Mussolini literally came up with the term Fascism so to disregard his definition just because it doesn't fit your argument is as illogical as disregarding Marx's ideas of communism.
But it's easy to disregard any argument when you can just shout "fallacy" at everything instead of addressing the key points. There was no fallacy made, I'm simply acknowledging absolute authority of the state is indistinguishable whether it's for secular or religious aims. If you disagree find anyone who lived under the Nazis and compare that with anyone living under Taliban now:
These same conditions can/could be found in any absolute monarchal or theocratic system throughout history so your attempt to try to differentiate them is somewhat lacking. In all these cases there is one central authority who is imposing their secular or religious will on a populace and eliminating anyone stepping out of line. You can nitpick the details all you want but the effect on society is essentially the same.
It's also important to note communism is purely an economic system while fascism is a political one. Self-professed communist governments have absolutely used fascist means to achieve their goals. The reality is communism as defined by Marx has never in actuality been applied as there is always some form of hiarchy and class system - which he explicitly decried.
So previous - and current - communist governments is really communism in name only as they are usually more socialist - and fascist - than communist in practice. "Communist" China being full of corporations is perhaps the best example.
I also find it interesting how on one hand you argue people have different opinions of what fascism is but then link to an article of one person's opinion as if that is the definitive definition. Can't have it both ways.
Also worth noting many in the field view Aristotle as the first scientist, which of course predates the term by several millennia.
https://www.nature.com/articles/512250a
Lastly, the Wiki you linked to literally says technocrats can be appointed rather than just elected and it all comes down to lack of political experience and reliance on a certain "knowledge" or "skill". So purely theocratic governments who only know one thing (their religious ideology) could fall into a more general application of the term. But while I concede it's not exact to the original conception, It's not really relevant to the main issues addressed in previous paragraphs.
