Note that the protests occurred in the backdrop of market reforms to the economy. Not an expert on Tienamen Square, but that seems important.
"The reforms of the 1980s had led to a nascent market economy which benefited some people but seriously disaffected others, and the one-party political system also faced a challenge of legitimacy."
Of course this opinion will not be popular here, but I think that there are legitimate historical assessments to be made on whether the Chinese leadership did this (and not to excuse them by the way), because they saw they were in danger of falling down the USSR route.
I.e. allowing the form (but not substance) of democracy to come in before people were ready for it, just as they making some progress on the constructive path of controlled economic liberalization, and derailing it to produce a oligarchic kleptocracy that would plunge the country into long-feared poverty and chaos. Which we can now see what happened to the USSR.
If you think of that as the choice that was facing those leaders at the time, their actions are more understandable. Just like how we look back now at the Soviet scare era of our history and wonder how we ever got caught up in that ridiculous hysteria.
Again, I say understandable, not excusable. Of course there likely were aspects of preserving power for its own sake, but looking at Deng's intentions and actions (other than Tiananmen Square) throughout his career, one has a hard time saying that he was motivated mostly for maintenance of power and not some public good.
It is a complicated story, and worthy of more than just a knee-jerk reaction. And yes, the important democracy movement and its terrible tragedy ought to be commemorated.
I would say even poverty and chaos is preferable to the collective farms and gulags that killed over 100 million during the Soviet regime. Read Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" for context, even just the first chapter of his massive work is extremely eye opening.
Update here since I am rate limited. Check wikipedia for non combatant death counts. Read the first chapter of Gulag Archipelago, and with the very bloody revolution, disasterous collective farming, and constant purges of innocent civilians, you may find 100 million very plausible, if not even sounding on the low side.
Also telling is that Stalin had the UN change the definition of genocide so his gulags and policy disasters would not be counted.
One of the problems with the "freedom of speech" (lack of) is that in western countries, sooner or later (most) records open and we find out the Truth. In other cases we have whistleblowers (i.e. Wikileaks), and/or kick-ass journalists that expose scandals, and we get a glimpse of the Truth on the very important issues.
I feel that in China a guy like Snowden would have been tortured and executed, his family imprisoned, his neighbours interrogated, everyone in his vicinity would have everything confiscated and searched.
With that said I fear that we will never learn the truth about what happened to those captured in the protests. China's history is drenched in blood, and current government doesn't seem to want to change this.
Oh he had torture in his pocket. 110%. Sorry I meant to write "he would be questioned with the use of enhanced interrogation techniques".
But I don't think they would go ahead and imprison-->torture-->execute his family, his fiancée/wife, his extended family, his neighbours.
I China, NK they would without even spending one minute to think about it. And then they would "delete them from history" (yes I have watched too much Star Trek).
I don't think USA imprisons en masse because people believe in God-A instead of God-B. That happens in other countries.
Again we go back to secrets = lies and US gov has plenty on its back violating rights left right and centre and all over the world. But it's not Saudi Arabia.
"The reforms of the 1980s had led to a nascent market economy which benefited some people but seriously disaffected others, and the one-party political system also faced a challenge of legitimacy."