I thought that first thing a fascist leader has is a solid, stable country with a devoted following powerful enough for said leader to increase his ambitions beyond wildest dreams and make it all collapse under the weight of his own delusions.
If I would compare OBL to anyone that would be Che – the lone, ultra-dedicated and way out there disciplined exporter of revolution in a place that is neither ready for revolution nor really needs a revolution with his sight on the plight of poor and oppressed but with no ear to their willingness or readiness relying on philosophical mantra of utopian society.
And even then, Che is light years ahead of him in terms of having some success in the place where he ventured.
I would argue more but then I saw greatest line in GD yet:
Did you start the thread to demonstrate the strength of your belief or to challenge your rather outlandish assumptions?
All Fasicsts considered economics secondary. That was their main (in fact, more or less only) objection to Communism so many of them came from or eventually went towards: they considered “class warfare” a contradition in terms, because different classes of a single nation had the same . But they certainly used the same ends if not quite the same means: all resources ultimately controlled and directed through the state. This came directly from William James’ Pragmatist philosophy, and was inspired the Wilsonian Progressives, as well as Soren’s philosophy.
However, you are mistaken in saying that control of a sector was not ideological. The government could, and would, control any sector it felt it needed when it needed it. They saw it as more efficient and effective (i.e., pragmatic) to allow private ownership - but that ownership was always conditional on serving the greater good of the state and nation.
The difference here between the Communist and Fascist thought was that Communism obsessed with the “means of production,” and tended to reduce people down to unruly produciton inputs tied to a particular business. Hence the Soviets and Chinese and all created semi-militarized organizations which feuded over employees, who were tied strongly to their employer like slaves. The Fascists viewed the people as natural supporters of the nation - and those who did not were perverse thought-criminals. The Communists dehumanized everyone, the Fascists dehumanized everyone outside the outspoken, avowed loyalists.
However, I do think the (lower-case) fascist label definitely applies to the Islamofacsists. Sure, it’s not a term which is exactly, but neither is Allemange or German, either. It’s a convenient and fairly descriptive term which more than adequately conveys the facts of the situation. The lower-f facist is little more than an insult, and even in the immediatte post-war period, there were a lot of fascist parties which had no real ideological content. They just wanted to control a dictatorship themselves or whatnot.
I hope I did not go into argument, I asked for education and many people made good points. They did not completely convince me. I hope you will take the time to explain to me how I am being outlandish.