The only reason it got out of hand in Europe is that old elites didn't anticipate the new state of affairs and were slow to adapt

Absolutist France did little to incorporate the merchant class as a subordinate but integral part of its order, whislt continuing to court the old elites

That being landed nobles etc.

Corporatism Gang then?

Corporatism was interesting attempt at least

I think it emphasized nationalization too much but its attempt to end class struggle and create a real national economy is admirable

Not bad in principle but practice

If Mercantilism wants to minimize imports and maximize exports, that would presume there would be nations that have to be the big importers, meaning mercantilism can't really be followed by every country

Which isn't to say it can't be readjusted and or incorporated into an updated approach

@Despot Romanicus the Enslaver that's why historically they had colonies which were exporting low value raw materials and manufacturing in the motherland

The point back then was accumulating gold

Nowadays Neoliberals prefer Neo-Colonialism

But the real merit of mercantilism is expanding the productive forces of a country

ISI at the very least can be followed by any country in principle

Basically restricting industrial imports until you create a base in your own country using your own demand

You gradually cut out the stuff you used to Import and substitute it with a domestic alternative which is sheltered from international competition

Countries that don't follow ISI basically hope capital rich countries will invest in them

They're stuck with an economy heavily reliant on the primary sector (farming, mining, fishing and forrestry)

And then use what little purchasing power they have on foreign imports

ISI would have that country industrialize by pulling itself up with its own demand/purchasing power

I presume from there such country can survive taking a more economically isolationist route from foreign entities?

Technically this can still be done in established economies

Autarky is not that desirable

Once you start getting into manufacturing you would want steel etc. to cost as little as possible

You wouldn't want your car manufacturers that export to become uncompetitive just to retain a steel industry for example

How would one ensure that these things do not create an incentive for people to simply adopt more Liberal policies?

By making the corporations proxies of the state

You wouldn't outright nationalize them

However a huge corporation is an institution into itself and needs to bend to national interest

If CEOs etc. don't comply they can be removed

It's also important to push outward economically to prevent filth from seeping in through imports etc.

You mentioned China is following something like this, do you think overtime the wealthier corporate classes would influence the Communist Party of China to be more Pro-Corporate Interest as the two are very much interconnected?

The CCP basically is an extension of the Chinese bourgeoisie at this point

It has been since Deng

That is what I worry about, that your plan has that fundamental tension between the corporate classes and the state and I can't help but feel the corporate classes will find a way to further influence the state to support them.

They keep the relation pretty symbiotic. Don't get me wrong, if Jack Ma were to go against the party he'd be gone quickly

He rules his corporate fiefdom in exchange for fidelity to a more a powerfull liege

The CCP is basically "Don't insult us and we are in charge, but other than that, do whatever and give us money", still quite the leeway

But it works

If you look at dissent in China it's mostly from wealthy wagies

The big question is if overtime, the corporate classes can make the CCP more open to certain forms of liberalization, especially if the state officials and corporate executives end up being the same people or are related.