it was created by nazis for a nazi agenda.

Source on that? I'm serious. I did a bit of googling and do see that the likes of Ben Shapiro have been using it, but that's definitely not where I have it from, and you'll also see plenty of left-wing uses of it.

I have zero patience for people who side with fascism.

I referred you to a quite precise definition of what I mean by the term. Can you explain to me how criticising the things encompassed by that definition would put me "on the side of fascism"? Fascists have come up with plenty of terms leftists use all the time, an obvious example would be the word "fascist". Allegiance to fascism, I'd say, cannot be inferred merely by use of some shared vocabulary, you have to go deeper than that.

In any case, and I hope you see the irony, going nuclear over the use of such a term, to drill down on syntax instead of semantics, is not unlikely to fit the wokescold pattern of behaviour. Depends a bit on how you do it but overall I'd say it's likely you'd hit at least some of the checkboxes Zena+Poppy are giving.

Why not both? These freaks never stop at just one fucked up immoral thing.

Rojava is a decentralized capitalist region

And the USSR was a centralised state capitalist system. China has even left the "state" part behind and is nowhere nearer abolishing class than it was at the start of the revolution. It actually regressed in that regard.

But, fine, call Rojava that if you will. Just shows how you can't see any possible roads to communism that don't involve the failed experiment that is state capitalism.

though it was managed centrally by the EZLN

The EZLN does not manage centrally. The EZLN is not even a governing body. It's a decentralised milita that councils tasked with matters of military security. It is those councils which are the governing body, not the EZLN. Rojava operates alongside the same lines, though details differ because cultural, material, and other differences.

I know it might be incomprehensible to you: A literal army, with all the capability it could wish for to order the local population around, sat down with the local population and told them about their ideas. The population then told them about theirs. They discussed, mutually refined their ideas until there was a consensus on how to move ahead, leading to what you see now. No shot was fired, noone was sent to gulag. They've also been capable of large organisational reforms, deliberated to consensus, implementation happened just a couple of months ago.

Maybe you should set aside some time and actually study those regions, not just read tankie cliff notes about how they supposedly work, or don't, or are secretly authoritarian, or whatever.

The Bolsheviks who established the USSR were also “social democrats”

The Bolsheviks were never democrats and the French social democrats still call themselves communists. But that's rather besides the point: The Cuban revolution was in the late 50, by then the split between SocDems and communists (both liberal and authoritarian) was not just done it had hardened. Heck the revolution ended in 59, after the word tankie had been established, which was 56, in direct reaction to the Soviet invasion of Hungary.

The point I'm making here is that Fidel & Co came to the US, said "We're eyeing doing something like your European allies are doing and want to be friends, you know, unions, welfare, worker's rights", the US said "nope, can't have you not be slaves to Bacardi and United Fruit you're our colony after all", Cuba said "never mind then we thought we could be friends then we'll go with our second choice, the USSR". The USSR, then, demanded from their allies a heavily authoritarian slant, so Cuba adopted it, in the interest of national survival not out of preference. Which is also why they are by far the furthest along among the surviving ML states when it comes to democratisation. Vietnam is second, with quite some distance, China makes no moves in that regard and North Korea, well, North Korea is only ever getting worse, not better. Oh, Eritrea. Same.