I feel like, even with Wang Hui's relatively high name recognition in Western academia, three quarters of readers will come away thinking they've just discovered the Chinese Dugin or something.

The writer sees something troubling, taking innuendo from the Rong Jian 荣剑 essay, about Wang Hui's interest in "Nazi thinkers" Heidegger and Schmitt. Wang won't be the last thinker to draw on Heidegger, won't be the last critic of liberalism to draw on Schmitt...

Liberal attacks on the Chinese left for their adoption of Schmitt's ideas is common. Rather than the Nazi thing, they mostly make the case Schmitt is just not relevant to their situation. Start with Xu Ben 徐贲 here, laying out two common uses of Schmitt: http://www.aisixiang.com/data/9568-2.html

Gao Quanxi 高全喜 takes it further: Schmitt is not useful to Chinese thinkers because he is writing specifically about a different context. I don't know if that's persuasive. It would take a closer look at the uses Schmitt has been put to by the New Left.
http://www.iolaw.org.cn/showArticle.aspx?id=1903

That's complicated. This is such a sprawling complicated topic that I feel like it's a waste of time doing anything but recommending further reading. Look up Zheng Qi's "Carl Schmitt in China," one of the earlier English-language accounts of Schmitt in China.

I highly recommend "Schmitt Fever: The use and abuse of Carl Schmitt in contemporary China" by Xie Libin and Haig Patapan, which focuses to some extent on the New Left and Schmitt as a battleground for liberals vs. the left, and it even covers Wang Hui.
https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/18/1/130/5841486?guestAccessKey=47af4010-82aa-45d5-ac7f-d917c92213a8

(Broke the threading on this. It's driving me crazy.) I find the framing extreme and there are distortions, but, honestly, many of the arguments in the piece are perfectly reasonable. Wang Hui defenders should be prepared to address material like this: https://guancha.cn/wang-hui/2015_01_30_308098_1.shtml

Daniel Vukovich in "China and postcolonialism: Re-orienting all the fields" provides an English-language account of Wang Hui's approach to the question of splittist movements. We're drifting further and further away from the topic, though. I recommend Vukovich, though.