askchapo

I can’t really speak to Kruschev’s reforms.

With Deng, the key element was addressing underutilized production capacity. There’s a problem you get in planned economies where regional and local planners have an incentive to always meet their production quota. Which leads to, requesting more raw materials than they actually need and promising less than what the factories or factory are capable of. Hence the Soviet factories that would have raw materials and/or finished goods just piled up collecting dust.

The Deng reforms changed this to be, the regional and local directors had their quotas they had to hit for the planned economy’s needs. However, after that they were free to use their surplus productive capacity to produce goods to sell on the market. And, as others pointed out, this was coupled with opening up the Chinese economy to export to capitalist countries. This both resolved the underutilized production problem while bringing in trade dollars, all while retaining a most state-owned economy; as these corporations emerged out of the state production infrastructure, the state was a majority or major owner from the start.

Some of these answer it directly:

• The backbone of the economy is state ownership and socialist planning. 24 / 25 of the top revenue companies are state-owned and planned. 70% of the top 500 companies are State-owned. 1, 2 The largest bank, construction, electricity, and energy companies in the world, are CPC controlled entities, subject to the 5 year plans laid out by the central committee.
• Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
• Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?
• Didn't China go Capitalist with Deng Xiaoping? Didn't it liberalize its economy? Is China's drastic decrease in poverty a result of the increase in free market capitalist policies?
• Is the CPC committed to communism?
• The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
• The myth of Chinese state capitalism. Did Deng really betray Chinese socialism?
• Tsinghua University- Is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics real socialism, or is it state Capitalism?
• Isn't China revisionist for having a capitalist sector of the economy, and working with capitalists? Why isn't it fully planned like the USSR was?
• Castro on why both China and Vietnam are socialist countries.
• Roderic Day - China has billionaires.
• How is SWCC not revisionist? How is it any different from Gorbachev's market reforms?, 2
• Domenico Losurdo - is China state capitalist?, 2

what are the differences between the new economic policy and Deng's reform and opening up?

The NEP was always meant and assumed to be a very temporary stop gap by anyone who wasn't named Bukharin. Deng was embarking on a generational project. The bolsheviks needed a couple of factories uo and running, training for their engineerss and access to technology and resources to rebuild and get them ready to transition to a planned economy. Deng wasn't going to zag on the zig, this was a much more elaborate and planned approach to reforming the economy.

Also both of them embraced the support of anticommunist and capitalist states to build their economy, but Lenin and the Bolsheviks never accepted themselves engaging in repression of communist movements. This resulted in the foreign partnerships of the NEP breaking down and becoming ineffective, while China steadily benefitted from being the premier trading partner of many capitalist countries.

As with regards to Khruschchev. The thing that matters here is that the CPC is still around and in power and there is no such thing as the soviet union, anything else is sophistry. The specific levels of mean words uttered about the previous leader is an irrelevant metric, whether liberalised corn growing or dairy farming is the superior plan is pointless. What matters is that the Soviet Union fell

Regarding Khrushchev vs. Deng, I wrote this extremely brief summary. Regarding the NEP and Reform and Opening Up, the biggest differences are time scale, and the level of integration with the global economy.

Edit: I'm tired and misread the question to be about Gorbachev vs Deng.

There are several major things that stand out: Deng's reforms were a tradeoff of accepting the bad of austerity and markets in exchange for real material concessions and access to resources and industrial capital, whereas Gorbachev just kind of shattered the central planning apparatus and began liquidating state assets, and retreated geopolitically as well, in exchange for literally nothing except more agitation and hostility from the US. Deng's bloc also did not castigate and slander past leaders of the CPC the way Gorbachev's liberals did to the past leaders of the CPSU, nor did they systematically dismantle the CPC and isolate regional branches from one another the way the CPSU was undermined. The CPC under Deng did not simply roll over and passively accept insurgencies like the CPSU did at the end, and instead both cracked down on violent agitators and sought to continue making some concessions to the broader public sentiment. China's liberalizing reforms were also careful and piecemeal, getting something out of every step and preventing it from entirely upending the existing logistics system and industrial base, whereas like I mentioned in the beginning Gorbachev just kind of gutted the central planning system, destroyed the Soviet logistics system, and basically just did the liberal prayer of "the market will make it better, praise the holy line which can only ever go up!" and it did not work because of course it doesn't work.

Some of that is that Deng's bloc were cynical and decided to retreat from ideological goals for material strategic gains, and some of it is that the US at that point was happy to try to split off China and desperately needed China as a market both to buy skilled labor from and sell new industrial capital in a volume that American factories didn't want to buy which made those strategic gains possible for China. Some of it is that Gorbachev was a dipshit who was apparently quite competent and well liked in a support role, but who had no good ideas of his own and on inheriting a mandate of reform and modernization found himself leaning on anticommunist extremists and elevating them into positions of power where they could censor communists and run anticommunist propaganda and just generally sabotage everything, and some of it is that the USSR was never going to get the sort of material concessions that China did because Reagan was even more of a fanatic extremist than Nixon and where China had material things to offer the US (and splitting off China into a US-leaning neutral state was a geopolitical goal), the USSR had nothing to offer the US except its own dissolution, collapse, and looting which is what wound up happening.

AFAIR, China's current policy is to build capitalism until it's capable of creating communism. That's not something Kruschev did, or was even interested in.

Oh, I also asked this question in a comment sometime ago! Nice.

Oh, damn, had totally missed the struggle session when I had commented. So much good material to read!