(X) to doubt.
Well my argument is that by apologizing for mistakes of GLF and CR, the CCP could become less vulnerable to those who try to delegitimize it by playing the original sins card. The reason why I compared GLF and CR to white supremacy in the West is because every country and regime has its own original sins, and these original sins make every country vulnerable to a certain extend. To your second point about the original intent of GLP and CR, while GLF indeed had to intent of improving China's rural economic development and industrial self-sufficiency, CR was simply a game played by Mao and his lieutenants to purge their political rivals through mob rule. Thus, CR was indeed sinister since Mao and his lieutenants intended to maximize their monopoly of political power at the expense of the CCP itself, the Chinese economy, education system, and national defense. Instead of willingly accept his own mistakes back in 1958 and let Liu Shaoqi and Deng take charge of China's economy during the 1950-1966 period, Mao launched the CR because he feared that his opponents were trying to delegitimize him due to the failure of GLF.
That's absolutely the correct position.
Rightly so. That also is absolutely the correct position. The Party is hitting it out of the park!
Exactly as they should be. I still remember laughing at the WSJ seethe when Unirule got shut down. Thanks for the pleasant trip down memory lane.
No, it isn't. People who would cause social division are silenced to prevent that division, just like cancer is best treated in its early stages to prevent it metastasizing. Otherwise, the result is America.
Well, that's very paternalistic of the CCP, which can work itself out as long as people's economic welfare continue to improve. However, risk here is that if controversial histories are covered up, people will at some point find out and will become even more curious and eager to investigate them. If the economy were good, citizens would simply overlook these historical inconsistencies. But if there were widespread unemployment resulted from cyclical economic downturns, these historical inconsistencies could become a fuel added to the fire.
Think of it whatever you like, it's the only way for a society to survive the natural and social pressures of the modern era. The alternative is to become a failing state. Show me an empirically superior system and I'll revise my view - your Cato Institute pop economics isn't going to cut it.
That's just your theorizing and your theorizing doesn't hold any water. In reality, the Chinese system has strengthened and become more stable by every empirical measure.
How does this work in your imagination? Because there was an economic shock recently: the outbreak of COVID-19. Did people go, "Wow, 60 years ago the Chinese government grossly mismanaged the economy. Let's riot!" And saying the "risk is there" isn't some magic incantation that makes your argument correct - the risk is there that an asteroid hits Earth tomorrow and wipes out life on Earth. What is the probability of that risk?
They could? In my version of the story they couldn't.
The truth you're trying to obscure is that all threats to stability are dealt with, no matter whence they originate.
Glad to know when the neo-Maoists or Marxists go too far, the CCP would go after them. That's more fair.
Mao is dead. Internalize that sentence.
Since u are seriously off topic, I'll only reply once.