A commonly used phrase in the LC was derived from or at least connected to Song of Solomon 1:8. "If thou know not thyself, thou fair one among women, go thou forth by the footsteps of the flocks, and feed thy kids by the shepherd's tents" (Brenton Septuagint Translation). This was the allied phrase "closely following the apostles" which WL & Co were fond of (see Phil 3:17; 2 Tim 3:10, 1 Tim 4:6; cf Acts 2:42).
Here is a song of the same title, sung in the LC
https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/ns/680
If Peter, James, and John sent Paul and Barnabas out with "only remember the poor", to which he eagerly consented by his own admission (Gal 2:10), don't you think similar eagerness would also be evidenced by Nee and/or Lee? Instead, the subject of caring for the poor was carefully avoided. When the topic was once broached by a naiive trainee at the FTT in Anaheim, the answer (from PH) was summarily dismissive: "Don't waste your time." Go for good building material instead; it was all quite explicit, blunt, and categorical. There was no equivocating with PH. He got his position by letting everyone know WL's position.
How can we follow the footsteps of the flock, or closely follow the apostles' teaching, if we so strenuously avoid the implications of Gal 2:10? As I wrote earlier, that also means we need to downplay chapters of Paul, and to overlook Luke's account of Paul returning to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation" (Acts 24:17), and likewise to minimise Jesus' "sell what you have, give alms to the poor, and you'll be rich in heaven" (Luke 12:33). And so on... it stretches back to the OT, where being kind to the destitute is repeatedly held as a way to connect to the Most High, who gives liberally to all. So simple even a gentile can follow it - Acts 10:1-4! As I wrote earlier, Paul develops this theme in 2 Cor 8.
No, instead we were to selfishly masticate God by pray-reading Bible verses to make ourselves God. Don't waste your time (or money!) with the poor. So I ask, which of these two distinct and separate ideas, seems more like "God's economy" to you? Which more closely adheres to the consistent and plain pattern of scriptural behaviours and teachings?
I daresay that Watchman Nee saw in his example (JN Darby) that with proper 'revelation' he didn't have to follow anybody! He could just get a 'vision of the age' and everyone would instead have to follow him... how attractive, no? He could even reverse himself, and with one 'revelation' declare churches were all local and independent, removing the taint of the hated West, and then with a later 'revelation' could declare that all churches tie to a geographical center, a la his "Jerusalem Principle", which now would be Shanghai, not London or Rome. All of it self-serving, contradictory, and only tenuously biblical, but who cares? As long as you closely follow Nee you're good!
From this swirling milieu did Witness Lee's version of God's economy emerge. It was a personal creation, then put to captive assemblies (because we're all one, right?). Nobody questioned because it came from WL and we didn't question God's oracle. But if one questioned it soon fell apart, as did many of his teachings. But look at the big, thick books he could sell in the meantime.