>>2896199this
the difference between deng and gorbachev is that gorbachev dissolved the party, while deng did not. the difference between deng and yeltsin is that yeltsin's shock therapy sold off the commanding heights of the economy to foreigners at bargain bin prices, while in deng's case the commanding heights of the economy were augmented by jobs taken from the US, which shock therapied itself. the chinese revolution continues to transform chinese society. at the beginning, revolution means civil war and many people dying to bring about a socialist government. later on the proletarian revolution transforms society gradually by building productive forces. you no longer die in a trench, instead you work to build socialism. people will say that china is not socialist because it failed to abolish global commodity production. please bring about revolution in your "own" country and then spread it at gunpoint to the rest of the world if it is so easy.
Revolution and development aren't opposites. In many countries, revolution is what makes development possible because it removes the class that's actively blocking it. Landlords don't voluntarily give up land. 'Comprador' bourgeoisies don't voluntarily industrialize if their profits come from exporting raw materials and importing finished goods. China is probably the clearest example. Mao carried out the social revolution that destroyed landlordism, unified the country, massively expanded literacy and healthcare, and built the industrial base. Deng then liberalized parts of the economy on top of those foundations. Those aren't two unrelated projects. If anything, they're different stages of the same one. Deng himself never argued capitalism should replace socialism. What he argued was that markets could be subordinated to socialist state power. India is almost the mirror image. The bourgeois-landlord bloc was never fundamentally broken. Land reform was partial, caste and landlord power remained entrenched across much of the countryside, and planning had to coexist with classes whose interests ran against development. That's not "socialism failed," because the revolution never happened in the first place.