How might histories of fascism in interwar Europe help us today? Languages of “fascism” are now constantly in play – as warning and slogan; as emotional rallying-point; as rhetorics of recognition and abuse; as a boundary of legitimate politics – but rarely as carefully informed argument. For effective politics, though, we need historically grounded analysis that can avert tendentious and direct linkages that may be emotionally satisfying, but fail to capture fascism’s distinctiveness as a type of politics or explain how it comes to power. What might be consistent across such vastly variable contexts as the early twentieth century and now? Fascism silences and even murders its opponents rather than arguing with them; it prefers authoritarianism over democracy; it pits an aggressively exclusionary idea of the nation against a pluralism that values and prioritizes difference. So what are the circumstances under which fascism builds its appeal? What makes it desirable as an “extra-systemic” solution, as an alternative to the practices of democratic constitutionalism? What kind of crisis brings fascism onto the agenda? What is the character of the fascism-producing crisis?