Do the Tiananmen students of the June Fourth generation really have nothing to reflect on?

I see that even now, some of the "democracy movement leaders" who have secured their positions with a wanted notice, who were university students during the June Fourth incident, are still enthusiastically talking about how they did not resort to violence. It always feels like they are trying to draw a clear line between themselves and the university students and citizens who were run over by tanks and shot by the People's Liberation Army. As long as they did not resist violently, they were not counter-revolutionaries and should be rehabilitated. Is this the logic in their subconscious?

I believe that the political demands of the university students in the square at that time were very low. According to Wikipedia: "As the scale of the activities grew, the gatherings gradually evolved into demonstrations and protests. The students began to draft and submit seven demands to the government:

Re-evaluate the merits and demerits of Comrade Hu Yaobang, and affirm his views on "democracy, freedom, openness, and harmony." Punish severely the perpetrators who beat students and citizens, and demand that the responsible parties apologize to the victims. Expedite the promulgation of the press law, guarantee freedom of the press, and allow private media. Demand that national leaders publicly disclose their own and their families' actual assets and income, and investigate corruption thoroughly, disclosing the details. Demand that national leaders formally apologize to the entire nation for the mistakes in educational policy and be held accountable, and demand a significant increase in education funding and improved treatment for intellectuals. Re-evaluate the anti-bourgeois liberalization movement, and thoroughly rehabilitate citizens who were wrongly accused during that period. Strongly demand that news organizations provide fair, accurate, and timely reporting of this democratic and patriotic movement." Among the seven demands, the more advanced ones were "allow private media" and "disclose officials' assets." However, neither of these has been realized to this day. As for "open the ban on political parties" and "political system reform," there is no sign of them.

The performance of the university students in the square throughout the movement was more like "intellectuals daring to offer advice." They knelt before the Tiananmen Gate, holding their petitions high above their heads, begging their masters to adopt their proposals. If their proposals were adopted, they might soar to great heights, or at the least, have something to brag about for the rest of their lives. They never thought of completely overthrowing this regime; there was no revolutionary spirit at all. On the contrary, the citizens of Beijing showed a more thorough revolutionary spirit. For example, three young Beijingers splashed ink on the portrait of Chairman Mao, indicating that they had reached the level of negating the spiritual leader of this regime through their actions. Perhaps, in their minds, they realized that without completely overthrowing this regime, the Chinese people and China would not improve.

However, what is even more regrettable is that these three young Beijingers who splashed ink were caught by the university students in the square and handed over to the Public Security Bureau.

For a revolution to succeed, it must follow the trend. June Fourth initially commemorated the death of Hu Yaobang. Then, university students put forward demands. Subsequently, all sectors of society began to support the university students. At this point, the main body of the movement had actually shifted from university students to citizens. At this time, we should pay more attention to the voices and demands of the citizens. The university students should have handed over the leadership of the movement to the citizens at this time, allowing the movement to develop in a grander and more vigorous direction.

University students should not always consider themselves the protagonists of the movement. In any successful revolution, intellectuals are never the protagonists; they only play a crucial role in the early stages of the movement's development. If a movement remains confined to the framework operated by pedantic and cowardly intellectuals, it is bound to fail.

However, to this day, most of the accounts of June Fourth that we see come from university students and intellectuals in the square. Many of them are still advocating non-violence. Whether it is violent resistance or non-violent resistance, I think the CCP dislikes both. But if one must be chosen to endure, I think the CCP would prefer to endure non-violent resistance, as violent resistance would truly make them feel pain!

The so-called non-violent resistance is essentially ideological enlightenment. First, thoroughly expose and criticize it. But this is definitely not the end of the resistance. When everyone sees through you, and there is a consensus that your party is rotten and despicable, the next step must be to overthrow this regime through violent means. You can't just tell them, "We've all seen through you now, why don't you step down and atone?" What are you thinking? Are you crazy?

Of course, not everyone is feasting on the "blood of martyrs." I recently read some accounts and views on June Fourth narrated by Feng Congde, and I strongly agree. To this day, there are very few records of violent resistance by students and citizens during the 1989 June Fourth incident. This seems to be exactly what Feng Congde calls "united front narrative." The CCP does not want people to praise the students and citizens who violently resisted the CCP army during June Fourth, so it gives them no recognition. They are all collectively labeled as "counter-revolutionaries." And those "democracy movement leaders" promoted by the CCP are good students who neither dare to resist violently nor dare to propose "treasonous" demands.

These good students, even when faced with a bloody reality, only repeatedly describe how they "bravely" organized student sit-ins and hunger strikes. They still firmly believe that their non-violence was correct. Of course, some people reflect, but they reflect on whether they went too far at the time, and whether they should have stopped while they were ahead.

We should never forget June Fourth, because June Fourth is a mirror that reveals the true nature of the CCP. It can always reveal the CCP's true form as a white bone demon, transforming itself into a beautiful woman. We must remember that university students played a pioneering role in this movement, but we must also recognize the courage and revolutionary spirit of the citizens and university students who bravely confronted the CCP army head-on. They are the ones the CCP truly fears.