The Asian Left

Henry C.K. Liu hliu at SPAMmindspring.com
Thu Feb 15 09:36:11 MST 2001


I finally unsubbed from SR after Leo demanded an apology from me for
causing trouble.  Below is an off line message from an Asian  SR list
member.  It represents a common feeling of most Asians who tend to keep
their feelings to themselves.

Henry

Subject:
          Hello
    Date:
          Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:28:44 +0900
   From: Name Withheld

      To:
          "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu at MINDSPRING.COM>




How do you do. I am a ph.d student in York University who happens to be
in the SR list. Since the debate between you and other bunch of American
'leftists' on Chinnese socialism, your posting has been a source of
great stimulation for me. However, now that I saw your mail of
unsubscribing yourself from the list, I regret very much that I may
never be able to see your mail. So, could you find some way to keep the
fanciers of your writings like me in touch with all of your ideas? For
example, I would be glad if I could be included in other mail lists to
which you are frequently contributing. Or ....what else?
My feeling bitterness for your situation prevents me from logically and
beautifully organizing what I have to say, so I might have to just
ramble. I have been also very much shocked at the bigotry of the
american left that your strong position and fortitude has helped to
reveal, especially this fuss about the 'censoring'. This strengthens my
suspect that they are seeing Chinal and other third world countries
through very "colored" glasses by whatever kind of shitty mentality and
prejudices. I fully agree to your point that "unionism", the sacrosanct
touchstone of American left, is historically very specific institution
in terms both of culture and class configuration, and very problematic
to be universally applied to every country. Frankly, my personal view is
that it is no more than another "corrupted" form of labor movement to be
found in the "bribbed" labors in Western world like the "proletarii" in
the ancient Rome. Doug's
despicable personal attack was also outrageous. Do they think that they
are more innocent and devoted
"revolutionaries" than you because they are not investors in WS?(I don't
care even a bit about whether youre investor or not. After all, Engels
was also an owner of a factory.) I know Leo. Jesus, what a bourgeois
kind of life they are leading, with brand new sports car and huge
expensive house, and ....let me stop here.
In a word, you are being persecuted in the SR list simply because you
are against their "sensibility" and taste. This fucking white people has
since the 18th century been thinking that their sensibility is always
the universal measure of the world, so everything against it deserves to
be demolished.
Besides, I was very much informed by your writings, including the one on
the power of US dollar, and your suggestion that every region had better
have its own regional currency to exit the yoke of vicious circle of
dollar. Actually, my dissertation topic is the restructuring of the
Japanese financial system and the possibility of Asian Monetary Fund,
which migt be the stepping stone to Yen bloc. This is another reason
that I strongly feel the need to keep in touch with you and benefit from
your ideas. So again, I would like to humbly plead you to find some way
for me to keep hearing you.
Again, I want to show my regret and resentment at whathappened and send
you some condolence. By the way, my name is XXXX, a student from South
Korea.
Looking forward to hearing from you,

Name Withheld (Becasue I have not asked his permission to forward this
message)


Subject:
             Re: Mystery Solved: What happened to Henry's message
       Date:
             Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:14:34 -0500
      From:
             "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu at mindspring.com>
         To:
             Discussions on the Socialist Register and its articles
<SOCIALIST-REGISTER at YorkU.CA>
 References:
             1 , 2


This thing never dies.  I merely tried to fend off attacks that I
fabricated
falsehood. A number of people accuse me of lying after I repeatedly said
it was
not big deal. They use that implication to suggest my views on other
matters
were untrustworthy. Think back. Leo, you started it all, by your "hey,
lets cool
it", addressed to the wrong person. I merely tried to post evidence of
my claim
of Henwood's debating technique. If you had told Henwood to cool instead
his
target to cool it, you would have been on target.

I did not put anyone through anything.  People made accusations that
were not
able to stand behind and had to eat their own words.

Henry C.K. Liu

leo panitch wrote:

> Thanks so much, George. You have no need to apologize. On the
contrary.
> Those who assumed the worst and put us through this ought to be
apologizing.
> Leo
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George C. Comninel <comninel at YorkU.CA>
> To: <SOCIALIST-REGISTER at YORKU.CA>
> Sent: February 14, 2001 1:20 PM
> Subject: Mystery Solved: What happened to Henry's message
>
> > I hope that this message will finally clarify the much contested
question
> > of Henry Liu's "blocked" message. I have tried to keep the details
to a
> > non-technical level, but if you are not interested in why there was
a
> > problem, you can skip to the last part of my message. The missing
message
> > from Henry is contained below, hopefully in form that will not,
finally,
> > prevent it from being posted to the list.
> >
> > I have spent the entire night poring over the message logs and error

> > messages of the Socialist Register list, trying to determine what
happened
> > to Henry's message, and how it was that he could believe his message
was
> > blocked. What I discovered was that there was in fact what the list
server
> > determined to be an error in the original message as it was posted
by
> Henry
> > on 7 Feb at 3:39 PM. I have reproduced the error message from the
list
> > server, which was sent 2 minutes later, below. In the flurry of
exchanges
> > on that day, a total of 44 error messages were generated, only one
by
> Henry.
> > In dealing with them rapidly I did not notice that Henry's error
message
> > referred to a problem in posting; all of the other errors had to do
with
> > problems of delivery from the list. The error in Henry's message is
in
> fact
> > quite obscure, and ONLY affects messages sent to a list.
> >
> > The nature of the error was that in copying text from a previous
message,
> a
> > header line referring to the list address was not preceded by a ">",
as is
> > normally the case when one uses the "Reply" function. The only time
> copying
> > text instead of using "Reply" will be a problem is in sending a
message to
> a
> > list when there is a possible header line in the text of the
message. The
> > list serv program automatically rejects this as an error. It is not,

> however,
> > a problem in sending such a message to an individual instead of a
list.
> This
> > is why, as Henry recently noticed, he could send the message both to

> himself
> > and the list and it would only get through to himself.
> >
> > On Feb 9, Henry reposted the message to the list, using the
 "Forward"
> > command. Since the message was identical, it was again rejected and
again
> > produced an error message. This time, however, Henry had also copied
the
> > message to me directly. He did not copy it to anyone else at that
time.
> > Because the message was addressed TO the list, I believed I received
it
> FROM
> > the list, and assumed that everyone else received it as well. This
was not
> > the case. I included this message in the log of messages from Henry
that I
> > previously posted, when I invited him to identify any message that
was
> > missing. Henry did not take me up on the invitation, or he would
have
> noticed
> > that the first message was missing. He subsequently forwarded the
original
> > message twice more, each time generating the same error. These were
the
> only
> > four error messages that Henry has generated in more than two years
on the
> > list.
> >
> > So, in summary: Henry did send the message to the list four times,
and it
> > was rejected by the list serv program each time, for an address
error. It
> was
> > not "blocked" by anyone at the Socialist Register, and as I have
explained
> > at length, we could not block a message if we wanted to. But Henry
is
> quite
> > correct that his message did not get through. Because the message
DID get
> > through to me when he reposted it to the list, I did not realize
that
> there
> > was any problem. I personally received that message three times, and

> > therefore did not see any basis for Henry's contention that a
message had
> > been blocked in any way. Had we been able to compare notes in a
quieter
> > fashion, we would have discovered that we were both mistaken.
> >
> > I hope this clears up the matter. I apologise to Henry, and to the
list,
> for
> > losing my temper over this. I have been a bit over-whelmed in
dealing with
> > the volume of traffic lately, but as comrades we owe it to each
other to
> act
> > with more restraint than I showed.
> >
> > George Comninel
> > for the SR list
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 03:41 PM 2/7/2001 -0500, L-SOFT list server wrote:
> > >The enclosed message,  found in the SOCIALIST-REGISTER mailbox  and
shown
> > under
> > >the spool ID 1283 in the system log, has been identified as a
possible
> > delivery
> > >error notice for the following  reason: "Sender:", "From:" or
"Reply-To:"
> > field
> > >pointing to the list has been found in mail body.
> > >
> > >------------------------ Message in error (103 lines)
> > -------------------------
> > >Received: from suntan.ccs.yorku.ca (suntan.ccs.yorku.ca
[130.63.236.89])
> > >       by sundial.ccs.yorku.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09048

> > >       for <socialist-register at sundial.ccs.yorku.ca>; Wed, 7 Feb
2001
> 15:41:09
> > -0500 (EST)
> > >Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net (barry.mail.mindspring.net

> > [207.69.200.25])
> > >       by suntan.ccs.yorku.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28538
> > >       for <SOCIALIST-REGISTER at YorkU.CA>; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:41:06
-0500
> (EST)
> > >Received: from mindspring.com
(dialup-209.246.85.102.NewYork1.Level3.net
> > [209.246.85.102])
> > >       by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id
PAA04786
> > >       for <SOCIALIST-REGISTER at YorkU.CA>; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:41:01
-0500
> (EST)
> > >Message-ID: <3A81B27C.9F92BDDB at mindspring.com>
> > >Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 15:39:24 -0500
> > >From: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu at mindspring.com>
> > >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U)
> > >X-Accept-Language: en,zh-CN,zh-TW,zh
> > >MIME-Version: 1.0
> > >To: Discussions on the Socialist Register and its articles
> > > <SOCIALIST-REGISTER at YorkU.CA>
> > >Subject: Re: Whoa...
> > >References: <200102022241.f12Mf2W07554 at smtp.Stanford.EDU>
> > >                   <p04330102b6a610111ed7@[216.254.77.128]>
> > >                   <p04330100b6a619dea922@[171.66.164.47]>
> > >                   <p04330117b6a6459cb616@[216.254.77.128]>
> > >                   <p04330100b6a672a257f7@[171.66.165.212]>
> > >                   <049701c090e0$06e1a8a0$e277fea9 at oemcomputer>
> > >                   <p04330100b6a6bc6a59eb@[171.66.164.159]>
> > >                   <3A8166B1.CEB2C3C1 at mindspring.com>
> > <037d01c09136$d47d0b00$aeb83f82 at panitch.erols.com>
> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >leo panitch wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hey, let's cool it, okay? Rakesh had already responded with a lot
of
> class
> > >> (if the term may be permitted in this context), so please let's
not try
> to
> > >> aggravate things.
> > >
> > >A partial moderator is the worst beast in cyber space.  I  was
merely
> > pointing
> > >out facts.  And if it is aggravating, that is too bad.  Or are only

> selected
> > >facts permitted on this list? See post copied below as evidence.
> > >
> > >Subject:  Re: socialism
> > >    Date:  Sat, 25 Mar 2000 23:19:06 -0500
> > >   From:  ??????? Henry C.K.Liu ???l¢FD? <hliu at mindspring.com>
> > >      To: <SOCIALIST-REGISTER at YorkU.CA>
> > > References:  1 , 2 , 3 , 4
> > >
> > >
> > >Doug Henwood wrote:
> > >
> > >>  Henry Liu Wrote:
> > >> >Taylorism is your invented accusation, as is its being a
> prerequsitefor
> > >building socialism in China. >>Taylorism needs not be the culprit,
the
> > question
> > >is the ownership of the surplus value resulting from >>Taylorism.
> > >>
> > >> Very easy for you to say, since you're not likely to work in a
> > >> Taylorized factory. I would say that the organization of labor
goes
> > >> to the very heart of a social system. Taylorism emerged from
> > >> capitalism as its logical issue. It views workers as parts of a
> > >> machine, in a purely instrumental fashion. Talorized work is
> > >> deadening to the human mind and spirit, and is the precise
opposite
> > >> of everything that socialism should stand for. But a boss,
whether he
> > >> be on E 62nd St in Manhattan or in the Central Committee of the
CCP,
> > >> might see things differently.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Why do you insist on this low level personal stuff.   I don't have
one
> single
> > >employee.  I use only contracted services precisely beacuse I want
to
> protect
> > >the quality of my life by avoiding being a boss. Can we try to
elevate
> the
> > >debate and leave my late uncle alone?  He's been dead for more than
a
> decade.
> > >Beside, when he was alive, my relationship to him was not generally
known
> > even
> > >in China.
> > >As I said, I have worked in factories both in China and in the US.
I
> > worked as
> > >a apprentice welder once a Mid Western factory the first summer I
was in
> > the US
> > >as a foreign student. Had a very good time and made many worker
friends
> and
> > >visited their homes who lived better than Chinese leaders, all of
them at
> > that
> > >time enjoyed salaries higher than Mao Zedong who took home the
equivalent
> of
> > >US$60 a month.  We enjoyed improving efficiency, out of a sense of
pride
> of
> > >labor more than anything else.  My fellow workers generally older
than I
> was
> > >then impressed me as equally full of disdain for both management
and the
> > union.
> > >I also worked in Chinese factories with very similar experience.
Granted
> my
> > >experience might not have been typical becuase I did not have to
work
> > there and
> > >the experience was that of a summer camp. No doubt, Dickensian
labor
> abuse
> > >still exist, but I don't know anyone, left or right, Chinese or
American,
> who
> > >still supports that extremism.
> > >
> > >If I understand Taylorism correctly, true productivity and
efficiency can
> > only
> > >result from worker input.  That was learned by the Japanese where
> > neo-Taylorism
> > >really took off.  Many workers in the US are critical of union shop
rules
> > that
> > >resist  Taylorism.
> > >I am not defending it, I am saying that China is not pushing it as
you
> claim.
> > >Chinese SOE's are full of workers who do no work at all, rather
than
> working
> > >inefficiently.  We are talking about enterprises in which 60% of
the
> empolyee
> > >are physically idle.  Wages cannot increase because of that
stagnation.
> > You are
> > >debating from an abstact image.
> > >
> > >Henry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > At 06:41 PM 2/9/2001 -0500, Henry C.K. Liu wrote:
> > >Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 18:41:45 -0500
> > >From: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu at mindspring.com>
> > >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U)
> > >X-Accept-Language: en,zh-CN,zh-TW,zh
> > >To: Discussions on the Socialist Register and its articles
> > > <SOCIALIST-REGISTER at YorkU.CA>,
> > >        "George C. Comninel" <comninel at YorkU.CA>
> > >Subject: Re: China's Left E-Journal Blocked in China
> > >
> > >Subject: Re: Whoa...
> > >    Date:  Wed, 07 Feb 2001 15:39:24 -0500
> > >   From:  "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu at mindspring.com>
> > >      To: Discussions on the Socialist Register and its articles
> > ><SOCIALIST-REGISTER at YorkU.CA>
> > > References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9
> > >
> > >
> > >leo panitch wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hey, let's cool it, okay? Rakesh had already responded with a lot
of
> class
> > >> (if the term may be permitted in this context), so please let's
not try
> to
> > >> aggravate things.
> > >
> > >A partial moderator is the worst beast in cyber space.  I  was
merely
> > pointing out
> > >facts.  And if it is aggravating, that is too bad.  Or are only
selected
> > facts
> > >permitted on this list? See post copied below as evidence.
> > >
> > >Subject:  Re: socialism
> > >   Date:  Sat, 25 Mar 2000 23:19:06 -0500
> > >   From:  ??????? Henry C.K.Liu ???l¢FD? <hliu at mindspring.com>
> > >      To: <SOCIALIST-REGISTER at YorkU.CA>
> > > References:  1 , 2 , 3 , 4
> > >
> > >
> > >Doug Henwood wrote:
> > >
> > >>  Henry Liu Wrote:
> > >> >Taylorism is your invented accusation, as is its being a
prerequsite
> for
> > >building socialism in China. >>Taylorism needs not be the culprit,
the
> > question is
> > >the ownership of the surplus value resulting from >>Taylorism.
> > >>
> > >> Very easy for you to say, since you're not likely to work in a
> Taylorized
> > >factory. I would say that the >organization of labor goes to the
very
> > heart of a
> > >social system. Taylorism emerged from capitalism as its > logical
issue.
> > It views
> > >workers as parts of a machine, in a purely instrumental fashion.
> Talorized
> > work is
> > >
> > >> deadening to the human mind and spirit, and is the precise
opposite of
> > >everything that socialism should > stand for. But a boss, whether
he be
> on
> > E 62nd
> > >St in Manhattan or in the Central Committee of the > CCP,  might
see
> things
> > >differently.
> > >
> > >
> > >Why do you insist on this low level personal stuff.   I don't have
one
> single
> > >employee.  I use only contracted services precisely beacuse I want
to
> > protect the
> > >quality of my life by avoiding being a boss. Can we try to elevate
the
> > debate and
> > >leave my late uncle alone?  He's been dead for more than a decade.
> > >Beside, when he was alive, my relationship to him was not generally
known
> > even in
> > >China.
> > >As I said, I have worked in factories both in China and in the US.
I
> > worked as a
> > >apprentice welder once a Mid Western factory the first summer I was
in
> the
> > US as a
> > >foreign student. Had a very good time and made many worker friends
and
> > visited
> > >their homes who lived better than Chinese leaders, all of them at
that
> time
> > >enjoyed salaries higher than Mao Zedong who took home the
equivalent of
> > US$60 a
> > >month.  We enjoyed improving efficiency, out of a sense of pride of
labor
> > more
> > >than anything else.  My fellow workers generally older than I was
then
> > impressed
> > >me as equally full of disdain for both management and the union. I
also
> > worked in
> > >Chinese factories with very similar experience.  Granted my
experience
> > might not
> > >have been typical becuase I did not have to work there and the
experience
> > was that
> > >of a summer camp. No doubt, Dickensian labor abuse still exist, but
I
> > don't know
> > >anyone, left or right, Chinese or American, who still supports that

> > extremism.
> > >
> > >If I understand Taylorism correctly, true productivity and
efficiency can
> > only
> > >result from worker input.  That was learned by the Japanese where
> > neo-Taylorism
> > >really took off.  Many workers in the US are critical of union shop
rules
> > that
> > >resist Taylorism.
> > >I am not defending it, I am saying that China is not pushing it as
you
> claim.
> > >Chinese SOE's are full of workers who do no work at all, rather
than
> working
> > >inefficiently.  We are talking about enterprises in which 60% of
the
> > empolyee are
> > >physically idle.  Wages cannot increase because of that stagnation.
You
> are
> > >debating from an abstact image.
> > >
> > >Henry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >"George C. Comninel" wrote:
> > >
> > >> I am not sure what prompted Henry to allege that the SR list
blocks his
> > posts,
> > >> but ours is an unmoderated list, and nothing is blocked, period.
As
> long
> > time
> > >> members of the list will know, there have been a few episodes
during
> which
> > >> "flame wars" have erupted, or a hugely disproportionate number of

> > messages on
> > >> a single issue were posted. In the most recent case, we polled
the
> > members of
> > >> the list as to whether we should continue, and on the basis of
> overwhelming
> > >> support for the list we decided to do so. One participant in a
flame
> war
> > >> voluntarily left the list, and in the interest of balance we
informed
> the
> > >> other major antagonist that, with regret, we were dropping him as
well.
> But
> > >> there has been no "censorship" of this list whatever. If, in our
view,
> > there
> > >> were sufficiently problematic posts to warrant censorship, we
would
> almost
> > >> certainly choose to put an end to the list instead. Because so
many
> > members of
> > >> the list find it to be valuable, we encourage participants to be
> > >> responsible in
> > >> preserving it as a forum for information and discussion. We have
no
> > >> interest in
> > >> imposing "discipline", however. Instead we trust in comradely
good will
> to
> > >> keep
> > >> the tone civil, and the content relevant and of general interest.

> > >>
> > >> For the SR list,
> > >> George Comninel
> > >>
> > >> At 10:23 AM 2/8/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> > >> >Steve,
> > >> >I am copying you this post because the SR list blocks my posts
at
> will.
> > >> >My very reliable source says that China and the World site is
not
> > blocked in
> > >> >China.  There may be local outtages or whatever.
> > >> >
> > >> >On this point, the CW site though left inclined, is often
> > anti-government and
> > >> >some suspect of CIA involvement,.   Its objective over the years

> > appears not
> > >> >so much as promoting socialism in China as using leftish causes
to
> > destablize
> > >> >China. By now, code words such as democracy, press freedom and
worker
> > rights
> > >> >are clear give aways.  I have been blocks from several so-called
left
> > lists
> > >> >for my views on these topics under the guise of being disruptive
or
> > >> >aggravating.
> > >> >
> > >> >Suppose China did block the CW site, what is your point?
> > >> >
> > >> >Henry
> > >> >
> > >> >Stephen E Philion wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> I've been informed by a good source at the left wing E-journal

> China
> > and
> > >> >> the World (chinabulletin.com) that their website has been
blocked
> from
> > >> >> Chinese viewers for over a week now. The Web page had been
putting
> out
> > >> >> some very valuable and interesting discussions and updates of
SOE
> > factory
> > >> >> worker protests in Zhenzhou City, Henan Province. It also has
had a
> > series
> > >> >> of articles and discussions of the recent rendition of a play
based
> > on the
> > >> >> life of Che Guevara, that was plainly critical of the
corruption
> that
> > has
> > >> >> accompanied this era of increasing privatization and plunder
of
> state
> > >> >> owned enterprises in China.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On a bright note, such efforts to block are not likely to be
> > >> >> effective. You'd be amazed at all the different techniques
people in
> > China
> > >> >> have come up with to circumvent gov't blockages of web pages.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Steve
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Stephen Philion
> > >> >> Lecturer/PhD Candidate
> > >> >> Department of Sociology
> > >> >> 2424 Maile Way
> > >> >> Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
> > >> >> Honolulu, HI 96822
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> George C. Comninel
> > >> Associate Professor
> > >> Political Science Department
> > >> York University
> > >> 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Canada  M3J 1P3
> > >> 416-736-5265
> > >
> >
> > George C. Comninel
> > Associate Professor
> > Political Science Department
> > York University
> > 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Canada  M3J 1P3
> > 416-736-5265









More information about the Marxism mailing list