Reply #31: I get the gist of your argument. I think our differences arise from your italian, my german

[Democracyinkind]

perspective.
I don't believe there is a definite coherent description. Especially in the German case where the totalitarian approach never was formalized. I agree with your socio political definition for the most part, the cult of death and the idea of the superior body of the state.
I don't know too much about the Italian origins, just about the roots of Futurism and Benito's early socialistic phase. Historians have made the claim that the main difference between Italy/Germany was caused by the Italian's Futurism-influence as opposed to the more traditionally-conservative völkisch-mystic influence in Nazism. Maybe the difference in our perspective on corporations arises from this difference - the Italian "überbau" was machinist, whereas the German was bureaucratic. Some have attributed this to the Nazis decision not to wage Revolution but to infest the state and overtake it, whereas Mussolini's might/gov. came out directly out of a revolution.

Nevertheless I believe both states were highly plutocratic in reality and that is why any explanation that seeks definite, coherent authority on fascism is destined to fail. There's also this great dichotomy between fascist principle and fascist reality, in that way, real fascism was always very machiavellian. If I'd only go by the ideology, the view on corporations you have gathered from Mussolini could be applied to Germany - it is surely there in the revolutionary rhetoric of the Nazis, the overcoming of the corporation, one will, the way of the state. But reality in Nazi Germany turned out to be very, very different,so much that the "soviet history " approach to the Nazis - that of corporatist thugs suckled in by the industrialists wasn't easily dismissed and still holds partial ground in the debate.