Letter to Karl Marx, May 10, 1868

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 10 May 1868


First published in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, Bd. 4, Stuttgart, 1913
Published in English in full for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 43


ENGELS TO MARX

IN LONDON

Manchester, 10 May 1868

Dear Moor,

You received the information about the factory at that time direct from Henry Ermen—it is G. Ermen's spinning mill, with which I have nothing to do, and about which the young Ermens have been specifically forbidden to tell me anything. If you write to Henry Ermen, Bridgewater Mill, Pendlebury (private), he will probably tell you what you want to know. But you will have to tell him that he should give you the data as they were in 1860, since much has been built since then. I would say, approximately, that a factory building for 10,000 spindles, including cost of land, will come to £4,000 à £5,000 (in the given case a bit less is probably to be assumed, since it was only a one-storey SHED, and land up there, unless containing coal, costs almost nothing). Rate of wear and tear on the building (£500-600 to be subtracted as ground price) 7½% including interest. At £3,600 therefore £18 ground rent (à 3%) + (7½% on 3,000 =) 225=£243 rent for the building.

WAREHOUSE does not exist for this factory, since G. Ermen only sells through or to us or through an agent to other people, and pays 2% commission on the turnover for this. Assuming the turnover à £13,000, we get £260 as substitute for WAREHOUSE costs.

As far as calculating the turnover of the circulating capital is concerned, I do not really know what you mean by this. We calculate only the total turnover, that is the total of annual sales. If I understand rightly, you want to know how many times a year the circulating part of capital is turned over, or, in other words, how much circulating capital is in business. This, however, differs in almost all cases. A prosperous owner of a spinning mill has almost always (that is except when he is expanding, or immediately afterwards) some spare capital that he invests in some other way, but uses, when the chance offers itself, to buy cotton cheaply, etc. Or he uses credit, if he can and it is worthwhile. It may be assumed that a mill-owner who invests £10,000 in machines (apart from the building, which he can and mostly will rent) can get along with ⅓ à ¼ of the fixed capital in circulating capital; that is for £10,000 fixed capital put into machines, £2,000 à £2,500 circulating capital will do. This is the average assumption here.

Here I leave out of account the steam engines. On this score H. Ermen has obviously provided you, from memory, a completely absurd story. Weekly wear and tear of the steam engine £20, that is £1,040 a year! At a 12½% rate the steam engine will cost £8,320, ce qui est absurde.[1] The entire machine cannot have cost more than £1,500 à £2,000, and that G. Ermen wanted to write off his whole machine in 2 years is just like him, but not businesslike. You can ask him about this, too. But I fear that Monsieur Gottfried[2] has long taken these old account books into his own custody, and then Henry Ermen will not be able to help you either.

Schorlemmer will probably visit you on Wednesday or Thursday.[3] The Royal Society[4] has invited him to read his PAPER on the boiling points of CnH2n+2 on Thursday and to take part in the debate.[5] Since the main chemist there is Frankland, whom Schorlemmer has attacked in all his works, this is a great triumph, and a few more invitations like this WILL BE THE MAKING OF HIM. I am very happy for the fellow, who has only stayed at his rather pitiful position here because it places at his disposal the laboratory and thus the means of doing theoretical work. He is really one of the best fellows I have got to know for a long time; he is so totally free of prejudices this freedom appears to be almost spontaneous, but must in fact be based upon much thought. At the same time, the notable modesty. Incidentally, he has again made a handsome discovery. On pages 264 and 297 of his book you will find that propyl alcohol and iso propyl alcohol are two isomeric combinations.[6] It had hitherto been impossible to obtain pure propyl alcohol, so the Russians had already claimed that it did not exist, there was only isopropyl alcohol. Last autumn at the meeting of natural scientists Schorlemmer replied to them: by next autumn he would have obtained it, and he has really done it.

This week I do at last have no more meetings and similar calls upon my time, and will be able to get down to the Fortnightly.[7] But I still do not know how to start. It is clear to me that I will begin with the conversion of money into capital, but how is still quite unclear. What do you think about this?

With best greetings,

Your

F. E.

  1. ↑ which is absurd
  2. ↑ Ermen
  3. ↑ 13 or 14 May
  4. ↑ The Royal Society (The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge), the oldest British learned society founded in 1660 and endorsed by the Royal Charter in 1662. Publishes the journals Philosophical Transactions (since 1665) and Proceedings of the Royal Society (since 1800).
  5. ↑ C. Schorlemmer, 'Researches on the Hydrocarbons of the Series CnH2n+2', Proceedings of the Royal Society, No. 94, 1867 and No. 102, 1868.
  6. ↑ This refers to H. E. Roscoe's chemistry textbook, the German edition of which, Kurzes Lehrbuch der Chemie nach den neuesten Ansichten der Wissenschaft (Brunswick, 1867), was prepared by Carl Schorlemmer in conjunction with the author. The isomerism of the alcohols named is stated on pp. 296-98.
  7. ↑ A reference to Engels' intention to write a review of Volume One of Marx's Capital for The Fortnightly Review to which Professor Beesly was a contributor (see Marx's letter to Engels of 8 January 1868, present edition, Vol. 42). While working on the review, Engels wrote out excerpts from Capital, which later made up a synopsis (see Note 26). The review was written around 20 May-1 June 1868, but rejected by the editorial board (see present edition, Vol. 20).