Chomsky's logic is flawed on two fronts.
First, he fails to distinguish between voluntary or involuntary participation in said corporations.
A corporation is only totalitarian to the degree participation in it is voluntary or involuntary.
If participation is voluntary, it cannot be totalitarian by definition.
Second, he denigrates corporations as the root cause of societal decay, even though money is upstream from culture. So instead of blaming the low quality of money and it's debasement which orients all people, government and corporations towards perverse incentives which produces perverse outcomes, he misplaces the blame.
His systematic thinking of societal integrity strikes at the branch while missing the root of the problem. He needs to dig down to the root and strike there rather than catering to his temperaments particular moral psychology which Jonathan Haidt delineated in his book The Righteous Mind, which view corporations with innate distrust. Tangentially, he rails against the existence of dominance hierarchies which predate human existence by millions of years, so that point of his as it relates to corporations is not valid since dominance hierarchies would continue to exist even if humans ceased to exist in nature, and even exist in his own thinking and writing through Zifs Law.
A sound money system voluntarily selected by people, governments, and corporations gets to one of the roots of the problem of societal decay he's concerned with, by cleansing the underlying incentives and constraints that motivate moral choices, since no man, corporation, or government is better than their incentives.