Quoting The Corporate State in Action, page 131:
By 1934, according to Mussolini, fully three‐quarters of [Fascist] business rested on the shoulders of the State. But he could have been referring only to banking and heavy industry. Signor Pirelli, an outstanding business man and a power in the corporative system, explained: ‘Beyond the frontiers there has been a misunderstanding of the meaning of one of Mussolini’s phrases to the effect that three‐quarters of the Italian economic system, both industrial and agricultural, is under State supervision. Almost all the medium‐sized and little firms and the great majority of slightly larger firms, with the exception of a few categories, are completely outside the sphere of the State’s healing activity.’ Business policies came to be increasingly shaped by the Government, but security against the risks of business was provided only to the biggest capitalists.
(Emphasis added. Pirelli’s statement is furthermore evidenced by the fact that dozens of thousands of small businesses unable to obtain either loans or subsidies had no choice but to file for bankruptcy; the rural petite‐bourgeoisie received little or no help, as the Fascists ignored thousands of requests for financial aid.)
The organization of twenty‐two ‘category corporations,’ early in 1934, was acclaimed by Fascist politicians and economists as a bold step towards the realization of the corporative ideal. […] Certain more sanguine observers saw the new bodies as media for complete governmental control of the productive system, thus beginning a type of planned, collective economy. But this ‘bolshevistic’ view was contradicted by more powerful authorities, who looked upon the Corporations as useful auxiliaries to the going order. Thus, Professor Gino Arias […] argued that ‘one must first and foremost exclude the State or any public body such as a syndicate, or more important still a Corporation, from taking upon itself the management of businesses and thus eliminating private enterprise or placing it in a thoroughly subordinate position. This would be in contradiction to the Charter of Labor.’
(Emphasis added.)
Lastly, there is no reason to believe that most or all capitalists were unhappy about the state’s widespread (but very gentle) involvements in the realm of big business either. Quoting Germany, Italy and the International Economy 1929–1936, pages 58–9:
With IRI [Institute for Industrial Reconstruction], the fascist régime was able to implement its preference for big businesses, and to launch consolidations in the sectors deemed strategically important.
Typically, the corporate élites were not concerned about the large‐scale state involvement. Although it happened that besides the financial involvement, structural changes up to the appointment of a “trusted board” were enforced, the majority of entrepreneurs appreciated the state becoming a shareholder. Particularly those sectors could benefit that had been less attractive for private capital. The position of the entrepreneurs was strengthened by the appointment of its lobby organisation Confindustria, which had been in operation since 1910, to an official body the economic administration. Henceforth, the entrepreneurs were committed in inter‐ministerial and inter‐corporate committees and further strengthened the ties between the state and private businesses.