However, there is an opinion in the specific evaluation that Deng Xiaoping was only a "supporter" of this discussion. The reason for this discussion was the "Guangming Daily Special Commentator's Article" "Practice is the Only Criteria for Testing Truth" (hereinafter referred to as the "Practice" article) published by Guangming Daily on May 11, 1978. Deng Xiaoping did not know in advance that the article was initiated and organized by others, and of course he did not participate. It was after the article was published, especially when he heard that the article caused different opinions and that the main leading comrades of the Party Central Committee were dissatisfied and condemned that he paid special attention to it and After reading the article, he publicly and clearly supported the views of the "Practical" article in his summary speech of the All-Army Political Work Conference on June 2, 1978.

This "supporter" argument has been circulating in society for some time. After some comrades from Guangming Daily found out, they published a monograph "Guangming Daily and Discussion on the Standard of Truth" in 1999 during the 50th anniversary of Guangming Daily. The book included the full text of Hu Fuming's first contribution, Hu Fuming and It also includes the original text from the revisions made by the editors of Guangming Daily to the final revisions by the comrades of the Central Party School’s Theoretical Research Office. It also includes the recollections of the editors of Guangming Daily and their explanations of the revisions. This book was published by Guangming Daily Press in June 1999. Before publication, on April 1, 1999, it was submitted to the State Press and Publication Administration for review by the Party History Research Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. The following are their opinions after reading:

This book provides a relatively clear and realistic introduction to the process and historical background of the discussion on the standard of truth, providing readers with a more detailed and objective understanding of this historical process. and precious historical information. There is no problem with political views and ideological tendencies, and it has publication value. Among them, especially the third part: the writing and publication process of "On Practice is the Only Criterion for Testing Truth", is more comprehensive, accurate and credible.

However, several parts of the manuscript are not consistent enough in terms of grasp of facts and narrative style. Mainly:

1. "Prelude to the New Era", what impact does this part have on the role of Deng Xiaoping and the older generation of revolutionaries in the discussion of truth standards, and what impact does this role have on Guangming Daily? It could be said more fully. There should also be a clearer explanation of the articles published by the People's Liberation Army Daily on the standard of truth. It is recommended to make appropriate additions when finalizing the draft.

2. The second part, that is, the compilation, revision and publication of the "actual text". Although the facts are presented relatively clearly and the author's views are reasonable, the language in some places is too harsh...etc. etc., which can easily cause unnecessary controversy. It is recommended that such language be deleted. The important thing is to state the facts clearly without too much criticism of other statements. Readers will make their own judgments.

3. The book quotes a lot of historical materials, but many of them do not indicate their sources. In order to improve the material and academic value of this book, it is best to add some key notes.

The above opinions are for reference only.

Central Party History Research Office, April 1999

We originally thought that "Guangming Daily and Truth" was published in order to be responsible to history and the people, to introduce the truth of the incident and to clarify false rumors. The book "Standard Discussion" has clearly explained the ins and outs of the "Shi" text through indisputable original data, so there is no need to waste any more pen and ink. But this will not be the case in the future. Such false rumors are still circulating in society, so much so that relevant parties said that comrades from Guangming Daily should speak out, otherwise false rumors will become official history! Such concerns are not unfounded.

The publication of the "Shi" article was inspired by Deng Xiaoping's instructions to accurately and completely apply Mao Zedong's ideological system and oppose the two "whatever" ideas. The discussion on the standard of truth triggered by this article has become more It was initiated, organized and led by Deng Xiaoping.

Facts speak louder than words, and rumors stop only with the wise.

Since this issue involves the positioning of authors and editors, which has long been confusing in the publishing industry, analyzing this issue will help clarify what is an author and what is an editor in the Copyright Law, and how to correctly handle the relationship between authors and editors. The relationship between editors is also of great significance.

(1)

Hu Yaobang is a proven proletarian revolutionary. During his tenure as General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, he made indelible and huge contributions in many aspects such as correcting chaos, redressing unjust, false and wrongful cases, and liberating veteran cadres. Hu Yaobang personally participated in the revision and publication of the "Realistic" article, reviewed and approved the proof of the "Realistic" article sent by the Central Party School's "Theoretical Dynamics", and approved the publication, which played a role in promoting the "Realistic" article to be publicly published in "Guangming Daily" Very important role. People should never deny this at any time. But we have to say that the "Shi" article was not "personally organized and written" by him as some books and periodicals said.

How can something that is not fact form a public opinion that spreads everywhere? A very important reason is where is the source of the "Shi" text? That is, who is the author of the article? Is it Sun Changjiang of Beijing or Hu Fuming of Nanjing?

Sun Changjiang was a researcher at the Theoretical Research Office of the Central Party School and participated in the editing of "Theoretical Dynamics". Hu Yaobang served as executive vice president of the Central Party School at that time.

Hu Yaobang had a special liking for "Theoretical Dynamics". In addition to personally reviewing the articles in "Theoretical Dynamics", he often discussed current ideological and theoretical issues with the editors of the journal and planned major topic selections. If the "Shi" article was written by Sun Changjiang, it is very possible that it was "personally organized" by Hu Yaobang or even planned and initiated by him.

Hu Fuming was an ordinary teacher in the Department of Politics of Nanjing University. Hu Yaobang had no working relationship with him, and there was no news that they knew each other. It would be contrary to common sense to say that the "Shi" article was written by Hu Fuming, and that Hu Yaobang "personally organized" Hu Fuming, whom he had never met, to "write" an important paper!

(2)

The key to solving the mystery of the author lies in the manuscript of the theoretical research office of the Central Party School (hereinafter referred to as the "Chinese" manuscript), which was sent to Guangming Daily for invitation The manuscripts they revised (hereinafter referred to as "light" manuscripts) were the seventh and eighth revisions of the "Shi" article submitted by Hu Fuming. Or were they written separate manuscripts by themselves, as was widely circulated, or were they written by others? Based on the manuscript they wrote, Sun Changjiang "kneaded" some of the content of the "light" manuscript into the manuscript.

Except for the opening introduction (the first paragraph), the "medium" draft is divided into four parts. There are 19 natural paragraphs including the introduction. In addition to the introduction (the first paragraph), the "light" draft is also divided into four parts. Even the introduction is divided into 17 paragraphs.

Let us compare it paragraph by paragraph.

First of all, judging from the overall content of the "Shi" article, there are 19 natural paragraphs in the "Medium" draft, only the last paragraph is not in the "Light" draft, and the content of the other 18 natural paragraphs, Except for a few newly quoted quotations from Marxist teachers and a few passages, they can all be found in the "Light" manuscript.

Secondly, the characteristic of the style of study and writing at that time was that quotations from Marxist teachers were often quoted to increase the authority of the article. The "Chinese" draft*** quotes 15 quotations. Except for 2 new additions, 13 quotations are all from the "Guang" draft. If not only most of the content of a paper comes from another paper, but also most of the quotations cited are the same, can it be considered that this paper is its own? The "Chinese" draft cited several examples as arguments. In terms of the history of natural sciences, examples are given of the process of discovery and confirmation of the periodic table of chemical elements, and the process of Copernicus's solar system theory from hypothesis to becoming truth; in terms of social sciences, it briefly introduces the process of Marxism, Leninism, and Mao Zedong Thought from their promulgation to their adoption. History confirmed as truth, etc. However, all of these contents have been listed in the "Guang" draft, especially the third part of the article, which accounts for a quarter of the entire article. The example cited is Marx and Engels's individual revisions of the "Communist Manifesto" There is no difference between the argument and Lenin's evaluation of it in the "medium" draft and the "light" draft. There are so many things in the world, and two authors who have never interacted with each other, one from the south and the other from the north, each conceived and wrote their own independent article, and the examples they selected are so similar. Can this be a coincidence?

Thirdly, looking at the specific chapters and paragraphs of the article, the first paragraph of the introduction, the "medium" draft is: "What is the standard for testing truth? This has long been solved by the mentor of the proletarian revolution The "Guang" draft is: "What is the criterion for testing truth? This problem has been solved by the revolutionary teachers of the proletariat." Just change "this" to "this" and move the "question". place.

The second paragraph of the "Chinese" draft is also copied, except that a quotation from Chairman Mao quoted in the second paragraph of the "Guang" draft is taken out and moved to the third paragraph of the "Chinese" draft. This quotation became a new addition to the "Chinese" draft.

Like this, the entire paragraph is copied, or slightly added, deleted, and modified, and there are paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and paragraphs in the "medium" draft. Paragraph 12, Paragraph 18, etc.

What is interesting is the 13th paragraph. The text is not long and is reproduced as follows: "Chairman Mao said: 'The unity of theory and practice is the most basic principle of Marxism.' ("Selected Works of Mao Zedong" Volume 5, page 297) Adhering to practice is the only criterion for testing truth, which means adhering to Marxism and dialectical materialism."

According to the "Chinese" draft, this paragraph is newly added. But after careful comparison, the first two familiar quotations in this paragraph originally came from paragraph 6 of the "Guang" draft, and two of the next three sentences came from paragraph 12 of the "Guang" draft, "中" The sentence "adhere to Marxism" was added to the manuscript, and the 13th paragraph became a newly added one.

Careful readers are asked to read and compare paragraph 14 of the "medium" draft and paragraph 13 of the "light" draft. From them, you can learn some knowledge about how to do a good job in editing and what is the difference. is the author and editor of What Is Making Wedding Clothes for Others.

The following two paragraphs are the "medium" draft and the "light" draft:

("medium" draft) Marxist teachers not only proposed that practice is the only criterion for testing truth , and personally set a shining example of using practice to test all theories, including the theories he proposed. The attitude of Marx and Engels towards the famous Marxist scientific document "The Communist Manifesto" which they jointly created is a vivid example among many cases. After the Manifesto was published in 1848, Marx and Engels had been testing it in practice for 45 years.

The seven prefaces of the Declaration record this fact in detail. First of all, Marx and Engels pointed out: "No matter how much the situation has changed in the past 25 years, the general basic principles expressed in this Manifesto are still completely correct today." At the same time, they also pointed out that "these basic principles The practical application of principles must be subject to the historical conditions of the time at any time and at any time." ("Selected Works of Marx and Engels", Volume 1, page 228) Marx and Engels once continued to test based on new practices, including the discovery of new historical facts. Modifications have been made to individual arguments in the Declaration. For example, the first sentence of the first chapter of the Manifesto is: "The history of all society up to the present time is the history of class struggle." Engels added a note to the English version of the Manifesto in 1888: "Exactly "Said, this refers to written history." ("Selected Works of Marx and Engels", Volume 1, page 251) After the publication of the "Manifesto", people have a further understanding of the prehistory of society, especially Morgan's investigation and research. : Before class society, there was a long classless society; class is the product of social development to a certain historical stage, and it did not always exist. It can be seen that it is not accurate to say that "the history of all societies is the history of class struggle." Based on the new conclusions drawn from this new practice, Engels made this explanation and revised the old formulation of the Manifesto. There is another statement in the "Manifesto" that talks about the proletariat using violent revolution to seize power and overthrow the bourgeoisie. In 1872, the two revolutionary mentors clearly stated in their last preface signed by ***: "Because large industry has developed greatly in the past 25 years and the party organizations of the working class have also developed with it, because first of all With the practical experience of the February Revolution and later especially the practical experience of the Paris Commune, where the proletariat first held power for two months, this program is now in some respects obsolete, and the Commune in particular has proven: 'The workers. The class cannot simply take control of the ready-made state machinery and use it to achieve its own ends' ("Selected Works of Marx and Engels", Volume 1, page 229) Lenin attached great importance to this explanation of Marx and Engels, and he believed that this was an important statement. An "important revision" of the Communist Manifesto. ("Selected Works of Lenin", Volume 3, Page 208).

("Light" draft) Marxist teachers put forward practical standards for testing truth, and consciously used them to test and develop their own theories, and even modify individual conclusions. Now let’s take a look at how Marx and Engels tested the “Communist Manifesto” based on practice. After the "Declaration" was published in 1848, they have been testing the "Declaration" based on practice for 45 years. The seven prefaces of the "Declaration" are vivid illustrations. First of all, Marx and Engels pointed out: "No matter how much the situation has changed in the past 25 years, the general basic principles played out in this Manifesto are still completely correct until now." ("Selected Works of Marx and Engels" Volume 1 Page 228) Over the past 130 years, the practice of the world proletarian revolution has proven that this conclusion is still correct. At the same time, they developed their own doctrines and revised individual views in the light of new practical experiences. Here is an example of amending the Declaration. The first sentence of the first chapter of the "Manifesto" is "The history of all society up to now is the history of class struggle." Engels added a note to the English version of the "Manifesto" in 1888: "To be precise, this It refers to written history.” (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, p. 251) In 1847, the prehistoric state of society, the social organization before all written history, was almost completely unknown; later, discoveries were made one after another. Public ownership of land was the basis of primitive societies around the world. In particular, Morgan investigated and studied among the indigenous people of Hawaii Island for decades, discovered the true nature of the clan and its relationship to the tribe, revealed the typical form of the internal organization of primitive communist society, and thus proved: Before class society, there was a long classless society; classes are the product of social development to a certain historical stage, and they did not always exist. It can be seen that it is not accurate to say that "the history of all societies is the history of class struggle". Therefore, Engels made modifications. In addition, there is an important modification to the Declaration. Marx and Engels said: “Because large industry has developed greatly in the past 25 years, the party organizations of the working class have also developed along with it, because first of all there was the practical experience of the February Revolution and later especially because the proletariat took power for the first time. The practical experience of the two-month-long Paris Commune, so this program is now out of date in some places, especially since the Commune has proved that: 'The working class cannot simply grasp the ready-made state machinery and use it to achieve its own ends' ." ("Selected Works of Marx and Engels", Volume 1, page 229) said in the "Manifesto" that the proletariat will use violent revolution to seize power to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Based on the practice of the February Revolution of 1848 and the Paris Commune, Marx came to a new conclusion: the proletariat must use revolutionary violence to smash the bourgeois state machine and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin pointed out: This is an "important revision" ("Selected Works of Lenin", Volume 3, page 208)

In comparison, the "Chinese" draft is only more refined than the "Light" draft in terms of grammar and rhetoric. There is no difference in substantive content.

(3)

For the hard work and important contributions made by the comrades of the Theoretical Research Office of the Central Party School in participating in the revision of "Practical", Comrade Guangming Daily edited and published it The book "Guangming Daily and Discussion on the Standard of Truth" has been highly praised and believed that "the basic viewpoint has been maintained and the quality has been improved." Specifically, it includes: a lot of deletions were made to the original manuscript; Chairman Mao's revisions and individual comments were added. The example of the method adds weight to the argument of the article; the subtitle is added to make the theme more distinct; the last paragraph is written more powerfully; the pertinence is strengthened, etc.

However, it cannot be inferred from this that the "Chinese" draft is an independent work.

Compared with the "Light" draft, first of all, the theme of the "Medium" draft has not had any substantive changes. It is still to demonstrate the relationship between practice and theory, and to confirm that practice is the standard for testing truth.

Secondly, the basic views and main arguments have not changed. Both the "Chinese" draft and the "Guang" draft have four parts, but the "Guang" draft is marked with (1), (2), (3), and (4), while the "Middle" draft makes it concrete: " The standard for testing truth can only be social practice." "The unity of theory and practice is one of the most basic principles of Marxism." "Revolutionary mentors are role models who adhere to practical standards." "Any theory needs to be constantly tested by practice." The quotes from classic works and the actual examples cited in the "Chinese" and "Guang" drafts are basically the same, and the arguments are also basically the same.

Unraveling the mystery of the author of "Practice is the Only Criterion for Testing Truth" (Part 2)

Third, any influential paper should have a core that reflects its personality and characteristics content. The core content of the "Light" draft is actually two points. One is to oppose the two whatevers, and the other is to emphasize the single standard. The "Chinese" draft has no breakthroughs in either aspect.

(4)

In the process of drafting, revising, and publishing the "Shi" article, the author, editor (Guangming Daily) and those who participated in the revision (Theoretical Research Office of the Central Party School) The positioning is also very clear. As a news publishing unit, Guangming Daily has had an editor-author relationship with Hu Fuming from the beginning. Guangming Daily asked Hu Fuming for a manuscript, and Hu responded by submitting the "Shi" article; Guangming Daily selected the "Shi" article and requested revisions. , Hu revised it, Guangming Daily also revised it, and finally published it in Guangming Daily. The relationship between Guangming Daily and the Theoretical Research Office of the Central Party School and Sun Changjiang has been the relationship between a news publishing unit and a "special editor" from the beginning. That is, the editor-in-chief of Guangming Daily heard that Sun Changjiang was also conceiving an article on the same theme and decided to publish Sun Changjiang's article. Please come and participate in the discussion meeting to revise Hu Fuming's manuscript. Guangming Daily later sent the "Guang" draft and clearly told them to ask for their help in revising it. Comrades in the Theory Research Office of the Central Party School fully understood this, so when "Theoretical Trends" officially published the "Practical" article, after repeated deliberation, they still specifically noted at the end of the article "Contributed by Guangming Daily. This publication has made some changes."

How could something so clear and unmistakable in May 1978 become blurry again? Today, more than 20 years later, it has even become "actual". The article was written by the Theoretical Research Office of the Central Party School itself, and it became What about "Hu Yaobang personally organized and wrote it"? An incident happened in Guangming Daily in 1984. Since it is related to the "Shi" article, I have to introduce it here.

1984 is the 35th anniversary of the founding of New China and the 35th anniversary of Guangming Daily, which was founded on June 16, 1949. The new leadership team formed at the end of 1982 decided to hold an award event for outstanding theoretical articles from 1979 to 1983 to commemorate National Day and Social Day and expand the influence of the newspaper. During the award selection process, a responsible comrade from the relevant department of Guangming Daily discovered that the annual outstanding theoretical articles selected did not reflect the theoretical achievements of the newspaper. What can represent achievement is the "real" article, but it is not within the scope of the award. In order to resolve this contradiction, it was decided to set up a "Special Award" with only one place, awarded to the "Shi" article and its author, with a bonus of 1,000 yuan. Originally, this bonus was only awarded to Hu Fuming. Later, considering that the "Practical" article had been revised many times, it was revised by comrades from Guangming Daily and also by comrades from the Theoretical Research Office of the Central Party School. The editor of Guangming Daily is responsible for revising the author's articles and does not need to be rewarded. However, the comrades of the theoretical research office of the Party School are purely fulfilling their obligations and should be rewarded as appropriate. If they are given too much and it is not suitable, and too little and they cannot be used, they will be given to the author. 300 yuan will be allocated from the bonus as "labor fees" for revising the article. From the comrades of Guangming Daily, this is purely a good intention. Maybe the comrades in the theoretical research office of the party school have other opinions on this, and they refuse to accept this "labor fee". The awarding unit awards the bonus, but the receiving unit refuses it. Although it is a bit abnormal, it is generally understandable.

But what is incomprehensible is that this ordinary incident, which was purely a business activity, was later hyped up. On the one hand, some comrades said, "This is a blatant tampering of history and a serious infringement." , on the other hand, said that this was directed by a "big shot" and aimed to "obliterate the important role of the Central Party School, especially Hu Yaobang, in the discussion of truth standards." As a result, Guangming Daily suffered an unjust injustice.

(5)

In order to further unravel the mystery of the author, it is necessary to correctly understand the characterization and positioning of the work, author and editor from the perspective of the Copyright Law, and to handle it correctly Author's relationship with editor (editor).

my country’s Copyright Law stipulates that the author is the person who directly creates the work. Creative works refer to the author's own creative conception, use of his own skills and methods, and the use of certain symbolic forms to write works that express his own thoughts, opinions, personality and characteristics.

The editor refers to the person who edits the work. The so-called "bian" refers to the whip or rope used to thread the bamboo slips together in ancient times, but today it refers to weaving and arranging; "ji" refers to the coordination of the horses driving in ancient times, and today it refers to joining and collecting. Combining "editing" and "editing" together, editing refers to the process of collecting materials and concatenating them, identifying, selecting, classifying, sorting, processing and collating.

After clarifying the concepts of work, author and editor, and relating to the actual publication of "Shi" article, we believe that "Shi" article is a written work with its own independent theme that is different from other works. , that is, the relationship between demonstration practice and theory, and propaganda practice is the standard for testing truth. This theme runs throughout the entire text. Although the relationship between practice and theory and that practice is the standard for testing truth is not a new topic in Marxist epistemology, this proposition was raised in China in the 1970s and 1980s, and it has extraordinary significance.

As a work, it is not enough to have a theme, but also to have basic content surrounding the theme (including basic viewpoints, arguments, and demonstrations). In the "Shi" article, whether it is Hu Fuming's first draft and subsequent revisions (three parts) or Guangming Daily's two revisions (four parts), the basic contents are: (1) Clarify any theory and distinguish whether it is truth or fallacy , in the final analysis, it is tested by social practice; (2) The unity of theory and practice is the most basic principle of Marxism; (3) How Marxist teachers adhere to practical standards, modify individual views in their own works, and criticize " "Two Whatevers"; (4) Expose and criticize how Lin Biao and the "Gang of Four" opposed practical standards and distorted Mao Zedong Thought, and proposed to eliminate their poison and influence.

As a work, in addition to its theme and basic content, it should also have its own personality and characteristics. In the article "Practice", in addition to its unique arguments, there are two main points: first, through theoretical arguments and examples of Marxist teachers revising their own individual arguments, emphasizing the correctness and importance of practical standards and opposing the "two whatevers" . The second is to emphasize that there is only one criterion for testing truth, namely practice, and there is no second criterion. At this point, the "medium" draft has nothing new compared to the "light" draft.

In the final analysis, the revisions made by comrades from the Theoretical Research Office of the Central Party School are what an editor should do. The editor cannot call himself the author just because he has revised the original work. If this is the case, editing work is not "making wedding clothes for others", and the legitimate rights and interests of the author cannot be protected.

Some comrades may ask, if you make small revisions, of course the editor cannot become the author, but if you make many or major changes, can you become the author? No, unless the theme, basic content, core issues, and writing style are completely changed.

Judging from the revision process of "Shi", Comrade Guangming Daily's revisions are not small, including the title highlighting "unique", the frame changing from three parts to four parts, and the length of the revision increased by 1/3 ; Highlights Deng Xiaoping's point of view on fully and accurately understanding the ideological system of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong, and criticizes the "two whatevers"; The end of the article states that "Science has no forbidden areas. Wherever there are 'forbidden areas', there is no science." Pointing out that there are still "forbidden areas" that we need to use Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought as weapons to break through, etc. If the same standards are followed for "medium" drafts as for "light" drafts, the "light" draft should be considered a brand new article, and the comrades of Guangming Daily should change from editors to authors. But the comrades of Guangming Daily have never thought of treating the "Real" article as their own work, nor have they ever thought that they would become authors because of it. They believe that this is not only inconsistent with historical facts, but also goes against the professional ethics of journalism and publishing, and violates the legislative spirit of the Copyright Law.

Lenin said it well: "If you take just one more step, as if it were a small step in the same direction, truth will turn into error." ("Selected Works of Lenin", Vol. 31, No. 85 Page) Regarding the issue of the "Truth" article, the comrades of the Theoretical Research Office of the Central Party School, as participants in the revision, have made important contributions, but if we take a small step forward and regard ourselves as the authors of the article, "the truth will It will turn into a mistake." If this issue is brought to the Central Party School or even Hu Yaobang, a bigger mistake may be made.