You’re suggesting that people can’t participate in societal planning because they disagree with your causes. You just dress it up in overly dramatic phrases like “anti-social” and “selfish greed” to make inhumanely oppressing them palatable. This was bog standard behavior of fascism in Italy.

It doesn’t seem like fascism to you because you’ve done some mental gymnastics to pretend you’re not just crushing intellectual opposition, but that’s all it is in the end. Op is not punching anyone in the face. He/she is just blatantly unsupportive of socialism.

Focusing solely on getting rich to the detriment of other people is the antithesis of "societal planning". I'm not sure why you're defending this behavior. Do you really believe that people who strive for profit over the well-being of other people are in any way being "social"? Do you see them as the necessary negative force for positive action to be possible? Do you really believe that humans require adversity to succeed, and that those who choose to be adverse agents are engaging in some self-sacrificial martyrdom so society can benefit from their negative influence?

Please, I want to know; what benefits do the actions of the op have for "societal planning"? The person he was replying to was at least honest in admitting that this behavior "served little social good".

Once again, I think you'd do well to actually read what fascism actually stood for. The propaganda of fascism had a lot more to say about nationalism, "shared history" and the good of corporations than it did to say about things being "anti-social" or even mentioning "selfish greed".