If we're using the original definition of left and right, they'd technically be on the right.

The original meaning was whether or not you supported the monarchy. I'd say that a dictatorship is close enough that it applies.

Of course, politics isn't one dimensional. Even the "political compass" isn't really enough, here, there's probably an axis of the political graph for each major axiom of governance.

Honestly the best descriptor for tankies is just "authoritarian communists." That tells you where they stand better than any attempt at a spectrum or graph.

Because the economic right is capitalism, not communism

I see people starving on the streets right now living in America. The fun part is homelessness and hunger isn't solved because it's turned into an industry. Money above all else babyyyy.

Who killed more Soviets? The far-right, or the far-left?

Flipping through my big book titled "Victims of Communism" and it says here that the German Nazis and Italian and Spanish Fascists were both Far-Left and Victims of the Far-Left. Also, I see hear that every unborn child out to the latest generation resulting from famines common to the 1930s through the 1960s is a Victim of Communism. Nothing in the fine print about lives saved through the universalization of health care, housing, groceries, and pensions, though. Neither can I find anything about the Peace Dividend reaped by the industrialized Soviet world following the end of WW2.... weird.

Also, absolutely nothing in here about the Bengal Famine, its causes or the millions of tons of relief the USSR sent to end it. So strange. Michael Parenti, do you have anything to say about this?

“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”

-Michael Parenti Blackshirts and the reds

Dictatorships are dictatorships, regardless of the political ideology.

A dictatorship of the bourgeois is radically different from a dictatorship of the proletariat, both in form and in function.

Both sides did horrible things

Guys with their "Ask me about the War of Northern Aggression" baseball caps are constantly saying this

purging intellectuals and anyone seen as a potential threat, mass murder of entire social groups, maintaining informant networks to instil fear etc.

DSA: "We should open up the Medicare rolls to anyone who wants it and grant everyone in the country universal basic income through Social Security"

Libertarian: "This gives the government way too much power. If you can give someone health care or a basic income, you can control who gains access to very fundamental basic human needs. And that will lead to tyranny."

Also Libertarian: "I love the DHS. I love the DHS so much. Strong borders! Private prisons! Deportations without a court hearing! This is the network state I always dreamed of! Can't wait until Trump starts issuing EOs to form charter cities and America is just 1000 Singapores in a trench coat. Also, everything Javier Milei is doing in Argentina is fucking based. I love how MBS is running Saudi Arabia. And I can't wait to join the private mercenary army that reclaims Greenland from those weak-kneed namby pamby socialists in Denmark."

Half of Europe would be considered "far left" from a US perspective. Affordable housing? Universal healthcare? Parental leave for long durations? Walkable cities and public transit? Try getting any of those to fly with the US neoliberals.