Someone else already pointed out the issues with D&D style alingnment. Even following D&D alignment, I would think Lenin’s and Stalin’s positions would be swapped. Most of Lenin’s time active as a revolutionary was overthrowing the tsar, which definitely went against the law. Much of Stalin’s time as a revolutionary was as general secretary of the new society the revolutionary workers and peasants built, so he was operating within the law. If this was limited to Stalin’s work before the founding of the USSR this would make more sense, but people on this chart come from a bunch of different times.

This makes no sense.

Bottom row aren’t even marxists.

While this is cool I don’t think it’s very accurate to how the D&D alignment system works.

Lenin for example can’t be Lawful Good as he was a revolutionary, which is antithetical to a ‘Lawful’ character. The category specifically refers to how the individual interacts with authority, in which a Lawful character respects the authority of institutions/figures even while trying to fight against them (basically reformism).

‘Chaotic’ by contrast has little to no reverence for authorities - even nominally ‘good’ ones - and is closer to an anarchist than a communist. Not where I’d put Stalin at all.

“Neutral” is an explicitly moral quantifier; the middle ground between “Good” (compassionate, empathetic, selfless, etc.) and “Evil” (cruel, corrupt, petty, etc.) and refers to literal moral grayness; e.g. a “True Neutral” would be a mercenary-type figure. Not how I’d classify Marx at all.