In a previous article I made the wrong move of suggesting that Rand was an out and out fascist because she believed in an essentially social darwinistic society, complaining about the Üntermenschen who were dragging down the productive workers (who were the capitalists and scientists). Someone e-mailed it to one of the directors of the Ayn Rand Institute and many LOL's occurred as we went back and forth about whether or not Rand really was a Fascist. I had to concede that Fascism as classically structured was not a free-market system and that it did have collectivist features, although not nearly as many as a real socialist economy. But perhaps we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water; after all, there have been regimes that have combined fascist social ethics with much less emphasis on anything collective, one of which was Chile under Pinochet. Pinochet, after seizing power and slaughtering opponents who had been corralled into a football stadium, imported economists from the Chicago school, lead by Milton Friedman, as consultants on how to restructure the society that was in danger of becoming too beneficial to the collective under Allende. They advocated pure free market controls on foreign investment and internal economic life enforced by a very unfree secret police force loyal to the military Junta. 'Communist subversion' was outlawed, as well as elections. As opposed to Peronism, the fellow authoritarian ideology in Argentina, there doesn't seem to have been any sort of collective sentiment in the Chilean government beyond patriotism and catholicism. Peron was much closer to being a Fascist in the Italian or German sense, not surprising in light of the steps taken by his government to ferret Nazi war criminals into safe hiding in his country.
Here's the original article with ensuing drama. Nazi Germany wasn't free market but had a considerable commitment to informal corporatist agreements as opposed to enforced central planning.