Event begins:
In November 1980, the Politburo meeting became the focus of a political storm. The theory of "two whatevers" put forward is like a pebble thrown into a pond, causing ripples and sudden changes. This theory has not only sparked fierce controversy, but also marked the ideological differences of the leadership in the changing times.
Background: In this political maelstrom, the main characters are like the actors who appear on the stage, each playing a different role. ** He was criticized at the Politburo meeting and fought to defend *** ideology. Xu Shiyou, who defended *** at the meeting, described him as an "honest man". However, ** and *** harshly criticized ***, leading to his eventual resignation as prime minister.
Development of events: **'s governing experience unfolded like a picture scroll, in which the work of Hunan became the highlight. Penetrating among the masses and improving agriculture, medical care, education, and other aspects, his pragmatic reforms have attracted the attention of the people. However, in the ** leadership, ideological differences are becoming more and more pronounced. At the Politburo meeting, the theoretical controversy over the "two whatevers" escalated fiercely, and he resigned as prime minister.
The Nanjing meeting became a stage, and the two leaders took the initiative to visit Xu Shiyou, and the two leaders had a profound dialogue. This meeting was not only a political collision, but also an ideological stirring. The experience of working in Hunan has made *** show a different side in this conversation.
Speculation on the aftermath of the event:
Looking back at this history, we inevitably have to make some guesses. Perhaps, after resigning as prime minister, he will continue to have in-depth dialogue with Xu Shiyou and contribute to national stability and development. Or, the event will lead to more political turmoil and a more complex political landscape. The guesswork needs to be objective and avoid being too subjective.
Closing summary: **Resign as Prime Minister and leave for deep thought. This history is a product of the times, a place where the contradictions of the leadership converge. Rather than drowning into esoteric analysis, the article simply and straightforwardly calls on readers to examine history and understand the resilience and choices of leaders in the face of vicissitude. Perhaps, we can draw some inspiration from this to better face the challenges of the present.
This incident is like a memory in the long river of history, there are turmoil, there are conflicts, but there are also deep lessons. Looking back on all this, we may be able to better understand the evolution of the times, and we can also be more clear about the responsibilities and missions we are facing today.