The "private" sectors are doing more risky project, some of their tech path may be the future, some may be a dead end, only time can tell. It may be promising or may be a disaster if national key project relies on them totally.
The state entity such as CASC are taksed to do jobs that have a strict time line. These jobs do not allow risks that SpaceX like entitties are taking. Look at the moon landing program of US, SpaceX's landing option was even questioned by the most strongest SpaceX supporters at the time when NASA chose SpaceX. Not long after, we see NASA pushes back its landing date due to the uncertainty of starship. The bottom line is SpaceX's method is risky, it does not provide any certainty for a projecct with a set date in the near future. It isn't SpaceX's fault, that is how these kind of business work. It gives more free space for innovation, but it carries the risk of not meeting the national target. It is like parent replying on a smart child to be a biliionare.
On the other hand, I don't see why should "private" space entity being at some kind of odd with CASC etc. They are complimenting to one another. Financially if you check the investment background, the "private" isn't really private like in the US. Take LandScape for example, one of its funding and still major invester is a found owned by Shaanxi government. Their technology origin are certainly from CASC's R&D work, their personels are recruited from CASC. I dare to say that all LOX/Methane engine of "private" sectors are from the 70t prototype made by 6th acadamy in 1990s.
So what happened is that, CASC is tasked to do the job for strict time plan which has to be conservative. Nothing like NASA/SpaceX delay is allowed. On the other hand, Chinese government is aware of the advantage of trying various technical path and working method for the long term, so it leads and encurages private investment to create many mixed mode commercial entities as a complementing element in the space industry.
Also it worths to note that since the state invested both money and tech into these "private" entities, the state essentially created "CASC" alternative. This is another reason that I don't see the point of concern. We have seen how CASC evolved from the AeroSpace ministry to a company, then split into CASC and CASIC. We have also seen hown railway ministry becomes two companies then merge into one. So long as one has the controlling ownership and controls IP asset I don't see why it is an issue and for whom.
The conclusion is that due to the different roles they are assigned to, their visible different approaches will remain for a long time.
The problem with SpaceX and Starship for the lunar mission is because of Starship/second stage.
That questionable decision doesn't make technology underlying Raptor and the first stage (super heavy) incoherent or problematic. If SpaceX had pursued Starship as a more conventional super heavy launcher, I suspect we shouldn't be seeing the same delays for a moon landing or otherwise.
I find all of the doubt directed towards Starship as massive red herring -- Starship second stage is irrelevant and inconsequential. It is the Super Heavy first stage which is important, as it offers a potentially reusable super heavy first stage with implications for substantial low earth orbit launches and beyond.
Even if Starship/second stage is an utter failure, if the Super Heavy first stage succeeds, it will be a rather simple task to design more conventional second or even third stages to enable LEO, GEO, and LTO and beyond payloads.
While I agree that "private" space companies in China ultimately work alongside state enterprises and may well enable sharing of technology and data, the problem is that none of them have a platform as ambitious as CZ-10 family or CZ-9 in the immediate pipeline.
(That said, I suppose Zhuque-3 and Tianlong 3 are CZ-10A peers)
What if the launch cost of CZ-2 and 3 are dirt cheap? Wasn't there a figure posted in this thread saying that CZ-2 launch cost was slightly higher than Falcon-9 in reusable mode? That would mean that old CZs are much cheaper than the new CZs.
Remember CZ-7 was designed to be crew rated, so it by design has a lot of extra masses. It is by nature nothing to compete with old CZs in cost without large amount of change which doesn't really worth it.
That is indeed a reasonable explanation for why they haven't moved as fast as they otherwise could have till now, but pursuit of more modern launch vehicles and to drive costs down once an appropriate launch vehicle design is attained, should be an important goal.
Standardizing to CZ-10 family and CZ-9 into the future really should be the obvious path, and the fact that these rockets are being pursued to begin with is an indication that the state entities are starting to smell the cheese, and they have even laid out long term goals to enable large annual launches to orbit.
But actually enabling that will require state enterprises to have the political ability to accept more launch failures to collect data faster and iterate faster.
There is a real prospect that by the late 2020s the US could have the capability to regularly put up 100+ tons of payload into LEO a week between Super Heavy/Starship and Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (and going into the early 2030s a magnitude more than that if they standardize to Super Heavy/Starship derived launches), in the same way that Falcon 9 launches are now routine.
The strategic impact of that cannot be understated.
Space access cannot be viewed as primarily a scientific endeavor now -- strategic/military and commercial utilizations should be the primary aspects of concern.
There is no reason why that would happen. The Long March 7 was precisely designed to use the same tooling and production facilities as in the Long March 2 and 3. It uses same diameter modules and everything so transportation would also be the same. There is simply no good reason that I can see why they haven't replaced both Long March 2 and 3 with Long March 7 derivatives.
I am aware of all of these aspects, however I am saying that the current reality is that it is the state entities who have the most ambitious launch vehicles (CZ-10, CZ-9) that have longevity potential into the near future, and are the most viable paths to heavy and super heavy launchers between the state and private enterprises, so fast tracking them should be pursued.