memes

Didn't really have time to make a more elaborate response, and me saying that the PRC is 'not an anti-colonial force' without qualifiers and further explanations is probably too harsh.
Let's go over the rest of the thing.

The problem I have with this sort of "both are failures" argument is it relies on an unfalsifiable hypothesis, that China would be in a better position had these reforms not happened

By this logic, you also can't claim that the privatisation that made lives of people worse in ways like the destruction of guaranteed housing was somehow good by supposedly putting the PRC in a position to strike against NATO at some later point in the future, and not only because that's an unfalsifiable 'this is how things would be without it' hypothesis, but also because it is yet to yield any relevant results. At best, you can reserve your judgement.

In the case I misunderstood you and you are claiming that the PRC might have removed things like guaranteed housing and universal healthcare without privatisation, then I don't see how you can argue this, considering that both economics and history of planned economies seem to disagree with you, and the claim that the PRC could have likely been an exception is dubious.

I doubt China would've survived the 90s without a nuking from the US if they were more "morally pure"

This is an actual unfalsifiable hypothesis that seems to be much less grounded in reality, as the PRC already had nukes, and NATO's ruling class, including the bourgeoisie, the high politicians, the senior military personnel had - and still do have - an interest in not getting nuked themselves. (EDIT: Also, are you claiming that the PRC is somehow more capable of withstanding nuking by NATO now? Or that NATO's threat of nuking will somehow be lessened soon-ish? Or that the situation has always been hopeless and everybody should just submit to NATO?)

Furthermore, are you actually suggesting that the PRC absolutely needed to not just carry out privatisation, but to also do things like support the Mujahideen?

Oh look, you're doing the thing Wisconcom is doing in this thread where you ignore the bulk of what I said so you could argue against a straw man position

Your first argument was the 'just world'-like thought-terminating cliche with the implications that that's all there is to it, that there is no cost to privatisation (and that an economy can be liberalised 'the right way') for the working class, that actively opposing anti-colonial movements (elsewhere) was somehow good, and that the USSR just didn't privatise its economy 'correctly' (and that said privatisation could have been done by both the USSR and the PRC at the same time). It was a snide remark directed at me, and you completely ignored my criticism of relevant actions by the PRC. So, tit for tat, it seems.

As for the PRC not being an anti-colonial force today, its leadership has shown a lack of interest in dismantling the relations of unequal exchange, an unwillingness to interfere against NATO's actions, and an interest in maintaining a mutually beneficial relations with the imperial core. Considering that those things align with the interests of members of the PRC's ruling class, there doesn't seem to be much of a reason to believe that the PRC is going to swerve any time soon.
Let's hope I am wrong.

EDIT:
To add to all of that:
The 'PRC is still around, so its approach is somehow better than the USSR's' argument, apart from requiring one to assume that that is a sure proof that allying with NATO (up to and including taking action against anti-colonial movements) and privitising a planned economy are good things (with some never-elaborated-upon details mattering) was a good approach that the USSR should have taken (despite the fact that that would mean crushing anti-colonial movements in Vietnam, Korea, and elsewhere, as well as that the achievements of the USSR in terms of improving living standards domestically would have either be erased all the same or continued in a diminished form while fueled by colonialism), it also assumes that the USSR was in a position to take this approach in the first place, despite the fact that not even the main 'faces' of privatisation - Gorbachyov, Yeltsin, Putin, as well as their followers - tried to ally with, or even enter NATO with no success.