What is fascism?
Fascism is a hard ideology to define because nearly every modern government or political movement has been called ‘fascist’ by somebody. (The writer has directly addressed the essay question in the topic sentence of the first paragraph, noting how it can be identified as being ambiguous, and how it is difficult to define.)
I contend that fascism was a political movement unique to the early 20th century, especially in Europe, because its worldview was shaped by events and philosophical ideas from the late 19th century until the interwar period. (Evidence that the writer has considered the words meaning in terms of context and knowledge of what periods of time are referred as)

Some people have called states like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq ‘fascist’, but I believe that there is a big difference between authoritarian dictatorship and genuine fascism. (Additional evidence of acquired knowledge, saying that it is the writer’s belief that there is a difference between the two terms ‘authoritarian dictatorship’ and ‘genuine fascism’.)
So how did fascism originally develop? (There is a conversational tone, to the topic sentence of each paragraph, asking relevant key questions that the writer has considered. Note, how this afforded question is compatible with the main essay question. The conversational tone, is effective in portraying the fact that the writer has attempted to acquire and integrate knowledge. The first sentence of the second paragraph, has a conversational tone, extrapolation of the introduction.)
It grew out of a ‘European intellectual movement’ (A learning objective of a History course, is to refer to such concepts, past consciousness?) which criticised the alienating effect that ‘industrial society’ (the major, revolutionary event) had on modern man, as well as late 19th century ‘critiques of Liberalism and Positivism’ (advanced acquiring of knowledge, inclusion of advanced and relevant concept). They believed that industrial society robbed men of their individuality; however they wanted to assert it at the same time (understanding of people of the past). These ideas were adopted by many young people, especially, young, middle-class socialists, (classifying people, in a way only possible after being taught the course) because they wanted to rebel against what they perceived as pointless and archaic bourgeois morality and conformity. (strikes as a refined and intelligent sentence, hitting the mark expected after learning from a course) This is why in the 1930s, fascism looked like it might actually take over Europe: (a date, and ‘take over Europe’, could in my view possibly be a subtle hint at propaganda, which is another term and concept) it successfully harnessed people’s dissatisfaction with modern society and directed it into political channels. (semicolon, ‘as it’, adding to the theme of social consciousness of people in the past)
Fascists (first word, third paragraph, involves classifying people by the word) were influenced by philosophers like Gustav Le Bon who wrote about the need for a strong leading figure to lead the masses against social ills (inclusion and synthesis of writers of the time). He believed that people were fundamentally irrational, and should embrace their irrationality. (A good quote, as it can be used to place and construct the ideas of the German people, possibly? I’m looking at snippets, here now but need to look at the overall picture once I get to the end. Like, do all the paragraphs directly relate to the question, or how indirectly?) This was taken up by fascist ideologues who thought that their members’ irrationality should be harnessed by the leader and directed into political action(blue, higher order concept diagram for addressing the question, where fascism is defined as a political ideology) which was mostly comprised of beating up socialists, communists and trade unionists (or Jews in the case of Nazism). (A meta-description of fascists beliefs, maybe not meta but higher order description). Fascism was a fundamentally violent ideology which praised war and conflict. (Short, effective sentence which sets up for elaboration.) Both Hitler and Mussolini believed that war was the highest expression of human ability and society, and sincerely thought that life was a continual (not continuous, edit of the words, and checking of linkages) conflict between people for limited resources (hence the title of Hitler’s autobiography, Mein Kampf). (‘my struggle’) (Connection between fascism as an ideology, and key individuals). To fascists, war was a good thing because it let nations or races decide who was the strongest and who deserved the planet’s resources. (A conclusive sentence, rephrasing the idea).
Fascism’s insistence on embracing irrationality is one that makes it hard to comprehend; although Hitler and Mussolini wrote their respective handbooks about fascist beliefs (handbooks is a cognitive metaphor, figure of speech, used to sustain the idea of the previous paragraph), they ultimately rejected concrete doctrines and always acted in response to current events (concrete doctrines, also a cognitive metaphor, used to elaborate). This is why a lot of fascist rhetoric and actions seem to be contradictory. (This is an added paragraph, to identify the contradiction between fascism and Hitler’s and Mussolini’s pragmatism. Use of the word ‘actions’ for a clearer communication of the contradiction.)
The First World War gave fascism its mass base. Veterans across Europe felt alienated in civilian society after the war, which could not understand their experiences on the frontline. A lot of them wanted to return to an idealised comradeship and hierarchy of the front line, which fascist organisations like the SA and the Blackshirts offered. A lot of them didn’t actually care about the nuances of fascist ideology, they just felt like they didn’t belong in civilian society and needed order and comradeship. Instead of a real enemy opposing army, fascism offered them a frontline against post-war society which was especially attractive in revisionist countries like Germany and Italy, where many wanted to destroy the existing Liberal order which they blamed for their countries’ humiliations.
Unlike socialists and communists, fascists wanted to cure modern society’s alienation through the creation of a hierarchal state made up of different social classes working together for the benefit of the nation. This is called ‘corporatism’ and is fascism’s only real contribution to economic thought. The competing segments of industrial society would be united by the leader acting entirely through the state, which incidentally would preserve existing capitalist hierarchies and strengthen them. Fascists were for a sort of inverted social-democracy which would give social services to its members but not to anyone else. If you were not a member of the nation or the Volksgemeinschaft - tough luck. This is why many people participated in Fascist and Nazi organizations like the DAP or Hitler Youth; if you did not actively participate in the national or racial community, you were not a part of it and would be socially ostracized (or worse) and denied state benefits. They didn't necessarily believe in fascist ideology, and many opposed it, but the fascist state required them to participate in it.
The major difference between fascism and socialism is that the former was all about preserving hierarchy and bourgeois society, while getting rid of industrial alienation through the creation of a totalitarian society. Mussolini thought that by giving up your individuality to the totalitarian state, you could have your energies and efforts multiplied by its services. Paradoxically, by surrendering individuality, alienation would somehow disappear. In industrial societies, fascism was popular with the middle class because it offered a cultural and social revolution which would keep hierarchies and fortify them through corporatism. Unlike conservatism, fascism wanted a cultural revolution that would create a “New Fascist Man” who had no individuality separate from the state. This is why it was appealing to the middle class; it let them vent their frustrations about modern society and be little revolutionaries while simultaneously protecting their property and position in the social hierarchy.
The emphasis on maintaining private property and hierarchy was what made fascists hate socialists and communists. Fascism marketed itself as the “Third Way” between Liberalism, which was responsible for alienation and the post-war Wilsonian order, and Socialism, which threatened to take bourgeois property in an economic revolution. Conservatives and fascists usually got along because they both hated the same things, but most conservatives failed to understand the revolutionary aspect of fascism and believed they could be controlled to curtail workers’ rights and revise the Paris Treaties, which didn't really work out.

De Grand, Alexander. Italian Fascism: Its Origins and Development. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000.
De Grand, Alexander. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: The ‘Fascist Style of Rule’. London: Routledge, 1995.
Levy, Carl. “Fascism, National Socialism and Conservatives: Comparativist Issues” in Contemporary European History, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Mar., 1999)
Mosse, George. “Introduction: The Genesis of Fascism” in Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1966).
De Grand's books are a great introduction to the development of fascism as a distinct political ideology in the context of Italy and Germany (the 2nd book listed is actually a comparative analysis of fascist government in both countries). Most of what I've written is sourced from Levy & Mosse's articles which are about fascism as an international phenomenon in interwar Europe, but if you want to check out a competing explanation for the social role of fascism, check out Emilio Gentile's article which argues that fascism served as a secular, political religion. I'm not entirely convinced by his thesis but it is one of the major competing theories out there.