Capitol Hill background:
Capitol Hill: despite Clinton/DNC allegations, there is no evidence that Trump actively wanted the protest to turn into a riot as an excuse to seize power, just as there is no evidence foreign powers like Putin actively intervened.
The size/scale: at it's peak, similar (election related) protests had up to hundreds of thousands of people. By the time of this specific protest at the capitol, at least 8,000 protestors ended up making their way over to the building.
The purpose of the protest: to pressure lawmakers to address allegations of election fraud, conduct an audit, nullify/delay the Biden inauguration until if/when such allegations were addressed.
During the protest many police were injured, none killed on site (1 died later from injuries, though his family disputes the "politicization" of his death). 2 other officers committed suicide within a few days after, which the MSM inflates with the protest, but I do not consider these deaths legitimate:
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/capitol-officers-death-appears-result-medical-condition-not-assault-like-media-claims
NYT appears to have lied and accused rioters of killing him with fire extinguishers
A report in The New York Times that cites “two law enforcement officials” the Times did not name, said Sicknick was hit on the head with a fire extinguisher during Wednesday’s rioting at the U.S. Capitol.
Anyways it is possible (perhaps likely) his pre existing injuries were exacerbated by the protest injuries, but the cause of his death is still up in the air.
In contrast to that, 5 protestors died, most due to accidents in scaling parts of the building, 1 shot point blank.
While I wouldn't blame those deaths on the police, the fact of the matter is that deaths like this (on the US/Mexican border) are commonly cited to demonize border security, so it's disingenuous for the MSM to act otherwise.
This sort of thing:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mexican-man-33-dies-after-falling-off-border-wall-in-arizona/ar-BB17w6UI
Mexican Man, 33, Dies After Falling Off Border Wall in Arizona
Chantal Da Silva 8/3/2020
If the MSM was trying to mock his death, we'd probably have seen exaggerated details of his health status, but I digress.
Not only does MSM not blame capitol security (at all), but they blamed "the violence and bloodshed of the protestors themselves" (attributing blame to those who died would be debatable if we were speaking neutrally, but the deaths were unrelated to the intensity of the protest, they were accidental).
Anyways the reason I elaborate on this was because the "insurrection" was pretty tame.
Tiananmen square background:
The size/scale: at it's peak, a few hundreds of thousands of mostly college aged Chinese civilians participated at it's start.
By the time riots broke out, the numbers likely thinned quite a bit, plus various anti-police attacks happened randomly throughout the neighboring parts of the country.
The purpose of the protest: mixed. Many showed up to protest the CCP over some recent actions. A popular dissident Chinese leader named Hu Yaobang had ended up dying of a heart attack shortly before the protests, and rumors/conspiracies of his death were a large part of the protests.
Western intelligence agencies appear to have spread rumors that the heart attack was a lie and he was actually victim of a CCP assassination's, which enraged various Chinese civilians. In retrospect since there is 0 evidence he was assasinated, we can deduce the rumor as likely forged and pushed by intelligence agencies.
At some point the purpose of the protests/riots was almost entirely co-opted by thinktanks to become centered around policy reform.
George Soros talked about his own involvement in the influence (and astroturfing) war here:
https://archive.is/4NlT5
...My first effort in China looked rather promising. It involved an exchange of visits between Hungarian economists who were greatly admired in the Communist world, and a team from a newly established Chinese think tank which was eager to learn from the Hungarians.
Based on that initial success, I proposed to Chen Yizi, the leader of the think tank, to replicate the Hungarian model in China. Chen obtained the support of Premier Zhao Ziyang and his reform-minded policy secretary Bao Tong.
A joint venture called the China Fund was inaugurated in October 1986. It was an institution unlike any other in China. On paper, it had complete autonomy.
Bao Tong was its champion. But the opponents of radical reforms, who were numerous, banded together to attack him. They claimed that I was a CIA agent and asked the internal security agency to investigate. To protect himself, Zhao Ziyang replaced Chen Yizi with a high-ranking official in the external security police...
Eventually, a Chinese grantee visited me in New York and told me, at considerable risk to himself. Soon thereafter, Zhao Ziyang was removed from power and I used that excuse to close the foundation. This happened just before the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 and it left a “black spot” on the record of the people associated with the foundation.
Soros himself is no "mastermind" of anything, but Soros' record is useful to observe as a "representative sample" of what foreign/hostile investors and intelligence agencies were up to around the time. And it does seem that Zhao Ziyang was being groomed as a Chinese Guaido-equivalent
A lot of pro-interventionist Western-leftist media like Jacobin still cover for them as the "true revolutionaries", making no mention of intelligence agency involvement:
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/06/tiananmen-square-worker-organization-socialist-democracy
Protestors actually attacked and intentionally killed various Chinese police/soldiers with a mix of arson attacks, and physically beating them to death. The number of military personnel killed in this manner started at 5-10, and estimates range beyond that. But those were the people who were successfully killed, and that doesn't include the (pre gunfire) attempts to kill with arson attacks, and other attacks.
Figures for police casualties are harder to find.
Civilian deaths (which include both militant rioters, anarchists, and also some amount of innocent civilians caught in crossfire) range from a few hundred, up to tens to thousands.
It's important to recall that though when one comes across the figures of military and police killings of civilians with gunfire. And the location of the killings is also curiously a big debate on it's own, many reports indicate such shootings all took place outside the square in response to violent protests attacking police.
Here's a critical take on it, citing Wikileaks documents of ambassadors talking about the incident: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/163872-china-tiananmen-square-june4/
Various Western intelligence agencies hand picked a CCP member named "Zhao Ziyang" to take power amidst the turmoil, something that didn't end up happening. But Zhao Ziyang was NOT completely expelled from the party/government afterwards either, he was merely shuffled around a bit.
http://archive.ph/G2GC
Zhao Ziyang was the Gorbachev that China never had, a symbol of the turn that China never took towards creating a democratic, pluralistic state.
Several Chinese citizens who participated in the protests on the pro-protest side later became high ranking members of Chinese society, rather than being permanently deplatformed.
The Global Times chief as one such example actually participated in the protests, and wasn't hunted down and expelled from society afterwards:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/this-tiananmen-protester-is-now-beijing-s-troll-in-chief/ar-BB15nyKn
Hu’s fanaticism toeing the party line is in stark contrast with his own life experiences.
HU'S LONG MARCH FROM TIANANMEN
His path to editorship at Global Times began when he joined the Chinese Communist Party in 1986, the year he turned 26 and started studying Russian at the Beijing Foreign Studies University. The Tiananmen Square demonstrations broke out in April 1989, and he joined the many people who gathered daily in central Beijing. A fast, harsh military crackdown came in June. Many died. He made it out.
Post-protest social policies
China is intensely criticized for censorship regarding the Tiananmen Square protests, with alleged 1984-like tactics used.
It's absolutely true they censor a lot of content around the event on the internet.
But what about the people who were involved in the protest, and those who sparked it?
They are pretty much fine. Former protestors are now involved with state apparatus. Hu Yaobang was rehabilitated, as was Zhao Ziyang, no one in China has proposed to "erase" them from the history books.
What about American censorship? Finding information about "election fraud" is becoming near impossible online, subject to a mix of "hard" censorship but much more frequent "soft" censorship (being flooded with shills/disinfo), with all dissidents closely watched for future doxxing.
People have pushed to digitally "erase" Trump from movie cameos like Home Alone 2.
Conclusion
Let's ignore the ideologies/nations for a moment, and just classify these protests as state and anti-state forces.
The overall anti-civilian backlash we see in 2021 America seems much more extreme than what happened in 1989's China.
If anything even close to the scale of Tiananmen square protests happened in America, we'd see complete slaughters of "right-wing lunatics" and "conspiracy nuts".
None of this is necessarily a defense of China. Many of their domestic policies are IMHO invasive/extreme, especially their internet policies. But we really can't judge a foreign state well if we can't honestly talk about our own.
there doesn't seem to be anything here