Does China actually still follow Communism?

[BossAttack]

Legitimate question I've long struggled to get an answer to, especially with Western media both ignorant of communist theory and propaganda slanted against it; but does the People's Republic of China actually still adhere to communist doctrine? Now obviously China heavily participates in capitalism. However, capitalism and free markets are viewed as a necessary step in communist theory, hence Lenin's NEP, in order to build the requisite industry and production needed for socialist realization. Thus, China's large participation in capitalism does not destroy the idea they still adhere to socialist doctrine.

That said, has the CCP including the Politburo and Standing Committee released any statements or materials about their current capitalist efforts being used to achieve communism? Or have they essentially abandoned the concept of communism and the socialist revolution in favor of simple power regardless of the means?

Any links would be helpful.

 

[Viewt]

I have neither the knowledge nor the contextual analysis to answer this question, but I'm definitely curious about it, too.

 

[Cerulean_skylark]

China is a single party capitalist dictatorship.

 

[Potterson]

Did any communist party ever followed communism after taking power though?

 

[BossAttack]

China is a single party capitalist dictatorship.
There is private ownership of both business and land in Chinese society.

Click to shrink...

So? That's not anti-communism, hence my question.

Did any communist party ever followed communism after taking power though?

Click to shrink...

Yeah, like it or not but Stalin adhered to Lenin's policies. He very much cared about communism and socialist thought. And frankly most successors were similar, it just didn't work out.

 

[Deleted member 5129]

Not the good communism, which is why it's so funny to me when right wingers dunk on communism pointing at China etc. like.. no.. that's not what anyone wants.

 

[Cerulean_skylark]

So? That's not anti-communism, hence my question.

Click to shrink...

Discrete ownership of things like manufacturing, social and wealth classes are anti-communist.
Just because "people can't vote" does not mean it's suddenly communist.

Also, you're interchangably using "socialist" and "communist"

 

[deadman322]

tankies blindly support them so maybe???

 

[SFLUFAN]

The system the PRC follows is called a "socialist market economy" which is an outgrowth of Deng Xiaoping's theory of "socialism with Chinese characteristics":

Socialist market economy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In essence, China effectively has a "state capitalist" economic system.

 

[jelly]

China is a single party capitalist dictatorship.
There is private ownership of both business and land in Chinese society.

Click to shrink...

Doesn't any asset like that need a government sponsor, they must own part of it outright.

I don't know if they force people to work certain jobs, slavery aside.

 

[Ushojax]

They are as communist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are democratic.

 

[Maxim726x]

China is a single party capitalist dictatorship.
There is private ownership of both business and land in Chinese society with distinct social and economic classes.

Click to shrink...

There really isn't private ownership of anything when CEOs/business owners can go 'missing' for an indeterminate amount of time whenever the government feels like it.

I wouldn't call that ownership.

The system the PRC follows is called a "socialist market economy" which is an outgrowth of Deng Xiaoping's theory of "socialism with Chinese characteristics":

Socialist market economy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In essence, China effectively has a "state capitalist" economic system.

Click to shrink...

A more elegant response.

 

[His Majesty]

I always heard it being described as state sponsored capitalism. But maybe that's too simplistic.

 

[Deleted member 1849]

The CCP are authoritarians who see bits of capitalism and bits of communism as useful tools towards their goal of complete authoritarian control. What you end up with is a system which is broadly speaking, state capitalist.

 

[BossAttack]

Discrete ownership of things like manufacturing, social and wealth classes are anti-communist.
Just because "people can't vote" does not mean it's suddenly communist.

Also, you're interchangably using "socialist" and "communist"

Click to shrink...

Marx stated that a nation must first reach "full maturation of capitalism as the precondition for socialist realization." Again, that's why Lenin implemented his New Economic Policy (NEP). Capitalism is a precursor to full communist realization, socialism is a part of communism. The first phase of communism is socialism which is the period between capitalism and communism. The final phase is the full communist realization.

The system the PRC follows is called a "socialist market economy" which is an outgrowth of Deng Xiaoping's theory of "socialism with Chinese characteristics":

Socialist market economy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In essence, China effectively has a "state capitalist" economic system.

Click to shrink...

Yes, I understand this. But, does China view their "socialist market economy" as merely a precursor to socialist realization? In other words, we are using this controlled market economy to build the necessary infrastructure such that we can next implement socialism?

 

[Deleted member 99254]

Their schools still have a tightly curated curriculum that teaches the moral underpinnings of altruism and service to the state as well as the history of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Important infrastructure (energy and railways) are still kept nationalized through a construct of staffing the board with party members.

 

[sphagnum]

No, it's a state capitalist system with a socialist orientation. I think Xi legitimately believes in Dengism as a transitional path towards building up the productive forces to get to communism some day, but they're ideologically hamstrung by claiming to be within socialism already (the "primary stage") without a clear demarcation of when the next stage begins (the current plan seems to break down increments of 2035 and 2050 but the planned goals are pretty general). That said, Xi Jinping alone doesn't determine the course of development in China. There's a debate within the Party between following the gradual state capitalist development course and returning to something more radical, but the state capitalist faction (under Xi) has managed to retain dominance, though it's beginning to reign in the power of the bourgeoisie to re-enforce that the Party is paramount.

China more than any other nation has the potential to achieve socialism within the 21st century, but they have not demonstrated a sufficient roadmap or actual willingness to transition power to the working class directly as far as I'm aware. Their primary goal is the rejuvenation of China as the world's greatest power and a shift of human economic focus to the Global South for their benefit.

This book gives an outline of the current plan under Xi Jinping Thought. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-15-9833-3

 

[SFLUFAN]

Yes, I understand this. But, does China view their "socialist market economy" as merely a precursor to socialist realization? In other words, we are using this controlled market economy to build the necessary infrastructure such that we can next implement socialism?

Click to shrink...

Yes, the PRC continues to view this as a necessary transitory phase as defined by Marxism on the path towards communism.

 

[TheXbox]

The system the PRC follows is called a "socialist market economy" which is an outgrowth of Deng Xiaoping's theory of "socialism with Chinese characteristics":

Socialist market economy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In essence, China effectively has a "state capitalist" economic system.

Click to shrink...

This is a great response.

I have heard there is a recent Marxist undercurrent in Chinese political circles about the waning need for foreign investment and the free market... basically, that it was necessary to enrich the proletariat, but not the desired end state. No idea if that notion has any currency in the party, but the market in China is clearly still heavily regulated -- increasingly LESS free.

 

[BossAttack]

No, it's a state capitalist system with a socialist orientation. I think Xi legitimately believes in Dengism as a transitional path towards building up the productive forces to get to communism some day, but they're ideologically hamstrung by claiming to be within socialism already (the "primary stage") without a clear demarcation of when the next stage begins (the current plan seems to break down increments of 2035 and 2050 but the planned goals are pretty general). That said, Xi Jinping alone doesn't determine the course of development in China. There's a debate within the Party between following the gradual state capitalist development course and returning to something more radical, but the state capitalist faction (under Xi) has managed to retain dominance, though it's beginning to reign in the power of the bourgeoisie to re-enforce that the Party is paramount.

China more than any other nation has the potential to achieve socialism within the 21st century, but they have not demonstrated a sufficient roadmap or actual willingness to transition power to the working class directly as far as I'm aware. Their primary goal is the rejuvenation of China as the world's greatest power and a shift of human economic focus to the Global South for their benefit.

This book gives an outline of the current plan under Xi Jinping Thought. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-15-9833-3

Click to shrink...

Thank you, this is more of an answer I'm looking for. Alright, so you're saying that China already considers itself within socialism? That's pretty interesting and wild. But it seems I am correct that they have not outlined any roadmap or plan of when full socialism will be implemented. Yes?

 

[sphagnum]

Yes, I understand this. But, does China view their "socialist market economy" as merely a precursor to socialist realization? In other words, we are using this controlled market economy to build the necessary infrastructure such that we can next implement socialism?

Click to shrink...

The CCP claims that the state capitalist system is already the primary stage of socialism because the party is elected (but not in a liberal way), and thus the masses control the party, and therefore the people control the means of production. They hold that they are a Dictatorship of the Proletariat that tolerates a national bourgeoisie for developmental purposes but that the proletariat, through the party, wields ultimate power over them.

By comparison, as I understand it, Vietnam actually admits they are not under a "primary stage of socialism" but within a socialist-oriented market system trying to advance toward socialism. So Vietnam scores theoretical accuracy points here as far as I'm concerned.

 

[PeskyToaster]

How does Cuba compare?

 

[Cerulean_skylark]

Marx stated that a nation must first reach "full maturation of capitalism as the precondition for socialist realization." Again, that's why Lenin implemented his New Economic Policy (NEP). Capitalism is a precursor to full communist realization, socialism is a part of communism. The first phase of communism is socialism which is the period between capitalism and communism. The final phase is the full communist realization.



Yes, I understand this. But, does China view their "socialist market economy" as merely a precursor to socialist realization? In other words, we are using this controlled market economy to build the necessary infrastructure such that we can next implement socialism?

Click to shrink...

I think you should read the links that this reference on wikipedia you're referencing comes from:

Soviet Union : a country study : Zickel, Raymond E., 1934-;Keefe, Eugene K. Area handbook for the Soviet Union;Library of Congress. Federal Research Division : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

lxxxii, 1068 pages : 24 cm

archive.org

What you're describing is not a discrete quote of Marx, but is Lenin's interpretation of Marx in his attempt to correct for the failing radical communism system they tried previously. LENIN said capitalism and his NEP was necessary to cover his ass from the failing system they tried first, as you can see from the link which comes from the references.

Realistically, there is zero way to realize this distinct and discrete achivement of economic transformation because no one society exists in a vacuum by which to properly test it.

 

[sphagnum]

Thank you, this is more of an answer I'm looking for. Alright, so you're saying that China already considers itself within socialism? That's pretty interesting and wild. But it seems I am correct that they have not outlined any roadmap or plan of when full socialism will be implemented. Yes?

Click to shrink...

Correct. The official line seems to be that they will achieve "modern socialism in all respects" by 2050 but that's such a general statement that I find it hard to assign much meaning to it. That could mean the "second stage" but who knows what the "second stage" is? Maybe it means moving past a market economy; maybe it just means something else. Who knows.

 

[Deleted member 15240]

As part of the 19th Party Congress, a plan was developed on how to achieve socialism by 2050. It's available online. The Communist Party is still intent on moving towards socialism, even if they're currently using capitalism to strengthen the productive forces of the economy. It's an approach based on the theory of the productive forces.

 

[Maxim726x]

Marx stated that a nation must first reach "full maturation of capitalism as the precondition for socialist realization." Again, that's why Lenin implemented his New Economic Policy (NEP). Capitalism is a precursor to full communist realization, socialism is a part of communism. The first phase of communism is socialism which is the period between capitalism and communism. The final phase is the full communist realization.



Yes, I understand this. But, does China view their "socialist market economy" as merely a precursor to socialist realization? In other words, we are using this controlled market economy to build the necessary infrastructure such that we can next implement socialism?

Click to shrink...

Probably not. I'm hardly an expert, but it seems like the government in China is simply trying to prevent the situation we have here in the states... Wherein companies own Congress and thus are essentially more powerful than the US government.

It all seems like its in the name of limiting their reach and power, and keeping it in the hands of the state. There is certainly no altruistic motive at play.

 

[Potterson]

Yeah, like it or not but Stalin adhered to Lenin's policies. He very much cared about communism and socialist thought.

Click to shrink...

maybe economically, but I dont remember anything about being a dictator and creating a murderous regime from Marx's Manifesto

 

[sphagnum]

An easy way to think about it is that if you consider "socialism" to broadly be the dialectical synthesis of capitalism and communism, and not a specific mode of production outside of the Law of Value itself, then so long as the CCP can claim to be elected and retain dominance over the national bourgeoisie, they can claim that any system they enact is "socialism" through the pragmatic application of Marxist-Leninist organizational principles. But communism is in play only once the Law of Value is destroyed.

 

[Sordid Plebeian]

There are still socialist policies in play, but they have mostly retained the authoritarianism that Communism allows as well as its command economy. However, overtime they have shifted toward more capitalist practices.

 

[Deleted member 99254]

maybe economically, but I dont remember anything about being a dictator and creating a murderous regime from Marx's Manifesto

Click to shrink...

Lenin had the Cheka to exterminate fascist saboteurs. And likewise Stalin had to deal with sedition not from without, but from within. Which required a purge.

 

[Fatoy]

I think the question of whether China is toying with controlled capitalism as a means to an end was answered when they became the factory of the world, holding the reins of the global supply chain, and that still wasn't considered "the end".

I've seen people argue that the Chinese state seizing ownership of companies like Ant is an example of capitalism as a necessary evil, and a stepping stone to "true" communism. I don't buy that. I think if China manages to become a dominant player in fintech, or AI, or any of the other hot button industries of today, that still won't be enough. There'll be another sector to corner; another market to conquer.

I believe China is a capitalist state that goes through cycles of consolidating that capitalism. Doing that once would meet the definition of communism, but doing it time and time again just makes the communism part look like a convenient facade.

 

[GYODX]

It's closer to capitalism than communism.

 

[Tallshortman]

China is a single party capitalist dictatorship.
There is private ownership of both business and land in Chinese society with distinct social and economic classes.

Click to shrink...

There is not real private ownership of land, only long term leases. The government owns all land in the country. But yes China is certainly not a traditional communist state. The social safety net is worse than many non-communist nations with a similar per capita GDP. For retirement you're basically on your own unless you worked for the government.

 

[BossAttack]

I think you should read the links that this reference on wikipedia you're referencing comes from:

Soviet Union : a country study : Zickel, Raymond E., 1934-;Keefe, Eugene K. Area handbook for the Soviet Union;Library of Congress. Federal Research Division : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

lxxxii, 1068 pages : 24 cm

archive.org

What you're describing is not a discrete quote of Marx, but is Lenin's interpretation of Marx in his attempt to correct for the failing radical communism system they tried previously. LENIN said capitalism and his NEP was necessary to cover his ass from the failing system they tried first, as you can see from the link which comes from the references.

Realistically, there is zero way to realize this distinct and discrete achivement of economic transformation because no one society exists in a vacuum by which to properly test it.

Click to shrink...

Interesting. I will have to read.

 

[Deleted member 2752]

Lenin had the Cheka to exterminate fascist saboteurs. And likewise Stalin had to deal with sedition not from without, but from within. Which required a purge.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, what a very practical guy that Stalin.

 

[GYODX]

Lenin had the Cheka to exterminate fascist saboteurs. And likewise Stalin had to deal with sedition not from without, but from within. Which required a purge.

Click to shrink...

"It had to be done"

 

[Mezentine]

China more than any other nation has the potential to achieve socialism within the 21st century, but they have not demonstrated a sufficient roadmap or actual willingness to transition power to the working class directly as far as I'm aware. Their primary goal is the rejuvenation of China as the world's greatest power and a shift of human economic focus to the Global South for their benefit.

This book gives an outline of the current plan under Xi Jinping Thought. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-15-9833-3

Click to shrink...

This always seems to be the big sticking point. China is probably on track to have the world's most successful planned economy, and probably on track to have some of the tightest controls on private wealth accumulation, but the bit where workers have a different relationship to their labor seems...well, I'm not going to say impossible, but I just don't see a plausible path there without another dramatic upheaval. The incentives among the current powerful classes are always just going to be finding new reasons to kick the can down the road

 

[Typhon]

Not the good communism, which is why it's so funny to me when right wingers dunk on communism pointing at China etc. like.. no.. that's not what anyone wants.

Click to shrink...

I'm not an expert but can you give me an example of the "good kind". A hundred years of communism and I don't see any evidence it can be any better than capitalism. I'm not sure there is a perfect economic model,

 

[Chikor]

I don't think communist party members are lying when they say they are communists.
Like if you pick up Xi's a copy of das kapital (which I'm sure he has) and open it I don't think the Road to Serfdom will fall out of it or anything.

Though I'd imagine the way they define terms like communism and socialism is a bit different than how some (many? most?) people in the west define those terms, and I generally think if you want to understand China it's better to try to understand how they use those terms and what they mean to them rather than insisting that your own definition is the only correct one.

 

[Cerulean_skylark]

There is not real private ownership of land, only long term leases. The government owns all land in the country. But yes China is certainly not a traditional communist state. The social safety net is worse than many non-communist nations with a similar per capita GDP. For retirement you're basically on your own unless you worked for the government.

Click to shrink...

My bad on that front.

 

[sphagnum]

I think you should read the links that this reference on wikipedia you're referencing comes from:

Soviet Union : a country study : Zickel, Raymond E., 1934-;Keefe, Eugene K. Area handbook for the Soviet Union;Library of Congress. Federal Research Division : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

lxxxii, 1068 pages : 24 cm

archive.org

What you're describing is not a discrete quote of Marx, but is Lenin's interpretation of Marx in his attempt to correct for the failing radical communism system they tried previously. LENIN said capitalism and his NEP was necessary to cover his ass from the failing system they tried first, as you can see from the link which comes from the references.

Click to shrink...

I would say that this is more an issue of "timing" than anything else. Marx did say that socialism emerges out of capitalism - his whole view of how the revolution would start was predicated on the class struggle in the most advanced capitalist states leading to a clash between workers and exploiters (he didn't see social democracy coming). He had some other ideas later in life (like how the Russian peasantry could achieve socialism without capitalism) but it was general and not well sketched out. The problem here was that the Bolsheviks jumped the gun and tried to leapfrog into socialism despite the bourgeois revolution in Russia not being complete, and that's what forced Lenin and Bukharin to develop the NEP after the devasation of the Civil War. Basically Marx was right and Lenin was too early. This habitually repeated in the 20th century since a lot of colonized nations or exploited nations adopted Marxism-Leninism after Stalin succeeded at making it look like a viable functioning alternative, but the command economy doesn't work without computers, which is what forced China and Vietnam back into their own versions of the NEP.

NEP is basically just communists being smacked with Marx's reality after already having won a war and not wanting to cede power while building up the productive forces.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Lenin had the Cheka to exterminate fascist saboteurs. And likewise Stalin had to deal with sedition not from without, but from within. Which required a purge.

Click to shrink...

Had to deal with? Required purges? I don't know if we should be taking Stalin's justifications at face value.

 

[Ceerious]

Thank you, this is more of an answer I'm looking for. Alright, so you're saying that China already considers itself within socialism? That's pretty interesting and wild. But it seems I am correct that they have not outlined any roadmap or plan of when full socialism will be implemented. Yes?

Click to shrink...

Our government doesn't define itself as "socialist country" no more. Karl Marx's influence is downplayed. It's "socialist with Chinese characteristics" now, whatever that means. The party's priority mission is now self-preservation and control of power, not the realization of "real socialism". There are socialist structure remains, but it's a nearly indescribable hybrid system that using the power of capitalism to maintain authoritarian power.

 

[sphagnum]

This always seems to be the big sticking point. China is probably on track to have the world's most successful planned economy, and probably on track to have some of the tightest controls on private wealth accumulation, but the bit where workers have a different relationship to their labor seems...well, I'm not going to say impossible, but I just don't see a plausible path there without another dramatic upheaval. The incentives among the current powerful classes are always just going to be finding with new reasons to kick the can down the road

Click to shrink...

Yeah, they've actually - as far as I'm concerned - managed through a dialectical process to achieve an ultimate form of capitalism covered in red paint, insulated from revolutionary action by its own ideological commitment to a communism it isn't going to achieve. Capital is a god that seeks its own replication and growth, and if it needs to pretend to want to kill itself to grow larger, then so be it.

There is, however, always potential in there because at the same time tons of Chinese people are genuinely Marxist and the class struggle remains within the system. It's just that right now the state acts as a buffer. But it can tip back and forth over time.

 

[GYODX]

Also interesting to note is that China's latest "common prosperity" initiative essentially revolves around companies and billionaires donating money to charity lol

Billionaire Donations Soar in China Push for ‘Common Prosperity’

Seven Chinese billionaires have directed a record $5 billion to charity so far this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News, a sum that exceeds by 20% total national giving in 2020. Their pledges, whether through corporate interests, foundations or personal wealth, arrive as President...

www.bloomberg.com

 

[Mezentine]

I would say that this is more an issue of "timing" than anything else. Marx did say that socialism emerges out of capitalism - his whole view of how the revolution would start was predicated on the class struggle in the most advanced capitalist states leading to a clash between workers and exploiters (he didn't see social democracy coming). He had some other ideas later in life (like how the Russian peasantry could achieve socialism without capitalism) but it was general and not well sketched out. The problem here was that the Bolsheviks jumped the gun and tried to leapfrog into socialism despite the bourgeoisie revolution in Russia not being complete, and that's what forced Lenin and Bukharin to develop the NEP after the devasation of the Civil War. Basically Marx was right and Lenin was too early. This habitually repeated in the 20th century since a lot of colonized nations or exploited nations adopted Marxism-Leninism after Stalin succeeded at making it look like a viable functioning alternative, but the command economy doesn't work without computers, which is what forced China and Vietnam back into their own versions of the NEP.

NEP is basically just communists being smacked with Marx's reality after already having won a war and not wanting to cede power while building up the productive forces.

Click to shrink...

The complicating factor in everything, that I keep coming back to as I read more and more history of the Russian revolution, Chinese revolution, and various other revolutionary movements of the last century is that, since the Russian revolution (which only really was able to kick off due to the alliance of the "sick-of-dying-pointlessly" military) every other big successful movement has energized the revolutionary potential of the rural peasantry, and most of the unsuccessful ones have tried to follow the Marxist path of energizing the proletariat. But like you say, a society in which the rural peasantry has enough potential for a revolution is also one that doesn't have enough productive force to begin transitioning to socialism, while all the more developed economies can't seem to actually muster up a true proletarian movement. It's part of why I doubt we're going to see many more revolutions of that sort in the next century; global capitalism, even in places like China, has largely paved over the conditions that led to true "Burn down the capital" revolutionary energy.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

They might say it's communism, but it's state capitalism.

 

[mbpm]

I thought Communism was the goal, that it's the position where the world as a whole has achieved dissolution of class/etc.

If so, China would be doing socialist something at most

 

[Deleted member 99254]

Had to deal with? Required purges? I don't know if we should be taking Stalin's justifications at face value.

Click to shrink...

People generally don't like a sharp change in direction, especially if their personal belongings and livelihood are in jeopardy (Read up on how the khulaks ate shit during the revolution along with the tsarists). Consider for a more modern comparison how the US has slightly less than half it's population vote for Trump, and how his followers go to extremes to disrupt the government he lost control of.

 

[sphagnum]

The complicating factor in everything, that I keep coming back to as I read more and more history of the Russian revolution, Chinese revolution, and various other revolutionary movements of the last century is that, since the Russian revolution (which only really was able to kick off due to the alliance of the "sick-of-dying-pointlessly" military) every other big successful movement has energized the revolutionary potential of the rural peasantry, and most of the unsuccessful ones have tried to follow the Marxist path of energizing the proletariat. But like you say, a society in which the rural peasantry has enough potential for a revolution is also one that doesn't have enough productive force to begin transitioning to socialism, while all the more developed economies can't seem to actually muster up a true proletarian movement. It's part of why I doubt we're going to see many more revolutions of that sort in the next century; global capitalism, even in places like China, has largely paved over the conditions that led to true "Burn down the capital" revolutionary energy.

Click to shrink...

Marx seemed to think later in his life that the Russian peasantry could leapfrog capitalism because their traditional land arrangements were collective (the mir system) in the first place and thus there was no private property that needed to seized and collectivized. His idea was that if they could get a hold of western technology, they could jump right in to modernizing their productive mode while retaining a collective structure. Trotsky would call this sort of thing telescoping. This state of affairs, however, had changed by the time of the Bolsheviks due to the Stolypin reforms and other developments, which led to the kulaks and...well...

Today's peasantry in developing nations is already getting integrated into the world capitalist system as it is, so as far as I can tell it's only going to increase the proletarianization of labor. But due to social democratic/welfare reforms, governments have figured out they can tamp down proletarian radicalization through ameliorating measures, aside from the more traditional method of throwing them off guard through increased nationalism and the like. The neoliberal period screwed up the welfare process which is why we're seeing a rise in socialistic rhetoric in the west again, but I do think China's plan of stability and growth above all through national capitalism will provide a roadmap other nations can use to grow without radical labor demands.