The C.L.R. James Institute: Texts: On the Publication of James's "Production for the Sake of Production"

The C.L.R. James Institute

Statement of the Secretariat on
The Johnson Article

As is evident from the introduction he writes to his article in this issue of the Bulletin., comrade Johnson is insistent upon making his article the subject of an artificial internal polemical dispute. This beng the case, the essential facts should be availble to all.

The Political Committee did in fact endorse the decision of the Editorial Board of the N.I. not to print the following article by Johnson. The three main reasons then given to the author were as follows:

1. The article is inordinately long and, for its contents, its length does not warrant the space required for N.I. publication. As pointed out in a letter to Johnson, this was not the main reason for the P.C. decision. Its validity, however, may easily be confirmed by the reader. Furthermore, by a longstanding decision of the P.C., approved by Johnson when it was adopted a propos of one of his polemical opponents, no discussion article may as a rule be printed in the magazine which exceeds a maximum of four pages -- a size considerably surpassed in the present case.

2. The article does not deal with the question in dispute. Johnson opened th dispute in his letter in the April, 1942, New International, on two points: a) whether or not Trotsky was right in saying, in 1930, that the formulae of extended reproduction in the second volume of Marx's "Capital" applied to a capitalism not limited by national boundaries and not to a national capitalism; and b) whether or not the same formula (or formulae) applied to Russia today, characterized by the party as a bureaucratic collectivist state. Johnson demanded an official party ("authoritative") statement on these points, a demand which did not reveal a very clear idea on his part of a Marxian party's relationship to such theoretical questions. Naturally the party, being the serious revolutionary organization that it is, took no such ''stand"; it cannot and will not. Having volunteered to do so, Carter's proposal to answer Johnson in his own name, and as one of the editors of the N.I., was accepted, and his answer printed with Johnson's letter. In his rebuttal, Johnson simply does not return to the questions he originally raised. Moreover, he states unequivocally that he is not interested in what Trotsky wrote on the formulae of extended reproduction applying to "national" or "international" capitalism, that is, he is not interested now and was not interested then in the points about which he presumably wrote his first letter and demanded an official position by the party. We do not pretend to understand such procedure in fruitful theoretical discussion. However, there is no reason why we should promote or condone it on the pages of the N.I., where there is some choice in the matter. If it is to be printed at all, then only in a party bulletin and upon the demand of a party member, as was pointed out to Johnson when it was suggested to him that he make such a request.

3. The article is, as stated in the original decision of the committee, abstruse; to put it more simply, it is more or less unintelligible. We have no right to arrange for publication in the N.I. of any article that would be incomprehensible to not less than ninety-

[bottom of p. 1 = Draper p. 196]

five percent of its readers, On this point, the Secretariat feels no need to elaborate, inasmuch as it can be safely left to everyone who reads the article to judge for himself.

It is unfortunate that in failing to take those points into consideration, comrade Johnson, as shown by his introductory statement, again failed to understand the responsibilities that go with party leadership.

Secretariat of the P.C.,

M.S.

3/23/43

INTRODUCTORY LETTER

This article was submitted in December 1942 in comment on the article written by Carter and published in the New International of April 1942. It will be remembered that this article, over three pages in length, was written in reply to a short letter that I wrote to the New International in which I asked for some authoritative statement on the interpretation of passages in an article by Trotsky, published in the Archives. The delay in submitting my answer to that was due to (a) important practical activity which allowed nothing else to intrude upon it; and (b) illness. The P.C. has endorsed the decision of the Editorial Board which refused to publish my articlein the N.I. because it is "abstruse" and "because it does not deal with the question". These statements I deny. I think the policy of the P.C. is false. However, since I am denied the possibility of getting my views on the question which I raised, before the readers of the N.I., I now submit it at least to the membership.

J. R Johnson

2/27/43

[bottom of p. 2 = Draper p. 197]

Source: "Statement of the Secretariat" and "Letter of J.R. Johnson" (C.L.R. James), Workers Party Bulletin, April 1943, pp. 196-197.

A few formatting changes have been made to the original. The Draper page numbers refer to the numbering of the Workers Party internal bulletins by Hal Draper, who organized and cataloged them.

Production for the Sake of Production--A Reply to Carter

Aspects of Marxian Economics

C.L.R. James on Marx's Capital and State Capitalism

Jim Murray, Director (make inquiries here)
Ralph Dumain, Librarian/Archivist & Webmaster

Uploaded 27 June 2001