Fascism holds both a social and economic definition that just does not align with the actions and history of the CCP.
I'm not talking about historical CCP, I'm talking about the CCP of today. Today it is dominated by xenophobic misogynistic billionaires. Xi is President for life because of the belief that only a strongman can protect China from the evil foreigners and run the economy (which is a capitalist economy). Labour unions are illegal in China, workers are oppressed. No matter the CCP may have been in the past, it is a fascist party today.
What? We are operating under the commonly agreed upon and well defined terms utilized by those teaching basic political science all over the world.
I actually have a science degree. Political "science" was not a credit towards my degree, it's in the humanities category. They call it "science" to try to give it legitimacy, but there really isn't a whole lot of science going on there. Too many old communist professors that are in denial of a lot of things. They have tenure so continue to have lectures about how "real communism" has never been tried (google the "no true scotsman" fallacy) and a lot of apologism over the atrocities committed by communist regimes. You're not supposed to take those poli sci classes seriously, it's just an easy credit if you don't challenge anything the old commie profs say.
Lol, late stage communism?
Why not? You have a Pavlovian response to the phrase "late stage capitalism" so I guess late stage communism isn't something that's part of your conditioning. Multiple communist regimes have failed, so if we're actually doing real political science (and not just going along with whatever the commie prof says) it would be something that would be studied and the patterns could be identified. It's really backwards that a system that's failed many many times is never studied in terms of having a "late stage", while the system that hasn't failed is the one you assume must inevitably fail.
We know that central planning doesn't work for a developed economy (it's too complex for a small group of people to manage), communist regimes have to allow some degree of economic freedom so the economy can function. Increased economic freedom results in ideas spreading, which means there's a greater pressure for political freedom on the ruling regime. Hardliners don't want this (it's a threat to their power) coups and crackdowns start occurring. Eventually the people realize the whole system is dishonest and just stop showing up to work, or do the bare minimum. Malaise takes over. The whole thing becomes untenable and we see economic and political collapse. Late stage communism in a nutshell.
But sure, go on pretending that communism is super successful and go along with a religious-like prophecy of "late stage capitalism" that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Like why are we now in "late stage capitalism" now but we weren't in the 1930s? Why did the policies implemented to get out of the Great Depression work, and why wouldn't they work now?
John Maynard Keynes > Karl Marx. Marx identified some real problems with capitalism, Keynes found a solution to those problems. The Marxist solution failed, the Keynesian solution succeeded. It's obvious to anyone that understands anything about economics. Communism is obsolete, it only exists now as a rationalization for authoritarianism.