>>17968569
Zeev Sternhell is the historian I'm most aware of who emphasizes fascism as a distinct ideology. I don't know the answer to your question though, like why is it controversial. Part of the problem is that fascists themselves didn't like to be weighed down by theory, and perhaps these professors tend to be very theoretical, and the fascists didn't think like those professors do. The whole concept of systematic thought was not the fascist M.O., being based as it was on emotion, myths, and the "triumph of the will."

Sternhell saw it as a synthesis of nationalism and anti-materialist (anti-Marxist) socialism. It was a revolutionary ideology which rejected Enlightenment rationalism while focusing on "unity" and myths of a heroic struggle. War for the fascist is a revolutionary force, it's a positive thing that leads to transformation and renewal. It's a purifying, unifying, even spiritual experience. The military and war-focused stuff doesn't get mentioned as much but I think it's central to it. It's a bit like Starship Troopers or something, which also ties into not thinking too much, it gets in the way of taking action and demonstrating courage. The fascist parties were organized along military lines with the leader being like a commander-in-chief, and it relates to the cross-class / "organic" society stuff because everyone in the military has a place to be and a job to do:
https://youtu.be/TryfqARSEd4