Which is funny, because if it worked like that - that any unenforceable demand in it made the whole thing invalid - then presumably the clause asserting the opposite would also be invalid.
Edit: in other words, you're not legally bound to unlawful parts of a contract.
However, I also believe that unenforceable parts of a contract have no effect, except in the minds of the parties to that contract. My suspicion is that contracts are sometimes drafted with this in mind.
Fascism was a scheme to keep the old aristocrats turning industrialists to keep control of the state, whilst still keeping it under the democratic name. This was devised in the US in the 30ies and then in the old states also. Heavily supported by the US industrialists. Without them the fascism movement had no chance.
The US scheme of fascism came up with cooperate contracts overriding state laws, also pleasing the Chicago crowd, with decentralized control. At the will of the cooperations, who know better than the government of course. That's why Rockefeller could gun down strikers without any repercussions. That's why the Railroad Commission could call state military to gun down independent oil cooperations which undercut prizes of the industrialists. That's not liberalism, that's pure fascism/cooperatism/aristocratism.
By the way, I'm not claiming the things you describe didn't take place for the reasons you claimed. I just don't think it's accurate to describe it as based on fascism.
But the US implemented all the subsequent fascist governments until today. If in Europe, Asia or Latin America's.
Nothing wrong with cooperatism I think.
Fascism first evolved in Italy, where Mussolini and his Partito Nazionale Fascista took power in 1922.