This is not a distinction, but a generalization, or abstraction that better describes the phenomenon and your assertion that a state controlled economy may be contemplated without respect to the ideology to which it conforms is dubious.
This is probably an interesting semantic debate to have, but I have to apologize for being completely disinterested in it.
Which is why collectivism pops up murderously over and over with different names.
Do I understand you accurately to be saying "if you want participate in a debate with me on my terms you're i part responsible for all the evils of state-run economies"?
Aha now that is an interesting question and I'm glad you asked. I know that I personally would feel responsible if I saw collectivism murdering yet another society and did not call it out for what it is. If I for example saw that people were dying of lead poisoning but instead blamed evil spirits then clearly I would be responsible for mass poisoning.
"Agree with me or you're among history's greatest villains" is neither a novel nor persuasive rhetorical strategy. You should try a different approach.
I in turn don't find an attempt at a straw man all that convincing.