I... don't know what you wanted to achieve by posting this. From what I see, this is an incoherent blend of sometimes factual sometimes counterfactual historical trivia and soft praise for fascist economic structures.
Like, take the equivocation on "corporatism"; you first insist on the scholarly definition on corporatism as interest group representation, but then conflate it with state-managed economies under authoritarian regimes such as Nazi Germany.
Fascist corporatism is the most important variant of it in the modern era. It continues to influence American, Chinese, European, South Korean, and Japanese economics. Just because fascists did it using state intervention doesn't make it somehow not corporatism.
And take the fascist apologetics you have in there. Like, are we to judge the economic model separately from the coercive apparatus reinforcing it? Then there's another false equivalence regarding guilds; your point ignores the fact that such guilds under fascist corporatism were state-controlled and operated under threat of punishment. Accordingly, there was no genuine bargaining and no market freedom.
And "class cooperation" is just ideological bait. Workers are forbidden from striking, independent unions are abolished, and all disputes are subordinated to the state's priorities. Call this imposed "cooperation" what it really is, "coerced compliance".
Independent unions are not a requirement for genuine bargaining. Under state control the state must act as a mediator between workers and employers in a union. Someone has to come out on top in any argument.
Strikes are not legal in every country, not even in every capitalist country. It's not something to take for granted. Yes disputes are subordinated to the state's priorities, that's part of the point.
This here, I haven't made up my mind if you were trying to be hilarious or insult my intelligence. The notion of private property being unaffected is completely absurd. Control of property is subordinated to the state. That is not private property in any meaningful sense. Ownership is defined by control, and not mere legal fiction.
What you're actually avoiding is liberty. The state still commands production goals, censors dissent, and crushes economic freedom. Accordingly it's just communist with a different aesthetic.
Marxist economic theory requires abolition of private property. In Nazi Germany the average person was fully capable within the bounds of the law, formally and otherwise, of purchasing a home, starting a business, and buying and selling goods and services. State involvement in the affairs of why and how they did this is not communism, just as the FDA inspecting a factory is not communism. That's just not what communism is.
What I assume you're referring to by "production goals" was the war economy. Early Nazi economic policy was dictated by the need for immediate production in violation of the Versailles Treaty. This would produce a fusion of public and private-sector interests when Germany officially began rearmament. An actual state-controlled war economy only initiated in 1943 as Germany had bit off more than it could chew. This never amounted to mass nationalization of businesses. Reducing Nazi economic policy effectively to a mischaracterized arms industry between 1942 and 1945 is a misrepresentation.
Referencing Italy, mass nationalization of state industries simply did not occur. Mussolini's famous claim that "three-fourths of Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the State" quote is misunderstood. Almost all of Fascist Italy's industry was outside the state's control, but not outside its influence, which was felt through the IRI's public financing and accounting schemes. It's not as if these companies were directly managed by an installed blackshirt CEO, or forced at gunpoint to make X amount of Y by Z. This literally did not happen.
On economic freedoms, mass privatizations were enacted after Hitler took office. What were then state industries like many banks, railroads, even some welfare offices were privatized. On production goals, companies which could not or would not fill orders were never punished, and often refused orders outright. State officials often attempted to use monetary incentives, but of course they didn't always work. You were never required to fill an order.
Calling the Third Reich "communist" is equivalent to leftists calling fascism "capitalism in decay". It's the reverse of the same argument. Fundamentally Nazi Germany, and fascist economies generally, were not communist.
