please, hear me out. you're already defensive and dismissive and I'm asking you to suspend that for a minute and think about it. where did you learn that Stali

please, hear me out. you're already defensive and dismissive and I'm asking you to suspend that for a minute and think about it. where did you learn that Stalin is left wing? Who told you that? Is it because the USSR was nominally communist (in some strange version of communism in which totalitarian state capitalism is the actual system, anyway) and so any leader of nominally communist nation is left wing because communism is left wing? Now compare the actual policies and actions of Stalin to the policies and actions of other leaders that he is most similar to. I think it's pretty uncontroversial to say that Stalin's regime was a brutal, repressive, totalitarian dictatorship. A lot like Hitler's regime actually. Now when you're drawing a political spectrum do you think we ought to pay attention to abstract statements about ideology or should we pay more attention to policies and actions? Is a political spectrum best organized by abstract ideology (in which case, yes, Nazism is left wing, it was a socialist party after all) or by what actually happened? What's more "moonbat"? Putting two similar leaders (Hitler and Stalin) on opposite ends of a spectrum or putting them near each other on that spectrum? There's really only one flaw with the chart that I linked. It's that it continues to use the terms "left" and "right" even though it has rearranged groupings to match policies and actions. Would you feel differently about it if instead of left it said "liberation" and instead of right it said "domination"?