You could just look at the many similarities.
So, were the Vietcong "Fascist" then? They exhibited "victim" hood.
...It is further back in American history that one comes upon the earliest phenomenon that seems functionally related to fascism: the Ku Klux Klan. Just after the Civil War, some Confederate officers, fearing the vote given to African Americans by the Radical Reconstructionists in 1867, set up a militia to restore an overturned social order. The Klan constituted an alternate civic authority, parallel to the legal state, which, in its founders' eyes, no longer defended their community's legitimate interests. In its adoption of a uniform (white robe and hood), as well as its techniques of intimidation and its conviction that violence was justified in the cause of the group's destiny, the first version of the Klan in the defeated American South was a remarkable preview of the way fascist movements were to function in interwar Europe. -Robert Paxton, the anatomy of fascism
This is one historians take on Fascism. I'm sorry, but he is wrong. All Fascist regimes did, in fact, demonstrate a "corporatist" ideology. Salazar Portugal had a corporate state, Dolfus Austria had a corporate state and German did as well, that's why it was called "national Socialism".
By the way, not all Fascist regimes are overcome by a sense of "victim hood" either. Portugal, called itself fascist, and never declared war on any other country, nor did they victimize themselves. Austria as well, was never a "victim" state, nor was Italy for that matter.
Again, I would ask you to show me how the Fascists of Europe were "influenced" by the KKK. Give me one fascist leader who quoted any ku klux klan leader or practice.
In no other place did fascist regimes differ more than in economic policy. It was used as a way to unite the nation and further its interests.
That is simply not true. All fascist regimes instituted some form of "corporatism". I'll grant you that they were not exactly the same, but neither were all communist states, would you deny that communism is an economic ideology.
Corporatism in Mussolini's case was a means to an end and is in no way a necessary condition for a group to be considered fascist.
No, Mussolini did not define corporatism as a "means to an end". He very clearly said that Fascism itself was to be defined as corporatism. Since Mussolini is the founder of Fascism, I am inclined to take his word for it.
They all do feel they are the victims of national decline however, and they are not afraid to use violence against those who they feel are contributing to the decline or oppose them from achieving their "destiny."
Many fascist regimes did not seek to expand their power, and were only interested in improving their own society.