How do you support the claim that fascism is "an emergent property of imposing communism on a populace"? That seems quite a leap, unsupported by the definitions of either term.
Rather than a claim based upon the definition, it's based
upon empiricism, ie, history of socialist regimes.
Communism is just socialism on steroids.
All have been without exception authoritarian.
The definition you linked specifically mentions that fascism has a capitalist economy.
I know. But it fits so well.
Normally, I use the broader, less baggage laden,
"authoritarianism". But in the context of your post,
I took a wee bit'o license. Consider the term,
"red fascism".
The internationalist scope of communism is well-known and well-supported (
Communist International - Wikipedia) (
World communism - Wikipedia). In fact, that's the entire reason the capitalists of the West had such a fear of communism, precisely because of their call for a worldwide proletarian revolution. ("Workers of the world - unite" was the rallying cry of communists everywhere.)
Socialist / communist countries have all nonetheless
been quite nationalistic. Commies have indeed been
very predatory, but then, so have non-socialist &
non-communist countries, eg, USA, Belgium, England.
If not for that, then the communist governments of the world would have been ignored or not viewed as any kind of threat to the West. But since the West was in a decades-long paranoid obsession about communism, that in and of itself, supports the argument I'm making.
Capitalist...socialist....communist....all have been the system of
countries that have sought international expansion by violent
means. "Internationalist" seems a useless term for them.
"Predatory expansionist"? "Conquering thugs"?
If this was true, then the Soviet Union never would have disbanded. There never would have been a "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" or a "Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic" or anything like that at all. The Soviet Union stressed the cultural and lingual independence of the semi-autonomous territories within the country, unlike the mandatory Russification which took place under the Tsarist Imperial government that Russia previously had. When I visited Soviet Georgia, there were bilingual signs, in Russian and Georgian. It was the same in Estonia. Russian was still a required language and maintained official status, but they allowed bilingualism in the non-Russian territories. They even had the right to secede from the USSR, a right which they exercised in 1991, leading to the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The USSR simply collapsed under the weight of its own
system trying to compete with Ameristan. It was their
system's failure. Good for them.
If they were in any way nationalistic, they would not have had such policies at all.
Their culture was still very nationalistic....great pride in country,
culture, & achievements in space, arts, athletics, & military.