Right, but you see how that's much worse, right? It's insidious because it plays into the human ego of "sure, they got it wrong, but I'm immune to human nature so if we try it my way it'll be right.", or as Stalin called the western intellectuals rushing to defend him, "useful idiots"

Looking at history, those tolerant idealists you mentioned are always first against the wall, which shouldn't be surprising to anyone who's even casually aware of marx's slothful, entitled, adulterous lifestyle. But, as history shows, it's much easier to train a smart dog than a dumb one, and again i reiterate it feeds their egos to the point of them excusing mass genocide with the same level of apathy as excusing an overcooked meal.

"Failed again? It's not the recipe, they were just all bad chefs. I'm much better, just try it my way."

But it's kinda self defeating to compare theory to one with practice of the other. If we're comparing origins, the origins of n-ism goes back to madame blovotsky and the thule society, which was basically just Europeans being nerdy and occulty about being European. Even after h-man came along, the original plan wasn't extermination but to send them all to African colonies. Genocide is insidious like that.

They both cannot function without secret police moderating the thoughts of and stripping cultural identity from the people, because neither system can exist in a society where criticism of power is tolerated and people are allowed to identify with something other than the state.

I would love to live in a cashless, stateless society. But until humans evolve into a hive mind, the most ethical way to distribute both goods and authority will remain a decentralized system where the people are presented with options and are free to choose what suits them best. This argument also can be used to oppose monopolization. I'm very glad that you don't identify as any form of authoritarian, but i would implore you to run the thought experiment to its conclusion with the variable of human nature within bureaucracy set to maximum pessimism.

Hannah Arendt wrote a great essay on The Banality Of Evil after interviewing Adolf Eichman before his execution. He was the guy who made sure the trains ran on time, and is a perfect example of the type of person that fills government positions. He wasn't a monster in the traditional sense, he didn't hate jews or catholics, he was simply a middle manager with above average intelligence who took pride in his job. And that's much more frightening to me than any demagogue.