近日,在一家地方报纸上看到一则消息,大字标题是“原市革委会副主任”某某逝世。作为“文革”产物的“革命委员会”这个机构,随着拨乱反正,早已成为历史陈迹;中央还曾明令禁止在一般情况下沿用“革命委员会”这个名称。因此,这条消息给人的第一个印象就是,这个市的“革委会”至今仍然存在,只是这位去世者已经去职,故称“原市革委会副主任”。自然,事实上这是不可能的。那么,为什么还要作这种标题呢?我仔细地读了消息的全文,似乎明白了其中的一些道理。原来,这位去世的干部生前担任过的最高职务,是“市革委会副主任兼经委主任”。“市革委会副主任”相当于现任的副市长。如果说他曾任“副市长”,那是不符合历史状况的;如果只说他担任过“经委主任”,岂不有失其身份?这大概正是这条消息以这种标题和内容见 Recently, I saw a piece of news in a local newspaper, the headline is “the former deputy director of the Revolutionary Committee” Moumou died. The “Revolutionary Committee,” a product of the “Cultural Revolution,” has long been a historical monument as it went wrong. Any attempt by the Central Committee to prohibit the general use of the term “revolutionary committee” has been banned. Therefore, the first impression this message gives is that the city’s “revolutionary committee” still exists today, except that the deceased person has already resigned so he is called “Deputy Director of the Revolutionary Revolutionary Committee.” Naturally, this is impossible in fact. So, why do we have to make this title? I carefully read the full text of the message, seems to understand some of them. It turned out that the death of the cadre served as the highest office before his death, is the “Municipal Revolutionary Committee vice chairman and director of the Economic Commission.” “Municipal Revolutionary Committee deputy director” is equivalent to the current deputy mayor. If he had been a “vice-mayor,” it would not be in accordance with the historical situation. If he only said that he had served as the “commissioner of the Economic Commission,” would he not have lost his identity? This message is probably based on the headline and content of this message see