So I just pick one of them and I’m good? Any suggestion which one to pick? Just the biggest?

EDIT: Also, am I able to just be logged into both so I can see both sides at the same time or do I have to swap back and forth if I want to check out world or the commy instances?

No, the EU is all capitalist, in every economy (even the nordics) private ownership is the principle aspect and governs the large firms and key industries. Financial capital and by extension imperialism are the dominant forces in society.

In the countries I listed, it’s the opposite, public ownership is at minimum the principle aspect. Some are more heavily publicly owned, like the DPRK and Cuba, and others have more market forces at play, like Vietnam and the PRC, but in all cases public ownership is principle.

No, horseshoe theory is just liberalism trying to distance itself from fascism, when historically liberalism abd fascism correspond to capitalism doing okay and capitalism in crisis respectively.

Further, liberalism has also been responsible for mass violence, both the progressive kind such as in the French revolution, and the horribly reactionary kind when it comes to slavery, colonialism, genocide of Palestine, etc.

Your comment has one major flaw: it’s wrong.

Revolution in France, for example, ovethrew an oppressive monarchy. Napoleon took power, but it was still an improvement, and in the long run was even better. In Haiti, slavery was overthrown, in Algeria colonialism was overthrown. These are just for national liberation movements and general revolution.

Socialist revolution in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, and more have all dramatically improved key metrics like life expectancy, dramatically democratized society, increased literacy rates, and lowered disparity while dramatically developing society. Socialism achieves far better metrics at similar levels of wealth and development, even in the face of brutal sanctions.

There is no “betrayal of ideals,” there’s the real process of existing in the world and facing real struggles. Socialism isn’t magic or perfect, it’s simply a much better economic system than capitalism. It isn’t immune to problems or struggles, and it doesn’t gift those running the economy with prophetic visions. Liberal anti-communists hold socialism to a higher standard than liberal systems, refusing it outright if it isn’t heaven on Earth, and call it a “betrayal” if it isn’t immediately a perfect wonderland while giving liberalism a pass, or mild critique.

I expect revolution in the US Empire to go a similar way, only that it won’t be at risk of being nuked or sanctioned to death by the US Empire.

I highly suggest doing more research on the topic at hand, I can make recommendations if you want.

All communists believe in freedom and democracy

All communists support freedom and democracy for the working class, the distinction between “authoritarian and democratic” is a purely invented one designed to disavow existing implementations of socialism and absolve the one taking up the mantle of having to grapple with how socialism exists in the real world, often letting Red Scare narratives run rampant and uncontested.

You’re combining contradictory stances. You want extreme decentralization and horizontalism even to the extent that managers don’t exist, but you want factories and the ability to unilaterally punish cells that don’t pass the “moral test.” Everything you listed is something that seems to sound cool, but is incredibly impractical, especially when taken all together. You also wish to punish former capitalists without retaining the authority to do so, leaving those people bitter and actively working against the rest of society.

This is all ignoring your misconception of fascism as “anything scary” and not as capitalism in crisis, and your minimization of, say, the anti-semites that were lynching Jewish people and communists in Hungary before the Red Army was sent in, etc.

From a practical basis, your vision is a non-starter, factories number in the several hundreds to thousands of workers with complex supply chains that need management and administration to avoid people getting killed by heavy machinery and to ensure production actually runs smoothly. You’re asking to reformat every factory to work on a microscopic scale and yet work on a purely gift economy form, when goods would take more labor and resources to produce at such a small scale, rather than reaching abundance.

Most practical forms of anarchism try to make administration more accountable, they don’t try to get rid of it entirely, and call it a “justifiable hierarchy.”

I don’t think it’s fair to say that “anti-imperialism” was one of the requirements when many of the western ML/Stalinist groups that would generally fall under any anarchist’s definition of “tankie” were very much chauvinist/nationalistic. Like that describes basically nearly every “communist party” in the west.

Obviously the modern anarchist usage of the term was fairly different to the origin of the term anyway, which meant a self-proclaimed communist who supported Soviet imperialism in Hungary, which Stalinists were/are opposed to. But I guess they re-used the term now that Khrushchevites are not really a thing anymore.