As Marx noted, "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it."
As evidence of this in the case of fascism, we can cite… Von Mises.
“Against the weapons of the Bolsheviks, weapons must be used in reprisal, and it would be a mistake to display weakness before murderers. . . . Fascism can triumph today because universal indignation at the infamies committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. . . . It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.”
(Ludwig Von Mises. Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition. Kansas City, MO: Sheed Andrews and McMeel. 1978. pp. 49-51.)
In this case "European civilization" is a stand-in for capitalism. The bourgeoisie of Western Europe were often at the very least "tolerant" of fascism because of its rabidly anti-communist nature. The Baldwin government in the UK refused to react to the remilitarization of the Rhineland because he felt that a Nazi Germany that lost face would only embolden communist forces in the country.
"Not True Communism" is indeed a lame argument, but you're not likely to find it on this board anyway. That being said, it was liberty-hating Vietnam that ousted Pol Pot, while freedom-loving Reagan and Thatcher worked with semi-free China to support his struggle to regain power throughout the 80s.
As for "fail[ing] to create a prosperous society," they were often superior to capitalist societies in many ways, as their own citizens recognized afterwards. See:
http://bookzz.org/book/981420/1bb275As for "freedom," the question has to be asked: freedom for whom? Marxists note there is no such thing as "pure democracy," there is bourgeois and proletarian democracy, the former an advance on feudalism and absolutism (as Lenin noted) but a far-cry from the latter, which genuinely introduces democracy for the vast majority of the population, while repressing the tiny dwindling minority.
Saying it "created poverty" is particularly hilarious, unless you think Russia under the Tsars, China under the Kuomintang or Ethiopia under Haile Selassie were advanced societies freed from the constant threat of famine.
As for killing people, it should be noted that the October Revolution itself was pretty much bloodless. Communist movements everywhere start off peaceful, it is the bourgeoisie that represses them once they threaten to gain nationwide strength.
And when the bourgeoisie tries to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat, then that class dictatorship will act (in a still more just manner) similarly to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie during the period when that class was revolutionary, back when its dictatorship was directed mainly against the resistance of feudal society.
Lenin: "The British bourgeoisie have forgotten their 1649, the French bourgeoisie have forgotten their 1793. Terror was just and legitimate when the bourgeoisie resorted to it for their own benefit against feudalism. Terror became monstrous and criminal when the workers and poor peasants dared to use it against the bourgeoisie! Terror was just and legitimate when used for the purpose of substituting one exploiting minority for another exploiting minority. Terror became monstrous and criminal when it began to be used for the purpose of overthrowing every exploiting minority, to be used in the interests of the vast actual majority, in the interests of the proletariat and semi-proletariat, the working class and the poor peasants!"