近年来，一些自诩深刻反思的言论重新流行开来，例如颜智华等人提出，六四不是民主运动，学生断送了改革，即便推翻共产党也只会走向另一个专制政权等。这些说法看似理性，标榜去神话，实际上却是对历史的简化，对现实的误读，更是对受害者的羞辱和对极权的合理化。
我想明确表达我的反驳和立场，

一、1989年确实是一场民主运动，不容否定

六四运动的民主本质是清晰的。无论是广场上高举的民主女神像，还是言论自由，新闻自由，反腐败，官员财产公开这些明确诉求，都说明这是一场以民主为核心价值的运动。
有些人质疑，学生组织混乱，结构松散，不像真正的民主运动。但我们必须反问，在一个高度专制的社会里，体制根本不允许你提前建立政治组织，注册政党，难道你还要求群众按西方规范来反抗。
正因如此，运动中的组织大多是现场自发或临时组建的，这不仅不是缺陷，反而正是民主精神在压制之下自发生长的体现。民主不是等组织建好才开始，而是从民众在压制中主动结社，表达和协商的那一刻起就已发生。
的确，运动中也混杂着一些毛派群众，但这种混入者现象在所有大规模社会运动中都普遍存在，不能因此抹杀主流方向。不能因为有杂草，就否认整片麦田。

二、受害者有罪论，是对历史与良知的背叛

那些说学生激怒政府，柴玲希望流血，领导人太幼稚所以招致镇压的声音，本质上是一种受害者有罪论。
学生们面对的是坦克，枪支与武警，却被要求冷静，退让，成熟。而发动镇压的一方，却始终被包装为不得已。
而事实上，学生始终坚持的是绝食，静坐，和平游行等非暴力方式，哪怕在生命垂危时也没有诉诸暴力。他们不但没有策动流血，反而试图以自我牺牲唤来对话的可能。
这种情况下却指责他们激怒政府，影响改革，就像指责被家暴的妻子说话声音太大，指责被强奸的女性穿得太少。这是对历史的道德倒置。
真正该被追问责任的，是下令开枪的人，而不是喊话太响的人。

三、学运不是葬送改革，而是回应改革瓶颈的民间推动

把改革失败归咎于学生运动，是彻头彻尾的历史倒果为因。
早在1987年胡耀邦被迫辞职后，政治改革已陷入停滞，赵紫阳在党内孤立无援，保守势力全面回潮，腐败，官倒，失业，通胀四面袭来。
学生运动不是阻挡改革的逆流，而是为改革重启而发出的警钟。他们希望看到的是透明的制度，公平的官员选拔，公开的媒体监督，而不是既得利益集团对改革话语的垄断。
真正让改革终结的，不是广场上的口号，而是开枪的决定。

四、学运不是几人操纵的阴谋，而是社会病灶的集中爆发

有些人说，这场运动是被一小撮人操控，煽动的。
即使真有策动，如果没有深层社会矛盾，没有普遍的制度性不满，没有被压抑的表达需求，又怎么可能策动出这样一场波及全国的巨大风暴。
1989年的广场，云集了学生，市民，工人，记者，公务员乃至军人子弟。他们不是被利用，他们是在用身体和声音回应一个已经走进死胡同的体制。
这不是被操纵的闹剧，而是全社会压抑太久后的集体清醒。

五、就算推翻中共仍有专制，也不等于今天的极权

有人说，即使六四成功了，以王丹等人上台，结果可能还是专制。
但我要说，这种说法是犬儒的借口，虚假的现实主义。
是的，从专制走向民主往往要经过数轮反复，不可能一步到位。但哪怕下一步政权不完美，甚至仍旧带有威权色彩，它也不可能像今天的中共这样，
将专制写进宪法。
利用大数据和AI进行全域监控。
把维稳制度化，国家机器社会化，言论控制技术化。
建立一个举国一体的现代极权国家。
如果六四成功了，中国至少可以走上类似韩国，台湾那样的转型路径，哪怕有曲折，也是朝着开放走，而不是今天这样一路退回毛式幽灵的深渊。
六四的失败不是避免了混乱，而是让中共看清了维稳机制的重要性，从此打造出一个更强硬，更冷酷，更彻底的专制系统。

结语

我们不该否定的，是1989年那些站出来说真话，喊出我们爱这个国家的青年。
我们不该否定的，是他们想用非暴力唤醒一个政权的良知与转向。
我们不该否定的，是中国曾经出现过一次希望，一次试图和平改变命运的历史瞬间。
我们真正该否定的，是子弹掩盖真理的逻辑，是犬儒压倒正义的叙事，是把希望定义为危险的政权心理。
六四不是差点民主成功，
而是差点终结极权。
这已经足够让它成为值得纪念，值得捍卫，也值得继续未竟之路的历史节点。

In recent years, a set of arguments that present themselves as “deep reflection” have resurfaced. Figures such as Yan Zhihua and others claim that June Fourth was not a democratic movement, that the students ruined reform, and that even if the Communist Party had been overthrown, China would only have ended up with another authoritarian regime. These claims appear rational and demystifying on the surface, but in reality they simplify history, misread reality, humiliate the victims, and ultimately rationalize totalitarian rule.

I want to state my rebuttal and position clearly.

I. 1989 Was Indeed a Democratic Movement — This Cannot Be Denied

The democratic nature of the June Fourth Movement is unmistakable. From the Goddess of Democracy raised in Tiananmen Square to explicit demands for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, anti-corruption measures, and the public disclosure of officials’ assets, the movement was clearly grounded in democratic values.

Some argue that the student organizations were chaotic and loosely structured, and therefore did not resemble a “real” democratic movement. But we must ask: in a highly authoritarian society where the system does not permit the prior formation of political organizations or the registration of parties, are people really expected to resist according to Western institutional standards?

Precisely because of this repression, most organizations within the movement were spontaneous or temporarily formed on the spot. This was not a flaw; it was, in fact, a manifestation of democratic spirit growing organically under suppression. Democracy does not begin only after organizations are fully established. It begins the moment people, under pressure, voluntarily associate, express themselves, and negotiate collectively.

It is true that some Maoist elements were mixed into the movement. But such infiltration exists in all large-scale social movements and cannot be used to erase the movement’s dominant direction. One cannot deny an entire wheat field simply because there are weeds.

II. Blaming the Victims Is a Betrayal of History and Conscience

Claims that students provoked the government, that Chai Ling wanted bloodshed, or that immature leadership invited repression are, at their core, forms of victim-blaming.

Students faced tanks, guns, and armed police, yet were told to remain calm, retreat, and be “mature.” Meanwhile, those who ordered the crackdown were consistently portrayed as having “no choice.”

In reality, the students persisted in hunger strikes, sit-ins, and peaceful marches — nonviolent methods throughout. Even when their lives were in danger, they did not resort to violence. They did not seek bloodshed; on the contrary, they hoped that self-sacrifice might open the possibility of dialogue.

To accuse them, under these circumstances, of angering the government or sabotaging reform is like blaming a battered wife for speaking too loudly, or blaming a rape victim for dressing “improperly.” It is a moral inversion of history.

Those who deserve to be held accountable are the ones who gave the order to fire, not the ones who raised their voices too loudly.

III. The Student Movement Did Not Destroy Reform — It Responded to Reform’s Deadlock

Blaming the failure of reform on the student movement is a complete reversal of cause and effect.

As early as 1987, after Hu Yaobang was forced to resign, political reform had already stalled. Zhao Ziyang was isolated within the Party, conservative forces resurged, and corruption, official profiteering, unemployment, and inflation closed in from all sides.

The student movement was not a countercurrent blocking reform, but a warning bell calling for its revival. What the students demanded were transparent institutions, fair official selection, and open media oversight — not the monopolization of reform discourse by entrenched interest groups.

What truly ended reform was not the slogans in the square, but the decision to open fire.

IV. The Movement Was Not a Conspiracy by a Few, but a Collective Eruption of Social Illness

Some argue that the movement was manipulated and incited by a small group of individuals.

But even if there had been instigators, without deep social contradictions, widespread institutional dissatisfaction, and long-suppressed demands for expression, how could such a nationwide storm ever have been mobilized?

In 1989, Tiananmen Square brought together students, citizens, workers, journalists, civil servants, and even children of military families. They were not being “used.” They were responding with their bodies and voices to a system that had reached a dead end.

This was not a manipulated farce, but a collective awakening after prolonged repression across society.

V. Even If a New Regime Had Still Been Authoritarian, It Would Not Equal Today’s Totalitarianism

Some argue that even if June Fourth had succeeded and figures like Wang Dan had come to power, the result might still have been authoritarian.

I argue that this is a cynical excuse disguised as realism.

Yes, transitions from authoritarianism to democracy often involve setbacks and cannot be achieved in a single step. But even if the next regime had been imperfect, or retained authoritarian characteristics, it could not have resembled today’s Chinese Communist Party — a regime that:

Writes authoritarianism into the constitution
Uses big data and AI for comprehensive surveillance
Institutionalizes “stability maintenance,” socializes the state apparatus, and technologizes speech control
Constructs a nationwide, integrated modern totalitarian state

Had June Fourth succeeded, China could at least have embarked on a transition path similar to South Korea or Taiwan. Even with twists and turns, it would have moved toward openness — not retreated, as it has today, into the abyss of Maoist specters.

The failure of June Fourth did not prevent chaos. It allowed the CCP to recognize the importance of repression mechanisms and to build a harsher, colder, and more thorough authoritarian system.

Conclusion

What we must not deny are the young people of 1989 who stood up and spoke the truth, who shouted that they loved their country.

What we must not deny is their attempt to awaken a regime’s conscience and redirect it through nonviolence.

What we must not deny is that China once had a moment of hope — a historical moment that sought to change destiny peacefully.

What we must truly reject is the logic that bullets can bury truth, the narrative in which cynicism overwhelms justice, and the regime mentality that defines hope as danger.

June Fourth was not a moment when democracy almost succeeded.
It was a moment when totalitarianism was almost ended.

That alone is enough to make it a historical turning point worth remembering, worth defending, and worth continuing unfinished.