the Riistow-Lassalle plan* your comments would be of 
value to me because of Bucher.” 

Salut. 
Your 
K. M.