一、这次争鸣是围绕程华琰同志《略论邮电通信产品的一个重要特征_产品不可流通性》一文而展开的。从这篇文章的标题中,我们就可以清楚地看出,程文所要“论”的是邮电通信产品的“不可流通性”,而且还把“不可流通性”称为“一个重要特征”。显而易见,“不可流通性”是他的基本观点和立论依据。我认为邮电通信产品是可以流通的,根本不存在什么“不可流通性”。据此写了一篇文章,希望就“不可流通性”问题展开争鸣。本文发表后,程华琰同志又写了第二篇文章《也与郑雁同志商榷》,说是要与我商榷,实际上却避开了双方争论的焦点,即有没有“不可流通性”这一要害问题。邮电通信产品究竟能不能流通?“不可流通性”到底存在不存在?对这些问题,程文未能作出 First, the debate is about Comrade Cheng Huayan’s article “A Brief Discussion on an Important Feature of Post-Telecommunications Products-Product Non-Circulability”. From the title of this article, we can clearly see that what Cheng Wen wants to be “talking about” is the “non-liquidity” of postal telecommunications products, and “non-liquidity” is also referred to as “an important feature.” Obviously, “non-liquidity” is his basic point of view and argument. I think that postal and telecommunications products can be circulated, and there is absolutely no “non-circulability.” Accordingly, he wrote an article hoping to start a debate on the issue of “non-circulability.” After the publication of this article, Comrade Cheng Huayan wrote a second essay entitled “Discussing with Comrade Zheng Yan,” saying that it is to be consulted with me. In fact, it has avoided the focus of the arguments between the two parties, namely, is there any “non-negotiability” Critical issue. Post and telecommunications products can not circulate? “Non-flowability” in the end there is no existence? For these problems, Cheng Wen failed to make