We're going to disagree on this one. I see privately-owned corporations and the government enacting coordinated policies together. While there are elements of communism here (CBC is outright state-owned and CTV and others are effectively state owned), the majority of what the WEF are after seems to have nothing to do with explicit state ownership of production. The effects are the same (Google, for example works as an agent of the state), but the formal registration of the ownership structure not being the Canadian government (or US, or UK, or French, etc) doesn't look like Communism to me. Even the Chinese (whose "characteristics" this is all modeled on) had to move away from technical "communism" since the 80s to maintain control.

I also don't see them as antithetical to each other; rather they represent two different flavors of oligarchic tyranny. In communism, the oligarchy is defined as the controlling party (the CCP, for example); in fascism, the oligarchy is defined as the ownership class. In both cases, it looks to me as ~10% of the population controlling and dictating to the other 90%. Antithetical to both systems is the concept of individual liberty, autonomy, and genuine political representation. In both of these systems, the majority is subject to the power of the oligarchy. In a legitimate representative system, the oligarchy is subject to the will of the majority, which they must represent in their decisions. We have obviously moved out of that paradigm.

Both communism and fascism are unacceptable systems. I'm with you in opposing it absolutely, however we may quibble about the details of the label.