>>7677>That can't really be true when every major industry is nationalized.The communist party in china hasn't really nationalized
that much, only the heights of the economy, and often it's only partially nationalized.
Anyway they kinda moved past the system of asserting direct governmental authority with the big official hammer in order to influence the direction of their economy. Companies above a certain size are required to have a Chinese communist party carder and they can influence investment decisions to a considerable degree. It's a novel approach where they went for political influence over surplus allocation.
These carders them selves are subject to what the Chinese call
deliberative democracy, which means they have to seek out the approval from the people who are affected by the decisions they make. It's a little bit like the mass-line in Maoism, but a much more localized version, with considerable autonomy from the party hierarchy.
The Chinese have been decentralizing power, delegating more decision-powers downwards in the hierarchy. I think that was part of
rejuvenation of society or something like that, i don't recall the actual name.
It's peculiar that it's official policy from Beijing. In all of history there has been a tendency of power-centralization, and when i say tendency i really mean an iron-rule. All systems centralized into bigger structures and socialist projects were no exception. Up until recently decentralization has never come from the center, so far it came because of pressure from below or because power-structures fail (like the fall of the roman empire)
The Chinese have obsessively analyzed the dissolution of the Soviet system and the collapse of the Soviet block that followed. My speculation is that they're hedging against that.