• d-RLY?@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    1 day ago

    I saw this comment and took time to read it. Shit is perfect for the use-case you mention here. I even learned more than I thought I would. So double win in my book! Such levels of decentralization for practical purposes makes sense with a nation as large as China. And does seem to give a reasonable example of why China's model is more quickly able to have adapted to major changes globally and internally than what the USSR system turned into.

    "One size fits all" is not practical in countries over a certain size (both in landmass and population). Even in the US we see huge federal level approaches end up gutted to the point that the name of the bills/laws don't reflect the names given. What makes sense for a mega city like NYC or LA tends to be completely wrong for the large rural areas/regions.

    The article showing that China very much has "states' rights" makes it easier to show how a socialist system in the US could very much work (and pokes many holes in the propaganda of "authoritarianism" of the central gov we are taught). Also that China's socialism is actually much more bottom-up than top-down.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.ml
      hexagon
      ·
      1 day ago

      Exactly, the central government focuses on the overall direction and coordination between local governments, while local concerns can be addressed bottom up. I very much agree this makes Chinese model very robust overall.