Interesting take and the author does get some things correct. Notably that there isn't really a concrete way to define what fascism is. Fascism as a political concept is a bit of a grift, it's easy to identify based on a number of characteristics, but a fascist doesn't necessarily need to display every characteristic in their belief to be a fascist, which gives them plausible deniability which they love to use to their advantage to make their political ideology more marketable/palatable. That said, the video itself doesn't really address the central question and focuses on whether or not the word "fascist" has any weight in discourse, which I think is a totally meaningless and irrelevant discussion.
And speaking of:
I'm not at all a fan of David Pakman but I'll give him credit where it's due. He does do a decent job of painting Marxism in broad strokes without grossly overgeneralizing, and he does make a completely valid point in more or less saying Marxism is, in addition to an economic theory, a lens with which to view economic and societal issues (this is why I'm not shy about calling the U.S. or its leaders fascist, it's very easy to rationalize from a Marxist perspective). What he does get wrong is placing special emphasis upon anarchism in particular and social democracy in particular, social democracy not really being worth mentioning in the discussion of whether or not socialism is effective because it's not socialism, and anarchists proving to be wholly ineffective in establishing a permanent and functional socialist society and stopping fascism. This video frankly goes off the deep-end in describing Marxist-Leninist systems as "right-wing totalitarian perversions" of Marxism when they've thus far been the only effective systems in putting a stop to the fascists and despots of their time and establishing a system of proletariat liberty. You need not be a Marxist-Leninist to be a good leftist, but you shouldn't demonize those who actually value the effectiveness of good praxis. Left unity is important.
Given that you have a history of quote mining and picking apart posts, and stomping off in a hissy fit after reporting posts you don't like, I don't entirely know why I'm giving you the time of day.
Regardless: The research is yours to conduct. Once you take the numbers given to you you'll find a number of inconsistencies. The black book of communism is a common citation for anti-socialist sentiments, and yet it's been thoroughly debunked and its method of acquiring such statistical figures has been brought in to question numerous times by now. Even if you wanted to take the deep-end estimates for how many have died by fault of socialist governments, they don't hold a candle to the most generous estimates of how many die due to negligent management of resources under capitalism alone. Food wastage, carbon emissions, this isn't to mention wars fought in profit of the military industrial complex and of course, rampant human trafficking rings that all take place underground and between wealthy elites which by this point has not only been proven but is simply common knowledge. Capitalism is immoral, disregards the life, health, and well-being of others, and creates more suffering the world over through death, poverty, and slavery than communism could've ever hoped to accomplish. This isn't even to address how sketchy the estimates are to begin with. The holodomor is simply assumed to be an intentionally conducted genocide but examining the details makes it much less black and white. The fact that many of these details were fabricated by Nazi collaborators should tip you off, and of course there have been many casualties of war carried out by the Nazis but attributed to Communism. This is just speaking of the USSR, I could go in to detail about the DPRK and PRC, but admittedly I'm not well-versed in the history of the PRC and I'm not all too familiar with the inner workings of the DPRK's government.