Analogy fails at some point. We can, through selected analyses, liken modern systems of governance to anything from Babylonian kingdoms to feudal mercantile empires. The entire practice is in many ways akin to saying that because most nation-sectors have roads, bifurcated houses of legislature, and a thousand other points of concurrence to Roman Imperialism, the analogy of the fall of Rome imparts some imperative stylistic moral lesson through parable - mystically independent of synonymous foundational principles in each systems' raw form.
So, oligarchical collectivism has been essentially the same since probably before the dawn of agriculture: mere animal husbandry. The rest is refinement of method. We are not presently, anywhere in the world, suffering from communism, fascism, ancient imperialisms, or any other such comfortable term of canned propagandist reference, as such
. We inhabit the region where the integrated sum of all such historical ends meet the means of the future. Present day tyranny, while not the same as the clumsy systems of antiquity upon whose shoulders such governance rests, is only describable as itself. There are, again, always the same foundational principles in operation and opposition, but the theory and practice of global human farming advances each day, with each increment and iteration of despotism - bounding here, crawling there, moving always to assimilation and centralization of power.
Thus, if you are discounting parallels to National Socialism on grounds of abject discomfort at the very notion, you would have, through such apparent susceptibility to simple propagandist methodology, almost certainly been a card-carying Nazi or Trotskyite. If you think such analogies hold little meaning because the tyranny of centuries past serves only as an all-too-basic model of its more reified modern forms, then there is hope for you.
The question then, for those who cite Goodwin's complaint in abject dismissal of thoughtcrime, is what general character would you ascribe to modern government on the whole? Would you call the median system of government now practiced nigh globally, with only spurious divergence, more
or less tyrannical
than anything aged enough to land in a textbook, like the myriad - roughly nationalist - statisms of yore? Why, in either case, is any modern government fundamentally better or worse than those of Nazi or Maoist histories?