China did not develop particularly well.
Again, one need only compare the economic development of China to India or Brazil to see this is not true. The Chinese Communist Party has lifted millions of Chinese people out of poverty, and it's not simply because of "market reforms."
Capitalism is incapable of growing the third world no matter who is in charge because capital by its nature must be invested profitably and third world capital intensive investment is not profitable.
"Capitalism" didn't grow China. If the Western capitalists had their way, they would do what they usually do; purchase a comprador bourgeoisie that they can buy off at a comparatively low price, and have them savagely exploit their people, often at gun point. This was historically the relationship of Western imperialism to the rest of the world.
The difference with China is that it CPC set the terms and conditions on investment. This makes foreign investment less profitable, but as long as it is still somewhat profitable, it will be done.
Essentially, the CPC decided to allow access to its supply of labor. If you can only afford to pay your workers in a command economy $1 an hour for their labor, and a foreign capitalist says he will pay to ship over a factory that will pay some of your workers $2 an hour, then you should let them come over. They will be remunerating the worker for more than you could, and hence, wages go up. And considering the fact the whatever products the laborer would create in a command economy also is going to be consumed in that economy, it's not like you can simply raise prices beyond a certain limit.
Again, the trick is not letting the foreign capitalists purchase the rights to natural resources, or letting them setup banks, power plants, telecommunications, etc. If the foreign capitalist is simply treated as someone willing to purchase excessive labor for higher rates than would be possible within a command economy, it should be allowed. And that is basically what they did. And yes, that would be in the interests of the workers.
The growth of China is mostly a statistical trick which the CPC and the US are both selling you to justify revisionism.
This is not only not credible, it is bordering on lunacy.
The accomplishments of Deng are a return to highly inefficient family farming at inflated prices
I can assure you, the price of food here in China is very cheap, at least in the street markets. Much cheaper than anything you find in the grocery stores, where the prices are comparable to Western ones, which is why they are so empty compared to the street markets.
and China as the final workshop for a pan-asian assembly process which creates cheap goods under Chinese control and high tech goods under foreign control with little technology spillover into the Chinese economy.
I don't think this last part could be said to be true anymore, which is why the issue of "Chinese spying" and the creation of knockoffs is considered so serious in the West. I expect a lot more Chinese namebrand phones to be entering Western markets soon, like Xiaome and Pioneer.
The growth since Deng has been fictitious and WTO membership has destroyed any real chance of China maintaining control over its own economy, at last dragging it into a world depression for the first time in a half-century.
I hardly think 6.9% GDP growth is a "world depression." Methinks you pay too much attention to Western propaganda.
If revisionism really worked in increasing material living standards it would be a problem for communists
"Revisionism" is mostly a buzzword, signifying nothing at all. It certainly has nothing to do with how Lenin used the term.
as the real inheritors of Mao.
Western people pretending there isn't a massive, massive labor aristocracy in the West will never be the "real inheritors of Mao."