From: H.Wang@bradford.ac.uk (H WANG)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Political Prostitutes or Democractic Activitists  ?
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:09:41 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90908648@ccw403

In article <1992Nov18.132257.20627@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha) tell us:

>I used the word "imagine" because I wanted to bring up a hypothetical
>situation. I stressed that point because I *don't* know of a specific
>example of such a thing happening. BUT, I do know that the corruption
>of government officials in China is a serious problem, and that it will
>continue to be a problem in the new market system.
>
            You could have said that directly without 
            your `hypothetical situation'.

>Furthermore, I predict that such corruption will be one of the more
>serious problems China's booming economy will have to face once the
>initial "gold rush" comes to an end.

            I think Jiang Zemin said this in his report on CCP congress,
            so why always repeat.

>Come on, hypothetical situations are not out of bounds in civilized and
>polite discussions. If you don't think such a situation is likely to
>occur, feel free to say so. (I think you are incredibly naive, but that's
>just my opinion.) 

            OK.

  (when asked to name a 'counter-revolutionary' accusation
   based on bussiness activity:)
>No, I can't, as I stated above. But (given time) I could compile a list
>of "counterrevolutionaries" who were engaged in just about any other
>activity. I would include Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi on this list
>for attempting to implement capitalist reforms prior to the CR. And if you
>think "China has changed", think again. Weren't the citizens in TAM on 6/4
>"counterrevolutionaries"? Don't you think there will be more counter-
>revolutionaries is the future? Anyone who threatens the power of the CCP
>(or some CCP official) can be brought down most easily with this label. And
>who in the near future is going to become powerful? Successful business
>people, that's who.

            What made CCP so powerful? Isolation from the outside
            world, isn't it? Aren't blockade and sanctions stupid?
            The Chinese people suffered enough, didn't they?

>The point I'm trying to make is that economic opportunity is not the end
>all. Human rights must play a role in China development as well.

            This is not your copyright; Dr. Sun, Mr. Jiang, Chairman Mao, 
            everybody said this, in a much better way than yours.
            And they were professional politicians. 
            Whom should I trust? Them? Or you? `An American'?

>Perfectly ridiculous. I have a memory. I haven't forgotten that power is
>abused by government officials in China. Excuse me, I need to get my
>head checked.

            These days even CCP officials talk about this. 
            Can't you tell us some thing new? e.g., to name 
            a few corrupted, power-abusing  official&sons? 
            ( ..oh, not `No, I cannot, as I stated above' again!)

>I'm sorry that you inferred that I was implying that such abuses of power 
>had already happened in exactly the way as I had described them. My intention
>was to imply that such abuses can (and probably will) occur in a system
>of government where government officials have authoritarian power. And 
>while it is nice to see the Chinese people's standard of living improving 
>because of the new economic reforms, once the arbitrary powers of corrupt 
>officials affect one's life personally, CMFN may not appear to be so 
>detrimental to China.

            You are influenced by the `Gang of Four' in a bad way.
            They prefered socialist weeds than capitalist rice.
            You prefer democratic CMFN than authoritarian MFN.

>Many people like me want CMFN to go thru. That is, we want China to have MFN
>status, but we want human rights in China, too. Do those sentiments make
>one a "political prostitute"?  It seems the implicit assumption of many is 
>that if CMFN is granted, China will not make human rights concessions, and 
>MFN status will be dropped. I don't agree.

           (BTW, I do not like the wording of the subject line of this post. )

            CMFN sounds like wonder-drug to you, doesn't it? 
            And you are addicted to it. And you force others to take it.

>       (Yes, I'm an American, and yes, America has injustices, too.
>That's not the point.)

            It is a successful American Economy that makes Americans
            respectful. Not their philosophy. Nor their gunships. 
            Nor those Americans who forget where their roots were.

            H.

>
>Mark
>