The fasces on the lincoln memorial were just the old "more powerful together than separate" schtick. That's why the bundle had 13 sticks, as in the 13 colonies, being tied together to become a weapon far more durable than they'd been if separate. It was basically anti-separatist analogy akin to the cut up snake flag but honestly better.
Mussolinni however only grabbed this icon and used it to push up his own ideology, so basically, Fascism would be a complete misnomer because the icon was stolen, but that is what the ideology was called by its proponents so it stuck, kinda like how the swastika is now inseparable form Nazism despite being a fairly common icon in paganism (in the north meant to represent peace, used by defensive militias as a sort of charm, like "hope the weapons bearing this need to be used as little as possible" in the mediterranean being an icon for the sun. Being used as a talisman for sea merchants to find their way. Until nazis saw it in the weapons of the north and boats of the south and thought "aha! it must mean military power! And have somehow turned into the best real life Monty Python skit ever since... Seriously it takes a special kind of fuckup to use the ancient equivalent of the fucking hippie icon as a symbol for militarism.)
Point is. Fascism certainly is... or was, an ideology, it has multiple tennets had public figures and parties and spawned multiple movements after its wake. Fascism however was always a bullshit term appropiated from other ideologies. And fascism nowadays is just a bullshit slur applied to whatever the progressives don't like with little to no real value because politics suck.
So as to what defined fascism, there are multiple issues here. As with all political movements fascism fragmented and changed as its situation did, but in general if we're talking about the original politics born in ww1 italy, there are 3 main parts, with it's successorts having variations on one or more of this:
1-Politics: For this I will just use the 8 values compass, except adding 1 more axis, namely Centralism vs Regionalism, it is the best way to simplify this really:
a) Capitalism vs Socialism: Fascists were born as a direct opposition to communism, you'd think this places them on the extreme capitalist side of the spectrum. Ha ha ha ha no. Maybe the south american versions but the european ones were more to the center than anything else. Mostly their view on economics was purely based on corrupt nepotism, they would put taxes, regulations and nationalizations however fit their current goal and equally relax said measures or privatize shit whenever was convenient for them, this is the axis that's harder to pinpoint mostly because for them the economy was purely to be seen as a tool to take power, nothing more, nothing less.
b) Nationalism vs Globalism: NATIONALISM. Period. Extremist at that. No exceptions. Fuck everyone else. Downright Isolationism in most cases too. Just a case of international politics can go fuck themselves.
c) Liberalism vs Authoritarianism: AUTHORITARIANISM. Again, extremist too. While America used the fascia to represent 13 colonies turned into 1 country, for fascism it was an icon of being stronger together, colectivism akin to the commie version, difference was that the commies saw collectivism as the proletariat electing people to represent them and having councils, or "bottom up" collectivism, while in fascism the collective took orders for whoever was in the government at the moment, or "top down" collectivism. Which really just means that commies had fake elections while fascists had no elections, both will try to grab your guns as soon as they get a whif of power and follow it with a "righteous revolution", same dogs, different collars, horseshoe theory says hi.
d) Progressivism vs Conservatism: PROGRESSIVISM. Yeah you'd think that's a weird one ain't it. But fascism while not a typically progressive ideology is directly Anti-Conservative, it's just that its version of progressivism is also opposed to what we now understand as progressivism. That is not to say that fascists groups haven't found power through conservative rhetoric, Franco sure got a hell of a lot of mileage out of that, but this much like the econmical aspect is just a tool to rile up the masses for their revolution, and much like Ancoms are the first to get the bullet after a comunist revolution, the conservatives better have enough power to consolidate their position once the coup is over or be gullible enough to not stand in the way when their culture starts being shifted drastically, 'cause it sure as shit will. And indeed many of the older spanish conservatives came to hate Franco and lament ever thinking he was on their side and this has been cause for internal conflict in the spanish right wing ever since.
e) Centralism vs Regionalism: CENTRALISM. Do I even need to explain this one? In case the prior tennants didn't make it clear, fascism's core is "I WANT ALL POWER NOW AND EVERYONE ELSE SHUT UP AND OBEY". Separation of power, no matter if through the 3 branches model or through regionalism, is anathema to them. The more well intentioned ones (*cough* Primo de Rivera *cough* Pinochett *cough*) Simply thought the country had already failed and strong central power was needed in order to solve its short term issues, usually with the goal of eventually changing into some new normal once the issues were fixed. Most were just in it for the money. (*cough* Mussolinni *cough* Franco *cough*) This is why as I keep mentioning, fascism is a self defeating ideology. It is just too easy to corrupt and too atractive for those that are already bundles of sticks, even if you get 1 good leader, chances are his subordinates will be a buncha cunts, and his successors even worse.
2-Goals: the goals of fascism are easy to understand:
a) REACTIONARY, meaning they are born out of the direct hatred of another contemporary ideology, typically but not always communism. (Primo for instance was born out of opposition to turnismo (or the uniparty in english) instead, with anarchists being seen as mostly another issue in his way and commies mostly not being that much of an issue in spain at the time.) and it always argues that to purge this ideology the entire socioeconomic structure of the country needs to be changed and its culture alter, hence their anti-conservatism despite also being opposed to other progressive ideologies. When people say fascism is an ideology of hate they're really not wrong, their most defining characteristic and core goal is their hatred for others. Not that any saturday morning "love" or "friendship" powers can really fix it. Only way to fix it is not polarizing the cultural climate to the point it gives rise to this shit to begin with, something lefties might wanna take note of, the fucking idiots.
b) EXPANSIONIST, their core wish once they consolidate their power is to grow their country's power as much as possible, typically through landgrabs. This is not to say that they're always successful, kek at Franco managing to loose land and cause the rise of independentism instead, great job you idiot! But it is their objective. Mostly because since they've already supplanted the power structure of the country, it is now their own power they are growing... Again, this is why fascism never works for long, too easy to corrupt even if well intentioned. Much like idiots claim communism totally works "if the unions aren't corrupt" you will see fascist proponents claim it can work if the top brass isn't corrupt. Yes, but for that you need to apply magic, human beings don't work that way, you might as well say it works "if the tooth fairy finances it."
And that's about it. Yeah it's kinda weird how simplistic it is, and kinda refreshing if you're used to left wing politics, which typically have a goals list that takes several books to explain. But then again that's because fascism is a very simplistic ideology, and kinda childish in a way, it sure understands psychology as little as marxism does, just on the polar opposite extreme when it comes to its conclussions. It's basically authoritarianism taken to its extreme, even more so than if they had maxed out socialism when it comes to the economic axis, beacause at least with socialism you have some kinda checks and balances in place like the unions, but the whole point of fascist economics is to use the private sector to prop up their buddys and the public sector to bully anyone who threatens them, at its core, it's just an extremely corrupt ideology, based purely on the accumulation of power on as little people as possible, which is why it started being used as a slur against authoritarianism and centralism in general despite being only one denomination, it is kinda crazy just how far down the rabbit hole that went, being practically on par with the absolutism of the bourbons, except with the party deciding successor instead of biology, wich ironically enough is just another check and balance they took out to give more power to themselves. I mean really who the fuck would've thought the 20th century would see the rise of an ideology even more totalitarian than feudalism, that's kinda crazy.
3-Finally, Aesthetics: militarism, postive view on violence, exaltation of youth and masculinity, romantic symbolism usually based on the past (typically on rome) and a focus on charismatic authority, typically devolving into egotism or cult of personality. It is also usually anti-intellectual, and I don't just mean anti-university but also anti-technical college, thinking that workers should get only the training necessary for their job so as to avoid them reaching more liberal conclussions and questioning their place in the state's machinery, essentially seeing the control of schooling and formation as a way to ensure obedience and complacency.
I don't think I need to explain that part, you've all seen the memes.
Those are the 3 facets of fascism. Which is why seeing the current american right wing and specially Trump compared to fascism is hilarious at best and infuriating at worst. For the most part so-called trumpism is regionalist (pro-state), conservative and capitalist, and when it comes to authoritarianism they're mostly moderates, yes they might be nationalist but on every other part of that test they fail miserably. When it comes to aesthetics only thing Trump got going is his populism (cult of personality) but the left ticks more boxes that's for sure and he sure as shit ain't an expansionist, quite the opposite, although he is reactionary. Overall, he sure scores less than 50% on the fascism scale, and the uniparty scores considerably higher than that. (reactionary (their entire rhetoric is based on anti-Trump sentiment), expansionist, militaristic, postitive view on violence, exaltation of youth, romantic symbolism, centralist, progressivist and public/private hybrid economics. Fuck it's not a bingo but it gets close, only misses 2/5 parts of the spectrum, the charisma (which is mostly due to how incompetent they are at it) and the exaltation of masculinity. And they also hate technical colleges and STEM so they're close on the anti-intellectualism too. It sure is closer!)
