Atlas Shrugged?

Wow, where to begin.

First, your argument regarding socialism is mere sophistry. Yes, the textbook definition of "socialism" is "state ownership of the means of production".  And nobody is saying that Obama wants to nationalize all private industry (yet).  Nevertheless one can still tend to believe that state control (not necessarily outright ownership) over private industry is a desirable thing.  So the word "socialist" as an adjective is used to identify how desirable a person believes state control over industry would be.  And that is how the word socialist is used colloquially.   So when I and others speak of opposing socialism, I not only oppose the old-school idea of state ownership of the means of production, I also stand in opposition to the socialist mentality that greater government control over private industry is desirable. 

Second, it truly is obvious that you didn't finish Atlas Shrugged since you've mischaracterized its message in a severe way.  Did you even get past the first chapter?  Atlas does not represent business.  Atlas represents the entrepreneurs and innovators who invent new gadgets, run businesses, and create wealth; in fact Rand goes to great lengths to demonstrate the two are not synonymous.  Hence the reference to the Greek legend of Atlas who is supposed to carry the world on his shoulders: it's the people who create wealth that make this world function.  They are the producers.  And it is when the non-producers (the looters and moochers) take the producers' work for granted and start making greater and greater demands of the producers, at some point the producers will say "it's not worth it" and simply stop producing.  That is Atlas shrugging, in a very, very brief nutshell.  I highly recommend finishing the book, if for no other reason that it will give you deeper insight into the minds of many of your opponents.  As the saying goes, don't judge a book by its cover.

Third, you've managed to get fascism wrong too.  Fascism held most of the same goals as socialism, except for its internationalism.  Rather than the marriage of capitalism and corporations, fascism was the fusion of socialism and nationalism.  Hence Nazi = "National Socialism".  Everywhere that fascists came to power, they implemented things like a minimum wage, a fixed-length work week, abolition of child labor, women's suffrage, and old age pensions.  Do these sound like things that greedy capitalists would ask for?  Check out Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism.  He makes a well-documented and compelling case against the commonly-held myth that fascism was some bastard form of capitalism.

Fourth, there were most definitely strings attached to the bailout money.  First TARP limited executive compensation of all participating institutions.  But more importantly, TARP established an "Oversight Board" and created a "Special Inspector General".  What are they overseeing and inspecting?  That's not really clear.  It could be simply to prevent malfeasance.  Or it could be a vehicle by politicians to demand access to every single transaction that the institution made.  What's certain to happen is that the whole thing will become politicizied in the very near future.  Furthermore the government now has partial ownership of each of these institutions via warrants.  Even in the old-school definition of "socialism", that's socialism.

Finally, you raise dangers against corporatism, and good for you.  It's the only reason I rated your article 1 star.  But what to do about guarding against corporatism?  A naive answer might be to increase government regulation over corporations so that they are forbidden via legal means to have so much direct influence.  Yet this only increases state control over private industry, which moves us more in a socialist direction, and according to you corporatism and socialism are "equally bad".  So that doesn't seem to be a good solution either.  How about this: Roll back regulations on corporations.  Don't try to micromanage their businesses.  Let loose the innovative spirit of entrepreneurs everywhere so that they will be able to compete with the big corporations in a free market.  A big reason corporations try to influence government is because government already has so many regulations on corporations, and they try to change those regulations in their favor; the fewer regulations government has, the less reason for corporations to attempt to influence government.  Now we shouldn't allow corporations to try to distort the market in their favor via rent-seeking either.  But neither we shouldn't punish corporations for the 'crime' of creating jobs and wealth.

But that is just my kooky free-market idea, you know, the one you think is 'stupid' and 'evil'.  To each his own I suppose.  Enjoy your socialist paradise while it lasts, because Atlas might actually shrug someday.