It's moral equivalency, the west has used it for ages. Even Tecumseh was accused to killing white babies. To use an example that today is not contemporary, look at Yugoslavia, and Milosevic. The following is sourced from To Kill A Nation, which in turn is sourced from news and US war records:
Milosevic was a corrupt and very bad politician, but he didn't fund the KLA, and there were no waterwells packed with corpses, and no thousands of mass graves in the forests.
The Serbian military did commit war crimes, but this idea that he was some kind of modern incarnation of Hitler was a lie, and the majority of war crimes happened after the NATO intervention, and it happened at the behest of the KLA. They were the ones who supported Nazi ideology and carried out numerous attacks which western news blamed on Milosevic.
Similarly you also had the Chetniks, who were often connected to Milosevic even though the Serbs and the Chetniks had been enemies for almost half a century.
And then it turns out that on top of that, the KLA was funded by the US. They were armed and trained by NATO specialists. We also found out NATO air forces targeted civil infrastructure, and even used bunker busters in order to penetrate the ground and destroy water utilities.
Moreover we learn about how NATO dropped thousands of tonnes of depleted uranium over Yugoslavian farmland, which would proceed to give people cancer for decades to come.
But if you watched the news, you probably would imagine the Serbs as the barbarians.
There is not one example in history of any communist government doing this. In fact in 1991 when Yeltsin took power with the aid of the US, they had to send in special advisors to teach him how to produce effective propaganda, because the Soviets just printed posters with encouraging messages that most people either agreed with or disagreed with.
So there is a very big distinction between propaganda, as in to propagate an opinion, and propaganda, as in to propagate an opinion as fact.
China doesn't do this either, that's why you can recognise it as propaganda. It's just a statement of opinion done by the Chinese Communist Party, and you can agree or disagree as you see fit.
This is very different from conjuring up war crimes and atrocities out of thin air in order to justify one of the worst genocidal actions on European soil since the holocaust.
The liberals are by far the most effective at propaganda, because they present their propaganda as facts, or education, or news. Conservatives do the same thing too, they often talk about "the facts" when they mean opinion. This is not a tradition in eastern countries.
For instance, Stalin was part of the editorial staff at Pravda, and do you know what his great propaganda effort was? He just published letters to the editor. That's it. He just published letters from workers who explained their miserable situation in imperial Russia.
How they didn't get their wages, how people were sick, how people were suffering, how people didn't have enough to eat. And it took off like wildfire, because working class people had never seen their words printed in a newspaper before.
Another tactic of the Bolsheviks was also literacy programmes, they would teach people how to read. The Cubans did this too to massive success. Communists don't just put out empty words, the tradition of communist propaganda has always been to give people something, to promise them a better life and actually deliver.
But the people they promise it to are the poor, so maybe literacy isn't so impressive to you, you might take it for granted, but if you grow up as a peasant, then getting that kind of care and attention after having been demeaned and oppressed your entire life is going to be almost spiritual.
That's why 45 million communists laid down their lives to defend China and Russia. Because it was real to them, it wasn't just another politician making a speech. So I disagree with you, you cannot compare the two even slightly.
