He says that the government taking control of the banks isn't socialism. Instead it is a fundamental aspect of capitalism that when equity holders can't repay creditors, the creditors become the owners of the company. Due to the unusual structure of banks, the government becomes the owner. Even though the government ends up owning the bank it is not socialism because of the mechanism through which that occurred.
So if I get the gist of his argument, when an aspiring tyrant-king decides to take over a democracy "due to the unsual structure of [congress]," the new structure "is not [a fascist dictatorship] because of the mechanism through which [it] occurred."
(By the way, I support taking over the banks due to their unusual structure, the systemic risks they represent but do not properly account for due to a tragedy of the commons problem--where the commons is the system they are a part of--and for other reasons. I just don't think its not socialism.)
He says that the government taking control of the banks isn't socialism. Instead it is a fundamental aspect of capitalism that when equity holders can't repay creditors, the creditors become the owners of the company. Due to the unusual structure of banks, the government becomes the owner. Even though the government ends up owning the bank it is not socialism because of the mechanism through which that occurred.