致中国共产主义青年团中央书记处常务书记赵勇的公开信

卢跃刚

赵勇阁下:

我们必须进行一次直言不讳的谈话。阁下五月二十四日下午在中国青年报中层干部会上的讲话令报社许多同仁及我本人的极度反感和失望。阁下代表本届团中央书记处在中国青年报树立了一个恶劣的形象,一个小官僚“一朝权在手,便把令来行”的形象。阁下的讲话,传达的信息很多,剔除大话、套话和言不由衷的话,择其要点有三:一、谁要是不听话,随时随地可以滚蛋,虽然阁下的原话是“谁要是不想干,今天打报告今天就批准”;二、中国青年报是“团报”,不是“抽象的大报”;三、不能用“理想主义”办报。阁下的讲话充满了教训、恐吓和无知。

关于第一点,在座聆听阁下教诲的中国青年报同仁很清楚,阁下已不是恶狠狠的威胁,而是在重述已经发生的事实。对副总编辑樊永生、《青年参考》主编梁平、记者陈杰人的处理,显然是“杀鸡给猴看”,赶尽杀绝,在报社内部引起了极大的思想混乱。武汉女大学生卖淫的报道有严重错误,察其原因,主要是因为记者缺乏经验,编辑把关疏忽,总编辑通气不够。有错,但是错不当诛。记者开除,主编撤职,主管副总编辑“辞职”,阁下们开创了中国青年报历史上“小题大做”、“党同伐异”、“落井下石”的先例。按照阁下们的逻辑,自胡耀邦以来团中央和中国青年报的许多历史都要改写,因为中国青年报五十多年所犯的错误,比武汉大学生卖淫报道失误严重的多得是,处理却是完全不同思路和后果。和“六四”比怎么样?十五年前,1989年5月11日,就是在六楼大会议室阁下讲话的地方,前团中央书记处书记、时任中共中央政治局常委的胡启立同志代表党中央来中国青年报就中国新闻体制改革问题与青年报人对话,而且当时无论是代表新闻界与中共中央高层对话,还是广场现场的报道,后来被定性为“政治导向错误”,问题严不严重?那时的团中央领导如果想投机或者自保,可以找到一万个理由对中国青年报高层和中层干部“落井下石”,而且绝对不会像今天这样反弹。团中央没那么做。“六四”开枪以后,团中央一位主管书记来报社看望大家,也是在六楼大会议室发表讲话。我忍不住想先告诉阁下讲话的效果,那次讲话后,奇迹般地消除了青年报人对团中央的某些疑虑和抵触情绪,将心比心,互相理解,使得青年报人能在国难当头又前途难卜的情况下,与团中央风雨同舟,和衷共济。阁下的讲话与那位团中央书记的讲话效果为何有天壤之别?道理很简单,他说的是人话,讲的是常理。六楼大会议室是见证中国社会和中国青年报历史的地方,不管是谁,不管怎样表现,包括撒野的表现,都会被纪录在案,都会给历史留下记忆。报社不同于官僚机构,官僚机构官大一级压死人,“真理”和“真理”的解释权,谁官大掌握在谁的手里。当然,体制内也有明白人。前不久,胡启立同志接受了我和贺延光的专访。他1989年后,十五年没有接受过记者的专访。我们都知道,启立同志因“六四”下台,1990年出来工作,当了机电部排名最后的副部长。然而,他很快进入情况,成为打破中国电信业垄断,形成电信业竞争局面的“领军人物”。一般情况下,从中共中央政治局常委、未来的总书记接班人,连降五级,实行象征性的、安抚性的、以观后效性的安置,从权力金字塔的顶尖跌到了最底层,心理落差是极大的,也很难在政治上有所作为。我问他为官之道,他说,官位再高,并不能说明他的智慧和能力有多高,官位再低也同样不能说明他的智慧和能力有多低。他的回答实际上阐释了做官、做人、做事之间的关系,也正是在这一点上能区分出个人的素质和品质。阁下真该听听启立同志的教诲。“陈杰人事件”发生后,樊永生主动请辞,承担稿件终审领导责任,有人说他幼稚,有人请他从报社的大局出发收回成命,他说:“我可以不做官,但是不可以不做人!”说起来,樊永生应该算阁下们的前辈。他1978年就参加了共青团第十次代表大会的筹备工作,当时阁下们各位还是孩子。他当时有两个选择,要么去刚刚复刊的中国青年报当记者,要么回江苏某地当团地委书记,他选择了当记者。可见,他是把新闻工作当作了终身职业来选择的。他当副总编辑二十年,新闻敏感,心胸包容,谦虚待人,团结同志,领导了许多有重大影响的报道,在报社享有很高的威信。我还想特别强调的是,他在报社是有名的谦谦君子。“陈杰人事件”中,他犯了两个错误,一个错误是稿件终审疏忽,一个错误是用君子的逻辑面对政客的逻辑。政客的逻辑是什么?就是落井下石尤恐不及,就是借机扩大事态,把事件人为升级,改组中国青年报高层领导班子。细细观察整个事态发展的过程,不能不让人怀疑这次对中国青年报的改组是一场窥伺已久的阴谋。阁下们的错误是,在一个不恰当的时间,选择了一个不恰当的人物和事件,采取外科手术式的不恰当方法来改组中国青年报,把一个偶发性和常规性的事件政治化,一举解决中国青年报的高层人事问题。阁下们的错误是把中国青年报当作了一个官僚机构的下属机构,相当程度地恶化(或者说“毒化”)了中国青年报的内部政治生态,想把中国青年报办成一张听喝听令的黑板报。阁下们给青年报人传达的所有信息已经到位。但是,阁下们并没有收到震慑的效果,反而在中国新闻界给阁下们自己制造了一个丑闻,让中国青年报蒙受了前所未有的耻辱。为了纠正团中央失当、过当的处分决定,给团中央一次体面地改正错误的机会,前不久,中国青年报七十多名编辑记者致信团中央书记处和周强书记,要求恢复樊永生的工作,遭到周强书记的断然拒绝。七十多名编辑记者一致行动,为改正团中央的一项错误决定签名致书,是史无前例的。当然,在阁下们眼里,民意狗屁都不是,也不会在乎什么丑陋的历史记录。

我也在信上签了字。我们心存侥幸。我们对团中央报有善意的期待。我们有理由对团中央报有善意的期待,因为,从冯文彬、胡耀邦到李克强,七任团中央第一书记以及他们所领导的书记处,不论是什么时期,不论针对什么事情,都对中国青年报报有善意和尊重,甚至对中国青年报的不同意见都报有倾听和接受的雅量。当然,他们的雅量有前提,第一,对青年报人有充分的信任;第二,对青年报人的职业标准和职业水准有充分的尊重;第三,对把握大局势有充分的自信;第四,对大是大非问题有相当的默契和共识。青年报人对这种雅量十分珍视,以至于遇到复杂的政治局面时,能够与团中央保持高水准的一致。请注意,我在“一致”前面的定语,不是“高度的”,而是“高水准的”。“保持高度的一致”很容易,很被动,直肠子,吃啥拉啥;没脑子,指哪儿打哪儿,见谁咬谁。“保持高水准的一致”很难,却很生动,不仅要有政治智慧和勇气,还要有很高的职业水准。举一个我亲身经历的例子。1986年底,1987年初,反对资产阶级自由化,北大学潮,总书记胡耀邦下台,开除了刘宾雁、吴祖光、王若望的党籍,改革开放出现大回潮,局势很紧张。这段时间,我在总编室一版上夜班,一天晚上,白班送来一篇团中央拟好的本报社论,标题是“同学们你们要赶快成熟起来”,第二天头版头条见报。值班副总编辑周志春浏览了一遍交给我,说:“跃刚,你看看,觉得怎么样。”我看完后说:“内容还可以,但是标题不行,有教训人的口气。语句也不通顺。”周志春又让负责一版版面的总编室副主任何春龙看,何春龙说:“我同意跃刚的意见。”周志春问:“你们是什么意见?”我说:“改。”何春龙说:“改。”周志春拿过稿子,“同学们”后面加了一个逗号,删去“你们要”,我们一致叫好,那种家长式的教训变成了平等的交流和劝导。改完标题,周志春打电话请示总编辑和团中央,一致同意。八十年代末,中国青年报发行近二百万份,对大学生的影响很大,社论发表后,反应良好。总结起来,我们无非是在大动荡时期头脑冷静,坚持了职业的标准和操守,坚持了新闻媒体在信息传播过程中应该有的角色。当然,还有一点私心,就是不愿意在历史的进程中同流合污,留下恶劣的记录,哪怕我们可以在“工具”和“喉舌”的挡箭牌下不承当任何个人的责任。其实,这不仅是个人的职业准则,也是社会道义的要求,更是对历史后果的警惕。1993年,我在阁下的家乡与钟叔河先生讨论现代化问题时,他说,“什么是现代社会?现代社会就是每个负责任的个体构成的社会。”以“宣传”为指向的新闻媒体政策,明确主张“工具论”和“喉舌论”,极端强调党报的党性原则,忽视并反对党报的人民性原则,扼杀编辑记者的人性、个性,扼杀报纸的新闻属性,鼓励报社和编辑记者不为自己的职业行为负责任,甚至鼓励他们投机取巧、助纣为虐,实际是对现代社会的反动,把社会导向专制和蒙昧。我们该总结的历史教训太多了。别的不说,仅仅从危机处理的角度看,1989年,如果没有《人民日报》“四·二六社论”,会拱出那么大的火,导致学生和社会各界持续不断的大游行吗?会有后来的学生绝食和情况不可收拾地恶化吗?“四·二六社论”对局势的判断,对学生运动性质的判断,以及那种杀气腾腾、准备秋后算账的口气,很大程度上激化了矛盾,增加了理智地处理社会危机的障碍和难度,汇合各种复杂的因素,导致了至今让所有中国人伤痛不已的大悲剧。仅从危机处理的角度看,两次危机,两篇社论,两种效果。团中央用杀一儆百的方式处理“陈杰人事件”,已经让我们感到了来者不善,但是,我们仍然报着极大的善意去团中央向周强书记当面呈交签名信,直至阁下们践踏我们的善意。我们的善意是,通过恢复樊永生的工作,修复并调整团中央和中国青年报的关系,在中国青年报和团中央、报社内部编辑记者和主要领导人之间的重新建立信任和信用。我们明白了,阁下们不要报人,要的是马仔。按照阁下的逻辑,大多数青年报人都该滚蛋。我们的冲突,是兵痞逻辑与秀才逻辑的冲突,是官僚文化与报人文化的冲突。而且,我们还敢推断,将来如果遇到与1987、1989相当的社会危机,阁下们要的一定是1989年《人民日报》的“四·二六社论”,而不是1987年的中国青年报社论,因为,阁下们与阁下们的前任比较,私心太重,官气太重,既不可能有历史的自信,也不可能有历史的智慧,当然就更谈不上历史的勇气。

有人说,今天“中国青年报的历史才真正开始”,大有“时间开始了”的气势。阁下则煞有介事地拿出1951年团中央创办中国青年报的会议纪要,向青年报人发问:“为什么要创办中国青年报?”本来是个青年报人要不断追问和自省的好问题,但是,这个问题从阁下的嘴里出来,从阁下制造的讲话氛围和“主子”般的姿态里出来,实在是别扭,甚至有点滑稽。不过,我们听懂了,阁下代表本届团中央书记处追根溯源,对中国青年报的现状表示了强烈的不满,重新宣布“时间开始了”。阁下提出这个问题是想强调:“中国青年报不是一个抽象的大报”,而是“团报”,你们搞清楚一点,我们握有中国青年报生杀予夺的权力,我们才是中国青年报真正的“主子”。其实,成熟的青年报人从来就没有怀疑这一点,我们报纸的老板是谁,我们办的是一份“共青团中央机关报”,正是以这种共识为前提,我们遵守着上级和下级、宣传和办报、工具和职业报人之间的游戏规则,在1978年复刊后创造了中国青年报的辉煌,把中国青年报办成了对社会,尤其对青年人有着广泛深入影响的“全国性大报”,办成了备受读者和业内人士尊敬的“伟大报纸”,而且,当赞赏中国青年报的时候,都要赞赏团中央创造了一个办报的宽松环境。了解中国办报环境的人都知道,没有上级主管部门的信任和支持,不可能办出一张好报纸。我们在总结中国青年报的办报经验时,须臾不敢看轻团中央的作用,特别是胡耀邦同志在共青团系统培养的并得到良好延续的民主、活跃、敏锐等好的传统,由此而形成了中国青年报不同于其他报纸的办报文化。我们承认,中国青年报和团中央有领导和被领导的关系,还有发行上的依存关系。阁下在讲话时强调中国青年报发行,今天四十多万份发行量,百分之九十是公费订阅。所谓“公费订阅”,相当多数是团费订阅,话说白了,你中国青年报的发行要靠团中央,你中国青年报的生存要靠团中央。在中国青年报完成市场化、中国开放报禁之前,这种情况还会继续下去。我们对此没有异议。那么,今天我们的分歧在哪儿呢?我们的分歧在于,阁下们在把玩权术,按照官场规则塑造一张听话的“团报”,而我们想办一张推进中国社会进步,青史留名的好报纸;阁下们要马仔、工具、喉舌,我们进入报社第一天起,就立志改变党报几十年形成的“奴才文化”、“小人文化”、“政客文化”、“说大话、空话、假话的文化”,采取相对中立的政治立场,始终保持相对独立的新闻价值判断,做普世职业标准的编辑记者。一言以蔽之,我们的分歧在于对中国青年报办报文化、办报理念的理解。按照阁下的说法,就是反对“理想主义”,反对办“抽象的大报”。关于后者,我们可以明确地告诉阁下,我们从未有过办“抽象的大报”的想法并形成什么办报理念,中国青年报也从来没有“抽象”过,性质、主张、目标、形态、策略、技术都很具体,很明确,阁下或阁下们的担心,无非是害怕中国青年报失控,成为“第四种权力”。我们倒是不担心在这个层面上与阁下们取得共识。我们的担心是,阁下们为了红顶子,把中国青年报办成“中国青年简报”,办成宣传自己政绩,满足某种虚荣心的垃圾场。我们这些担心不是没有道理的。我九十年代初担任经济部副主任就知道,之后又听夜班的同志说,阁下就是爱在中国青年报露脸,想方设法往报纸塞稿子,“爱岗敬业”,推销自己工作成绩的人。如果阁下们是在这个意义上强调报纸的“团性”,我们之间肯定有巨大的差异,我们则更强调报纸的公共属性。这是个老问题。本报团的生活部及其保留的“不可动摇”的、“没人看”的专版,以及要闻版和综合新闻版捏着鼻子发团中央和各级团组织各种活动的稿子,就是这个矛盾的妥协。这是妥协的底线,即中国青年报可以为团中央设置垃圾桶,但是决不能把中国青年报办成一个垃圾报。办垃圾报,肯定有人办,但决不是我们这些人办。这个问题的解决,我意应该从改变共青团工作作风(首先要从书记处改起),进而改善团的工作宣传做起。有好的做法值得总结,比如“保卫母亲河”、“青年志愿者行动”、“希望工程”等等。对于我们来说,阁下反对办“抽象的大报”是一个有明显针对性的假命题,完全可以在技术层面上解决,不需要讨论,不值得讨论,与阁下反对理想主义办报的命题相比,这个问题完全可以忽略不计。

不知阁下注意到了没有,我在行文中,多次使用“青年报人”的提法。这种提法在中国新闻界是独一无二的。这种提法有两个含义:一是“中国青年报同仁”,一是把“青年”当作定语,强调“报人”。这是中国青年报传统和文化的核心概念。在党报内部“同仁办报”、“报人办报”,是我们青年报人身体力行的高度默契,也是青年报人凝聚力、归属感之所在,也是青年报人追求报社文化的最高目标。我们以“报人”自居,自持,自傲。今天的情况我不敢说,我敢说的是,这个传统和文化曾经排斥“官本位”文化,反对用官僚的眼光评价编辑记者,虽然绝大多数党报把自己看作官僚系统的一个部分,许多编辑记者当官得到了好处。甚至有极致的例子,某副部级报纸的总编辑们,以把报纸办得没人看为己任,以把新闻史上“思想解放运动的先驱”毁掉为己任,报纸发行量一天天降下去(听说发行量不到十万份),自己的官位子一天天升起来。报纸办得没人看,不但无罪,而且有功,官升三级。其中的诀窍我们知道,就是强奸民意,把报纸办给上面看,就是练习《葵花宝典》——自己阉割自己,把乌纱帽看的比公益、良知重。上面喜欢什么?喜欢“保持一致”,喜欢听话、跟风。这些人,在官场上是“成功者”,在正直的报人心目中,在新闻史上是小丑。我们不愿意同流合污,还心存办报的理想。正是在这个意义上,中国青年报的传统和文化,具有阁下在讲话中所蔑视、反对的“理想主义”色彩,这一色彩使中国青年报成为诞生名记者名编辑的摇篮,成为新闻界和大学新闻系毕业生向往的地方。

2000年,我曾主编了中国青年报复刊以来的重要报道选集《本报今日出击》三卷。我在序言中总结中国青年报的传统和文化,主要有两条,即“理想主义加业务民主空气”。后来,备受老青年报人尊敬的前总编辑王石跟我说:“跃刚,你还要加上一条,就是‘鼓励出名记者名编辑’。”王石何许人?我估计阁下只知其一不知其二,报社的年轻同仁则可能完全陌生了。王石可能是中共建党以来,党报总编辑中唯一不是因为“错误”或者升迁而自动提出辞去总编辑职务的人。今天回忆起来都觉得匪夷所思。王石1952年调入中国青年报,任吉林记者站记者,1957年春天调到编辑部,参加编辑“辣椒”。“反右”中,“辣椒”全军覆没,都被打成了右派,王石因为来的晚、文章少而幸免于难,受到“党内严重警告”处分。1960年,王石因为主笔《为了六十一个阶级兄弟》一举成名,成为影响至今的名记者。1978年中国青年报复刊,王石担任文艺部主任,1979年担任副总编辑,1982年坚辞未果,担任总编辑,至1986年12月辞职,担任中国青年报新闻研究所所长。他辞职那年那月,1986年12月,我进入中国青年报。我在报社小白楼门口墙上,看见王石用钢笔写的辞去中国青年报总编辑的“告示”,不仅吃惊,而且不解。李大同去找王石,问:“老王,你说真话,为什么要辞职。”王石说:“说真话,两条,一条是检查写的我头昏脑胀,屁滚尿流,不堪重负;一条是我们的思想已经老化,跟不上你们了,不能领导你们了。”我也问他这个问题。他说:“总编辑做烦了,大事小事都找你,提拔干部,家庭矛盾……每天弄得焦头烂额,屁滚尿流。还有一个重要原因,想留住徐祝庆。那年,《人民日报》理论部主任周修强病重,向社长钱李仁提出,调徐祝庆回《人民日报》理论部主持工作。徐祝庆就是从《人民日报》理论部调到中国青年报的。钱李仁给团中央主管书记李源潮打电话,李源潮给我打电话。徐祝庆1982年当副总编辑,人品、业务反映都不错,想留住他。我跟李至伦说,我愿意下,提拔徐祝庆。我害怕至伦误解,误解我不愿意跟他合作,专门作了说明。李源潮来报社征求中层干部的意见,都说‘老九不能下’。我仍然坚持,又去找了宋德福(团中央第一书记)。”王石下的时候,学潮汹涌,外界多有传闻,还有没有其他的原因不好说,但是有一个事实是可以肯定的:没人强迫他辞职,不仅不强迫,而且极力挽留。那年,他五十三岁,也就是说,如果没有什么变故,理论上,他至少还可以在中国青年报总编辑的位子上再干七年。他还跟我讲了第三个原因:“我还想当记者,写一些大报道,大通讯。”他卸任后,采访写作了“李润虎的几幕人生”等多篇长篇通讯。“李润虎的几幕人生”获中国新闻二等奖。我把这个故事讲完的时候,我的思维发生了短暂的错乱。我自己问自己:“这个故事真实吗?中国青年报历史上真的发生过这样的事?”

提到李至伦和徐祝庆,我还有故事说。先说李至伦。1986年12月,我在总编室报到后,上了三个月的夜班,然后转白班。一天,编前会后,我在白班办公室看第二天见报的稿目和稿子。头条是团的生活部的长篇通讯。我发现稿子有显而易见的问题。我向总编室主任陈泉涌汇报。泉涌指着发稿签上一个名字说:“你知道他是谁吗?”我说:“不知道。”泉涌说:“他是本报社长兼党组书记。”我知道,泉涌不是拿大官压我,而是警告我,编前会那么多报社领导和部门主任定的头条稿子,长篇通讯,提意见要慎重,特别是颠覆性的意见一定要有根据。而且,稿子是一位老记者写的。我又看了一遍稿子,坚持我的判断。泉涌说:“你把你的意见写出来。”我拿过一篇稿纸,写了好几条意见,交给泉涌。泉涌拿着意见就走了。总编室白班和社长、总编辑们的办公室在六楼同一层。一会儿,泉涌带着个高个阔脸的人进来,介绍说:“这是刚来的编辑卢跃刚。”又对我介绍说:“这是社长李至伦同志。你把你的意见当面跟至伦说一下。”我说,稿子的情节和细节可能有问题,估计没有采访,或者是采访了,没有采访到位。至伦听完我的意见,说:“稿子撤下来,明天不见报了,你们找记者谈谈。”找记者来总编室谈,果然,没采访,是根据一份材料写的稿子。我们的意见是,稿子主题不错,建议记者重新采访。这时没有官大官小,只有稿子的好坏标准。李至伦还有一件事不能不说。1985年10月,叶研去老山前线采访,出言不慎,得罪了某军首长,告到总书记胡耀邦那里,胡耀邦批示说:中国青年报记者叶研问题严重,要认真检查,如果一贯表现不好,又不认真检查,其中任何一条,就调离新闻岗位。一天,中共中央办公厅主任、书记处书记王兆国打电话给李至伦,落实总书记指示,催办叶研的处理。李至伦说:“兆国同志,我们已经派人调查,等调查结果出来后再处理不迟。如果你们不同意我的处理办法和意见,可以先撤我的职!”李至伦现在是监察部部长、中纪委副书记。叶研被保护下来,后来参加了大兴安岭火灾、1998水灾、内蒙古雪灾、南极和北极等一系列重大报道,获范长江新闻奖。

阁下在讲话前宣布徐祝庆退休,可是当着报社全体中层干部,对徐祝庆没有一个字的评价,哪怕是敷衍的评价。孟子说:“老吾老,以及人之老;幼吾幼,以及人之幼。”阁下连起码的传统伦理都不懂。按照年龄计算,徐祝庆应该是阁下们的父辈。他1982年当副总编辑的时候,阁下们还是乳臭未干的孩子。徐祝庆1987年担任总编辑,1988年李至伦调到监察部后,党组书记、社长、总编辑一肩挑,继续着前任的辉煌,在1980年代末,把中国青年报办成了让业内和读者尊敬的“伟大报纸”。他是中国青年报历史上在位时间最长的社长、总编辑。话说的俗一点,没有功劳有苦劳,连一点苦劳的安抚都没有,寡情寡义,令人心寒。这算什么?辞退店里的伙计还要说两句虚伪的贴己话呢!徐祝庆怎么看?青年报人有自己的评价。前不久,我们一些报社的老人为徐祝庆设宴送别,志春说:“老徐是什么人呢?老徐是那种在位时不觉得怎么样,离开的时候显得特别重要的人。”这个评价在我们看来是非常到位非常高的评价。老徐没有辜负大家。他在宴席上发言,首先向在座的一些同志道歉,向六四以后曾经处分和伤害过的同志道歉。本来,大家想你好我好大家好,嘻嘻哈哈为老徐送别,可是老徐挑起了一个沉重的话题。这个话题不仅是历史记忆的沉重,也是现今状况的沉重。我们有一个共同的认识,中国青年报今天的诸多不如意,总体上是“六四后遗症”。国家、报社、个人的命运是联系在一起的。在座的人,都是那段历史的见证人,都知道在当时的大背景下,老徐一个人根本无法逆转形势,不必为那个历史错误和悲剧承担任何责任。他代表上级的意思,对报社一些中层干部进行处分,为了尽快过关,保全报社,有的处分不得不违反《党章》的原则,是可以谅解的。老徐性格内向,不擅交际、应酬,相信这些道歉的话,深思熟虑,淤积已久。我个人认为,他是在澄清大是大非问题上的立场,庶几是良知的剖白。他的剖白令在场所有的人动容。老徐有很多缺点,当场也有人指出这些缺点,但是,有一点大家是共识的:他是个正派人。六四期间,我们与他在局势判断和报道思想上有多次重大冲突,我们甚至对他有许多激烈言辞,但是他能不计前嫌,使用和他有直接冲突的人,比如大同、叶研、我。

王石不当总编辑当记者,李至伦保护记者、敢于担当,徐祝庆忍辱负重、良知剖白,还有许许多多今天没有篇幅来说的故事,构成了青年报人文化,同时也影响了青年报人文化——确凿无疑的阁下所鄙视和呵斥的“理想主义”文化。可能在阁下们的价值观里,这些不啻是“傻子文化”、“自杀文化”,与阁下所谓的“现实主义”相差不啻几千万里!我们今天来归纳总结中国青年报文化,是想告诉阁下,中国青年报的文化是青年报人几代人共同创造的,是风风雨雨半个多世纪的结果。我们对我们所有的行为负责。我们愿意倾听任何批评的意见,我们可以和任何质疑平等讨论,惟独拒绝阁下居高临下的呵斥。阁下在我们之间设置了一条鸿沟,鸿沟的两边游荡着完全不同的两个灵魂。我在《本报今日出击》“序言”中说:“张建伟经常用加缪的‘西绪弗斯神话’来鼓励自己,我则愿意举中国治水的例子。比如黄河。黄河是抚育中华民族的母亲河,也是一条几千年来给中华民族带来灾难和痛苦的害河,甚至有‘黄河清,圣人出’的诅咒与期待。面对黄河,我们爱恨交加。明明知道黄河水永远不能清澈,明明知道黄河绝难尽行舟楫和灌溉之利,明明知道千辛万苦流血流汗修筑的堤坝可能顷刻之间化为乌有,明明知道治河‘不能改变,只能改善’,却丝毫不能贬损我们的祖先和他们的子孙满目希望,满目绝望中的希望,在黄河岸边种上一棵树,为黄河大堤培上一掊(右换‘不’)土,为黄河决口背上一捆薪草的永恒意义和价值。种一棵树,培一掊(右换‘不’)土,背一捆薪草,年年累积,循环往复,绵延不绝,何等壮观!正是在这个过程中,我们才能感受到不懈努力的‘理想’的高峰体验,才能登临怀风,在历史的伟岸上感受到风云际会,波澜壮阔。”“复刊以后的中国青年报报道,大概可以分为两个阶段,第一阶段是七十年代末到八十年代末,第二阶段是九十年代。两个意象似可概括:其一,‘君看一叶舟,出没风波里’;其二,悬崖边沿的舞步。大江弄潮,欲取肥美之鲈鱼;悬崖舞蹈,既揽奇峻之山川。--惊险而富于挑战。”这样的归纳和描述,既有知其不可而为之,也有知其可而不为之,与阁下所倡导的“现实主义”实在不相干。我们的灵魂,我相信是西绪弗斯式的,千年治河式的。现在,阁下不但可以蔑视“理想主义”,而且可以嘲笑“理想主义”了。阁下在颇有玄机的“现实主义”告诫中,暗含着一种“理想主义”幼稚,不切合实际的逻辑。阁下是在以官僚的逻辑套青年报人的逻辑,以官场谋生的手段解构青年报人的文化。有些东西在官场是个玩意儿,出了官场就不是个玩意儿!我们知道,理想主义在中国官场活不下去,胡耀邦就是典型。理想主义在官场往往被嘲笑被总结。其实,历史上并不缺乏“理想主义”(如果能叫“理想主义”的话)创造伟大政治人物的事例,如阁下的乡党曾国藩。曾国藩之所以能以一介书生打败太平天国,就是因为他有维护儒教正统的文化理想。如华盛顿等美国独立战争领导人因为他们伟大的理想和政治远见,不仅创造了《独立宣言》,而且创造了支持后来一个伟大而强盛国家的《宪法》。那种蝇营狗苟的政客厚黑、侏儒的“现实主义”理论还有什么可值得说的呢?几百年前的一天,一位高人来到橘子洲头,指着湘江说:“湘江不过漓水一余波耳”。湘江过长沙,已成大势,其势汹汹,不过尔尔。

当然,“理想主义”对于青年报人来说,不是狂妄、不食人间烟火的代名词。青年报人不是桃花源中人,自我审美,自我陶醉,自我得意,总是要察言观色,“埋头拉车,抬头看路”,我们还没有愚蠢到不清楚自己生存和办报环境的地步,否则,早就崩盘了。中国青年报的理想主义其实是很现实的。本报一位副总编辑曾与时任中宣部新闻局局长钟沛璋有一段对话很有代表性:一、坚决不说假话;二、不主动说假话;三、一定要说假话时,决不发明创造。他实际上阐明了三条底线:一个正直的普通人的底线——坚决不说假话;一个职业报人的底线——力求不说假话;一家党报——中国青年报的底线——被迫说假话时,只转述上面强迫说的假话,虽然是从我们的口里说出的假话。不仅是假话,还有大话、套话。时代不知道是在进步,还是在退步。打开电视,翻开报纸,假话一点没少,大话、套话漫天飞。而且有的大话、套话天天讲、月月讲、年年讲,全党讲,全民讲。两年前,我去江泽民的家乡江苏扬州采访,见到闹市区有一个巨型的公益广告牌,上面赤裸裸写着八个大字:“江淮之水,恩泽于民。”果然是“恩泽于民”。两年后,今年5月1日,扬州火车站通车,扬州人民就享受了现任总书记为前任总书记家乡火车站通车剪彩的殊荣。“五一”长假,我也在扬州,有幸耳闻了盛况。扬州人民还没有从现任总书记剪彩殊荣的亢奋中缓过劲来。一位官员向我炫耀:“你们北京火车站通车有这样的待遇没有?上海火车站通车有这样的待遇没有?”按照级别,扬州只是个地级市。我说这些,无非想揭示,青年报人有一种历史自觉,或者叫“历史警惕”,政客不必为历史负责,我们必须为历史负责,要防止政客为了保护既得利益,用“假大空”毁报纸。董桥说:“新闻是历史的草稿。”如果新闻成了历史的垃圾,或是假、丑、恶的帮凶,假、大、空的帮闲,将是何等恐怖的情景。历史的教训太多了。在各级党报不难听到这样一种言论,党报党报,是党的报纸,再难看也是党的报纸,办垮了也是党的报纸,跟我们有什么相干?一位省级党报的社长曾跟我说:“我的任务就是把报纸办的没有人看。”中国青年报与其他的党报最大的不同,就是许多青年报人把中国青年报也看作自己的报纸,看作自己的精神家园,看作实现自己价值、理想的安身立命的载体。中国青年报的“报人文化”、“同仁文化”正是在这种氛围中生长起来的。为了生存,我们也妥协,进取中妥协,突围中妥协,创新中妥协,锤炼出了许多让新闻界同行称羡不已的博弈理念、技术和技巧,与理想主义和民主业务空气一起,构成了中国青年报文化。八十年代后期,反自由化,一些左派痛恨中国青年报,系统搜集中国青年报的报道“罪证”,结果是“镜中花”,“水中月”。所以,青年报人对任何伤害中国青年报的行为都特别敏感,包括对阁下的讲话。

阁下在讲话结束前为此次讲话定了一个调子,说阁下是在和大家“谈心”。我们也想跟阁下、阁下们“谈心”。然而,“谈心”是这么“谈”的吗?阁下以为听阁下讲话这帮人是吃屎长大的?阁下以为台下这帮人智力低到连什么是“谈心”,什么是“训斥”都分辨不出来?阁下代表团中央书记处要求中国青年报领导班子“要加强学习”,我认为中国青年报领导班子是“要加强学习”,但是团中央书记处特别是阁下本人更“要加强学习”。为什么这么说?因为阁下众目睽睽“开黄腔”。阁下说要保证中共永远的执政地位,必须依靠笔杆子、枪杆子——“两杆子”。我们听得懂,阁下在引用阁下湖南老乡毛泽东的“两杆子理论”。两杆子理论,说的好听一点是“政治哲学”,说的贬义一些,是“统治术”。可是阁下忘了,那是革命党的政治哲学。在革命党夺取政权和早期巩固政权时期,这套政治哲学的潜含逻辑是笔杆子掌握在自己的手里,笔杆子后面站着枪杆子,控制舆论,舆论一律,想怎么说就可以怎么说,想怎么做就可以怎么做,谁要是敢于质疑和反对,就亮出枪杆子,于是几十年万马齐喑,于是“谎言说一千遍就是真理”,1949年以来政治运动不断,二十多年民不聊生,总结经验,其中一条就是中国共产党一直在革命党的轨道里运转,主要精力用在了阶级斗争、无产阶级专政上,折腾别人,折腾自己,最终折腾中华民族,以至1959—1962“三年困难时期”饿病交加,至少2700万人非自然死亡;以至酿成十年浩劫,六四悲剧。有人说,中国近现代的历史是湖南人和四川人的历史。湖南一百多年来产生了曾国藩、毛泽东、刘少奇、彭德怀等一系列影响中国历史走向的政治、军事、文化人物。阁下也能算三湘子弟中的一个人物,敢于在中国青年报六楼这个见证历史的地方,在二十一世纪,讲什么执政党的“两杆子”理论,几乎就能解释为,在人类社会民主化潮流浩浩荡荡情形下,中共要巩固执政地位,一靠控制舆论,二靠暴力。有阁下这样的湖南革命党后起之秀垫底,难怪1992年邓小平南巡讲话后,湖南还在广大农村搞什么“社会主义教育运动”了。熟悉历史的人都知道,中共选择经济体制改革,市场经济道路,就是按照那套革命党理论瞎折腾,已经严重动摇了执政的合法性,不得不承认严酷的现实,不得不向人民的经济要求做出妥协。到了今天,执政党必须正视人民的政治要求了,因为生产关系已经严重地束缚了生产力的发展,社会矛盾一触即发。实际上,中共由革命党向执政党转型的问题早已在民间和执政党内部有识之士、包括胡温高层中提出来了,即政治体制改革已是迫在眉睫,这不仅关乎中共的命运,也关乎中华民族的福祉。说白了,对于中共来说,就是必须完成从革命党向执政党的转型,并且在服膺《宪法》的前提下,通过民主渠道,解决自己执政的合法性问题,否则,后果太严重了。我们听明白了,阁下的回应是“两杆子”理论。“两杆子”,“两”也可读为“二”,“两杆子”可以读为“二杆子”。在互联网时代,在全球经济一体化时代,在民主化潮流时代,我们不得不遗憾地宣布,阁下的“两杆子”理论是一个“二杆子”理论。我真为阁下担心,担心让当今立志改革的当权者听见阁下的思想如此混乱,如此无知,会断送阁下的政治前程;更担心阁下这样的政客一旦执掌了更高的权力,可能为祸国家。

说阁下“无知”不冤。阁下把民调80%支持率的印度总理瓦杰帕伊突然被颠覆,归罪于媒体舆论导向出了问题,这种解释很像阁下的湖南老乡毛泽东解释尼克松下台。毛泽东的老朋友,美国总统尼克松因水门事件下台,消息传来,毛泽东在中南海红墙里的理解是:“有人想整他。”阁下与毛泽东犯了同样的错误,就是对民主制度的无知。无知无畏。不展开说了。

忍无可忍,遂有洋洋万言,唯望阁下好自为之。

micah@earthling.net
2004-07-25
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/01769.htm

The Lu Yuegang Letter (in English)

by Lu Yuegang

translated at EastSouthWestNorth

This translation was based upon the Chinese-language version as posted at New Century Net which is also mirrored here for further dissemination.  The article originally appeared in the intranet of the China Youth Daily newspaper.  The original article runs to 15,000 plus Chinese characters.  In view of the length of the article, my translation here was done quickly and cannot be considered completely accurate (especially the proper names of the individuals and their job titles).

Lu Yuegang is the deputy director of the news center in China Youth Daily.  On May 24th, 2004, Zhao Yong, Secretary of the Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Youth League, addressed the middle-level cadres at the China Youth Daily in a meeting.  The conversation was supposed to be about a scandal in which a China Youth Daily reporter violated professional standards, but the subject moved on to a demand for properly defined conduct from the newspaper.  

This letter was a open response from Lu after the meeting directed to Zhao, and was posted on the China Youth Daily intranet.  Subsequently, the letter was leaked to the outside world and circulated widely.

The interesting thing about this case is that this is not some grand theory on political science coming out of a research institute.  This is about the nuts-and-bolts of operating an established and esteemed newspaper, whereupon the journalistic professionalism comes into conflict with the outmoded party control mechanisms.  There are many tales of specific historical situations.

It is difficult to predict what will happen in this case, because there are two levels here.  The China Youth Daily is owned by the Chinese Communist Youth League and therefore must take orders from the League leadership.  This letter is a frontal assault on the League leadership without mincing any words.  Under normal circumstances, the writer should be out of the door in a flash.

However, the Chinese Communist Youth League is still answerable to even higher authorities, who are all too aware of the issues involved here.  Sooner or later, the issues raised here (namely, the de-regulation of the media industry into a free market model; the relaxation of party control over media coverage on the grounds that it is not compatible with a free market model; the legitimation of the Chinese Communist Party from a revolutionary party to a ruling party; etc) have to dealth with, and the last thing that they need is an international scandal in which the entire staff of the newspaper may walk out.


An Open Letter to Zhao Yong, Secretary of the Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Youth League

We must have a honest discussion.  On the afternoon of May 24th, 2004, you delivered a speech at the meeting with the middle-level cadres of the China Youth Daily, and you disappointed many colleagues including me extremely.  As the representative of the current central secretariat, you created a bad image for the China Youth Daily.  You looked like a petty official who "began to issue orders once you got a little power."  In your speech, you communicated many messages.  But after eliminating the lies, the clichιs and the dishonesties, there are three main points: (1) anyone who does not obey can get out of the door immediately, even though your original words were: "Anyone who doesn't want to work can turn in the resignation letter and it will approved on the same day"; (2) the China Youth Daily is the newspaper of the League, and not an "abstract large newspaper"; (3) the newspaper cannot be operated on the basis of "idealism."  Your speech was full of hectoring, intimidations and ignorance.

On the first point, all the China Youth Daily colleagues who listened to your lecture realized that you were not making a tough threat.  You were simply recounting the events that had already taken place.  The treatment of Assistant Editor-in-Chief Fan Yung-sun, "Youth Ideas" editor Liang Ping and reporter Zhen Qiyan were obviously instances of "killing the chickens to show the monkey" to clean house, and this has created a great deal of confusion among the staff.

The story about the Wuhan University female students prostituting themselves contained many serious errors.  The basic reasons were that the reporter was inexperienced, the editorial supervisor was negligent and the editor-in-chief did not say enough.  Such mistakes obviously cannot be simply forgotten.  The reporter was dismissed, the editor lost his position and the assistant editor-in-chief 'resigned.'  You have just set a precedent at the China Youth Daily for "exaggerating the problem," "cleaning the slate clear," and "shoving someone down a well and then dropping a rock on his head."

The mistakes that the China Youth Daily has committed in more than 50 years of history are much more serious than the error in the reporting of the Wuhan University female student prostitution case.  But the handling of those matters were completely different in philosophy and practice.

How about 6/4?  Fifteen years ago, on May 11, 1989, at the same sixth-floor meeting room that you held this meeting, former League Central Secretariat Secretary and then Chinese Communist Party Central Politburo standing committee member Hu Qili represented the central party organization to address the China Youth Daily about the reform of the Chinese news system.  At that time, no matter whether we were talking about any discussion as representatives of the news media with the central hierarchy, or any reports issued from the Square -- all of these were later determined to be "mistakes in political direction."  Would you not say that the problems were serious back then?  But at the time if the League central leadership wanted to be opportunistic or to preserve themselves, they could have found ten thousand reasons to find some high-level or middle-level cadres and "shove them into the well and drop rocks on their heads."  It would have guaranteed that there would be no blowback like today.

But the League central leaders did not do that.  After the shooting on 6/4, a managing secretary from the central leadership came to meet us at the same sixth-floor meeting room.  I cannot help but want to tell you about the consequences of that meeting.  That meeting was able to dispel much of the doubts and resistance towards the League central leadership, and we then became at one with the leadership.

But your speech was as different from that speech as heaven is from earth.  The reason is simple.  He was speaking what people were thinking and what was rational.  The sixth floor meeting room is a place of great significance for the China Youth Daily and Chinese society in general.  It does not matter who it was and it does not matter what they say (including tantrums), because all of that will be remembered for history.

A newspaper is different from a bureaucracy.  In a bureaucracy, someone with a higher rank has the power to hold "truth" and to define the "truth."  The person with the higher rank has the power.  Of course, people in the system will still know what is going on.

Some time ago, comrade Hu Qili was interviewed by Ho Yanguang and myself.  He had not been interviewed for 15 years since 1989.  We all knew that comrade Hu Qili left his post on account of 6/4; when he returned to work in 1990, he became the lowest ranked assistant department manager of the Telecommunications Department.  But he rapidly got into his work and broke through the monopoly of the telecommunications sector to become the champion of telecommunications competition.  Ordinarily, someone who used to be a standing committee member of the Chinese central government and an apparent heir to the secretary position would be psychologically damaged after being demoted five grade levels.  One would not expect any more political accomplishments from him.  So I asked him about how the ways of being an official.  He said that the rank of an official does not define his quality and ability.  You ought to listen to what he has to say.

After the Zhen Qiyan incident occurred, Fan Yung-sun voluntarily asked to resign in acceptance of the responsibility for the article.  Someone said that he was naive and others asked him to withdraw his resignation for the good of the newspaper.  He said, "I don't have to work as an official.  But I cannot refuse to be a human being!"  Fan Yung-sun should be your forebear.  

In 1989, when Fan Yung-sun worked to prepare the tenth Chinese Youth League meeting of representatives, you were still a child.  At that moment, he had the choice of either becoming a reporter at the newly re-established China Youth Daily or to go back to Gansu and become a local party secretary.  He chose to become a reporter.  This proved that he treated news reporting as his lifelong career.  He was the assistant editor-in-chief for twenty years, he had a great instinct for news, he was open-minded, he was humble, he unified the comrades, he directed many influential reports and he was highly esteemed at the newspaper.  I also have to emphasize that he was a gentleman at the newspaper.

During the Zhen Qiyan affair, he committed two errors.  One error was that he was negligent in reviewing the article.  The other error was that he applied the gentleman's logic to the politician's logic.  What is the politician's logic?  To "shove someone down a well and drop a rock on them", to expand the case, to artificially escalate the matter and to reorganize the senior leadership of the China Youth Daily.  

In retrospect, it is difficult not to suspect that the reorganization of the China Youth Daily was a conspiracy that was in the works for a long time.  Your error was to choose an inappropriate moment, to select an inappropriate incident and cast of characters and to use extraordinary means over a commonplace normal event to reorganize the China Youth Daily.  Your mistake is to treat the China Youth Daily as a lower-level department in a bureaucracy and thereby debase (or perhaps "poison") the political consciousness of the China Youth Daily in order to turn it into a blackboard newspaper that obeys instructions.

The message that you wanted to deliver has been received.  But you did not achieve the desired effect of intimidating people.  On the contrary, the Chinese news industry has generated a public scandal for you while bringing unprecedented shame to the China Youth Daily.  A while ago, in order to rectify the incorrect and excessive actions taken by the League leadership, more than 70 editors and reporters at the China Youth Daily signed a letter to the League Central Secretary Zhou Chang to ask for the reinstatement of Fan Yung-sun.  Zhou Chang categorically refused the request.  The fact that more than 70 editors and reporters took joint action to ask for the League leadership to correct an error was unprecedented in history.  Of course, in your eyes, public opinion is worth less than a dog's fart and you couldn't care less about looking ugly in the historical record.

I signed my name on the letter.  We were hopeful.  We had kind expectations from the League central leadership.  We had reason to have kind expectations from the League central leadership, because of the history from Fung Wenbin to Hu Yaoban to Li Heijiang, from the seven different League first secretaries to the secretariat that they led.  No matter what the period was and what the issues were, the leadership has always regarded kindly and respected the China Youth Daily.  They have always had the magnanimity to listen to the divergent opinions from the China Youth Daily.

Of course, their receptivity had precedents.  First of all, they have sufficient confidence in the China Youth Daily.  Second, they have sufficient respect about the professional quality and standards at the China Youth Daily.  Third, they have confidence about understanding the overall situation.  Fourth, they have  a certain understanding and knowledge basis about right and wrong.  Young newspaper workers value this receptivity, because when they encounter complicated political situations, they can maintain a high quality of consistency with the League leadership.

Please that before the word "consistency" I did not say a "high degree" but I said "high quality."  To maintain a "high degree of consistency" would mean being told straight what to say as in you excrete what you eat, you hit where you are told and you bite whom you see.  It is very difficult to maintain a "high quality of consistency" but it is challenging because it involves not only political wisdom and courage, but also a high standard of professionalism.

Let me tell you about a personal experience.  At the end of 1986 and at the beginning of 1987, there was a movement against capitalist liberalization; there was the student strike at Beijing University; General Secretary Hu Yaoban lost his post; Liu Binyan, Wu Chaoguang and Wang Yuemeng lost their party membership; there was a backlash against the reforms and the situation was very tense.

At the time, I was working in the night shift in the general editorial office.  One night, the day staff forwarded an article from the League leadership for our newspaper editorial titled "Fellow students you must grow up quickly" to appear as the headline for the next day.  The assistant editorial-in-chief on duty, Zhou Xichun glanced through it and showed it to me: "Yuegang, take a took.  What do you think?"  I read it and I said: "The content is alright, but the headline won't do.  It has the tone of giving orders to people, and the grammar is not smooth."  Zhou Xichun showed it to He Chunlung, who was the editorial room's assistant editor in charge of the front page.  He Chunlung said: "I agree with Yuegang's assessment."  Zhou Xichun said: "What is your recommendation?"  I said: "Change it."  He Chunlung said: "Change it."  Zhou Xichun took over the article and he added a comma after "Fellow students" and then he deleted "You must".  We all agreed that it was good, because the lecture from the elder was turned into an exchange between equals.  Zhou Xichun then picked up the telephone to consult the editor-in-chief and the League leadership, and they all concurred.

In the late 1980s, the China Youth Daily has a circulation of around 2 million and it was very influential among university students.  The editorial was published with good responses.  In summary, all we did was to maintain a cool head during a time of turbulence, we adhered to our standards of professionalism and we stuck to the role that news media play in the communication of information.  Of course, we were also selfish in that we did not want to leave a bad record in history even though we could have used the fact that we were only "tools" and "mouthpieces" as our excuse.

Actually, this is not just about individual professional standards, because this is in fact demanded by social ethics and it serves as a historical lesson.  In 1993, I was in your hometown discussing the problem of modernization with Mr. Chong Shuhe and he said, "What is modern society?  Modern society is an organization formed by a group of responsible individuals."  To say that "propaganda" is the policy for news media is to propound the theory of "tools" and "mouthpieces" to stress the party nature of party newspapers, to ignore the popular principles of the party newspapers, to annihilate the humanity and individuality of the editors, not to be responsible for their own professionalism and actually be opportunistic and conniving to foster reactionary ideas in society that will end in dictatorship and ignorance.

We have seen so many historical lessons already.  Never mind anything else, but just look at the handling of crises.  In 1989, if there were not the "April 26 editorial" from the People's Daily, would there have been so much rage as to cause the students and other groups to march in ever growing numbers?  For the students to engage in a hunger strike that led to worsening chain of events?  For the "April 26 editorial", the analysis of the situation, the evaluation of the students and the ominously threatening tone about retribution in Autumn severely escalated the conflict to a very large degree and created difficulties and obstacles in the rational handling of this social crisis.  Combined with other complex reasons, this caused the tragedy that is still the source of so much grief among the Chinese people.

From the viewpoint of crisis management: two crises, two editorials, two results.  The League leadership handled the Zhen Qiyan affair with the method of "kill one to warn the other hundred" and this caused us to detect some hostility.  But we still felt friendly enough to submit our joint letter to League secretary Zhou Chang, until you came in and trampled upon our goodwill.  Our good intention is to re-instate Fan Yung-sun to his post and to review the relationship between the League and the China Youth Daily, so that we can re-establish the trust and confidence between the China Youth Daily and the League leadership, between the newspapers editors and reporters and the League leaders.  We now understand that you don't want news reporters; you only want lackeys.  According to your logic, most of the China Youth Daily workers ought to just leave  The conflict between us is the conflict between mercenary soldier logic versus scholar logic; it is the conflict between bureaucratic culture and newspaper reporter culture.

If we were ever to encounter the social crises of 1987 and 1989, we are sure that you would want the 1989 People's Daily "April 26 editorial" and not the 1987 China Youth Daily editorial.  Compared to your predecessors, you are more selfish and hierarchical, and you do not have the confidence of history, nor the wisdom of history, and certainly not the courage of history.

Somebody said that today is "the real beginning of the history of the China Youth Daily" as if this was "the beginning of time."  You produced that meeting minutes of the 1951 League founding of the China Youth Daily and you asked the China Youth Daily workers: "Why start a China Youth Daily?"  This is a question that should be continuously on the minds of the China Youth Daily workers.  But coming out of your mouth, based upon the atmosphere and your tone of being the "master", this was not unnatural and it even sounded funny.  But we understood that you represented the League secretariat to want to get to the root of the matter by expressing your strong discontent and your desire to "let time begin now."

When you brought up this issue, you emphasized: "The China Youth Daily is not an abstract large newspaper.  It is the League's newspaper and we hold the power of life and death over the China Youth Daily.  We are the real 'masters.'"

Actually, the mature China Youth Daily workers never doubted that.  We knew who the owners of the newspapers are.  We knew that this is the party organ of the Chinese Communist Youth League.  But this common knowledge is just a preamble.  We have always observed the rules of the game between senior and junior ranks, between propaganda and news reporting, between serving as a tool and newspaper reporter professionalism.  Since the re-publication of the newspaper in 1978, we created the glory of the China Youth Daily and we turned the newspaper into a 'national newspaper' that influenced society and young people deeply and a 'great newspaper' that is respected by the readers and industry insiders.  

When people praise the China Youth Daily, they are praising the League leadership for providing an unrestrained environment.  People who understand the newspaper environment in China realize that it is impossible to produce a good newspaper without the trust and support of the supervising managers.  In summarizing the business experience of the China Youth Daily, we cannot underestimate the function of the League leadership, especially the tradition of democracy, liveliness and flexibility that comrade Hu Yaobang nurtured at the Chinese Youth League, thus giving the China Youth Daily a culture that is different from those at other newspapers.

We acknowledge that the China Youth Daily and the League central body have the relationship of the led and the leader.  We also have a relationship of mutual reliance on the newspaper circulation.  In your speech, you emphasized that of the 400,000 plus copies of the China Youth Daily printed each day, 90% of them are through subscription at public institutions.  The so-called public subscriptions comes from organizational funds.  To put it clearly, the circulation of the China Youth Daily depends on the League central body and the survival of the China Youth Daily depends on the League central body.  These conditions will persist under the China Youth Daily becomes completely market-oriented and the newspaper industry is completely de-regulated.  We do not disagree.

So where do we differ?  Where we differ is that you wanted to pull a power play to create a League newspaper that listened to the League leadership, whereas we wanted a good newspaper that pushes for progress in China that will be remembered in history.  You wanted a lackey, a tool, a mouthpiece, whereas from our first day we wanted to change the several decades of having a party organ newspaper that featured "slave culture", "immoral culture", "politician culture", "a culture of lies, empty words and false words."  We wanted a newspaper that has a neutral political stance, we wanted to retain our independent opinion about news values, and we wanted to be editors and journalists who work with global professional standards.  

In short, we differ in our opinions about the journalistic culture and the purpose of journalism.  In your words, you oppose "idealism" and you oppose an "abstract big newspaper."  On this latter point, we should tell you we have never thought about how to run an "abstract big newspaper."  The China Youth Daily has never been abstract.  We are concrete with respect to our nature, our opinions, our styles, our strategies and our techniques.

Obviously, you or your colleagues are afraid that the China Youth Daily may get out of control and become a "fourth power."  We are not concerned about reaching an understanding on this aspect.  But we are worried that you are too vested in your own career that you wanted to turn the China Youth Daily into the Chinese Youth Newsbrief that will praise your own accomplishments and thereby become a garbage dump to satisfy your vanity.

We are worried for good reasons.  In the 1990s, I was the assistant director of the finance department.  I hear those night-shift workers tell me that you want to be read in the China Youth Daily and that you keep shoving articles over, "Love your job and respect your work", to promote your own accomplishments.  If you want to emphasize the group spirit of the newspaper this way, then we differ greatly in our opinions because we believe in the public nature of newspapers.  This is an age-old problem.  Our newspaper group carry the lifestyle section as well as the "irremovable" and "unreadable" special editions, as well as the various articles in the important news sections and the collected news sections about the various activities from the various groups within the League.  We hold our noses when we release them but this is a compromise.  This is as far as we will compromise.  That is, the China Youth Daily can set up garbage cans for the League central body, but we cannot become a garbage newspaper.  You can always publish a garbage newspaper and you can always hire people to work there, but it won't be us.   

To solve this problem, I believe that it will be necessary to change the way the Chinese Communist Youth League works (beginning with its Secretary), and then to change the way that it communicates its work.  There are some very good things, such as "Defend the Mother River", "Young Volunteer Movement", "Project Hope" and so on.  For us, your opposition to an "abstract big newspaper" is an obviously red herring.  This can be resolved at a completely technical level without further discussion.  Compared to your objection to "idealism", this problem can be ignored without any further mention.

Have you noticed that I have used the term "youth newspaper workers" many times in the article?  This is a unique phrase in the Chinese newspaper industry.  There are two possible meanings: in one meaning, this refers to the colleagues at the China Youth Daily; in the other meaning, 'youth' is an adjective and the emphasis is on "newspaper workers."  This is the core value of the China Youth Daily tradition and culture.  Within this party newspaper, colleagues work together to publish the newspaper together as newspaper workers.  There is the common understanding that we at the China Youth Daily have.  This is why the youth newspaper workers put their forces together and feel that they belong there.  This is the highest ideal pursued by the youth newspaper workers.  We are proud to be newspaper workers.  

I can't say about the situation today, but I can't say that this tradition and this culture is opposed to the bureaucratization of culture.  It is opposed to looking at editors and reporters as bureaucrats, even though many party newspapers regard themselves as part of the bureaucracy and many editors and reporters benefit personally by being bureaucrats.  

In an extreme case, the newspaper editors of a certain newspaper belonging to a department consider it to be their duty to make sure that nobody reads the newspaper and to destroy the idea that "newspapers are the vanguard in the liberation of thinking."   The newspaper circulation falls down day by day (I understand that the circulation is less than 100,000 now), but the person-in-charge is rising higher and higher in the bureaucracy.  When nobody reads the newspaper, it becomes a virtue rather than a fault.  We understand that the key was to ignore public opinion and publish a newspaper for the higher-ups to look at.  This is like following the instructions in the Sunflower Martial Arts Manual -- he castrated himself, because he thought that his own career was more important than the public interest and conscience.

What do the higher-ups want?  They want "unity" and they want people who obey and follow.  These people may be successful in their careers, but they are clowns in the eyes of the true newspaper workers.  We will not collaborate with them because we still have our ideals for our newspaper.  With respect to this meaning of the tradition and culture of the China Youth Daily, you were dismissive of the "idealism" in your speech.  This particular feature is the cradle which nurtured many famous editors and reporters at the China Youth Daily, and this is the place that people in the newspaper industry and university journalism students long to be.

In the year 2000, I edited the three-volume collection of major news reports -- "This Newspaper Reports Today" -- that have appeared since the China Youth Daily began publishing again.  In the foreword, I summarized the traditional and culture of the China Youth Daily as two important ideas: "idealism" and a democratic atmosphere at work."  Later, the very esteemed former editor-in-chief Wang Shi told me: "Yuegang, you should add another one: 'to encourage famous reporters and editors.'"  

Who is Wang Shi?  I think you don't know everything, and the younger colleagues at the newspaper may be totally unfamiliar with him. Wang Shi may be the only person since the founding of the Communist Party to have resigned from the post of the editor-in-chief not on account of an "error" or otherwise promoted.  This is difficult to believe.

In 1952, Wang Shi was assigned to the China Youth Daily and he was a reporter in Jilin.  In the spring of 1957, he was transferred to the editorial department, where he was involved in editing "Chili".  During the anti-rightist campaign, "Chili" was annihilated and they were all charged with being rightists.  Wang Shi came in very late, and he only wrote a few articles.  Therefore, he was only punished with a "severe warning from the party."  In 1960, Wang Shi penned the article "For the 61 class brothers" and became a famous reporter. In 1978, the China Youth Daily began publishing again, and Wang Shi became the news literary section editor.  In 1979, he became the assistant editor-in-chief.  In 1982, he was appointed the editor-in-chief in spite of his own objections.  In 1986, he resigned to become the director of the China Youth Daily News Research Bureau.  

During the month and year of Wang's resignation -- December 1986 -- I joined the China Youth Daily.  I saw the notice posted at the newspaper's little white building about Wang's resignation.  I was surprised and I didn't understand.  Li Datung went to see Wang Shi and asked, "Old Wang, tell me the truth.  Why did you resign?"  Wang Shi said, "To tell the truth, two reasons.  Reason one, I can't stand checking other people's writings; reason two, I am getting old and I can't follow the times and be your leader."  

When I asked Wang about it, he said, "I was tired of being the editor-in-chief.  People come to you about everything -- promoting people, family problems ... I was just tired of it.  But there was another important reason.  I wanted to retain Xu Chufung.  That year, the People's Daily Theory Department director Zhou Shujiang was ill and therefore asked the director Xian Liyan to ask for Xu Chufung to be transferred back to the People's Daily Theory Department to work.  Xu Chufung had been transferred from the People's Daily Theory Department to the China Youth Daily.  Xian Liyan called up the League secretary Li Yuanchiao and then Li called me.  In 1982, Xu Chufung was the assistant editor-in-chief and he was good in character and work.  I wanted to keep him.  So I told Li Yuanchiao that I was willing to step down in order to promote Xu Chufung.  I was afraid that this might cause a misunderstanding that I did not want to work with him, so I made it quite clear.  Li Yuanchiao came to the newspaper and consulted with the middle-level cadres who all insisted that I cannot leave.  But I held firm and I finally appealed to Song Defu (the First Secretary of the League)."

At the time when Wang Shi left this post, there were student strikes and all sorts of rumors were flying around.  But one thing was for certain: Wang Shi was not forced to resign.  Not only that, but there were efforts to keep him there.  That year, he was only 53 years old and he could have stayed on as the China Youth Daily for another seven years.  But he told me that there was a third reason: "I still want to be a reporter and to write some big story."  After he resigned, he investigated and wrote: "Episodes in the life of Li Yunfu" and several other long reports.  "Episodes in the life of Li Yunfun" received a second-place prize for Chinese news reporting.  When I finished relating this story, I was temporarily confused.  I asked myself: "Is this story real?  Did something like really happen in the history of the China Youth Daily?"

Since I mentioned the names of Li Chilun and Xu Chufung, I have more stories to tell about them.  In December of 1986, I reported for work to the main editorial room.  After working the night shift for three months, I was transferred to the day shift.  One day, after the editorial meeting, I was looking at the headlines and articles for the next day's edition.  The headline story was a long report from the League's Lifestyle Department.  I saw that there were some obvious and easily seen problems.  I informed Zhen Chunchung, the director of the main editorial room.  Chunchung pointed to the name on the article: "Do you know who that is?"  I said, "I don't know."  Chunchung said: "He is the director of the newspaper as well as the party secretary."  I know that Chunchung was not using the title to silence me but he was just warning me that if I am going to offer my opinion on a long article that was requested by the newspaper editors and department heads, then I must have some basis for taking this contrarian position.

So I re-read the article and I stuck to my assessment  Chunchung said: "You write down your opinions."  So I took out a piece of paper and wrote down some opinions and handed it to Chunchung.  Chuchung took it and left.  The main editorial room and the offices of the director and the editor-in-chief were all located on the sixth floor.  After a while, Chunchung brought over a tall broad-faced man to me and said to him, "This is the newly arrived editor Lu Yuegang."  Then he told me, "This is our director Li Chilun.  Please tell your opinions to Chilun."  I said that the story and the details of the article are problematic, because  I don't think the interview was actually done or else it wasn't done in sufficient detail.  Chilun listened to what I said, and ordered: "The article will be held back.  It won't appear tomorrow.  You go and check with the reporters."  We got the reporter to come down to the main editorial room.  We found out that there was no interview and the report was based upon some other published information.  Our recommendation was that the idea of the article was not bad, and we suggested that the reporter should investigate further.  At the time, there was no question about bureaucratic rank.  The only thing that mattered was the quality of the report.

There is something else about Li Chilun that I must talk about.  In October 1985, reporter Ye Yan went to the front lines in Lao Shan to investigate and offended a certain military leader, who complained to General Secretary Hu Yaobang.  So Hu sent a note:  China Youth Daily reporter Ye Yan has to be investigated seriously.  If his performance has not been good, or if you don't investigate seriously, then this will lead to removal from the newspaper position in either case.  One day, the central government office director and external secretary Wang Shiaoguo called up Li Chilun and wanted to have a decision on the case of Ye Yan in accordance with the instructions of the General Secretary.  Li Chilun said: "Comrade Shiaoguo, we have sent someone out to investigate, and this matter should be decided after the investigation is completed.  If you don't agree with how I handled this matter, you can relieve me of my position right now!"  Li Chilun is currently the head of the Supervisory Department and the assistant secretary of the central disciplinary committee.  Ye Yan was spared and he would later report on the Dajingan Ling fires, the 1998 floods, the Inner Mongolia snow disaster, the South and North Poles and other major events, and won the Fan Changjiang News Award.

Prior to your speech, you announced the retirement of Xu Chufung.  In front of all the middle cadres of the newspaper, you did not have a single world of assessment of Xu Chufung.  Mencius said, "If you are old, then you are someone's elder; if you are young, then I am someone's youth."  You don't even understand the minimum about traditional manners.  Based upon age, when Xu Chufung should be among the generation of your father.  In 1982, when he was the assistant editor-in-chief, you were just a little boy.  When Xu Chufung became the editor-in-chief in 1987 and when he became the party secretary and director as well when Li Chilun was transferred to the Supervisory Department in 1988.  In the late 1980s, he lifted the China Youth Daily to become a 'great newspaper' that was respected by the newspaper industry as well as the readers.  He is the director and editor-in-chief who had the longest tenure in the history of the China Youth Daily.  To be blunt, even if you retire a worker in your little store, you would have had a couple of nice-sounding, even if insincere, things to say about him.

What about Xu Chufung?  The youth newspaper workers have their own views.  Some time ago, the old-timers at the newspaper gave Xu Chufung a farewell banquet.  Chichun said: "Who is old Xu?  Old Xu is the kind of person that you don't think about when he was there, but whom you miss terribly after he leaves."  This assessment is very appropriate and very relevant.  Old Xu did not disappoint us.  At the banquet, he gave a speech.  He began by apologizing to some old comrades at the table, for those who were punished and affected after the 6/4 event.  Originally, we had wanted to have a light-hearted banquet to say farewell to old Xu.  But old Xu brought up a serious topic.  This topic is not only a serious matter in terms of history but also in terms of what is happening today.

We have a common understanding that the many unhappy things at China Youth Daily today are the residual consequences of the 6/4 incident.  The nation, the newspapers and individuals are all linked together.  All those present at the table were the witnesses of history.  We all knew the background of those times.  Old Xu could not have reversed the situation on his own, and he did not have to bear responsibility for that historical mistake and tragedy.  He was merely carrying out the orders from above and he disciplined certain middle-level cadres in order to get over the situation as quickly as possible to preserve the newspaper, even if some of those actions were contrary to the principles of the "party regulations." 

Old Xu is an introverted person.  He does not socialize well and so I believe that those words of apology came after some serious thinking that must have bothered him for a long time.  I personally believe that his clarification on this major matter of right versus wrong is a confession of conscience.  His confession certainly moved those who were present.  Old Xu had many defects, and some people pointed out some of them.  But there is one thing that everybody agreed upon: he is a righteous person.  During the 6/4 period, we had major conflicts with him about the assessment of the situation and the reporting philosophy.  We exchanged harsh words, but he could still ignore those personal battles and continued to use those people who clashed with him, such as Datung, Ye Yan and myself.

Wang Shi would rather be a reporter than an editor-in-chief, Li Chilun shielded the reporter, Xu Chufung took the insults and then apologized in the end ... there are many more stories that I don't have the space to recount today.  These stories form the culture of the China Youth Daily and it also influenced the culture of the China Youth Daily -- what you dismissed and condemned as "idealistic" culture.  According to your value system, this may be "idiotic culture" or "suicidal culture" and is removed one thousand miles away from your so-called "pragmatism"!

The reason that we wanted to summarize the culture of the China Youth Daily is to let you know that the culture of the China Youth Daily was created by several generations of youth newspaper workers over a stormy half century.  We are responsible for our actions.  We will listen to any advice from anyone, and we will discuss any doubts except for your harangues yelled down from the top.  You have established a gulf between us, because there are two completely different souls on each side.  

In my foreword to "The Newspaper Reports Today", I wrote: "Zhang Jianwei used to quote Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus to encourage himself.  I will use the example of flood control in China.  For example, the Yellow River.  The Yellow River is the mother river of the Chinese nation, but it is also the cause of pain and suffering for the Chinese people over thousands of years.  There is the curse and hope that 'The sages will come when the Yellow River becomes clear.'  When we look at the Yellow River, we are torn between love and hate.  We know that the water of the Yellow River will never become clear, we know that the Yellow River cannot be navigated or used for irrigation easily, we know that all the hard work that go into repairing the levees and dams can turn to nought in an instant, we know that water works can 'never change but only modify' but this did not change the hope of our ancestors and their descendants with the look of hope in the eyes of despair, to plant another tree on the bank of the Yellow River, to put another handful of earth on the levee and to lay down another batch of wood on the levee break.  To plant a tree, to put down earth and to lay down wood year after year, again and again, is such an awesome sight!  During the process, we can feel the ultimate experience of 'idealism' and to feel the huge waves and winds in the storm of history."

The reporting of the re-published China Youth Daily can be divided into two stages.  The first stage went from the end of the 1970s to the end of the 1980s.  The second stage was the 1990s.  There are two imageries:  First, 'You watch a boat weave in and out of the waves in the wind'; second, you walk on the side of the cliff and you swim in the lake to catch the fish; dancing on the cliff gives you the full view of the heights and is scary and challenging.  This type of summary description includes both the sense of doing the impossible and not doing the possible is utterly unrelated to the 'pragmatism' that you referred to.  Our soul is like that of Sisyphus in the thousand year quest to tame the Yellow River.  But you are contemptuous of 'idealism' and you sneer at 'idealism.'  In your lecture about 'pragmatism', you hint at the naivety of 'idealism' which contains an unreal logic.  You are using the logic of the bureaucrat on the logic of the youth newspaper workers, you are using the ways of officialdom to dismantle the culture of the youth newspaper workers.  Some things that are ideas in officialdom becomes something else once outside of officialdom.  We know that idealism has no place in Chinese officialdom, as Hu Yaobang is a typical example.  Idealism is laughed at inside officialdom.  

Actually, history does not lack examples of 'idealism' (assuming that this is to be called 'idealism') creating great political figures.  For example, your own hometown man Tsang Guofan.  The reason that Tsang Guofan was able to defeat the Empire of Heavenly Peace was that he defended the Confucian traditional ideals.  As another example, the leaders of the American Independence War such as George Washington had their great ideals and political foresight so that they created not only the Declaration of Independence but also supported a constitution that made their country strong and powerful.  And what can really be said about the pragmatism that is favored by politicians without conscience and intellect?  One day several hundred years ago, a man came to Luzizhou and pointed to the Shangjiang river and said, "The Shangjiang river is only a small wave of the Lishui."  When the Shangjiang goes past Changsha, it is roaring but it is really nothing.

Of course, for the youth newspaper workers, 'idealism' is not an exaggerated and unrealistic word.  The youth newspaper workers do not live in a dream world in which they admire themselves and are absorbed with themselves.  Rather they watch the world, they "put their heads down to pull the cart along and they raise their heads to watch the road."  We are not so stupid as not to understand the conditions under which we survive and publish the newspaper, or else we would have fallen apart a long time ago.  The idealism of the China Youth Daily is actually very practical.

An assistant editor-in-chief once told the Central Propaganda Bureau director Zhong Puizhang the following representative points: first, never speak false words; second, never actively speak false words; third, if it is absolutely necessary to use false words, then don't make up anything.  At a very practical level, he has detailed three bottom lines: first, the bottom line for an ordinary righteous person -- never speak false words; second, the bottom line for a professional newspaper worker -- never actively speak false words; third, the bottom line for a party newspaper -- the China Youth Daily -- when forced to use false words, we will only relay the false words from others even though the false words seem to come out of our mouths.  Not only false words, but also exaggerations and deceptions.

It is not certain if things have progressed or regressed over time.  I look at the television and read the newspapers, and I see that false words have not decreased in numbers, but now the exaggerations and deceptions are all over.  Furthermore, the exaggerations and deceptions are spoken every day, every month, every year by everyone in the party and by all the common people.

Two years ago, I went to investigate in Yangzhou (Jiangsu), the hometown of Jiang Zemin.  I saw that there was a public interest billboard in the middle of the city: "The water of Wei bestows its blessing on the people."  (translator's note: this is a word play on the name of Jiang Zemin)  Bestow its blessing indeed.  Two years ago, on May 1st, the Yangzhou train station was opened.  The people of Yangzhou had the honor of having the current General Secretary coming to the hometown of the former General Secretary for the opening ceremony.  During that May 1st long holiday, I was also in Yangzhou and I heard about the scene.  The people of Yangzhou had not recovered from the happiness of having the General Secretary at the opening ceremony.  An official boasted to me: "Do you get that kind of treatment when the train station opened in Beijing?  Do you get that kind of treatment when the train station opened in Shanghai?"  Yangzhou is only a local city.

The reason that I mention all this is that the China Youth Daily must have a historical awareness to prevent the politicians from using "false words, exaggerations and deceptions" to further their own political interests and ruin the newspaper.  Tung Qiao said, "News report are the drafts of history."  If news become the garbage of history, or if news strengthens the false, ugly and evil forces, then it becomes a terrible situation.  There are so many lessons to be learned from history.  

At various party newspapers, it is common to hear people say, "Party newspaper, party newspaper.  It is the newspaper of the party.  However ugly it is, it is the party's newspaper.  Even if it is ruined, it is still the party's newspaper.  What is it to us?"  A provincial-level party newspaper director once told me: "My job is to make sure that nobody reads the newspaper."  

The China Youth Daily is different other party newspapers, because the youth newspaper workers treat the China Youth Daily as their own newspaper, they treat it as their own spiritual home, and they consider this the place where they realize their own values and ideals.  The newspaper culture and the collegiality of the China Youth Daily grew up in this environment.

In order to survive, we compromised; to move forward, we compromised; to break through, we compromised; to be creative, we compromised.  We invented many theories and techniques that are admired by others in the business.  We combined idealism with democratic business practice to form the China Youth Daily.  In the late 1980s, there was an anti-liberalization wave in which the leftists hated the China Youth Daily.  They searched for "crimes" committed in the reporting done by the China Youth Daily.  In the end, these were illusory just like the reflections of flowers in the mirror or the moon in the water.  Therefore, the youth newspaper workers are particularly sensitive about any behavior that might damage the China Youth Daily, and that includes the speech that you made.

Before you concluded your speech, you defined the tone.  You said that you were here to have a heart-to-heart talk with us.  We would also like to have a heart-to-heart talk with you.  But is a heart-to-heart talk delivered in this fashion?  Do you think that the group of people that you spoke to grew up eating feces?  Do you think that the intelligence of these people is so low that they cannot distinguish between a heart-to-heart talk and a lecture?

You represented the League central leadership when you asked the China Youth Daily leadership to "increase learning."  I think that the China Youth Daily leadership ought to "increase learning" but I think that the League's central secretariat, especially you, should "increase learning" even more.

Why did I say that?  Because you began to use political clichιs in front of everybody.  You said that in order to retain the permanent governing position of the Chinese Communist Party, it is necessary to rely on the pen and the rifle --- the "two weapons".  We understood that you were using your Hunan home province man Mao Zedong's "two weapons" theory.  To put it nicely, this is a 'political theory'; to put it not so nicely, this is a method to retain 'rulership.'   

But you forgot that this was the political theory of a revolutionary party.  During the period when the revolutionary party first seized power and then attempted to consolidate the power, this political philosophy implied that the pen is held within your hand and the rifle is right behind the pen: you control the discourse and standardize it; you say whatever you want to say and you do whatever you want to do; if anyone doubts it or opposes it, you bring out the rifle.

So after several decades of this, it became "a lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth."  Since 1949, there were political campaigns without interruption.  For more than twenty years, the people lived in distress.  To summarize that experience, the Chinese Communist Party continued to stay on the path of the revolutionary party.  They spent their main energies on class struggles and the dictatorship of the proletariat to create hardships for others as well as themselves, as well as the whole Chinese people.  Between the three difficult years of 1959-1962, more than 27 million people perished from hunger and diseases; and then came the 10 disastrous years and the 6/4 tragedy.

Someone said that the modern history of China is the history of the people of Hunan and Szechuan.  Over the past one hundred years or so, Hunan produced people like Tsang Guofan, Mao Zedong, Liu Shiaoqi, Peng Dehuai and other political, military and cultural figures who influenced the development of Chinese history.  You yourself should count as a member of the Hunan people, and you have the nerve to expound on the 'two weapons' theory in the twenty-first century in the meeting room on the sixth floor of the China Youth Daily, a place which has seen so much history being made.  This probably explains why at a time when ocial democratic trends are developing rapidly that the Communist Party wants to consolidate its position by controlling the discourse first and then using violence.

With a Hunan revolutionary newcomer like you working, it is no wonder that after Deng Xiaoping's 1992 southern tour speech, Hunan began a so-called "Socialist Educational Campaign" afterwards.  Everyone who is familiar with history knows that the Chinese Communist Party has chosen to reform its economy to follow a market economy path.  To use that same old revolutionary party stuff again seriously disrupts the rational legitimacy of the ruling party.  They must face the cruel facts and make concessions to the people's economic demands.

Today, the ruling party must seriously look at the  political demands of the people, because the production relationship has seriously constrained the development of production, and the social conflicts are about to explode.  Actually, the problem of the transition of the Chinese Communist Party from the revolutionary party to the ruling party was recognized by knowledgeable individuals inside and outside the party and was pointed out by the Hu-Wen leadership.  The reform of the political system is urgently needed, because it involves not only the fate of the Chinese Communist Party but also the livelihood of the people.

To make this clear, the Chinese Communist Party must make the transition from being a revolutionary party to a ruling party and under the basis of the "Practical Law" to resolve the matter of the legality of its rule via democratic means.  Otherwise, the consequences are too severe to contemplate.

We understand that your response is the "two weapons" theory.  But the words "two weapons" can also be read as "second-rate."  In this Internet era where the world economy is being globalized in a democratic era, we regret to report that your "two weapons" theory is a "second rate" theory.  I am really concerned about you because if the powers-that-be should learn that your thinking is so confused and you are so ignorant, your political career will be over; I am even more worried that if politicians like you should manage to grab more power, because you can cause great damage to the nation.

It is not incorrect to call you "ignorant."  You blame the fact that Indian Premier Vajpayee being toppled on problems with the media and the political discourse.  This explanation is just like your Hunan hometown man Mao Zedong's explanation of the ouster of Richard Nixon.  When the news of Mao's old friend Nixon leaving office on account of the Watergate affair came in, Mao's explanation from inside the red walls of Zhongnanhai was that "Someone was after him."  You committed the same error as Mao Zedong, and that is being ignorant about democracy.  When you are ignorant, you are fearless.

I couldn't bear it anymore and that was why I wrote more than ten thousand words.  I hope that you can become a good person and do well.

micah@earthling.net
2004-07-25
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/01770.htm