A “large civilizational state” is not really a well defined concept in and of itself. It’s a term that only makes sense when viewed as the opposite of (or a reaction to) the western model of the “nation-state”. Basically it’s a multi-ethnic (often also multi-religious) state that is bound together by some sort of shared “civilization”, where “civilization” is itself a vague term, sufficiently flexible that it can mean whatever the person using that term wants it to mean.

Fundamentally this is just a rejection of the model of Balkanization promoted by the West for states like Russia and China which imperialists want to shatter along ethnic, linguistic and religious lines like they did with Yugoslavia.

I don’t think it’s a term that Marxists need to adopt, because as i said, the philosophical framework around it is not really rigorous, but i also don’t think it’s particularly harmful. I don’t feel strongly about it either way is what i’m saying, and if anyone has good arguments for or against it i’d be willing to reconsider. Until then i’ll stick with the more classical Marxist-Leninist terms, since the philosophical framework laid out in ML works like “Marxism and the National Question” is at least properly rigorous and scientific.

It’s that mentally ill mindset that some “leftists” have that if a group is opposed to the US, then they are automatically good. Even if they are a rabidly violent Islamic fundamentalist group.