My main contention with Communism is that it is built on the principle of collective ownership. In reality, it is simply an excuse to take away individual ownership and give it to those who are the most corrupt.
In the case of Fascists, they are honest about their intention to establish totalitarian governance. In a society, the least harmful alternative to Communism, is Fascism. The best way to ensure individual freedoms is to ensure that the state has no powers to infringe upon them.
So Communists try to create a pseudo utopia where all the world's problems are solved by the creation of a common market without currency, but the result is a totalitarian system with one corrupt leader, and a class of downtrodden and destitute citizens. That is why true Communism will always be only on paper. On the other hand, Fascism was successful in many countries, such as Italy and Spain, due to it's non-communist totalitarianism.
Well, the difference is not honesty per se, rather, the fact that Fascism seeks to control it's citizens through force of law, and not with false promises. The problem with Communism is that the promises are rarely fulfilled, which causes discontent, which may lead to unrest, and which may create problems and a power vacuum. The problem is that Communism is a utopia on paper, which cannot be fully implemented in the real world, whereas Fascism is totalitarian control in the real world. Hence, Communism has never been successful, whereas Fascism has indeed.
Fascism and Communism are very similar in their totalitarian nature, but the differences lay in their goal and purpose. Communists seek to create a utopia, where all are equally miserable, Fascists simply seek total power for themselves. You're also right with your last statement, and I commend you for a very well thought out argument, however you are forgetting that most Fascists seek the extinction of other "lesser races".
Fascism and Communism have one commonality - Totalitarianism.