While this is true, you have to recognise that in practice, both communism and fascism have historically led to authoritarian regimes that oppressed dissent or minorities in different ways.
Fascism is inherently bad. You can't argue against that. But as mentioned a lot of whitewashing has gone into covering up why communism as a political and economic ideology has so often failed, usually at a massive human cost.
Logistically, to get the system to work and get buy in from the population, you need to get rid of vast numbers of the citizens that don't wish to abide by it.
Wherever it’s been tried, it’s brought famine, mass executions, gulags, and economic ruin.
As an ideology it might dress itself up as providing equality, but in reality it has basically always meant trading one form of oppression for another.
Maybe in places like Russia and China, but in the west? Come on!
We and America have always been staunchly anti Communist and not shy to advertise that. People used to be blacklisted from jobs for being communists. The BBC had a symbol they put on employee records they suspected of being communists so they could keep an eye on them. The security services kept a very watchful eye on known or suspected communists. The likes of Stalin and Mao were definitely seen as bad/evil and that they were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions and were oppressive, executing or disappearing those who dissented.
I don't know what you think the definition of a whitewash is but it sure isn't the same as mine.
By the same criteria there is a whitewashing of the failures of capitalist ideology. It constantly talks up those few that have got rich while ignoring the millions that struggle to get by. It glamorises wealth and oppulence under the pretence that you can have this to if you try hard enough when that is just not true. Many of the richest cities have the highest levels of deprivation. Even the common metric of economic growth deliberately hides the massive discrepancies of a tiny few getting much richer while most get poorer by lumping it all into a single figure.
And for what it's worth, I'm hugely anti-Communist. I think even in its purest form it can't succeed as it's absolutely impossible for everyone to be equal in terms of power, influence and wealth especially when you take human nature and greed into account. And even if you could give everyone exactly the same then you just get a race to the bottom cos if people can't get more by doing more the only way they can 'win' is to get that equal share doing less.
Socialism on the other hand can be done with an equitable, but not equal, share and while there will be an almost infinite number of ways that could occur, and you can reasonably argue about whether it is possible to overcome things like the potential corruption, it does have the possibility of creating a society with a fairer distribution of wealth and power. Not perfect, but better.
Capitalism on the other hand we can see does not do that. It deliberately chooses to value and reward a very small set of circumstances that do not necessarily have any correlation to effort or ability so that a tiny number of people get a lot in perpetuity while most of the people get little. It is an inherently unfair system.