"Bad design flaws" in Hobsbawm's method, or in nations?
Funny, and not like it will stoke controversy or anything, so for the record - no political discussion. But I just finished Roger Griffin's
Fascism: A Quick Immersion. Griffin is an advocate for a "generic" concept of fascism, meaning that it's a genus that encompasses a variety of species of political movements, as opposed to "specific" concepts of it that limit the term to only a particular historical entity. But he takes an interesting approach to it; most ideologies, we tend to define intellectually, by the ideas of a political theorist like John Locke for liberalism or Karl Marx for communism. Fascism doesn't really have such a theorist, which is why there's so much wrangling over how to define it.
Griffin doesn't treat fascism as a ideological
theory so much as an ideological
narrative. The mouthful phrase he uses is "revolutionary palingenetic ultranationalism." What that means is that the "ultranation" is the protagonist in the story; it's the nation conceived of as a kind of organism that can be born, grow strong, sicken or die. The "revolutionary palingenetic myth" is that the once-heroic ultranation has gotten weak, sick, and decayed, and needs to be reborn through a radical purge of corrupting impurities in its institutions, culture, and population, so that it can enter a renewed heroic future. By that measure, there are lots of parties and movements that may be variously populist, authoritarian, or right-wing, but they aren't necessarily "fascist" unless they are driven by such a narrative. Meanwhile the narrative itself is very flexible and can incorporate or discard all kinds of contradictory ideas and agendas.