China: Marxist of fascist? Parallels between Xi Jinping's state and Italian fascism

By Reuben Smyth

Introduction:

The question of whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) remained Marxist-Leninist rose alongside Deng Xiaoping’s reforms. The CCP fits no ideological box neatly, but I conclude it is no longer Marxist, and instead resembles a fascist state aligned with the thought of Gentile and Mussolini. Although the CCP lacks some elements of fascism, and the historical context complicates the claim, Xi Jinping’s state still bears a striking resemblance to two core facets of fascism: class collaboration and state-nationalism. These facets are key elements of fascist economic and social policy by encompassing other fascist concepts. For this article, I interviewed a Chinese worker for their thoughts; although not representative, it provides a useful perspective on life as an ordinary citizen.

Class Collaboration:

Fascism aims to solve the question of class struggle through class collaboration, with the state intervening to resolve issues between workers and owners via a corporatist system. The CCP’s economic management resembles this.

The role of Chinese state-run unions shows this, with their primary function being to resolve labour disputes with minimal conflict. For example, in 2014, workers at Changde Walmart had the option to move over 100 miles away or accept the default severance package. The workers were dissatisfied and protested. The ‘Changde City Federation of Trade Unions’ mediated the dispute and concluded that Walmart's actions were legal, telling the workers who did not accept the decision to make individual legal disputes rather than protesting. I asked the Chinese worker whether unions are effective; they said, “We don't have any way to actually talk to them” and, from their experience, all they do is give “rice and peanut oil during the spring festival”. Marxists believe that the role of unions is ensuring the communist state serves the proletariat, shown by Mao’s view that the CCP should “eliminate corruption and bureaucracy… and weed out the capitalists” within trade unions. Instead, Chinese unions prioritise social cohesion over proletariat empowerment, reinforcing a system of class collaboration.

Freedom is therefore conditional, showing workers are subjects rather than masters of the state.

This collaborative approach extends beyond worker relations, with the relationship between the state and businesses harbouring corporatist elements. Despite Marx admitting private capital exists post-revolution, he adds the proletariat must also continuously take “by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie.” Xi contradicts this by claiming that “our country’s private sector should only grow stronger” and enshrining the ‘Two Unswervinglys’ within the constitution. The 2020 Alibaba case displays the fascist elements through the private sector’s interaction with the state. Founder Jack Ma publicly criticised state-owned banks for operating with a "pawn-shop mentality", resulting in him ‘disappearing’ for months. The CCP hit at Alibaba’s market cap through an “anti-trust fine” alongside other punishments. This allowed the state to easily buy a “golden share” in the company, letting it control key decisions whilst restructuring Alibaba from within to align with its political agenda. This resembles the fascist principle of ensuring capital submits to the state. Mussolini himself said, “The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others.”

Overall, economically, the CCP adopts a policy akin to class collaboration, promoting social cohesion through unions and forcing capital to yield to state authority. This mirrors corporatism, a system “opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon” and where “interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State.”

Nationalism and the state:

Integral nationalists believe individual interests are subordinate to those of the nation. Fascists view the nation and the state differently from traditional integral nationalists, arguing that it is “the State which creates the nation” and that “For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.” For fascists, nationalism sacrifices the individual for the nation, and the nation is inseparable from the state.

On whether the CCP is still Marxist, it claims to be in the “primary stage of socialism”, transitioning towards communism. This is feasible, as Marxism-Leninism wants the state to gradually wither away. Mao Zedong applied this to China’s agrarian economy, saying he wanted to abolish state power, “but not right now; we cannot do it yet… China can develop steadily, under the leadership of the working class and the CPC, from an agricultural into an industrial country… into a socialist and communist society”.This shows that the state’s core role in this transitional period is developing the industrial means of production. In the fifty years after Mao’s death, China’s industrial sector expanded significantly, with economist Richard Baldwin calling it the “world’s sole manufacturing superpower.” This is supported by China controlling a quarter of the world’s manufacturing in 2025 and its economy performing 36% above the global average of concentration in advanced industries. Despite clearly becoming an “industrial country”, state control over workers has increased under Xi Jinping. Furthermore, comparisons to Lenin’s NEP hold limited weight, as the NEP acted as a temporary policy that was reversed in seven years; the duration of China’s marketised economy has far extended the NEP’s original purpose.

There are areas of contradiction between the CCP and fascist theory. But nevertheless, its parallels are unmistakable. 

For fascists, the individual must submit to the state and its interests. In China, this is seen in their work culture, specifically the 996. Although technically banned, the Chinese worker I interviewed still works one, claiming “everyone knows it's [the ban] for show”, a view supported by modern studies. This could show that despite saying they protect workers and having the ability to enforce safeguards, the CCP would rather sacrifice worker welfare for economic results. Furthermore, the CCP promotes palingenesis and sacrifice for national development, both being important elements in fascist nationalism. China’s constitution contains palingenetic aspects, with it stating that citizens “shall not undermine the interests of the state” and must “safeguard the security, honour and interests of the motherland”.Freedom is therefore conditional, showing workers are subjects rather than masters of the state. This is palingenetic because the sacrifice is often justified by the “rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”.

One argument that China has remained Marxist rather than fascist is the CCP’s continued use of communist language and symbolism. Would it not contradict their interests to promote an ideology they defy? Would this not just invite domestic and international scrutiny? I argue one must distinguish identity from reality. Deng Xiaoping stated, “We will continue to adhere to Mao Zedong Thought”. Despite this, Deng abandoned communes, promoted private capital and made more changes Mao would have considered revisionist. This is the difference between identity and practice, with this difference stemming from legitimacy. The CCP’s use of palingenesis focuses on the CCP saving China from the century of humiliation; abandoning the Party’s Marxist origins would de-legitimise their claim to this achievement. Therefore, to establish whether the state is communist, one must evaluate practice. I asked the Chinese worker about Marxist discussions in China; they said, “It’s only discussed under certain circumstances where them kids gotta learn politics from the textbook”. Additionally, those who promote Marxism separate from the Party line are punished, as seen by the arrests of Marxist protestors and the CCP banning Marxist websites.

Conclusion:

We can conclude that the CCP has strayed from its Marxist origins. Its promotion of capital and emphasis on social cohesion over worker empowerment evidences the state’s divorce from Marxism. The CCP prioritises control over Marxist development, with its authority overshadowing the freedom of its workers.

The Party’s resemblance to Italian Fascism is also evident. Economically, its emphasis on state authority and unity bears resemblance to corporatism. Chinese unions serve the state, and the CCP treats private capital as something to control rather than abolish. Its nationalism is intertwined with the state, resulting in the interests of the nation-state taking priority over the masses. Consequently, the CCP’s actions and structure resemble those of a fascist state rather than a Leninist one. Does this mean that China is entirely fascist? No. There are areas of contradiction between the CCP and fascist theory. But nevertheless, its parallels are unmistakable. 

These parallels are significant for three core reasons: they help us understand the practice of fascist theory in modern material conditions, help us understand how the CCP operates, assisting with the study of political science, it demonstrates the importance of separating identity from action, showing the importance of questioning state narratives.

Overall, China’s red veneer appears to be peeling away, with the blade of the fasces increasingly coming to the fore.

Image: Wikimedia Commons