QED on your own definition of racism, which I utterly refute. For something to be racist it must have a racial element of condescension, hatred or contempt.
The Nazis were far-right and literally murdered their left-wing opponents, then anyone vaguely left-leaning in their own movement. You may also be surprised to hear that the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea isn't exactly as advertised.
I agree both with you and @The RDBD. The OED defines racism as 'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.' The final element is actually essential for it to be an 'ism'. In practice that isn't what most people mean by racism though.
By the way refute is another word with a very strong defined meaning: 'prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.' You have not refuted it merely contradicted it.
A fair point, if a little pedantic. I will express myself with more care in future. However I think anyone reading my comment would understand what I meant.
I agree about it being pedantic but English is losing a lot of useful words due to continual misuse. Prevaricate is the best example.
The Soviets were far-left and literally murdered their right-wing opponents, then also people actually left-leaning in their own movement.
They used the word "socialist" in labelling their political regime. Like the Nazis. They were big government (the empirical trait of the left) . Like the Nazis. They were authoritarian. Like the Nazis. They were totalitarian. Like the Nazis. By malicious intent, they caused the deaths of millions of innocents. Like the Nazis,
You have to consider that Mohammed could have been a Darren Brown of his time. I know there were Buddhist monks in Tibet who verbatim knew the scriptures (so they could reconstitute them from memory etc in the event of losing written recordings of the texts) .