It posited one axis being "economic left vs economic right" and the other being "authoritarian vs libertarian". I posit that it should be tilted 90 degrees, so that the "authoritarian vs libertarian" axis is the left-to-right one. The word “libertarian should be replaced with “autonomous”. For a simple “left vs right” analysis, this would suffice. The other axis can be removed. The “economic” descriptor is so vague, in terms of having any universal understanding of what different economic theories actually are, that it is meaningless and misleading.
Trying to use multi-dimensional political theories as the markers on a single-dimensional line leaves us open to unending dispute, because a) those theories have complex factors to consider, and b) its too easy for people to have mistaken ideas of what those theories represent.
If we could establish this baseline understanding, a lot of debates would be less contentious. We could focus on where we stand vis-a-vis authoritarianism (from a state or a feudal lord or a patriarch, etc.) We'd also have a better sense of who our comrades really are, based on principles of social construct and values. We'd know, up front, that we are on different locations of the autonomy to authority spectrum, even every person claimed to be a socialist, or everyone thinks they are a capitalist.
If the left side of the axis is autonomy and the right side is authority, as soon as you override personal sovereignty, with the threat of violence from the state, you have moved to the right. We can all be on different places on that spectrum, but lets be honest about where we are. Its a small percentage of people (in the US) who are at the very left, by this definition. Slightly more who are left-leaning. The vast majority of people are in the center-right to right. Most of whom can't even loosen the bond with the notion of authoritarianism as necessary to a "civil" society to even entertain the notion of a society rooted in inalienable autonomy.
Democracy demands that one's choices are not fettered by any threats or coercion or manipulation. An authoritarian state is a ever-present threat, which coerces all of our considerations. A ruling class, which has more influence over social policies, perpetually manipulates our choices. Yet, its still nearly impossible to get a majority of people to recognize that the United States (or any state wielding authority over the people living on its lands) cannot, by definition, be a democracy. (It could be fun to have a game called “How Fettered Is Your Democracy?”) So, really, just about everyone is on the right. When we talk about "centrists" we are talking about the center of the right half of the spectrum.
There can be other axes with which to measure other attributes of differing political stances. There are flavors of the autonomous vs authoritarian stance. Establishing this baseline understanding is fundamental to any possibility of productive debate.
If you're a "socialist" who believes in the need of an authoritarian state to enforce the ideals, then you're not on the "autonomy" end of the spectrum. You are in the center or right, depending on how strong-armed that authoritarian state is. Maybe you see it as transitional and ultimately envision a leftist society. Still, it is not on the left of that spectrum until that authoritarianism is gone.
So, Venezuela and Cuba are in the center of the spectrum, right now. Maybe left of center, if we find that they have very few authoritarian impositions, at this point.
The fact that places such as the US are more to the right - with a much more strong-armed authoritarianism (see incarceration rates, for instance. There are lots of other metrics which support this claim) - doesn't mean that Cuba or Venezuela are totally leftist. They are relatively more leftist. They are more compassionate/humanist/collectivist, which some people mistake as a sign of leftism.
Maybe collectivist/individualist is the other axis that would be most helpful, in terms of establishing where we fit, relative to each other, on a spectrum. Then, we could see how some forms of capitalism are, perhaps, more humanist than forms of fascism or autocracy, but are still authoritarian, so, still on the right side of the compass.
Which is why "left" vs "right" is a tricky language to use. If you say "leftist" in the US, you might mean "more left on the authoritarian part of the axis than others in the US". Or you might mean "Socialist!ZOMG!" (while referring to states that did not meet the definition of socialism.) Even if we say we're talking about relative authoritarianism, the scale ends up walled off at the center and that centrist wall is called "the extreme left". Anyone on the other side of the wall is practically a terrorist.