Don't add further to the idiocy by ignoring the differences between fascism and socialism.
Industry is a center of wealth generation, governments' power derives in part from it.
That's not particular to any ideology. While every credible form of government involves some relationship between industry and government, there are big differences.
You might recall the end goal of communism was essentially no government at all. That's about as practical as your argument of fascism and socialism's similarity.
Hitler's 'control' of industry included a militarist government and authoritarianism; a socialist government is more likely to 'control' industry to protect the people from exploitation.
For example, Chile nationalized its copper mining, its top resource, away from US corporations who were extracting massive wealth. This was credited with greatly aiding their economy, keeping the wealth in Chilean society (and somewhat in the better buildings helping in the earthquake) - it's a far different motive than fascist control.
If you can't tell the difference between the 'control' practiced by a Nazi Germany and a Sweden, you need to get a bit more informed.
See my prior response as a partial answer.
The problem with government control is that it totalitarian by it's very nature. The difference is it's intent and the degree it's willing to exert it's power to achieve it's goals.
Now I'm not going to suggest that Sweden is Germany because it isn't. The people have arrived at a more or less harmonious arrangement between business, the citizen and government.
We however are more concerned with political gain than they are. Here we are always battling for who's going to control what. Now in theory if politicians were people who weren't trying to gain power and refill their war chests by virtually any means, then we might have a similar system. That still leaves the philosophical arguments, but for now let's not complicate the issue with the specious.
Simply put, real world American power is a dynamic tension between a government controlled by political parties and large private entities such as corporations and powerful unions. The politicians will pander to whomever they consider most likely to get them re-elected, and the party system makes sure that no one too far off the platform has the opportunity to screw up their hold.
Where does that leave us? A nation which indeed has a collaboration between the most powerful and wealthy businesses and government. The first are allowed to thrive with certain restraints, and the latter get's it's piggy bank filled.
Occasionally out of this things happen. Sometimes good and sometimes not.
Of the two controlling establishments (those who offer the money and those who take) it is the latter which has the most dramatic direct effect on it's citizens, and if it decides to enact something for the "good" which isn't, you cannot oppose it if it does not wish.
Government has absolute control, and that it is occasionally benign doesn't change that. Hopefully, it consists of people who are genuinely thoughtful and thoroughly responsible, because no matter what, they will be obeyed. If on the other hand, it constructs something that serves it's political purposes and may or may not be good, well it's the same.
You may have read about a well intended policy (which I agree with in principle) that has effectively doomed at least one person to death. Did the government plan to execute him? Of course not, but it might as well have. By not undertaking to understand the consequences of it's actions, it has bound the citizens to obey a fatally flawed policy, with fatal being quite literal.
Now it's a matter of time before someone notices what's going on and some accommodation will be made, however this could have been avoided. Our government is inherently top down though, and getting the right people to listen before they act often does not work.
I'm not anti-government in all cases, however when the system is riddled with incompetence and corruption, I'm reluctant to allow the expansion of it's power until it outgrows it's petty nature and hubris and understands that it's intended to be the servant, not the master.
You've suggested that putting more Progressives in office would be a way to go about improving things, but in reality you won't get the chance any more than the more ardent free market types will. It ruins it for the party if something happens to upset the apple cart, and you will be put down at the national level.
While I realize you weren't necessarily addressing the US in particular, you distinctly favor a more socialist type state (and I'm not using that as a pejorative), but that means more power in OUR case for those who's base instincts are their highest aspirations, with too few exception.