I have a Marxist PoV, as I am a Marxist-Leninist, but that isn't why liberalism is right-wing. Liberalism is right-wing because it is based on private property rights as the centerpoint, and that is the status quo. Maintaining the current status quo is a right-wing, conservative point of view, while the revolutionary, progressive point of view is in socialized ownership.

The definitions you keep linking are from liberal organizations that are benefited by constraining the window of political economic discussion to the confines of capitalist viewpoints. Often, they rely on the Overton Window, which is about what is considered more progressive or reactionary in a given window by the median opinion, ie if you have 100 people in a room, 3 are communists, 67 are bog-standard liberals, and 30 are conservative liberals, then by the Overton Window, you'd have 50 on the left and 50 on the right, with most liberals on the left. However, this erases the actually increasing momentum for socialism, and hides the fact that 97 people in the room are for the current system plus tweaks, and only 3 are for radical change.

The origin of the terms "left" began in France, when capitalism and liberalism were revolutionary, and monarchism was the status quo. We are far beyond the time when liberalism is capable of being seen as revolutionary, however, most of the world is dominated by private property. It is now socialism that is revolutionary, and it has been so for centuries.

I've provided a more nuanced, thorough, and complete analysis than you have, which is why other users are suggesting you listen to me. I can recommend some good works on political economic theory, if you'd like. There's a difference between nuance, and vibes, and you've relied heavily on vibes over nuance.

Okay, I changed my mind, you're actually a goober. Good luck out there little buddy.

What?