Communism, by definition, just seeks to remove ownership of the means of production from private hands. That's it. It does not inherently mean the dissolution of the state.

That is not at all the definition of communism (at least, not in the sense that everyone uses the term without qualification, i.e., Marxist communism). That is one of several modern-day definitions of socialism, but it is a laughably inaccurate description of communism that even the first sentence of the first paragraph of the notoriously incomplete Wikipedia article on communism would disavow a person of.

Marx:

The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.

Engels:

Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist.

Engels:

The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away.

Lenin:

Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., when there is no distinction between the members of society as regards their relation to the social means of production), only then "the state... ceases to exist", and "it becomes possible to speak of freedom".

Trotsky:

Socialism developed to completion (communism) means a society without a state.

Even Stalin paid lip-service to it:

We stand for the withering away of the state. At the same time we stand for the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the mightiest and strongest state power that has ever existed. The highest development of state power with the object of preparing the conditions for the withering away of state-power—such is the Marxist formula.

If your "national state" is a communist dictatorship, then the idea of individual rights that are not communist (such as ownership of property, businesses, etc) are verboten. Same thing with any "human values" that do not support the communist state's interests.

There isn't a state that currently exists or has ever existed before in which "individual rights" and "human values" are absolutist ideals that trump the interests of the state. That doesn't make every state that's ever existed fascist. The gulf between the idea of, uh, let's have some laws -- that's essentially what you're describing, laws -- and "the state is eternal, the state is absolute, there is no human value outside the state" is so unspeakably massive that I feel like you're being deliberately disingenuous by glossing over it.

I'm calling him a communist and a facist. I'm glad you're ok with that...or aren't you? Or do you think I'm saying something else?

I'm saying I'm OK with it if people want to use "red fascist" as a generalized term, the way that some people call all white supremacists "Nazis". We know precisely what they mean. But they're not actually those things outside of rhetoric and colloquial conversation.

Stalin made a strong point to highlight his party's supposed loyalty to the "Russian people", the "real" citizens, not the elitists or those with connections to royalty.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with palingenesis.

Stalin had his prototypical "Good Communist", the "True Russian." And if you didn't buy into that propoganda, you (and your family) were in big trouble.

Again, nothing whatsoever to do with palingenesis.

So....what was the point of everything you wrote beforehand?

Articulating a well-rounded thought? Pointing out the extreme difference between fascist and communist theory on this matter while acknowledging that Stalin deviated from it? I thought we were having a conversation. idk.

I hate to break it to you, but in reality Stalin was a fascist AND a communist. Sorry of this causes any cognitive dissonance for you; reality can do that.

lol. You certainly are arrogant for someone who thinks "heavily pro-military and pro-authoritarian" is the definition of fascism and "just seeks to remove ownership of the means of production from private hands" is the definition of communism.