[thaumasiotes]

> A government too entwined with a small number of corporations, to the point that it seems like it's a government for the corporations rather than the people, is generally considered a feature of fascism. A government embracing some sort of anti-corporate and free-and-open solution like OSS would resemble a socialistic policy more.

Huh? We know what the socialist policy was. It was that the government was so closely entwined with corporations that they were staffed by government officials and explicitly considered arms of the government. None of the features you mention in your comment represent a distinction between socialism and fascism. They're shared by both systems. They just go farther in socialism than they do in fascism.

[sofixa]

I would recommend a refresher on your political economy knowledge.

In fascism, the government worked very closely with corporations, but it was somewhat a two way street (corporations getting juicy contracts because they're friendly with the right people, owners financing the politicians, etc.). In socialism "corporations" are owned by the state/worker's councils/etc. (which is why there are "government employees" there - technically everyone works for the government). But there are no corporation owners working in their interest getting handouts and/or pushing for specific actions and policies in socialism.

[thaumasiotes]

> But there are no corporation owners working in their interest getting handouts and/or pushing for specific actions and policies in socialism.

Are you describing any difference other than the use of the word "owner"?

There are people who control the corporations and receive the benefits of their activities. Those people lobby for policies that are good for them. That's how socialism works. It's also how every other system works. Does it matter whether those people prefer to be called "owners" or "secretaries"?