Personally I look at this compass and my own thoughts are- it’s almost 100% brain worms lol… Though at least I suppose it seems they probably support Palestine, and aren’t homophobic. Which is basically just meeting the criteria of “not a blatant genocidaire/bigot”- until you realize they’re probably in support of the Banderites, NATO, and ETIP (and thus effectively a genocide-supporting, warmongering bigot) and support (or lump in the ““libertarian left”” anyways) other abhorrent institutions like the EU, rogue Taipei, and the Nordic regimes.

Aside from politcal compasses themselves being intrinsically stupid, especially when you transparently make your favorite section the ‘correct’ one (even though ‘authoritarian leftist’ is in general the closest to being the correct one in real life) - they’ve included the LGBT flag in the liberal but NOT the communist section, while they’ve included patsocs and national chauvinists amongst actual anti-imperialists.

It basically spells out a specific set of brainworms, the ‘social conservative’ who believes all LGBT rights are bourgeoise inventions rather than being crucial to the struggle of the working class, and who also buys in to the idea of ‘redeeming the USA’ by just turning it communist instead of needing to tear the whole thing down and build new structures in its ashes.

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.