>>692230>For instance if the criticism over exaggerates, is uninformed, paranoid and or nonsensical and a bunch of people are allowed to say it then all you have is a recipe for long term disaster.
Why exactly? People spout crazy nonsense all the time, 99% of the time nobody believes it. Should we arrest every homeless guy and tinfoil hat yelling about lizard people and the NWO? Opposition to a set of policies or a government can only manifest itself in a significant way if it acts as an expression of real contradictions, otherwise it's just some rando screaming into the void. Happy, well fed people aren't going to revolt against a socialist government just because somebody tells them to, they will only do so if their own experience indicates that the current order harms their interests to an unacceptable degree. If criticism resonates with large numbers of people, and metastasizes into a large scale political movement, then this is a symptom of deeper social contradictions in need of resolution. Obviously I'm not saying everything should be tolerated, but we have to distinguish between criticism that is the product of antagonistic contradictions (us and the enemy) and non-antagonistic contradictions (among the people). This is Mao's own formula. Tolerating and listening to the latter is not only an essential component of a healthy proletarian democracy, but actually strengthens the state in the long term. It helps it to establish the broadest possible hegemony, and give the largest possible segment of the population a stake in the active support of the existing state. To China's credit I actually think they're pretty good at this, at least when it comes to shit like people's everyday needs in regards to employment, infrastructure, the pandemic, etc. Of course there's always room for improvement, which I think the case of these Maoists shows. As a general rule however, the strongest state is one which is able to exist as the broadest possible synthesis of disparate interests, and this necessarily requires that these interests be free to work out their contradictions peacefully, in the open, through compromise and democracy. >Additionally if the criticism is things like we want political liberalization but the lib kind then in the long term that will accumulate and destroy the party.
Are Maoists demanding political liberalization of the lib kind? Something tells me no.>Also if the criticism is supported by let's say regional cliques and or etc then we have a recipe for fictionalized based on region grounds or etc
Again, there often exist contradictions between regional interests, but these are generally non-antagonistic. Why then is it a bad thing for people to express their discontent with how their region is treated if this is unfair? In my own country my home region is relatively rural and underdeveloped, and we are often neglected by the cosmopolitan urban centres. Should we not be allowed to express these grievances? There will be no danger of regional separatism or similar problems if the central government is attentive and responsive to the needs of the people of every region, if it allows them to voice their concerns, hold their leaders accountable, etc. Again, I'll concede that China is actually pretty good at dealing with this, but I'm speaking more abstractly here.