Fascist? Left? Right? What?

(Source)

So meine Damen und Herren, do you see the symbol on the wall up and to the right of President Kennedy?

Yes Sarge, we see it.

Now I'm sure some of you know what that is and some of you don't. So let me enlighten those who don't, after I give you a little historical background. Of course. 'Tis my nature. Shaun gives you flowers and grass, I give you boring history lessons.

The fasces is an ancient Etruscan* symbol, usually composed of a bundle of wooden rods, bound together with an axe head protruding from the bundle. In ancient Rome, the fasces symbolized the power and authority of a Roman magistrate. When a magistrate was proceeding about the city of Rome upon his duties, he would be accompanied by his lictors, in essence his bodyguards. Provided of course that said magistrate held imperium, the power to command. (No, I'm not going to attempt to explain ancient Rome here. As fun as that might be...)

The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity (see Unity makes strength); a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is very difficult to break. This symbolism occurs in Aesop's fable "The Old Man and his Sons". A similar story is told about the Bulgar Khan Kubrat, giving rise to the Bulgarian national motto "Union gives strength" (Съединението прави силата). The axe represented the power over life and death through the death penalty, although no Roman magistrate could summarily execute a Roman citizen after passage of the laws of the twelve tables. Bundled birch twigs symbolise corporal punishment (see birching). (Source)

Oh yeah, a lictor carried a fasces. So the symbol is very Italian and very Roman (don't you mean Etruscan? Silence!) which is probably why Mussolini chose it as the symbol for his political party.

Italian Fascism is based upon Italian nationalism, and in particular seeks to complete what it considers as the incomplete project of Risorgimento by incorporating Italia Irredenta ("unredeemed Italy") into the state of Italy. The National Fascist Party (PNF) founded in 1921, declared that the party was to serve as "a revolutionary militia placed at the service of the nation. It follows a policy based on three principles: order, discipline, hierarchy". (Source)

So that's where the term "fascist" came from, though they were buddy-buddy with Hitler's Nazis, they weren't the same. Though the Nazis were very much into the whole "order, discipline, hierarchy" thing. Both were all about nationalism, the Nation, embodied by the State, was far more important than the individual. You play by the rules. Or else.

Both the Fascists and the Nazis were also big into having a dictator, the Führerprinzip as the Germans called it, a hierarchy of organizations, each with a leader, which answers to the next leader above them in the chain. All answering to the HMFIC, Hitler or Mussolini.

Worthy of note, Hitler's title, der Führer, and Mussolini's title Il Duce, both translate to "The Leader." There are many bosses but only one capo di tutti capi, boss of all the bosses.

Under both Fascism and Nazism the individual is meaningless outside of what he/she can do for the State (and that is always capitalized). Unless you're the Leader, then you can truthfully state l'état, c'est moi! (I am the State! - Louis XIV)

In reality, Fascism is a very post-Depression Italian thing. In Mussolini's mind it was the return to the glories of the ancient Roman Empire. If someone claims to be a "fascist" and they're not living in the Italy of the '20s, '30s, and '40s, odds are, they don't have a clue about Fascism. (Same goes for someone calling someone else a fascist. It's name-calling without any historical veracity, at least in my book.)

As to being a Nazi? Okay, if you're all for making Germany great again (not America) and you feel screwed by the Versailles Treaty, and you seek Lebensraum to the east (think Russia), then you might be a Nazi. Oh yeah, it's all the fault of the Jews, at least according to Schicklgruber, only one in a long line of anti-Semites. He was also (most probably) clinically insane.

So you're not an Italian in the early part of the mid-20th Century? You're not German and don't even know what the Versailles Treaty is and you have no desire to be a gentleman farmer on the Russian steppes? Then perhaps you're a Communist...

In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal") is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state. (Source)

This, along with the metric system, was something conjured up by the French during their first revolution back in 1789. (They had two, some say three, more later. In 1830, 1848, and 1968. Some scholars don't count the last as a "true" revolution. Mais je divague.)

Okay Communism is one of those ideologies which could work "if only the right people were in charge." Nope, it has to start as a dictatorship. Those who've studied the thing have to monitor and instruct and...

Hey, this being in charge stuff is pretty great. Hey, I think the proles aren't ready yet, I need to stay in charge until things "settle down." Even the eventual goal is a sort of dictatorship of the proletariat. Not exactly "everybody gets a trophy" but all the right sort will.

All those "isms" are an affront to human dignity and nearly always result in the deaths of millions. So yeah, let's try it again. And again. And again.

Oh, yeah. That whole left versus right thing as it pertains to politics? Another invention of those French dudes back in 1789.

The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained, "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp." However, the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms "left" and "right" to refer to the opposing sides.

When the National Assembly was replaced in 1791 by a Legislative Assembly comprising entirely new members, the divisions continued. "Innovators" sat on the left, "moderates" gathered in the centre, while the "conscientious defenders of the constitution" found themselves sitting on the right, where the defenders of the Ancien Régime had previously gathered. When the succeeding National Convention met in 1792, the seating arrangement continued, but following the coup d'état of 2 June 1793, and the arrest of the Girondins, the right side of the assembly was deserted, and any remaining members who had sat there moved to the centre. However, following the Thermidorian Reaction of 1794, the members of the far left were excluded, and the method of seating was abolished. The new constitution included rules for the assembly that would "break up the party groups." (Source)

Note that, surprise, surprise, the press was involved in popularizing and screwing up those terms. Also note that the conservatives ("hey, let's not be too hasty in getting rid of the king" crowd which became, over time, the "hey, that constitution is pretty awesome isn't it?" crowd) were also hesitant to divide up into factions, parties, and political groups. Felt it would hurt more than help.

Man, they got that part right.

Le Serment du Jeu de paume - Jacques-Louis David
(The Tennis Court Oath, as envisioned by moi)
(Original)

History, lots of moving parts, easy to get it wrong.

No problem. I got this.

Oops, almost forgot, why is that fasces in the House of Representatives? (Actually there are two, there's one on the other side as well.) Here's the gouge on that -

The wall behind the rostrum still includes decorative Roman fasces—a classical symbol of civic authority and unity—but stylized and in bronze rather than gilded iron. The Founding Fathers consciously cultivated an association with Republican Rome during the early years of the United States, and fasces used in the Chamber are an enduring symbol of that association. Fasces also reference the new philosophy of democracy that they envisioned for America. Like the thin rods bound together in fasces, the individual states achieve their strength and stability through their union under the federal government. (Source)

Like I intimated, history is hard.

* Uh, what's an Etruscan? Why I'm glad you asked, they were an ancient group of people whose civilization predated Rome on the Italian peninsula. Yes, Rome basically wiped their civilization off the map. They owned Tuscany and other places. Man, I would love to own Tuscany. See, now you've got me digressing in the footnotes!