Despite Professor Challenger's implication in the ‘Genealogy of Morals’ plateau of A Thousand Plateaus (Deleuze and Guattari 1987: 43; see also 221) that ‘rhizomatics, stratoanalysis, schizoanalysis, nomadology’ and so forth are merely ‘various names’ for a single discipline, the approaches to fascism presented in the two volumes of Capitalism and Schizophrenia are not obviously identical. Indeed, in an important essay John Protevi has gone so far as to claim that the first step in understanding the concept of fascism presented in A Thousand Plateaus is to ‘distinguish it from the treatment of fascism in Anti-Oedipus’ (Protevi 2000: 167), and he in effect rejects the latter in favour of the former. So who got it right – Professor Protevi, or Professor Challenger? There are ample reasons to question the rather stark contrast Protevi draws between the two volumes, but it is more important to note that his essay was written some time ago – and that A Thousand Plateaus appeared nearly two decades before that. For the point of revisiting a political concept such as fascism (or any political concept, according to Deleuze and Guattari) is not to erect a catch-all definition valid for all time, but to reconstruct the concept in relation to an Event – in this case, the advent of a twenty-firstcentury fascism in the United States. Rather than draw up a list of features (exhaustive or minimal), something like a pedagogy of the concept will be more fruitful: showing how and why it gets constructed out of components of other concepts, and in response to what kind of problem.