Mediaboss Marketing

Let us not kid ourselves: the proposed anti-terrorism bill is a measure aimed at combatting the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). Certainly, the military also wants more leeway to go after extremist Islamists. Still, groups like the Abu Sayyaf Group and the Maute faction are so obviously inimical to national security that our government does not need a law enshrining a vague definition of terrorism to go after them.

Neither of us is sympathetic to the CPP, its armed wing the New Peoples Army (NPA), or the National Democratic (ND) organizations under its penumbra. Not only have we called attention to their Machiavellian politics from the Plaza Miranda bombing to their internal purges to their active collaboration with Duterte at the height of the drug war. We have also maintained that any organization that arrogates unto itself the right to speak for the people only to betray them repeatedly is dangerous and totalitarian. Like many Filipinos, we hope to see the end of this fifty-year-old insurrection sooner than later, as much as we want our peoples oppression and exploitation that sustained this longest Communist revolution in the world eliminated.

The fighting, however, cannot be ended through draconian measures like the anti-terrorism bill. Instead, the government must commit to steps that lead to the full legalization of the CPP and its full participation in electoral politics.

Currently, the CPP is only legal on paper. President Ramos repealed the anti-subversion law in 1992, making membership in the CPP technically legal. However, with laws like the Human Security Act, it has been easy for the government to argue that membership in the Party makes one an accessory to rebellion. Such laws, therefore, drive Communism further underground and make it difficult for the state to moderate the party through electoral politics. The problem will only become worse with an anti-terrorism law.

We already know that repression doesnt work. Marcos tried it, and he earned himself the moniker of the NPAs best recruiter, as the Communist army swelled from roughly 2,500 troops in the late 60s to over 20,000 in the early 80s.

President Duterte has repeatedly declared his admiration for the Marcos dictatorship. But he also knows what an authoritarian order could do to our politics. The dictatorships anti-terrorism measures ripped Davaos City social fabric in the 1980s, turning its districts into battle zones between the Communist partisans and the military. Agdao district, where the urban poor lived, became known as Nicar-Agdao a homage to the brutal fighting between the Sandinistas and the army in Nicaragua. During those fateful days, Dabaweos became used to dead bodies in their esteros and iskinitas. The repression attracted so much support for the Communists that even Dutertes mother, Nanay Soling, and his friend Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez marched the streets with the Reds. (READ: [OPINION] Martial rule without martial law: An anti-terror bill subtext)

The fall of Marcos and the return of constitutional politics, no matter how flawed, dissipated political tensions. As a result, the Party split in 1992 into different factions that each had a different vision of revolution in the post-authoritarian period. But more importantly, many of its cadres opted for open politics. Until today, there are tensions within the Party, with certain groups more open to peaceful, parliamentary reform than others. The government should empower these reformers by showing their critics from within the Party that peaceful change is possible.

The Communists have repeatedly reaffirmed their commitment to Mao Tse Tung Thought and the armed struggle. And, yes, in certain areas, the New Peoples Army has regained company strength, and Communist propaganda has reanimated the passion of some post-millenials. And yet, its leaders, from exiled Ayatollah Jose Ma. Sison, to the Partys anonymous highbrow theorist Teo Marasigan, know deep down that peoples war will never really bring about state collapse. NPA troops, many of whom now moonlight as private security, will never defeat the AFP. The Party will also never get a majority to march and die for its national democratic dreamthe lure of work abroad will always outbid becoming a gerilyero.

Ironically, the movement is doing fine with parliamentary struggle, a tactic it theoretically despises for contaminating the March of History. Its leading party-list, Bayan Muna, under the capable hands of leaders like Neri Colmenares and Carlos Zarate, has scored remarkably well in national elections since 2001 (it was only in 2016 where it did poorly), despite sustained efforts by the state to intimidate its ranks with arrests and executions. Bayan Muna has been an active fiscalizer in the House of Representatives, and, recently, it has even passed a bill to increase social security pensions (signed by Duterte!). Not bad for a mass organization whose role is supposedly merely tactical and ancillary to protracted peoples war. (READ: Rappler Talk: Mujiv Hataman on why anti-terror bill won't combat terrorism)

Unlike the 1970s when people walked around with pictures of Ka Dante and communards at UP Diliman renamed a building to honor the NPAs first commander, todays CPPs guerrilla leaders are no longer household names (the last well-covered commander was Ka Roger of the Southern Tagalog Command who died of cancer and was subsequently forgotten). These days, no NPA kumander can match the charisma and reach of Kabataan Representative Sarah Elago, who has emerged as an articulate voice of youth activism.

These legal voices are important voices, and we envisage a future when the entire apparatus of the CPP becomes legal, where the CPP, as the CPP, will stand for elections and subject its ideas to open debate, like the Communist Party in Japan or the Maoist Portuguese Workers Communist Party.

The utak pulbura in the palace, the congress, and the military seem to think that the war will end with the annihilation of the Communist movement. This is not the way armed rebellion ends, especially since inequalities will always push some Filipinos toward Communism. Armed rebellion will end when the government integrates Communists into the democratic system, as what happened with the MNLF and is now happening with the MILF.

To repeat, repression does not work. Signing this anti-terrorism bill into law may benefit President Duterte for a few years the same way that martial law did to Marcos. But inevitably that 85% support will wane if the regressive impact of COVID-19, the decline of OFW remittances, corruption, and repeated kowtowing to China continues. More people will inevitably complain, inviting state repression in the name of anti-terrorism. (READ: [EDITORIAL] 'Terror bill' ang veerus na papatay sa kalayaan)

This will not end well for anyone. Rappler.com

Patricio Abinales, a professor of Asian Studies at the University of Hawaii-Manoa, is working on a revised and expanded version of his book Love, Sex and the Filipino Communist (Or Hinggil sa Pagpigil ng Panggigigil) and Lisandro Claudio, assistant professor of Southeast Asian Studies at UC Berkeley, hoped to stop writing about the CPP, until circumstances changed his mind.

See more here:
[OPINION] Don't pass the anti-terror bill; legalize the Communist party instead - Rappler

2020 is the fork in the road for the United States of America

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams.

With all of its false assumptions and evil methods, communism grew as a protest against the hardships of the underprivileged. Communism in theory emphasized a classless society, and a concern for social justice, though the world knows from sad experience that in practice it created new classes and a new lexicon of injustice. Martin Luther King Jr.

Seattle, Washington is the first city to be taken over by ANTIFA - A Marxist Organization. What next?

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law that empowers the President of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion. The act provides the "major exception" to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the use of military personnel under federal command for law enforcement purposes within the United States. Before invoking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

Continue reading here:
Marxist/Communist Take Over of the United States of America - Open Mic Night - BlogTalkRadio

In 1965, a high-ranking Indonesian military leader named Suharto launched a brutal extermination campaign against Indonesians either affiliated with Communist Party or harboring leftist sympathies. The killings claimed up to one million lives and cemented Suhartos grip on power for the next 33 years.

In his new book The Jakarta Method, author Vincent Bevins documents how the United States government, then escalating its involvement in the Vietnam War, was complicit in Suhartos rise, which established a pro-U.S. government in the worlds fourth-largest country. Bevins also shows how events in Indonesia became the template for anti-Communist campaigns elsewhere in the world, particularly in South and Central America in the 1970s and 1980s. Three decades after the end of the Cold War, Bevins argues thatthe Jakarta method has indelibly shaped the trajectory of many of the worlds developing countries.

Bevins served as an Indonesia-based correspondent for The Washington Post, a London-based reporter for The Financial Times, and covered Brazil and South America for The Los Angeles Times. He spoke with Asia Blog last week from his home in Sao Paulo.

Americans are inundated with stories from the Vietnam War from an early age, yet, as youve written, the anti-communist killings in Indonesia have largely been forgotten in the U.S. Why do you think our victory in Indonesia has received so little attention?

I think there are two reasons the tragedy in Indonesia fell deep down into a memory hole. The first is precisely because of how successful the operation was. Its purpose, as undertaken by the Indonesian military, was to keep people quiet: not only quiet about their political beliefs before the violence started, but also about what happened. The Suharto dictatorship managed, to a really surprising extent, to control the narrative for decades afterwards. The extent that it was a success is the first part of why weve forgotten about it in the Western hemisphere, if we had learned about it at all.

The second reason is that events in Indonesia were quickly overshadowed by the Vietnam War. Vietnam, very much unlike Indonesia, involved American citizens. It was a problem, an embarrassment, a quagmire; it became enmeshed in domestic politics. And the seemingly natural progression of a country into the U.S.-led global order didnt fit into the limited amount of attention Americans paid to Southeast Asia in the 1960s. Vietnam really overshadowed it.

And I think a third reason is that Americans had an implicit understanding of how the world was supposed to unfold after World War II. To hear that a country joined our team wasnt surprising or strange, and didnt usually require further investigation. The deeply-held American assumption is that if someone ends up on our sideits because they want to be.

You write that a lot of third world, or non-aligned countries, were drawn to a socialist, or socially democratic system of government and that they were largely independent of the Soviet Union. What do you think would have happened if the U.S. had tried to work with these governments, instead of trying to squelch their nascent socialist movements and impose more ideologically friendly regimes?

One way to think about this would be to ask, for example, that if Ho Chi Minh in 1945 declared North Vietnams independence from France and tried to align the countrys independence with the American revolutionary tradition could it have been possible for the U.S. to take his side? Could it have used the force and influence of U.S. power to push him toward a more democratic path that respected human rights? I think one could imagine that happening.

By 1945, Ho Chi Minh was already pretty much a Marxist/Leninist. But what about cases like Guatemala, Iran, or Indonesia, whose leaders werent? Could you imagine the U.S., instead of trying to oppose movements that were slightly to the left of what was acceptable in Washington at the time, allying with them and trying to press for the best outcome? I think you could.

A really big question we dont have the answer to is to what extent these kinds of interventions were fueled by a misunderstanding of socialism or by a confusion of nationalism and communism. And to what extent were they fueled by actual threats to a world order that was coming into being, and that the United States needed to dispense with in order to construct the current kind of globalization that we have.

You can imagine things having gone a lot better, and you can imagine them having gone a lot worse. But I definitely reject the idea that what the Americans did was the only way to do it.

Does the U.S. overestimate the extent that the Soviet Union wanted to intervene in other countries?

I think we know that three things happened: There was legitimate concern about what the Soviet Union was going to do around the world after World War II, there were people who convinced themselves that the Soviets were going to do things they were not going to do, and there were people who cynically played up the threat of Communist aggression in order to justify a particular foreign policy goal. You dont have to pick and choose.

Pointing to the intentional exaggeration does not negate the reality of the real concerns. And the unintentional exaggeration, the overreaction because of self-defensive paranoia I dont think thats a good get-out-of-jail-free card. If any other country carries out human rights abuses or persists in carrying out atrocities, we usually dont say well, they thought they had to as an excuse. All these things exist on top of each other, and it takes careful work to pick them apart.

Why hasnt Indonesia had a peace and reconciliation process like that found across Latin America?

The short answer is the influence of the TNI (Indonesian National Armed Forces). A lot of activists thought that when [President Joko Widodo] took office, hed be the one to finally apologize and open up the record. And while we can only speculate, a fairly common guess is that the influence and power of the Indonesian military has prevented this from happening.

In Santiago, Chile, theres a very powerful museum with a candle lit for every victim of anti-communist violence in the early '70s. They have a giant installation in the entrance room of every truth and reconciliation commission thats ever happened around the world. And the tragic and poetic part of this room is that the Indonesian plaque was started and then abandoned.

The TNI is still in charge they still have significant power. But theres also an elected democratic government in Indonesia, which is a very important and hope-inspiring development for the region as a whole this fragile but resilient Indonesian democracy.

And to be a little speculative, a complementary answer could be the extent of the horrors. Its easier for the Brazilian military to admit that there are 400 or so disappeared people. You can blame it on bad elements in the government, you could say it was a mistake. But 25 to 30 percent of Indonesians were either in the Communist Party or affiliated with it in 1965. Eliminating them was a really wrenching and complete transformation of society. And it may be too horrible for current leaders to admit.

How do you see the Jakarta method playing out in contemporary U.S. foreign policy and world affairs?

In the much broader context into which I place the narrative of the book, I rely on a Cold War historian named Odd Arne Westad. Hes no radical hes very much a mainstream liberal. And he takes a step back and points out that if you look at the United States, it has pretty much always been engaged in aggressive militarism. Theres never been a point when the United States has not been, somehow or another, trying to maximize its influence elsewhere in the world. And what he sees is that at the end of the 20th century, when communism stops being the big bad guy, a lot of the same mechanisms, technologies, and energies are instead pointed at the Muslim world. Westad sees the War on Terror slotting into the world-historical position that the Cold War occupied.

What he also points to is that because the Cold War is the epoch in which decolonization happened, most countries in the Third World found their present configuration in a Cold War conflict. So, to a large extent, because the Cold War immediately followed an era of European direct colonialism, the countries that became independent nations were largely shaped by how the Cold War affected them. Political science teaches us that institutions are path-dependent, and its very hard to restart them. The long tail of the Cold War, the good, the bad, the very ugly and my book is about the ugly will cast a long shadow over most nations on planet Earth.

What are the biggest misconceptions Americans have of their countrys foreign policy?

I think were in two minds as a nation. Our mainstream discourse, and our identity as American citizens, requires an a priori belief that were a benevolent force in world history. But at the same time when you bring up the CIA, coups, and dictators, its understood that a lot of very bad things have happened. And these two things exist in an uneasy tension.

When I started researching this book, I didnt consider myself to be especially naive. I thought I had a decent idea of what this stuff was, but its worse than I thought. I think that an era of full, unquestioned, and unquestionable hegemony, like what the United States experienced between 1989 to maybe 2020, makes it hard and even pointless to examine the nature of that system. But as things enter into a wobbly position, as they are now, because of the rise of China and the obvious failures of the U.S. in the face of the coronavirus, it becomes easier to examine the dark side of our history and also perhaps more urgent and necessary.

Read more from the original source:
Q&A: Vincent Bevins on How Indonesia's Anti-Communist Campaign Shaped the Modern World - Asia Society

Looking at the deliberate rise of (left-led) how safe is democracy in India? debates and posts, I, as a curious student of Political science, decided to read up on major incidents that can be seen as scattered milestones on the horizon of Democracy. And that was when I came across the horrific incident ofTiananmen Square and the massacre that ensued.

This is the portrayal of the will of man! The lengths he will go to for his rights and that of his fellow countrymen and this immense bravery needs proper dissemination and a yearly tribute by believers of democracy across the world!

If we look closely, we see a man, with the nerves of steel standing with his head held high in front of Army tanks while he had shopping bags in his hand. Now obviously, no civilian will go shopping in a war zone which is the place for such heavy-duty tanks. So what were these doing in the middle of city road?

This heart-wrenching image was taken on 5th June 1989 by a certain photographer namedStuart Franklin, 31 years ago and it still sends chills down my spine.

The history of this image is wrapped in the incidents of the Tiananmen Square which is a place in the heart of the capital of China. In 1989, thousands of students gathered here for certain political demands. According to History.com, The Tiananmen Square protests were student-led demonstrations calling for democracy, free speech and a free press in China. So one may ask what is so horrific about this, why would a group of students who were staging a demonstration for their political right ever be a horror?

The truth be told, this was not only dreadful and frightening for democracy but for the entire mankind at the same time.

Hu Yaobang, a former Communist Party leader who was vocal about increasing of political freedom died on15th April 1989. Three days after his death, the populace rose in unanimous mourning in the form of demonstrations for the demand of political freedom as envisaged by Hu Yaobang- because there could be no better way of paying tribute to him. In just a month, around mid-May, the demonstrators realized that the ruling communist government would not let this dream come true and more than100 students began a hunger strike at Tiananmen Square onMay 13, 1989. These hundred students were later joined by thousands of citizens: all of whom were innocently and non-violently demanding political freedom in the form of demanding democracy.

To a sane, considerate government, this humongous number of people on a hunger strike would be an absolutely radical situation. One man in India sat on an indefinite hunger strike and the government had to come up with the RTI act, but here in the heart of communism, the Chinese government was all set to commit a sin against humanity.

Immediately after the hunger strike began, Premier Li Peng imposed martial law onMay 19, 1989,in a fanatic attempt of suppressing the voices that were dying to be heard. Despite all the desperate efforts by the authorities, when the protesters were unmoved, and their resolve was steadfast, the communist government, unleashed their demonic side on the demonstrators when the movement was at its peak on4th June 1989.

At about 1 AM, the communist government took an outrageous decision of unbridling their armed forces on these 1.2 million people demanding freedom in their own capital. Throughout the day, Chinese troops opened fire on civilians and students, brutally crushing the movement, killing anyone in sight and muting the cries for democracy that were once echoing in that arena. There was violence and bloodshed of unimaginable magnitude, lives were lost and the pro-democracy slogans were soon turned into wailing of men and women alike, pleading for help and mercy. This was done when millions of people had already joined hands with each other over the firm resolve of establishing democracy and political freedom in China only in order to silence the public mandate.

Statistic

The official statistic was never released by the Chinese government. While by the end of June a vague figure of the death of 200 civilians and several dozen security personnel was given out, it is highly unbelievable and drenched in lies. According to BBC, more shockingly in 2017,newly released UK documents revealed that a diplomatic cablefrom then British Ambassador to China, Sir Alan Donald, had said that10,000 people had died in this massacre.

This was the most believable yet unofficial and estimated number of people who were killed for demanding a secure political environment.

After the unleashing of the army upon the demonstrators, on the next day, an unidentified man stood in front of army tanks in Beijing. This is the man that we started this article with.The Tiananmen protests were immortalized in Western media on5 June through the image of a lone man in a white shirt carrying shopping bags, facing an imposing column of military tanks sent by the government to disperse protesters. The man is known simply as Tank Man: his identity has never been confirmed.

This hidden hero became the shield for the protesters of Tiananmen Square. His resolve became the barrier that was needed by the demonstrators against the tyranny of their government.He became the symbol of democratic persistence against communal despotism.

Reading up upon this incident painfully reminded me of how certain irresponsible sections of our society today have begun to take this freedom, this democracy and these rights of granted. How they have shamelessly begun misusing it, how they have completely set out against the nationalist, democratic ideals and have rather tilted towards bigotry and hypocrisy in the name of freedom of speech, how their selective sensitivity and propaganda has begun the rotting process of several pillars of this country.

We are one of those few lucky countries who have been able to nurture the sanity that keeps a democratic ideology alive and functional through the corridors of our parliament but today, in the name of opposition, in the name of criticism, in the name of (pseudo) secularism and liberalism this pious ideal is being dented.

This incident brought a boil to my blood and fervour ran through my arteries to know about such heinous and brutal deeds of a country which even today has left no stone unturned in troubling the entire world! We as humans must feel ashamed.

While the world may fail or skip to commemorate the 30th Anniversary of the iconic sacrifice that took place at the Tiananmen Square, I pray that the heroes who lost their lives get justice and their legacy lives on. I, as a student and as an Indian also hope that the divisive forces of this country will also, kneel in front of the spirit of democracy, respect it and carry it forward without any propaganda-driven selfishness.

I also at the same time urge to the international watchdogs of human rights and justice to hold the communist government responsible for this mass murder of their own people. This is no joke, this is not a light matter, this is a grave issue and no one knows how many people even today, across the world are going through hell under such brutal, fascist, inconsiderate and sinful regimes; justice must be served to all of them and one must remember, justice delayed is justice denied.

Let us, as a global village begin holding such radical thoughts accountable for the crimes that the commit against humanity.

I might not have been present on this earth on that fateful date, but today, on the 30th anniversary of theTiananmen Square massacreI not only remember, but also bow down to these heroes of political freedom. I also, count my blessings here to be a part of the worlds largest democracy and my heart cries out for people who are kept away from this boon. May we all one day be free citizens living a life of prosperity and dignity under the guidance of a government that we chose!

(This article has been authored by Anandita Sing, who is a researcher in Center for North East Studies, New Delhi)

Here is the original post:
Tiananmen Square Massacre: The heinous face of communism - OpIndia

Shortly after the death of former Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Hu Yaobang in April 1989, Xi Zhongxun, the father of current Chinese President Xi Jinping, wrote a letter to key members of the party leadership warning that if the funeral arrangements were not managed well, chaos would occur. Hu had been a powerful reformer before he was forced to resign two years earlier, and Xi was worriedrightlythat his death might become a flash point for protests.

When Hu Qili, a member of the Politburo Standing Committee, started sobbing, Xi told him there was no time for that. Xi was extremely agitated during the crisis that soon unfolded and, ultimately, ended with a bloody and violent crackdown on June 4, 1989. At a National Peoples Congress meeting in 1990, Xi broke down and exploded at Li Peng, the premier who was widely loathed for his role in the violence. Shortly after the altercation, Xi moved to Guangdong and did not return to Beijing until 1999.

For such an emotional moment in Chinese history and for the Xi family, Xi Jinping has been remarkably quiet about June 4. Since coming to power, he has not spoken openly about the event. However, in the few times that Xi has spoken of June 4 directly or indirectly, as well as through his actions, we can see what lessons he learned and what that might tell us about his behavior in the future.

First, Xi sees the student protests as dangerous chaos, similar to the destruction of the Cultural Revolution. The Xi family suffered terribly during Mao Zedongs campaign and the resulting political turmoil that seized the nation. Xi Zhongxun was kidnapped by Red Guards and forcibly brought to Xian, where he was subjected to struggle sessions, and later incarcerated in the capital. Xi Jinping was berated for his fathers supposed failings as a class enemy. In 1969, he left for Shaanxi province as a sent-down youth to spend years in a remote village, partially in order to escape the situation in Beijing. One half-sister, Xi Heping, waspersecuted to death. Xi was separated from his father for so long that Xi Zhongxun did not even recognize his son when they were finally reunited. Xi Jinping was in Beijing for the Tiananmen Square protests in April 1976 that followed Zhou Enlais death; he refused to attend, however, and warned others away from going. In May 1989, as a local official in Fujian, Xi spoke of the Cultural Revolution as in accord with superstition and stupidity, resulting in major chaos, and asked: Can these days be repeated? Without stability and unity, nothing is possible!

Xi very clearly equates political power with control over the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) and the ability to inflict violence. During the chaos of the Cultural Revolution, the PLA took control of wide swaths of the country to restore order, including bloody battles with Red Guards and other groups. Famously, Xi has blamed the collapse of the Soviet Union on the partys loss of control over the Soviet Army. Chinese intellectuals have interpreted these comments as code for what Beijing did right in June 1989. That assessment is supported by Xis closed speech to the Beijing Military Region in July 2013, in which he explicitly said China survived the political turbulence because the military stubbornly obeyed the commands of the party and the enemy did not steal away a single soldier. Xi then proceeded to quote at length Deng Xiaopings comments on June 9, 1989, in which he praised the PLA for having passed the test.

Xi and Deng both drew similar conclusions on the importance of education and propaganda for younger generations. In November 2013, after listening to a work report by the National University of Defense Technology, Xi referred to Dengs 1989 comments that our biggest mistake was in education. Deng was of course blaming the protests on the partys inability to convince the students to believe in the ideological and historic mission of the party. Xis preoccupation with ideals and motivation suggests he has taken Dengs words to heart deeply, as shown by the emphasis on ideological correctness in universities and schools.

On first glance, this might suggest that Xi, by affirming the crackdown and drawing such lessons from the tragedy, has rejected his fathers legacy. In one sense, that is trueXi Zhongxuns career demonstrated that he believed political disturbances, although inherently undesirable, often could be resolved through discussions and persuasion. However, there is no need to overemphasize generational differencesthe Communist Party is still the Communist Party. As Cui Jian, the rock star whose song Nothing to My Name inspired the student protesters in 1989, put it, As long as Maos picture hangs in Tiananmen Square, we are all the same generation.

Whatever Xi Zhongxun might have actually thought about the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, we have no evidence that he took any steps to oppose the crackdown or protect the students. Strikingly, after the violent conclusion, he repeatedly and aggressively expressed support for the decision. For example, on July 4, 1989, Xi said, The storm during the past two months was an anti-party and anti-socialist political upheaval and a counterrevolutionary rebellion created by an extremely small number of people taking advantage of the unrest. Like Deng, he affirmed that the PLA passed the test. Both Xi Zhongxun and Xi Jinping have repeatedly demonstrated the conviction that party discipline must triumph over any personal doubts.

Xi Zhongxuns entire political career as a revolutionary and politician was marked by constant setback and hardship, often caused by power struggles within the Communist Party itself, but he never lost faith in the partys mission. In 1935, he was arrested by his compatriots and released only after Maos arrival in Shaanxi, where Xi had helped create a base camp. Xi was purged in 1962, many years before most of the rest of the leadership when the Cultural Revolution began in 1966. Xis first job after the Cultural Revolution was as party boss in Guangdong, where he saw migrants flee communism en masse for capitalist Hong Kong. His friend and direct superior, Hu Yaobang, was unceremoniously removed and humiliated in 1987. Yet Xis belief in communism and the party never wavered, a characteristic for which his son has often expressed admiration.

The meaning of June 4 this year is particularly strong. Hong Kong has banned the annual vigil held every year for the past three decades, blaming the coronavirus. The new national security law imposed by Beijing means it may never occur again, at least safely and legally. As protests in Hong Kong and the United States persist, people are struggling to draw lessons on what they will ultimately mean. But for the most powerful man in China, Tiananmen already determined his views on such events. They are dangerous, chaotic threats that must be prevented with propaganda and solved with violence. Doubters must toe the party line and recognize that only the party and communism can save China.

Read more here:
Xi Thinks Tiananmen Was Worth It - Foreign Policy