@Lure
OK, here we go. Here is the author's definition of fascism:
The first step is to define ‘fascism’ in an operational manner that distinguishes it from other types of authoritarian ideologies and regimes. The standard, dictionary definition, "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization", is too vague to be useful. In its place I characterize a fascist regime first and foremost as capitalist and anti-labour. The two are related because suppression of the working class holds wages low, which facilitates the faster growth of profit. Suppression of the standard of living also allows for export-oriented capitalism, though historical evidence shows that wages can rise in fascist societies.
Almost all capitalist dictatorships are aggressively anti-labour, but not all are fascist--the Pinochet regime was authoritarian, anti-labour but not fascist. To qualify as fascist an anti-labour capitalist dictatorship must boast (the appropriate word) other characteristics. As Hitler and Mussolini demonstrated, fascist regimes are more than nationalist, they are expansionist.
The author's absurd conflation of fascism with capitalism would qualify nearly every country in the world as fascist to some degree, as capitalism by definition is not democratic and is anti-labor. Is China capitalist? On the spectrum of pure capitalist---pure communist, I find it hard to argue that China can be conclusively labeled capitalist. With an invasive government, a subservient judiciary, and a state-controlled financial system, can we say that private contracts will be honored, that property rights will be respected, and that private entities are free to own the means of production and distribution? The author conveniently and implicitly assumes that this point need not be argued (with his flippant " if China is not capitalist, the Pope is not a Catholic" comment), but it's an open question.
If Europe is still coming to grips with what it means to be a "social democracy" that is set apart from the vicious Anglo-Saxon market economies, then why should it be obvious that China does not fall closer to the communist end of the spectrum? John Weeks himself has called for public ownership of the financial sector in order to create a social democracy. China fulfills this definition. So much for the easy definition of China as capitalist, unless John Weeks wants to invoke the tiresome "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Let's now turn to the author's invention of the additional criteria that that distinguishes "fascist authoritarianism" from run-of-the-mill authoritarianism:
1) expansionist, or "chauvinistic expansion" (whatever that means)
2) denying the values of the Enlightenment and individual liberties, including open inquiry
3) corporatist social organization
The inclusion of capitalism as a defining characteristic of fascism was a clever device by the author to exclude his beloved USSR from the definition of fascism, as the USSR otherwise meets all of the author's invented criteria (expansionist, denied the values of the Enlightenment and individual liberties, and a party-based, corporatist social organization).
But even as the author acknowledges, it is not clear that China can be defined as expansionist, as its expansionism is magically forgiven as long as it takes place under an explicitly Communist regime. Since expansion took place under Communism, but not under the pseudo-capitalist state in which China now finds itself, the author is forced to admit that China fails this definition.
How about the second definition, concerning Enlightenment values? The author offers this "evidence":
In my experience the Chinese regime and the Communist Party ideology satisfy the anti-Enlightenment test.
Really. That's it. While we can all agree that China has an extreme censorship regime in place to suppress free expression and chill open debate, the other values of the Enlightenment (scientific inquiry, divorce from religion/religious tolerance, skepticism, etc.) are not incompatible with the modern Chinese state. Until and unless the author provides an argument, let alone a convincing argument, I see no need to address this point further.
Finally, the corporatist social organization. Here's the author's explanation:
Under fascism, the regime seeks to destroy and replace civil society with corporatist structures, the most important of which is a mass political party subservient to the regime and its faux participatory organizations, for youth (the
Hitler Youth), the working class (the
German Labour Front), and even exercise and fitness groups (
Nationalsozialistischer Reichsbund für Leibesübungen).
The USSR fit this definition quite well, and it's clear that the CCP, as a monopoly party, has total political control. It is undeniable that the state is subservient to the CCP, and even the PLA is an arm of the CCP and not the Chinese state. The CCP has also worked to suppress or destroy an independent civil society, seeing independent groups like NGOs, think tanks, publications, and religions/sects as a threat to CCP rule. Acknowledged and accepted. However, I have not seen evidence that the CCP seeks this control in order to brainwash the population to the same degree that the Nazis did, and indeed, I would be hard pressed to even define Xi's "Chinese Dream" except in vaguely defined concepts like "national glory." In short, the CCP has destroyed civil society to retain power, not to drive an ideology. If anything, the CCP displays a remarkable level of pragmatism--didn't the author previously argue that the "Chinese Communist Party" was in fact capitalist?
The CCP has approximately 90 million members, in a country with a population of approximately 1.4bn. By what definition can we call that a "mass political party"?
-----
I'm done with John Weeks, we can throw this article in the trash bin. I wanted to address a few of the points you made, though.
In capitalist economy it's the other way around. Party/state is influenced by the bourgeoisie. In China bourgeoisie controls a good portion of CPC not the other way around.
An insightful observation. I've said repeatedly that the future of China is Singapore, but perhaps Hong Kong will be an interim step. In HK, the business community ("functional constituencies") is granted an explicit quota within the legislative council. I believe China is experimenting in HK to create a transitional form of democracy that can be replicated in the mainland without depriving the CCP of control, so we should closely watch what happens there. It won't be a surprise if your observation of bourgeoisie control of the CCP is formalized at some point, a la Hong Kong.
I also want to dispute his views about expansionism. German invasion of USSR in WW2 was because of Realpolitik. Not because of ideology of Nazism. Germany wanted to be the ultimate power in Europe and the only thing that is left that can challenge Nazi Germany was USSR. That's why Germany invaded USSR.
Sorry, not true. Have you heard of
lebensraum?
The definition is so problemmatic that if you just take out the word : "dictatorship" from that definition you would be actually defining the Republican party of the US or any right wing nut-job party in Europe.
I wanted to dismiss this as a gratuitous swipe, but my curiosity forces me to ask why you think the Republican Party meets the author's definition of fascism once "dictatorship" is removed.