Doug Henwood wrote:
> Henry or anyone else...any comments on this item from today's WSJ?
>
> Doug
>
I would not have dignified this with a response if not for out of courtesy for Doug whom I respect.
>
> ----
>
>
> Is a Maoist Pen Mightier Than A Reformist Sword?
> ---
> Editor Takes Capitalist Road And Sues Book's Authors
> Over Copyright Violation
> By Matt Forney
>
> 01/11/99
> The Wall Street Journal
> (Copyright (c) 1999, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
>
> BEIJING -- Back in the 1960s, when China's hard-line Marxists felt their
> grip ebbing, they launched the Cultural Revolution that plunged their
> country into chaos -- and regained power.
>
This is such an oversimplication that it borders on disinformation.
Most insightful reporting would have began with the context: Back in the late 20s, when capitalism felt its grip ebbing over workers, it launched the Great Depression and WWII that plunged the world into chaotic destruction and death -- and regain power.
>
> Times have changed. Now they hire lawyers.
The WSJ is laughing at the emergence of the rule of law?
>
> The issue, as it always has been for the Marxists, is property. The
> intellectual property, to be exact, of Duan Ruofei , a man who champions
> public over private ownership.
For capitalists, the issue IS property. For Marxist, the issue is the proper ownership of property. Marxists oppose the improper private ownership of public property. Marxists do not, nor does Mr. Duan, "champion" one form of ownership over another. Marxists maintain that when private ownership infriges on public property, such a the means of product, it steal from the whole community. The false claim that Marxism forbids private ownership per se is a fear mongering propaganda that the WSJ tirelessly promotes.
>
> In 1996, Mr. Duan, a scholar on Marxist theory and editor of Contemporary
> Thought, China's leading ultraleft publication, wrote an article dubbed "The
> 10,000 Character Essay," a reference to the number of Chinese ideographs used
> to compose it. It argued economic reforms were "turning China into a
> suzerainty of international capitalism."
"The 10,000 Character Essay" contains many very compelling points.
>
> Though Mr. Duan's essay was unpublished, and only China's political elite got
> to see it, it created a stir. Word of its existence began circulating
> shortly before an important Communist Party meeting that would set the
> course of economic reforms. People began to wonder if a leftist backlash
> was coming.
Large number of party cadres and intellectuals read it. The WSJ's use of the term "elite" tries to create the mis-impression that only a small goup read it. Its view are increasingly in the mainstream. People are beginning to see its vaildity through relating it to their personal daily observations. Only international capital fears a backlash.
>
> Then last March, a book supportive of political reform asked on its back
> cover, "Do you want to know about the `10,000 Character Essay' that has
> shocked Beijing?" The book, "Crossed Swords," written by two editors at the
> Communist Party's flagship newspaper, People's Daily, included long excerpts
> from "10,000 Characters" and argued the essay was the drivel of an
> ideological has-been.
> "It was a vicious attack on the leftists," confirms co-author Ma Licheng.
> In addition, he says, publishing the article for the first time in China
> "was a decent scoop."
>
> But Mr. Duan sued the authors, contending they had violated copyright law.
> They had published his material without permission, he says, while he still
> was revising it. A judge heard the case in November, and both sides are
> awaiting a decision.
Mr Duan was merely using the tools of capitalism to fight capitalism.
> Meantime, amid a crackdown on dissent, the government has banned further
> publication of "Crossed Swords" and has threatened to close the publishing
> house that released it.
By WSJ's own reporting, this is inconsistent. Having admitted a few sentences earlier that "Cross Sword" is pro current government policies, how can the banning of it constitute a crack down on dissent?
>
> But Mr. Duan also is demanding an apology, that the book cease publication,
> and about $24,000 in compensation. Few observers miss the irony. "He's a
> leftist," says Mr. Ma, the co-author. "His theories never supported
> copyrights."
There is no irony. Mr. Duan is protecting his rights currently recognized in the legal regime in the primitive stage of soicialism. His personal believe in the final stage of socialism does not negate his current rights. Should an opponent of the income tax in the US lose his right to claim a tax deduction? Mr. Ma sounds like a bigot who uses anti-discrimiation rehtoric to practice discrimination. He pretends to praise virtue in order to better practise vice.
If Mr. Ma respects leftist theory, he should revert all means of production to public ownership.
> Mr. Duan, who wears a coat, tie and pork-pie hat even when receiving
> visitors in his immaculate two-room apartment, says he has been
> misrepresented. "Marx talks about public ownership of the means of
> production," he says. "That doesn't mean everything belongs to everyone."
Wearing a coat and tie and living in a clean two-room apartment does not disqualify one from being a Marxist. Sadly, the attempt by the WSJ to turn this story into one of bemused cultural comedy only exposes the WSJ correspondent's lack of understanding of China and his shollow insight into the process of political struggles. Mr. Forney could have written an intelligent report of the serious ideological struggle behind this trivial legal incident, but that would be out of character for the WSJ. Any American who doubts the political undercurrent in legal proceedings, need only looking at the impeachment farce. One can focus on the hypocratic attitude on sex, or one can report on the bitterness of ideological struggle in American politics.
This incident, among many others, points out the on-going struggle in China for the correct line for building socialism in the coming cnetury. Leftists everywhere should guard against being trapped by rightwing propaganda into unwittingly joining the mindless chrous in attacking China from both the right and the left. China is now left alomst alone in its heroic struggle to save socialism from overwhelming global defeat. Just as FRD saved capitalism by adopting Marxist/Keynesian measures, China's flirtation with some aspects of capitlaism in order to deal with a predominantly capitalist global economy cannot be dismissed as merely ideological sin. All leftists should rally around China to help in completing this historical task. Socialism is the end state of historical problems well solved. Socialism is not the name of a pious prayer.
Henry C.K. Liu