>>46397
Let me answer where I think there is room for more than just assertive value judgements
>The more they succeed, the more they're reassured their new worldview is scientific.
Same charge could be levied at any system anywhere
>not its entirety. Mao hasn't been condemned and is still praised as having made good contributions.
Yes. Mao's "leadership" is praised, and his person wasn't condemned, but his movement was. That break is not complete but a break nonetheless. He was spared for his success at preserving sovereignty and territorial integrity during the trials of the cold war (also including hot ones), but likely also because an attempt to get rid of his figure would have been an opportunity for delegitimization and thus destabilization
>Mao.
Lol, nice technique ;-). I looked it up; apparently comes from a "patriotic" poem called "people-emperor" by some Wang Huariang. This was posted around the time of celebrations for the 100th anniversary of the party last year, so it should be a reference to that. Like a "god save the queen" except with chinese revolutionary connotation. He fucked up though by translating "God" in a country with millions of believers of the abrahamic persuasion.
>Why give it any opportunity to survive?
Mainly it is a tradeoff. It preserves the occupation and status of the local political "elites", circumscribed to their specific "domains", rather than having them subverting the system from within or without (or taking a reputational hit for throwing the lot of them in jail or something). In exchange these "elites" tone down their ambitions and militancy rather than be squashed in another civil war