ABSTRACT This paper seeks an integral part of the two concepts of the political theorist William E. Connolly's ‘aspirational fascism’ and the intellectual historian Enzo Traverso's ‘postfascism’, thereby revealing the conceptual relevance of each concept. Its primary purpose is to give details of why movements as depicted by these concepts should be categorised as postfascism, rather than as aspirational fascism, and thereby to unravel these movements that have prospered in advanced countries under liberal democracy. Since fascism emerged in the first (...) half of the twentieth century, many prominent scholars, including the two aforementioned theorists, have been engaged in its discourse. In the light of a comparative analysis, I argue that although Connolly's aspirational fascism works by deciphering certain far-right movements, it has severe conceptual difficulties. Finally, I conclude that theorists should prefer to use Traverso's postfascism in that it captures the essence of broader far-right and authoritarian political movements in the West and is more convincing due to its accurate understanding of the key elements of those movements in liberal democracies in terms of involuntary and unconscious practice, rather than in strategical terms. (shrink)