China's involvement in Africa isn't neocolonial, though. Moreover, the vast majority of large firms and key industries are publicly owned, the private sector largely accounts for small businesses, which have little to no control over the economy at large. I don't know what you are referring to as "worker ownership" if public ownership doesn't count, that's the core thesis of Marxism, ie reaching a fully publicly owned economy.

I recommend checking out the post I made and the book I linked. The very notion of a "mixed economy" is wrong to begin with, as no economy is pure, modes of productions are determined by their overall totality. Either every economy is mixed, which fails to account for the dramatic differences between feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, etc, or we adopt a more sensible notion that economies are made up of their constituent, interlinked aspects and thus portions cannot be simply cut away and considered "socialist" or "capitalist," they all exist in context. That would be like saying a board of directors is Socialist if they all have equal ownership, you can't cut them away from the workers just like you can't cut sectors out of the broader economy in which they function.

As for fascism, that isn't an accurate description of fascism at all. Fascism has always served the bourgeoisie as a means to put down leftist organizing in decaying Capitalist countries. You don't have to support China to be a Leftist, there's lots of valid critique, but calling it "fascist" is wrong.