Ok so there's three parts in your message. First you "correct" me by pointing out I didn't mention liberalism as a justification for colonization. Indeed, but I tried to keep concise given the context. I also didn't mention other important aspects of liberalism such as economics. Also, liberalism was hardly the only justification for colonization, it was used against it, and colonization predates it in any case. You also point out I didn't mention Lenin sought to apply Marxism to under-industrialized nations. That is accurate but besides the point, and he wasn't the only one. But he also theorized the vanguard party as you mention, and that is crucial to the rest of my paragraph. The parent comment asked what was the difference between a liberal and a leftist, and what was a tankie, and I replied as concisely as I could.

Now adding to what I mentioned is fine but you also imply that I in fact did it on purpose :

You did a great job disregarding the colonial history of the west and the implications it had for billions of people in the global south.

You're basically saying that I'm racist. Why would you say that ?

Lenin led a democratic vanguard party until his death, but understood that a socialist project in construction will have interference from capitalists both locally and abroad, and needs state repression of said interference in order to be able to carry out the goal of redistribution of power to the people because capitalists won’t just give it away.

I think you misspelled “eliminated fascism from Europe and saved tens of millions of lives from Nazi extermination”. It wasn’t done personally by Stalin, but by the socialist project of the USSR as a whole.

And there is the reason. I criticized Lenin and Stalin as being undemocratic and you disagree. The problem is the only source that will call Stalin "democratic" are stalinists themselves ― most leftists in fact criticize stalinism, and more largely the way the bolshevik party was set up. Trotsky himself predicted it would come to a dictatorship in Our Political Tasks (1903).

So you just reply with stalinist apologia : the Soviet Union was in fact democratic (it wasn't, and only stalinists will assert thus), they fought the nazis (true, but that's besides the point of using military force against the people), capitalists would interfere (true, although far less than implied before the cold war, but again that is besides the point of establishing a dictatorship and using military force against the people)

I just want people to recognize this pattern. This is what "tankie" is : you make side comments to my main points, you paint me as a monster and an enemy by calling me a racist, and you spew apologia about dictatorship actually being democratic but still being justified by the circumstances and military force being necessary under the context and also the nazis.

The fact you can, in a single message, paint me as an enemy before explaining that using lethal force against enemies is acceptable is chilling and I hope you'll never get near any position of power.