By Richard Martin, President, Alcera Consulting Inc.
Introduction[1]
For decades, Western observers and political scientists have debated whether the People’s Republic of China (PRC) under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) should be viewed as simply an authoritarian communist state or something else entirely. Critics and defenders alike have argued over what label best captures China’s blend of state-controlled capitalism, authoritarian governance, and hyper-nationalism. This paper makes a blunt claim: that the modern Chinese state under Xi Jinping exhibits many striking parallels to historical fascist regimes—particularly Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy—rather than adhering purely to Marxist-Leninist ideals. By juxtaposing the CCP’s policies with classic fascist structures, this piece aims to provoke a re-evaluation of how we understand one of the world’s most influential powers.
1. Centralized Power and Cult of Leadership
A defining characteristic of fascist states—whether Adolf Hitler’s Germany or Benito Mussolini’s Italy—was the concentration of authority in a single leader who symbolized the nation’s destiny. Similarly, Xi Jinping has consolidated power within the CCP to an extent unprecedented since Mao Zedong. The removal of presidential term limits in 2018 effectively allowed Xi to remain President (and CCP General Secretary) indefinitely, echoing the autocratic permanency sought by fascist dictators.
Führerprinzip vs. Xi Jinping Thought: Hitler demanded absolute loyalty through the concept of the “Führerprinzip,” making himself the apex of decision-making. Xi’s ideological framework, “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era,” is now enshrined in the CCP charter, permeating education, policy, and media—arguably establishing him as the party’s unassailable authority.
Party Dominance: In Fascist Italy, the National Fascist Party gradually infiltrated all branches of government and civil society. The Nazis imposed party structures on all companies, treating entrepreneurs and managers as shop stewards. In modern China, CCP “party cells” exist in nearly every major corporation, university, and state institution, ensuring the party’s priorities supersede any private or local authority.
2. Ultra-Nationalism and Historical Grievances
Fascist regimes historically thrived on intense nationalist sentiment, often stoked by real or perceived historical humiliations. Mussolini spoke of reviving the grandeur of the Roman Empire; Hitler fanned anger over the Treaty of Versailles to unify Germans in seeking revenge and redemption.
The “Chinese Dream”: Xi’s flagship slogan focuses on achieving “national rejuvenation,” tapping into collective memories of the “Century of Humiliation” at the hands of foreign powers. Like Hitler’s invocation of lost German pride, the CCP fosters a powerful narrative of restoring China to its rightful global standing.
Irredentist Ambitions: Nazi Germany championed the concept of “Lebensraum” to justify territorial expansion in Eastern Europe. Today, China’s territorial claims over Taiwan, the South China Sea, and disputed border areas with India reflect similarly assertive policies framed as recovering “historical” territories. Critics argue this pursuit parallels the expansionist thrust of fascist states under the guise of reclaiming rightful lands.
3. State-Directed Capitalism and Corporatist Echoes
Mussolini’s Italy combined private enterprise with intense government oversight, a structure often described as “corporatism.” Nazi Germany followed the same approach, where businesses were encouraged to “voluntarily” submit to the “will of the people.” Although China still uses socialist as part of its rhetoric, the economy more closely resembles a hybrid that allows market elements but ultimately subordinates business to the CCP.
Enterprise Under Party Control: Much like the fascist state expected corporations to align with national objectives, Chinese law mandates CCP committees within firms, guiding corporate strategies toward state goals.
Made in China 2025: This initiative to dominate strategic industries—AI, robotics, aerospace, and more—suggests an autarkic, or at least heavily self-sufficient, aspiration reminiscent of fascist programs for national “self-reliance.” While advanced global integration differentiates China from the autarky of 1930s fascism, the overarching intent of self-sufficiency and technological dominance parallels those earlier regimes.
4. Total Surveillance and Social Conditioning
A critical difference between historical fascism and the modern Chinese state is the CCP’s deployment of advanced surveillance technologies. Mussolini, Hitler, and their secret police organizations operated through informant networks and intimidation; the CCP has taken these concepts and turbocharged them with digital infrastructure.
Social Credit System: Designed to monitor and rate citizens on various criteria—financial, social, and political—this system enforces “correct” behavior through rewards and punishments. It functions as a modern equivalent of the fascist drive to ensure ideological conformity across all strata of society.
Facial Recognition and Big Data: From Xinjiang’s sophisticated camera networks to nationwide internet controls (the “Great Firewall”), China’s authoritarian capabilities arguably exceed anything Hitler or Mussolini could have imagined, enabling near-total real-time monitoring.
5. Suppression of Dissent
Fascist regimes were characterized by relentless suppression of opposition. Present-day China continues a parallel approach:
Political Purges and Re-Education: Internment camps in Xinjiang or the crushing of Hong Kong’s democratic freedoms demonstrate the CCP’s willingness to deploy draconian tactics to maintain unity and quell dissent.
Propaganda and Media Control: Whether through Italy’s Ministry of Popular Culture or Nazi Germany’s Joseph Goebbels-led propaganda machine, tightly regulated media was essential to shaping public opinion. Chinese state media and heavy internet censorship create a controlled information environment that similarly serves the party’s nationalist narrative.
Conclusion
By directly comparing the CCP’s strategies and structures with hallmark features of historical fascism, we see a convergence around centralized authority, nationalist fervor, forced conformity, and an intolerance for dissent. This analysis is not meant to claim that China has simply “copied” fascism, but rather to assert that in practice, the CCP’s model borrows heavily from—and in some ways refines—fascist techniques of governance.
The question this comparison raises is whether global policymakers, businesses, and civil societies should reassess their assumptions about China’s ambitions and governance style. If we persist in viewing China strictly as a communist state, we may overlook the extent to which its modern apparatus of state control, nationalism, and surveillance parallels some of the darkest chapters in 20th-century authoritarianism. Ultimately, whether one calls it fascist, national-socialist-like, or a “new authoritarianism,” the result is an all-encompassing regime that prioritizes the collective power of the state over individual rights—an evolution of totalitarian control that demands our attention.
About the Author
Richard Martin is the founder and president of Alcera Consulting Inc., a strategic advisory firm specializing in exploiting change (www.exploitingchange.com). Richard’s mission is to empower top-level leaders to exercise strategic foresight, navigate uncertainty, drive transformative change, and build individual and organizational resilience, ensuring market dominance and excellence in public governance. He is the author of Brilliant Manoeuvres: How to Use Military Wisdom to Win Business Battles. He is also the developer of Worldview Warfare and Strategic Epistemology, a groundbreaking methodology that focuses on understanding beliefs, values, and strategy in a world of conflict, competition, and cooperation.
© 2025 Richard Martin
[1] For a broader discussion of why collectivist regimes—whether communist, fascist, or otherwise—often converge on similar authoritarian outcomes, see the companion paper, “Collectivist Ideologies: Variations of the Same Authoritarian Core.”
Discover more from Exploiting Change
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
