charlie – I can’t agree in all respects with your summary of fascism and, having read through Roger Griffin’s article, I think I can see where these conceptions originate. By no means do I dismiss Griffin as I agree with him in part. However, I would say describing him as a '‘real expert" inappropriate as he remains someone who has considered the events upon which he levies his opinion.

When he sticks to clear factual events there is little argument. However, there are some ‘odd’ claims on his part which are not rationalised. Examples; He states Italy and Germany were the only countries where fascism became the state power. What about Spain? He states; ”the Fascist Party led by Benito Mussolini initially faced competition from another fascist movement led by war hero Gabriele D’Annunzio.” Hmm, the older D’Annunzio was the first to adopt the Black Shirt and the first to adopt the old Roman straight arm salute, but, he and Mussolini were friends and Beni looked up to him and sought his advice and later gave him a high fascist position. Misleading and tenuous to say Beni faced ‘competition’ from him with the implication of acrimonious rivalry? But, if that was the case, I’d like some rational please.

I can’t see fascism is innately racist or xenophobic? There may be an argument for nazism (with which I differentiate), but there again, the original example we had also included ‘ubermensch’ and ‘untermensch’ (superman and subhuman), and now we get into Nietzsche?

I find Griffin ‘politics’ a lot in places. Too often, for my liking, he states fascism comprises XYZ, then goes on to say ‘but not in every case’. If you consider all his ‘ahs’, ‘buts’ and ‘then again’, the impression is he’s making statements then perforating them. As they say; ’lead, follow, or get the f/ck out the way’ Still someone worth reading though.

No.9