Interesting analogy, dear brother in Christ.
Yet note the difference between Mussolini and Stalin. Though both were social Darwinists when it came to their view of man, their ideas about state organization were quite different.
Stalin "nationalized" all private capital in Russia, expropriating all the wealth of the Russian people, and canceling out any possible notion of "private ownership" of anything in Russia. All means of production were conveyed to the Soviet state as direct owner, "on behalf" of the Russian people.
Mussolini, on the other hand, did not outright confiscate private capital. He figured such could be safely left in private hands, because through state regulation, he had all the benefit of effectively running private enterprises without any of the responsibilities attending direct ownership of those entities. You just "regulate them" in a manner that serves "state interests."
BTW, arguably, Bill Clinton employed Mussolini's model to a surprising extent during his presidency. And it seems Obama is following it, too — the regulatory explosion under his presidency is unprecedented. He is effectively "legislating" out of his executive departments: Congress passes a statute, but then typically it leaves the rules of its implementation up to the executive departments. That fact leaves a lot of wiggle room for ideological judgments as to how a law is to be implemented, without consulting Congress.
What is government regulation, other than making independent decision makers comply with state edicts, on the theory that "government always knows what is best?"
Anyhoot, I think your comparison of Romney with Mussolini may not be entirely apt (FWIW). I do not believe that Romney is a racist or social Darwinist; I no not see him promoting Left Progressive ideology. I do not see him as promoting wealth transfers based on class. I believe he champions free enterprise, personal initiative, and personal responsibility, not state capitalism/corporatist state models of economic activity.
As a highly successful businessman and venture capitalist, he is very likely skeptical of "top heavy," "top-down" organizational structures in general, wherein all power and authority flows from the top. The most efficient and productive business firms do not deploy this model.
In short, his executive experience and demonstrated skill as a business analyst suggest to me that Romney might actually prove to be pretty good at "draining the federal swamp" which is bureaucratic Washington — read: pretty good at deregulation.
Whatever the case, if elected, Romney would not be "the King." Unlike Obama (who seemingly is one, in his own mind at least), and I very strongly doubt he would act like one. But even if he did, if we conservatives elect conservatives to take back the Senate, and preserve or even extend the GOP majority in the House, even a "King Romney" would be facing serious political headwinds to Congressional enactment of any type of corporatist-state proposal from the Executive.
From where I sit now, I just don't see that happening.
Mussolini, as a statist crony corporatist, found his model fit well with Nietche’s ubermensch thoughts and saw himself and a select group of elite (the other corporatists) as those who drove the state. In effect, they were not just businessmen, they were a new aristocracy. In the communist model, they would be dictators doing the dictating to the proletariat.
Fascism’s affinity with communism is seen in the early amity between Hitler and Stalin.
Mussolini wasn’t shy about the Fascist/Corporatist linkage: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
I believe Bain venture capital focus was early on, and it moved more and more to private equity (LBOs); I've read that fully one quarter of Bain's LBOs left the companies bankrupt -- though Bain made a bundle on management fees, etc.
See The Romney Fiscal Record: the 800 lb gorilla in the room that everyone ignores, especially Soul of the South's post #25:
Mitt Romney was supposedly a management genius working with private equity at Bain. Let’s be clear as to what private equity really is as opposed to venture capital which funds new business startups.Private equity is all about realizing inordinate returns on a small highly leveraged capital investment by the partnership. It is predatory management. Once a firm is acquired, it is loaded up with debt, productive assets are sold or leased back to the company at higher than market rates, it is loaded up with management fees and its headcount is slashed. The partners extract their cash quickly so if the firm then dies they are covered. This is not about building — investing in people or productive assets to create more customers. It is about extracting as much value as possible out of the goodwill and brand equity of the firm.
The private equity partners are financial manipulators, not operating managers. They load the company with management fees but are not usually involved in the day to day management of the company. Their mission is to make sure they are extracting as much cash as possible from the company and setting the bar higher and higher for management. Expecting Romney’s management experience to benefit the government is like expecting Timothy Geithner’s banking experience to benefit the budget process for the US government. Actually, Romney has more in common with Geithner than he does with truly successful operating managers and company builders.