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.
Nah, this is kind of cringe tbh. Marxism isn’t a competition; it’s a science.
We analyze phenomenon, construct theory around it, put that theory into practice in a test environment, then develop that theory based on what we’ve learned from our experiences. It’s not about beating each other but about building a social order that is less exploitative and more sustainable and how we go about doing that, which involves taking each other’s ideas and building off them, critiquing them, putting them to the test, and improving upon them wherever we can.