Why is Marx so obsessed in Capital II with stressing the difference between fixed and circulating capital?

[andrew59]

I mean, we get you: both fixed and circulating capital transfer value to the product, product that then realizes that value in exchange, and so on and so on. We get that fixed capital does so by "being chipped away", and that the constant part of circulating capital "sacrifices itself entirely" on the process, to be completely renewed with the renewed production process. And, of course, we get that fixed capital remains active over more than 1 rotation of a capital, whereas circulating capital must be again anticipated.

We get it. We got it the first five times you said it. Why do you need to repeat it so much? Is it because of the fragmentary and unpolished nature of the text? Or is there a more fundamental, conceptual issue playing a role there?

He criticizes both Smith and Ricardo for messing this two categories up, but is it that important? I understand when he stress the double character of labour, or the division between constant and variable capital.

Thank you!
Sarkari job