Re: Lou's comments on Human Rights Watch. Below is a short exchange I had with a person who is closely associated with the case of Mr. Li Jiaqing. It's relevant because it shows how ill advised it is to associate a Chinese labor activists' politics with the foreign source of articles on him. That is to say, clearly HRW has their own ideological agenda vis a vis Mr. Li, who is in prison and has little say in what HRW claims his politics are. However, that Li's politics are quite different from HRW's is also quite apparent from the case and the demands of the workers, which is why such cases are very much worth the attention of leftists outside China. To answer Yoshie's question, until recently I would have said that Maoists in China were not really worth much discussion since they were mostly inclined to obsess over details of how the CR failed or was subverted by which faction and/or lament endlessly about how China has become capitalist, without any real explanation as to what that means or how it happened, let alone how to organize to change that. Since the fallout of the Asian Financial Crisis has sharpened the crisis and contradictions of state owned enterprise 'restructuring', more careful attention has been given to the question of how the social inequalities that the CR was originally proposed to resolve in China and present day loss of power by rural and urban producers are linked and the impilcations the answers to that question have in terms of how and whom to organize today. I had the chance to sit in on a meeting of students at a Beijing campus of a student group called the 'seeking truth from facts',which was discussing quite sensitive questions about the Cultural Revolution (i.e. what were the leading problems facing Chinese socialism in the 1960's, what connection was their between ideological struggles and these issues,...). They were discussing, in this particular discussion group, a writing of Lin Biao in which he excoriated Liu Xiaoqi for a whole host of reasons. What they did in this group was to read carefully this text and then ask what in it was of use to understanding that period of Chinese history and those in today's 'reform' era China? . They right off agreed that there was little value to some of Lin's more extreme accusations of national traitor and the like heaped on Liu. But that having been said, they then proceded to ask what the social class origins of disagreements between Liu and the Maoists were, in terms of real problems of class/social inequality in 1960's China and how that debate retains a relevance to the problems of China today. All of this was done without resorting to any kind of hero worship or demonization of any of the leading figures of that period (which is the dominant trend in mainstream media and academic organs in China today). And, I should note, there was a remarkable openess to any viewpoint on the CR or Mao in this group. No condemnations of any viewpoints for straying from whatever line or being 'supportive of neo-liberailsm'... These students knew, by the way, about the Li Jiaqing case and were quite concerned about it, which again should tell us something about how ill advised it is for western leftists to reject out of hand reports on labor activism as supportive of neo-liberalism. The story is considerably more complex than that, as any Chinese Marxist closely tied to Chinese Marxists/Maoists in China would tell you. BTW, funny thing that HRW should be able to claim this story. When I was in Beijing, friends involved in that case were concerned that the case not become the property of liberal groups outside China with ulterior motives. So, the information was put out, in Chinese, on at chinabulletin.com, the left Chinese web page. Invariably, HRW got a hold of the now public information and put out its press release...which the media here then picked up as originating with HRW... Steve >Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:34:55 -1000 >Subject: Re: paper factory made nyt >To: Stephen E Philion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi Steve, >I was already told that China Human Rights claim Li is an "independent >trade union activist." But fortunately they can only make that claim. >China is not Poland. What do you think? > > >On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Stephen E Philion wrote: > Hi , >> How goes? Paper factory leader Li Jiaqing made the NYT today. Human Rights Watch >> has made him their poster boy of the week also I see. >> >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> Stephen Philion >> Lecturer/PhD Candidate >> Department of Sociology >> 2424 Maile Way >> Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 >> Honolulu, HI 96822 >> >>
