The Afterword reflects on the peculiarities of the CCP’s politics of historical justice. Placing the results of the volume in the larger context of transitional justice research, it discusses the reasons why the policies of “bringing order out of chaos” (boluan fanzheng) generated short-term cohesion but did not result in meaningful political reconciliation. The party leadership, despite a few alternative statements by high-ranking leaders in the early 1980s, did not allow for multivocal discussions of guilt and responsibility. Instead, it attempted to pacify the populace through financial subsidies, symbolic rehabilitations, and highly selective persecutions of supposed perpetrators. The core strategy under Deng Xiaoping was to overcome the legacies of the past through a focus on economic development and the depoliticization of past conflicts. An increasingly rigid truth regime was installed and enshrined in the 1981 resolution on party history. The contradictions between lived experience and these official formulae resulted in a pronounced shift toward historical amnesia in the following decades, as the legacies of the Mao era have become increasingly incorporated into a larger narrative of national rejuvenation and regaining great power status.

Even though some participants predicted that bloodshed in Beijing would mark the end of Communist rule, there was no nationwide uprising in the aftermath of the massacre because killing, arrests, and purges sowed fear and underlined the high costs of direct resistance. Another alternative path many called for in the aftermath of the massacre was for an official re-evaluation (pingfan) of June Fourth. Some victims demand a reappraisal, while others reject the notion that the Communist Party is a legitimate arbiter of Chinese history.