It's not the communist model that dictates the absolute centralized economy, it's socialist model. Communism has a lot of forms. For example anarcho-communism rejects every form of centralized government/management model. Radical democracy is also another model that is theoreticized by left world view which also rejects any form of unitary management model. Those theories were not in practice, never in USSR or China. One should be really careful when talking about communism, since theory and practice had been very different.
The currently known version of 'communism' is the political expression of Marxism. So if we go by what are and have been practiced regarding governmental involvement in the economies, I see no reason to include what are
NOT pragmatically applicable.
So here is a simplified scale of the spectrum of economies that are actually practiced throughout history...
The word 'utopian' here mean 'ideal' or 'idealized'.
Utopian communism means there is no free market activity whatsoever, not necessarily by government fiat, but could be from simple consensus among the people that no one will profit from his/her labor. Currently, the only successful utopian communist society is the monastery, which includes the nunnery. This society is the epitome of Marxism: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' There may be a leader but essentially no one is wealthier than his/her fellow community member.
Utopian libertarianism means every man/woman for him/herself, also not necessarily by government fiat or could be by consensus, and that maximizing profits is the final goal. Just like the monastery, this society can only exists in small scale, such as the criminal underworld.
Anyway...No countries are or have ever been the idealized version of either command or free market economics. All economies in every stages of development have been on this sliding scale. China is leans towards left and the US towards the right.
US and EU had Marxist practices in the past and they have still government interventions to economy. In 2009 crisis US government saved bankrupting companies with taxpayers' money. Normally in a liberal economy that'^s absolute "blasphemy". Since liberal economy dictates a form of "natural selection" among the companies, the bankrupting companies and the economic policy should "fail" and the new companies/policies arise from the ashes of the old one. That's why capitalist economies sees cyclic economic crisis in every decade or two (the magnitude of the crisis depends) and readjust the policies according to learned "mistakes" from the economic crisis. However in 2009 US weren't given that chance and the companies and a portion of non-performing economic policies were simply "saved". That was pretty socialist and exact definition of government intervention to economy.
Periodic interventions does not equal to state capitalism, which require active and constant leadership of the government in all areas of the economy.
There are two paths for a government to have direct leadership and control of the economy under state capitalism:
- State onwed enterprises.
- National champions.
No economies are ever completely free of the potentiality of governmental intervention, let alone direct governmental intrusion. The difference between the free marketer and state capitalist is the fundamental belief in the relationship between the government and the economy. The 2009 bailouts of American companies were not the first time the US government had a direct hand in saving a company. Prior, it was Chrysler who received taxpayers' money back in 1979 in order to survive. Between 1979 and 2009, the only regulations imposed upon Chrysler were the auto safety and mileage standards, which are also applicable to other auto makers as well. Other than that, the US government had no say in how much Chrysler produce, sell where, and at what prices.
Under state capitalism, the government would and does have direct control over what a company produce, where, and how much to charge consumers. Everyone know what is a 'state owned enterprise' (SOE) and China have...
List of State-owned enterprises in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SOEs are the best ways for any government to have direct influence into the economy, for good or ill. The list of US SOEs pales in comparison to China. The most publicly known of US SOEs are three: the US Postal Service, Amtrak, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, aka Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) that is famous for the children's TV show Sesame Street. Lesser known are the Ex-Im Bank or Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insure bank deposits. But overall, China have tens of thousands of SOEs and through them the Chinese government can literally steers the Chinese economy regardless of free market influences.
The other path for a government to exercise control over the economy is through national champions. They are private enterprises but are heavily favored by the government and in return they must obey governmental directives. In Japan, they are called
keiretsu and in South Korea they are called
chaebol. In Japan, the keiretsu are managed by the powerful MITI.
State capitalism’s global reach: New masters of the universe | The Economist
...national champions that formally are privately owned but enjoy a huge amount of either overt or covert support from their respective governments.
A third path that is not necessary but always a favorite by the state capitalist is the sovereign wealth fund (SWF)...
Sovereign wealth fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A sovereign wealth fund (SWF) is a state-owned investment fund investing in real and financial assets such as stocks, bonds, real estate, precious metals, or in alternative investments such as private equity fund or hedge funds. Sovereign wealth funds invest globally. Most SWFs are funded by revenues from commodity exports or from foreign-exchange reserves held by the central bank.
The US does not have a SWF, no signifant SOEs in comparison to other countries, and no national champions. So just because the US government chose to save a few companies from their own mistakes in the short term, that does not equate to a Marxist attitude the US for these companies in particular and to the US economy as a whole.
Another recent example in my mind is Paul O'Neill ex-CEO of Alcoa, and ex-Secretary of Treasury. When he was the CEO of Alcoa, the profits of the company was stagnating. The shareholders were complaining a lot about it. The first thing he said when he started as the CEO was "his primary aim would be decreasing the work accidents". Normally in a capitalist economy the aim should be "maximize profit". However after huge efforts for training the workers and managers for work safety and replacing the old machines that causes trouble, Alcoa also saw a great revenue rise as a side effect because the workers were feeling much more attached to the company and their proposals were simply taken into consideration and that improved the efficiency a lot. Marx also made similar predictions about manufacturing efficiency, if the workers are somewhat "attach" to their work environment the manufacturing productivity will rise. That's what happened in Alcoa and that was pretty socialist.
Sorry, but I see another fail.
What ALCOA did was small scale socialism just like the monastery. If a worker does not like what the CEO did, he has the option to leave the company. If a citizen does not like the large scale Marxism-communism of the Soviet Union or old China, can he leave ? Most likely you are too young to know The Cold War whereas I do. Once I played tourist in East Germany when it existed. What a dump what was supposed to be a "worker's paradise" as predicted by Marxists. I saw Checkpoint Charlie and the graves of East Germans who tried to escape that paradise and were shot by East German guards. Guess once East Germany or today Cuba should have hired Paul O'Neill and may be their citizenry would be too happy to leave their countries ? You are replaying an old saw about a benevolent dictator. Funny how we never got one despite what Marx predicted.
Since Deng Xiaoping, China is a country that can be modeled as state capitalism. By definition state capitalism and socialist economy differs a lot. In both economies there is a centralized form of economic model, and that's their only mutual property. In socialism companies that are controlled by the central body does not seek "profit", but seeks to distribute the surplus as evenly as possible. This is called collectivism and is the main form of thinking behind the socialist economic model. Also in socialist model a community would only share the surplus, not the actual need. What is meant by that is they first produce for domestic consumption, then only surplus is distributed.
That is good -- for the monastery.
If I cut ten cords of wood while you cut only five, why should I give my surplus to you ? Or rather, do
YOU believe in coercion in the sharing of surplus ? If that is the case, why should I produce any surplus at all ? The excess from my labor should morally be mine and I alone decide what to do with it.