Yes, but nationalism isn't rejected by actual communists in the real world,
More nonsense. The Soviets heavily repressed ethnic nationalism within their borders, and virtually all Communist states proclaimed and supported an internationalist approach to foreign affairs.
It's pretty much common knowledge that it is.
No, it isn't. It's an uneducated sentiment expressed by people who think they can apply socioeconomic theories to organizations that were not in mind when the theory was created or promoted.
As evidence against your bogus quote, Time Magazine,
lol
"
The capitalists have worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection, which again only proves their higher race, they have a right to lead. Now you want an incapable government council or works council, which has no notion of anything, to have a say;
no leader in economic life would tolerate it."
-Adolf Hitler, 1930
Again, fascists are extremely hostile to private property rights,
Which is why they didn't abolish it, right? You keep saying they both hated it, yet never did anything to actually curtail it. Tell me, what was Krupp charged with after WWII?
Oh, and what happened to the left-wing Nazis btw?
You don't even grasp what Mussolini's actions are, which is why you fail every time you try to make this argument and fall back on trying to repeat the same bullshit that someone else fed you, because you don't know enough about the topic to speak for yourself.
For example, you always fall back on claiming that Mussolini was socialist because he A)Spent a lot of public works and B) There was a high degree of state ownership. You keep repeating this because this is all you have.
In reality, neither prove Mussolini was a socialist; for starters spending on public works has never been the sole domain of socialists, and numerous right wing conservatives have done so. This is literally just you once again exposing how little you understand of political history.
Second, Italian State Ownership under Mussolini did not mean anywhere close to what you think it does. In reality what "state ownership" meant was the Italian government intervening in failing industries to prop them up by buying a majority ownership. This resulted in virtually no major changes to leadership, direction, or employment; businesses didn't stop producing what they did nor did they stop employing the people they waned; management was virtually unchanged.
In fact when you look at the history of economic intervention by the Italian Fascist Government you see nothing on par with the USSR's centrally planned economy. The Italians did not seize industries and converted them to state rule, they intervened when the banks failed to stop the spread of economic collapse and avoid mass unemployment. The Battle of Grain did not involve mass conscription of the workforce, re-appropriation of land, or redistribution of wealth (something the Soviets did), but consisted of government grants and advisors. There was nothing on par with the USSR's centrally planned economy or Stalin's industrialization efforts.