As for the point on ideology.

Of course ideology is no alien thing, in fact, I did not

suggest that. On the contrary, one is never without any ideology. My point was that
there must have been many ideological standpoints within those protests. Isn't
it possible that many of those who protested (including workers) were actually
ideologically in favor of capitalism? As I said in the last post, there are sources
which suggest people under the erstwhile "communist regimes" often looked to the
west as ideal and may have considered a transition from communist-party led
dictatorship to what they perceived (or were made to believe) as liberal bourgeois
democracy favorable. What do experiences with movements of the present history
suggest? Take Hokkolorob for instance. As we know the "victors" get to write their
version of history. Several years down the line, if the people at 365 Din have their
way, Hokkolorob will become the symbol of "anarchy, indiscipline, thuggishness"
and all that. If the leftist vanguards spearheading the movement have their way,
the same will become the symbol of progressiveness, gender justice, democratic
participation and all nice things one can imagine. Of course any sensible and honest
observer of the movement will agree both are inappropriate generalizations. The
reality was much more complex. Lots of gender regressiveness was there in the
movement that was supposedly about gender justice, but there were gender
progressive dimensions and tendencies. Besides, it is not always possible to pin
certain tendencies to certain individuals or even groups or orgs.
And Hokkolorob was "tiny" in comparison to the scale of protests in 1989 China ...
imagine the complexities then....
so many divergent interests must have existed , contrary to the homogeneous
"working class interest" because this class is anything but homogeneous... I may
want "communism" (my ideology) but I may benefit from some neoliberal measures
(my immediate interest) and hence may stand in momentary support of some
market reform measure that I may stand to benefit from , also knowing fully well it
may cause distress to others (my pragmatic stand)
Besides, shall we call the worker wanting private investment so that they can get a
job or increase their salary from 10k to 15k (let us assume, for instance, that some
market reform allows for this to happen in that particular sector and reduces
salaries in some others) "reactionary"? Or "pro-market reforms" for that matter? Not
necessarily so. Interestingly, elites who enjoy the benefits of top layer govt or
private sector jobs who dominate the vanguardist communist leadership will call
themselves "revolutionary" and the former "reactionary". These are questions that
bother me, and ones i wished to raise. I hope it makes more sense now.