The people doing this would be fascists. They would thus be performing a banned activity and need to be jailed themselves. The end result is that all people who participate in the system are condemned and arrested.
The goal ultimately is to make fascism socially unacceptable (without the need to legislate). But in the efforts to attain the goal, law has a role to play. The point is not to "punish ideas" as many seem to interpret. When some action is publicly suggested by a politic/religioz leader, not an idea
Starts with the assertion that communism has resulted in more "innocent deaths" than fascism, fails to clarify ambiguous wording, and then nonsensically ends with the conclusion that, in the interest of lessening harm, society should embrace fascism, as historically it has lead to less "innocent deaths".
Begging The Question
Hysteron proteron, the premise presupposes that communism is more dangerous than fascism, and furthermore implicates that fascism and communism counter-balance and neutralise each other.
Prejudicial and clearly loaded language, "innocent deaths", and "directly", "might cause", "save us from", assuming this as historical fact even when this is merely a presupposed assertion.