the CPC has allowed muslims to be members during large parts of china's history and most members don't consider themselves athiests in different polls that have been taken. other countries like afghanistan allowed people to be religious in their parties and theres video proof of many of them praying at mosques and such. its not as outlandish as you'd be lead to believe

I don't think this has much to do with liberalism. howmany leftists, might be more politically correct for me to use neo-nazis as the example but whatever, have you talked to who say things like navalny is a nazi, all ukrainian troops are nazis, the free syrian army are isis, also isis is isis, israelis are nazis, kulaks were parasites, or the most classical one germans were nazis. just seems like people in general prefer to be against caricatures and comically evil people rather than humans

I'm glad people are finally realizing why leftists fought so hard for freedom of speech back in the early 20th century especially when ww1 was ongoing

I'm not entirely sure howmany of the politicians in america actually believe their propaganda about ukrainian heroes and democracy and stuff and howmany are neocons wishing to deal a blow against russia

I would say reddit is generally negative about the united states and positive about europe because its full of social democrats but the site as a whole buys the american empire apologetics wholesale (assad is evil, ukraine is good, russia is evil, israel is good, hamas is evil, taiwan is good, china is evil etc)

post ww2 the united states was largely carried by its automobile industry and the housing boom propelled by the large number of veterans returning with the ability to get cheap mortgages along with american businesses in general being more competitive than the ones from bombed out countries in europe which were quickly losing their unwieldy empires. china on the otherhand made its rise through developing cheaper and consistent manufacturing replacements to western alternatives. all this is kind of besides the more important point that economically speaking its typically better to provide unequal services or even no services at all to a segment of a population in favor of another one. its why china under deng privitized large segments of its healthcare system providing very unequal outcomes. this relates in general to the marxist understanding of capital accumulation (long term its better for people's surplus value to go to one capitalist who will then take the capital to then invest into making more capital resulting in more capital overall)

making sketchy comparisons between bugs and militants in a gun ad during an insurgency does not exactly make one a neonazi. racism to that level is fairly common among non-neonazis I would say. and naturally, if you're gonna bring that up as the smoking gun it would be criminal to not mention that putin actually sent troops to deal with those insurgents which is much worse than saying racist things. still, if you wanna make the argument he is a neo-nazi I think there are better things to point to like his attendance of the russian march or being in a political party alongside former national bolsheviks. I personally wouldn't say guilt by association is that solid and I feel like you lose nuance by using it. cheapens the word nazi

is andrew tate popular because gen z is progressive?

I feel like what you're asking is just tautologically true. yes, deng would not have been as powerful and influential if he didn't have as much support. in the case of stalin I have no doubt he would have been able to effectively rule in the case where he did retire. it seems naive to assume he wouldn't be able to

not for westerners to decide