Salve Locate,
There are a few points here. Firstly, the views of anarchists are very disunited, unsurprisingly. Some simply want to bring down the government, but have little idea of what to put in its place. Very different methods are in place, from constitutional methods to populist methods to violent uprisings. Then there are those, like me, who are simply theorists - I am an anarchist in principle, but will not attempt to bring this about, because I know that the whole utopian idea is destroyed by the fact that there are humans living in it.
In addition, your description of fascism is, IMHO, not quite accurate. You say fascists believe that every ethnicity should be ruled by people of their own ethnicity. Actually, they believe that their own ethnicity should be ruled by people of their own ethnicity. Nazi Germany had no qualms about bringing Poles. Norwegians, Danes, Frenchmen, Russians, Lithuanians, etc, under German rule. Equally, Mussolini was eager to bring the Abyssinians (Modern Ethiopians) under his rule. Of course, this is similar to the attitude of the British and French empires after World War I: "Austro-Hungarian Empire must be dismantled, German Empire taken from them, Ottoman Empire dismantled... But we can keep our empires."
The ideal of self-determination if a myth, since each state only wants all the other nations to obey self-determination.
The main tenet of fascism is that a single person of small cadre of people run the entire show. Anarchism, on the other hand, cannot be so summed up, since (for instance) I disassociate myself with other anarchists since their beliefs are so different to mine, and that applies to most anarchists.
Hoping this makes sense,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.