>>46382
>Irrelevant
It is very much relevant because we cannot extricate ourselves from our milieu and things are relative. The art of the possible and so on
>that is a prestigious and reassuring thing to believe in, have no reason to stop believing since then.
I don't think so. That WAS a reassuring (though hollow) thing to believe in, until they could see with their own eyes the before and after "[capitalist] socialism with chinese characteristics". Which also gives the reason to stop believing it
>Then leftism is a real threat and a relevant force in the present and the Party leadership still has to treat it with respect
Maybe. But have you heard the idea "an institution that doesn't thwart X, progressively drifts towards X"? Usually with X being related to liberalism/leftism. It seems apropos considering some trends in the west. With that idea in mind, noticing an strategy that (one guess) tries to thwart X cannot be taken as evidence that X is necessarily an imminent danger. Furthermore, treating a potential threat with seriousness is sooner a good sign.
Let's say that at a given time such relevant force still exists which requires that its space in the political spectrum not be left vacant. At what point can the guard be relaxed and the space be left vacant? Where there is light there is also shadow. The yin implies the yang.
>the most advanced scientific mindset continuous with the great scientific thinkers of old
I note here that the "cultural revolution" and its ideas have been officially and explicitly condemned. So their mindset already can't be contiguous
>Go tell my local ambassador.
Lol. I'm starting to see where you are coming from. Sounds like the left-populism I read in places like southern europe, "the people is sovereign/God". Pathetic own goal since I think many there are catholic or affiliated to those odd "pentecostal" churches. Any idea whose calligraphy he was quoting?
>China is huge and every province has its own history
You are making reference to very long, ancient history. The settlers of the island do not have this ancient history at all, unless we reach back to the origins across the strait. The ancestors of most of the current population moved to the island progressively during an extended period of some ~320 years (from qing to before ww2). The further you go back in time the sparser is the migration. Notice that this puts the (few) eldest of settlers within the Modern Era. By far most of these arrived from regions in south/south-east china. Then after ww2 there was a sudden migration flow from various regions. All of those taken together are the vast majority of the population today (>97%) and they are very much Han Chinese, not just ethno-culturally, but genetically they cluster most closely with the chinese of the south/south-east (also the chinese of singapore, but that is the same subgroup). The rest of the population (<3%) are a motley group of various immigrants, mostly from south-east asia, plus the austronesian/pingpu aboriginals. So that argument does not apply to Taiwan; their history is shared across the strait and relatively recent when taken in isolation.
>would they need to preserve political forces in Taiwan?
I would answer they do not. Neither preserve, nor destroy (except for the secessionist elements I guess), but left to survive or wither. This assumes however that the relationship is sufficiently collaborative rather than merely combative, and segues into a longer discussion about the "localised 2nd-system tech"
>There's something naive about the way you write this...