Ai Ssu-ch'i is a little known but very important figure in the introduction of Marxism-Leninism into China. This first article provides a brief biography of Ai Ssu-ch'i as well as a detailed account of his activities as teacher, author and propagandist. Among his other services to the cause of Marxism-Leninism in China, one has to stress Ai Ssu-ch'i's systematic opposition to Yeh Ch'ing and to the non-Communist interpretation of Dr. Sun Yat-sen's Three Principles of the People. (cf.SST 10 (1970), 138–166.).

This is a review essay of what is probably the best contribution to the history of the philosophical investigation into thought experiments.

This article examines one of the most crucial yet often-overlooked links in global film processes: piracy. It does so within the context of a changing digital media environment that calls for a reassessment of key dimensions: networks, globalization, technology, space and the state. More specifically, it focuses on the operation of film piracy networks in Greater China that includes the Mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan. By zooming in on `Greater China', this article presents empirical accounts of specific links and connections (...) on and between the intersecting distribution and piracy networks. In sum, distribution and piracy in China highlight some of the most interesting and intricate insights into issues of power, control, technology, network, speed, global-regional-national dynamics, subjectivities and reflexivity. Given the complexity of the issues, this study argues for a spatial, network and process-oriented theoretical framework. (shrink)

There is some ground for saying that the real Confucius cannot be the object of recent critiques in the PRC. Both the critiques and critics are of questionable authenticity and they seem to be ‘pulling their punches’. What is clear is that these ideological pursuits mask some very serious political events over the recent past in the PRC.

Liberal critics of plato's republic criticise him for ignoring the moral autonomy of persons, their right to form and to express their own moral ideas. It is argued that this criticism is superficial. Neither plato, nor his liberal critics, wish all moral views to be held and acted on; they both wish to set limits to what is acceptable. The true source of disagreement is over the scope of reason in human affairs; plato understands that narrowly; his liberal critics in (...) a broad, permissive, way. (shrink)