CatrachoPalestino

from my personal experience the need to collapse as you describe it stems moreso from the geopolitical position the societies of these liberal countries find themselves in moreso than the nature of their political ideology. it is in order to convince themselves of the need to continually take actions to protect their own interests and preferential position. I imagine it was probably pretty similar within nazi germany toward their opponents or within the soviet union against nazi germany. this is something I feel a lot of americans don't exactly realize. anti-americanism is not as pervasive across the world as you may be led to believe and is definitely not at the same level of hate you'll see with americans regarding china or other examples. this was especially weird to me when I first heard the song Eve of Destruction with the lyric "And think of all the hate there is in Red China" because the chinese really do not hate americans they just want to work together with them for mutual benefit. same sentiment was heard when putin gave his now famous interview with tucker carlson

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

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)

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

one of my friends is a CPC member lmao

nobody calls me a dork and I talk with my friends in such a way and vice versa all the time lol. its quite perflexing to me its such a huge issue to you guys

yeah its crass, blunt, and not polite but its just talking about who you're into

part of being a human being is having a physical body which will have features people like and another part of being a human being is having a libido and being interested in other people. the hard barrier you make going from "that person is pretty" (we can rephrase this to be "that person has overall features I consider attractive and possibly I find myself attracted to them") and "I'd fuck her" (that person has overall features I consider attractive and I find myself so attracted to them to the point I would have sex with them if given the opportunity) is in fact not a line going from not objectifiying to objectifiying but a natural continuation of the feeling and logic. the only real difference is the level of respect being given since "I'd fuck her" is a much less respectful phrase and the fact sex is being talked about which is why this ties into "puritan culture"