That is a very questionable assertion not based on any classic definition of fascism. Owning nonvoting shares of companies either to generate government wealth, to support companies essential for defense or for National security are not part of the definition of fascism.
Fascism can be described by several synonyms that highlight its core characteristics. These include authoritarianism, dictatorship, totalitarianism, despotism, autocracy, and tyranny. These terms emphasize the concentration of power in a single leader or a small group, often with suppression of dissent and individual freedoms.
I’m talking about the classic economic definition of fascism. Government ownership of “private” companies is a textbook example of this.
I will admit that influence will happen from outside, but if we require native key technology or capability, rather than fund a bunch of research facilities and call them “government” facilities, why not have non-government entities on the stock market perform the work and help ensure it stays local, instead?
Government either gives unsecured loans, grants, tax abatements, guaranteed contracts for vaporware, etc. or it gets stock with value in return.
If not voting, then what is the actual problem?