>>25548906
I've been replying to a post that's full of these -ist and -ism words, so not using them does not make sense.
In communist history there was an very important thing called the communist international, comintern in short. They were basically deciding how international communism looks. After WW1 they decided, that the economic and social model of international communism was a pipedream, and that they should try to achieve communism on a national level, in large parts, because all attempts of creating a international planned economy did not even work in theory, whereas the german war-economy of WW1 has proven to be workable while still being centrally planned by political actors. So instead of marxian economics, the german wartime economy became their rolemodel. Soon afterwards many if not most former communist and socialists switched to more nationalist rhethorics, and people like Hitler and Mussolini, among many others, became household names even in nationalist circles.
Well, and the model that they have created was what we now call the "mixed economy". Which was a omnipotent state that did not directly own the means of production, but had the power to tell the owners what to do and not to do with their property via regulation and bureaucratic directives.
Modern-day Russia as well as china, just like gayrope and the US, follow these principles. I would argue, that Russia and China allow more freedom for their markets and make less use of the power that their absolutist state does have. So the level of taxation is much lower in china and russia, and there is much less bureaucracy and regulation than in the west, and the level of market-entry is significantly lower because requirements are lowered. But this does not mean, that their state is not absolutist and willing and able to control every aspect of their economy if it sees a reason to do so. They are just enlightened enough to understand, that this creates opportunity-costs, so it's better if that does not happen more than it absolutely has to.