But some people don't get it

Communism aims to bring the world in a single union with no nations or boundaries. At least in theory.

Fascism's primary goal is to put national interests on steroids. People are expected to put their lives aside for the benefit of the nation - a nation that a communist world would sweep aside.

They are EXTREMELY different and you need to stop belittling people who understand that difference. Those people studied harder than you did.

There are interesting observations to make about the techniques in authoritarian subjugation that they share, but it is lazy thinking to say that they are the same on that basis alone.

Not theory wise

Oppression, domination, genocides

In theory they are very different, but in reality they look the same

I stand by my comment: that is lazy thinking.

Oppression, domination, and genocides words you can use to describe governments that were NEITHER Communist nor fascist. Hell, America has done some of that!

You're ignoring the features that actually properly define these systems in particular. They look the same to you BECAUSE you're ignoring their differences.

The end result is the same. It's just that one takes longer to come into full being than the other.

Again: the desired end result could not be more explicitly different. One seeks to abolish countries entirely, the other seeks to put your country in a domineering position against weaker ones. They are the EXACT opposite to each other if you want to talk about end result.

Like almost every economic system, Communism is good-hearted, but always poorly executed.

They are the same in that they both structurally require a lack of diversity and the concentration of power and resources to a single party or group. Fascists want to control their own country, while communists want to control the world. Is that what you're saying?

Basically, yes.

Again, a politically homogenous society submitting to a state dogma was nothing new when these governments were invented. There are ancient and classical societies that describe what you're talking about. Pharoic Egypt could qualify for what you're talking about.

There would be no need to invent post-industrial ideologies in the first place if that were the defining feature.

Both Communism and Fascism are post-industrial ideologies. They do not make sense without societies built around factories and mass production. You are trying to define them by stripping all of that out, leaving you with nothing more than ancient-era despotism. That is nonsense. That is missing the point of what these things are entirely.

Nobody's asking you to like these ideologies. But you're doing more damage by overly simplifying them beyond their definition than you ever would be by participating in them directly.

They are all just flavors of totalitarianism. They get by in from the people by presenting themselves as different. They are essentially the same. They all control everything from a central power. In any communist country today what happens when a group of people want to do something different? Ask the uegurs. The people don't decide anything. Being pre or post industrial have nothing to do with it.

In a way