In the eyes of Lu Yuzhang, a postgraduate of law, the word just denotes someone with talent who owns wealth. However, his definition has collided with the interpretation of the Shanghai Municipal Industrial and Commercial Administration (SMICA).

　　The graduate from Nanjing University in East China's Jiangsu Province had aspired to start his own business, yet his plan ran aground when he wanted to use the word "capitalist" in his company's name. His choice provoked the bureau to forbid the registration of the name.

　　Undeterred, Lu filed a case with the Xuhui District People's Court, demanding the bureau reverse the decision.

　　Confused definitions

　　On April 14, Lu went to the sub-bureau in Pudong to register his company - to be called the Shanghai Capitalist Competition Advisory Company. The sub-bureau vetoed the name because of the wording.

　　At the first hearing, held on August 1, Xu Mingtao, a staff member from SMICA who presented the position of the defendant, stressed that the word would have a negative social impact.

　　"Capitalists came into being during the process of industrialization, standing in opposition to the working class," he said. "China's Constitution clearly stipulates in its first article that the People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. Thus, the word 'capitalist' runs counter to China's basic political system."

　　Furthermore, the bureau insisted that an enterprise's name is also a part of social culture, which would inevitably influence people's mentality and the development of civilization.

　　Lu retorted that the bureau's rejection of his application was absurd and lacked convincing evidence.

　　"Their argument has insufficient basis in law, it is simply their own interpretation of the word," Lu said. "They did not clarify the essence of socialism."

　　He said as a socialist state, the Constitution stipulates China's economic basis is socialist public ownership and collective ownership. However, with the pursuit of the reform of opening-up policy, a private economy has sprung up like mushrooms in the country.

　　"In the latest amendment act of the Constitution in 1999, it has been clearly stated the private economy has an important role in China's economy. The private economy has long been considered a complement to the State sector," Lu said. "So how can we say the word 'capitalist' does not comply with China's basic system?"

　　"It is widely known that China's basic social conflict is still a conflict between productivity and increasing social demand. The private economy helps to meet social demands, and it is helpful for fuelling China's economy progress," he added.

　　However, SMICA insisted that Lu was attaching too much importance to one aspect of capitalism, and the word "capitalist" also had a strong political colour besides the economic one.

　　Xu cited from Ci Hai, a voluminous and authoritative encyclopedia of Chinese words, according to which "a capitalist" is a person with capital who exploits workers' surplus value.

　　"Undoubtedly, the word reflects a capitalist accumulation of wealth by squeezing surplus value," he said, "so to use this word in a company's name will damage the country's social interests."

　　However, Lu repeatedly stressed that the private economy had greatly contributed to social stability, and the policy of "one country two systems" was the best proof since it demonstrated how capitalism (in Hong Kong, for instance) could be compatible with Chinese national cohesion.

　　Title-tattle

　　Also, SMICA said the company name Lu had proposed did not fall in line with relevant rules.

　　According to certain registration regulations, a company's title should consist of three parts including the name, industry and form of organization. The company's location should also be put before the title.

　　In the title Lu preferred, Xu said that the words "competition advisory" did not reveal the firms industrial features, and did not comply with the industrial classification which only recognizes consulting companies.

　　"It was obvious that an advisory company is a consulting one," Lu countered. "I have also seen many names such as so-and-so real estate advisory company or management advisory company."

　　However, SMICA maintained that in the titles Lu cited, "real estate" and "management" already reflected the key industrial features, while his alternative - "competition" - was unclear.