On The Triple Demism of Sun Yat-sen

Paschal M. D'Elia

[Reformatted from a typewritten manuscript found at the Henry George School of Social Science, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Spring of 2009. The English edition of this manuscript was apparently published by The Franciscan Press in Wuchang, China, 1931. The author also credits a study completed by Maurice William and provided to the author.]

CONTENTS

• From Preface of French Edition, by Paschal M, D'Elia, S.J. (page 3)
• From Preface of English Edition by J.S. Espelage, O.F.M. Vicar Apostolic of Wuchang, China (page 6)
• "The Author of the Triple Demism" Evaluated by Dr. D'Elia. (page 8)
• Appreciation of the Triple Demism of Sun Yat-sen: "Must We Pass Judgment?" by Dr. D'Elia. (page 10)
• * Statement by Maurice William based upon Dr. D'Elia's study "The Triple Demism of Sun Yat-sen." (page 15)
• Sun Yat-sen's pro-Marxian, pro-Bolshevist, pro-class struggle position as presented in the lectures on the principle of Nationalism (Racial Demism) and Principle of Democracy (Political Demism) January 27 to April 26, 1924. (page 37)
• Sun Yat-sen1s anti-Marxian, anti-Bolshevist and anti-class-struggle position as presented three months later -- August, 1924, in his lectures on the Principle of Livelihood (Economic Demism). (page 45)
• General Appreciation by Paschal M. D'Elia. (page 54)
• The Attitude of "the Catholic Church toward China, by Paschal M.. D'Elia (page 58)
• The Economic Demism or Sociology (Principle of Livelihood) of Sun Yat-sen, Evaluated by Paschal M. D'Elia (page 65)
• Concluding Word, by Paschal M. D'Elia (page 82)

A copy of my statement to Dr. D'Elia is inserted at this point in the hope that it may prove helpful as a key, enabling the reader to appreciate more fully Dr. D'Elia's difficulties, since he did not have this advantage when seeking an explanation for Dr. Sun's conflicting views. [Maurice William]

Abstracts from The Triple Demism of Sun Yat-sen

by Paschal M. D'Elia, S.J., English Edition by The Franciscan Press, Wuchang, China. 1931

From Preface of the French Edition: Paschal M. D'Elia, S.J.

Three things are essential in the Nationalist Party. A portrait a symbol, and a program. The portrait, naturally, is that of Sun Yat-sen; the symbol is "the white sun upon a field of blue", designed by Sun Yat-sen at the outbreak of the first revolution; the program is the book of Sun Yat-sen, the San Minchui, or Triple Demism. (The Three Principles of the People)

Few books have met with as much success. Innumerable editions have succeeded each other. The Triple Demism has grown to be the bible or the Gospel of Young China. Every genuine patriot regards that work as the supreme criterion of his political allegiance. All that is contained therein is sacred, all that is not, is void. …

But let them reflect carefully. We find ourselves confronted with a fact. The work of Sun Yat-sen is spread all over China. Without our agency it has become the book of the new generations. It is that work which in the minds of the new leaders is destined to fashion the China of the morrow. The theories which it contains are already in vogue. The government at Nanking knows of no other code than the Triple Demism. And with that government as the established authority, and with the new generations all aglow with Demist doctrines, the Church must deal. On the nature of these dealings depends for a great part the future of Christianity in China. ...

It may be -- we hope it ardently -- that we shall be able to induce the sane faction of the nation, which is the majority of the population of China to accept, such a version of the new ideas as is compatible with Christian morals; the only version which, at the same time, will prove lastingly profitable to the welfare of China. We must fight against the interpretation of sectarian disciples who are opposed to Christianity, and by the very words of Sun Yat-sen prove to them that they are falsifying the doctrine of their master and that our Christian interpretation has as much, if not more, trust, and solidity, as theirs. Thus we shall be able to avert a danger.

The Catholic Church in China, instead of appearing as an adversary, will deserve reverence and good will. And a careful reading of the work of Sun Yat-sen shows that we may hope for such an achievement.

Of course, the reading of the Demist text is not devoid of dangers; but we do not believe that it is necessary to regard the matter in that light. The theories of Sun Yat-sen are the topic of the day. To pass them over in silence is not a solution, Christian Chinese will hear of them through prejudiced and hostile commentators. There seems to be less danger in instructing them directly and in proposing to them our interpretation of the doctrine of Sun Yat-sen. In that way we shall be able to show them how Chinese can be good Christians while remaining Chinese, and even while taking into account some of the doctrines of Sun Yat-sen. The missionaries who are to be the light of the world must enlighten the faithful of the present day, and those still more numerous of the future whose numbers will run into hundreds of millions. So they have an imperious need for a book which will help them to acquire a clear, objective, and scientific knowledge of the theories of Sun Yat-sen. Authoritative personages whom we have consulted, who are well aware of the present entangled situation of the Church in China, have given us the encouraging reply: "You are offering to the missionaries a much wished-for book; the publication of that book is not merely timely; it is needed."

From a consensus of opinion the two following points seem well established; a) there is need of putting into the hands of missionaries -- if not of others -- the authentic and integral text of Sun Yat-sen; b) there is need of appending thereunto, as correction, a pertinent, prudent, and timely criticism regarding the teachings and program of the author.

This we have tried to achieve in the book which we are offering to the public.

Preface of the English Edition
by J.S. Espelage, O.F.M. Vicar Apostolic of Wuchang, China

Early in 1929 the long expected French Translation of the famous San Min Chui by Dr. Sun Yat-sen came off the press under the title, Le Triple Demisme, traduit, annote et apprecie par Pascal M. D'Elia, S.J., Shanghai, T'ou-se-we.

The perusal of the work made us realize immediately that it was the book of the hour also for Missionaries in China. In view of the paramount importance attached to Dr. Sun's teaching by Young China, we also believe that, even outside the missionary sphere, many people interested in Chinese questions, either in China or at home, in England, in the United States and elsewhere -- whether they are Sinologues, Diplomats or simply scholars-would gladly welcome an English edition of Dr. D'Elia's book.

True, there already existed two English Translations of Dr. Sun's work. But one was far from being complete. The other translation was complete; it gave the whole text, but only the text, scarcely any notes. And yet notes are not of academic interest only in a book of this kind, where clearness is not the main tenet. Above all the reader feels bewildered throughout the unwieldy mass of so many ill-assorted statements and would gratefully accept guidance through the labyrinth of Dr. Sun's teaching.

Most happily Dr. D'Elia's book came at the right moment to fill up such a gap. Unlike the work of the well-known Sinologue, it contained the whole text scrupulously translated, and, in contradiction to the book of Mr. Price, placed Dr. Sun's teaching in its historic frame, pertinently commenting on and specially appreciating it from the ethical and Christian standpoint.

The main features of Dr. D'Elia's book have been clearly pointed out by a non-Catholic writer. "Dr. D'Elia," writes U.B. in the Chinese Recorder, "has the rare gift of presenting the most abstruse subject in a clear, concise, and even entertaining way. First of all he gives a full translation of the text. Each lecture is preceded by a summary, each paragraph is numbered, and in the right and left margin references are given to standard Chinese editions of the work. Not only that, but the text is commented on in excellent footnotes, and a complete index makes the student's task easier still. Then the unwieldy mass of lectures is digested in an admirable analysis, giving the line of thought and the essential elements of Sun Yat-sen's teaching in a remarkably lucid and concise summing up. This done, the author reviews the theory of the book from the standpoint of the Roman Church."

The preceding explains why we asked Dr. D'Elia to give us an English edition of his book.

In giving to the world the English edition of Le Triple Demisme we are inspired by the hope that it may lead to a deeper appreciation and fuller understanding of Dr. Sun Yat-sen and his work, and an interpretation of his teaching based on sound philosophy and fixed ethical standards.

The Author of The Triple Demism Evaluated by Dr. D'Elia

Page 28

But between the first exposition of 1912 and the second of 1924 there was one difference. A new agent had appeared in the world,Russian Communism. Without burning incense to it, as he was requested to do by his Russian advisers in whose help alone he had confidence for the carrying out of his program for the reconstruction of China, Sun Yat-sen consented to interlard his lectures with communistic terms. Thus he threw dust into the eyes of his Russian friends and of the newly admitted communistic members of his Party.

Page 32

Some writers venture a comparison between him and Mazzini and do not hesitate to say that what Mazzini was to Young Italy, Dr. Sun has been to Young China. Be it as it may, surely Sun Yat-sen, in the opinion of contemporary Chinese, is credited with having found the complete solution for china's woes, racial, political, and social. There lies, it seems to us, the reason of the unquestionable influence of Dr. Sun upon the Chinese mind of today.

Page 33

The horrors rendered to Sun Yat-sen by Young China do not stop there. More than once, often, nay very often in the late years, after their arrival in a village or a town, the first act of Nationalist armies has been to take possession of the church either Catholic or Protestant, or even of a pagoda, to break down the statues either of saints or of idols, and to place upon the alter the portrait of Sun Yat-sen. Of late, China seems to have relegated into the background all her great men of former times, Confucius included, and her pagan gods, in order to reserve all the homages for Sun Yat-sen.

Book II: Appreciation of The Triple Demism of Sun Yat-sen - "Must We Pass Judgment?" by Dr. D'Elia

Chapter I
Must We Pass Judgment? By Paschal M. D'Elia,. S.J.

Page 543-7

The time has not yet corns to pass an adequate judgment on the Triple Demism. To pass such a judgment would require less political passion, more calm, more historical perspective, and also more "Demist" experience. In fact, time and experience will tell us "better than anything else the true value of this book and of this doctrine.

On the other hand, to say nothing at all about a book and a doctrine so much spoken of today, would, we believe, frustrate the expectation of many of our readers. How many people who are interested in China, above all, how many missionaries and Chinese Christians have asked and still do ask themselves perplexing questions regarding this book and all that it implies! The following pages have no other aim but to help them solve at least some of these excruciating problems.

Certain it is that for the Nationalists, that is to say, for Young China, this book has gradually assumed an incontestable importance. In the preface of his work, The Way of Youth, Mr. Tai Chitao, President of the Executive Board at Nanking writes: "Whoever does not believe in the Triple Demism is a willing victim to the craft of the evil spirit and leads society to misfortune". Never, nor in any country perhaps, did any book have as great an influence in the rebirth of a nation. The Triple Demism is at present fashioning Young China. It does for her what neither Rousseau's Contract Social did for France, nor Mrs. Store's Uncle Tom's Cabin for the United States.

Since the Nationalists are in power, scarcely a day passes by without an official edict of the Government adding its stone to the grand edifice of the future nation, a nation to be built anew entirely upon the rock foundation of the Triple Demism. If China "awakens" -- so speak the Chinese themselves -- if she is convinced that she must develop her industries, her education, her administration, her Government -- in a word, everything - she believes that all this is impossible unless it is based on the Triple Demism. The password, the touchstone of everybody and of everything is in this "ism", and in this "ism" alone. When there is question of incorporating into the Party those who yesterday were enemies or of planning reforms and mapping out the future, hardly any other question is asked but:

"Are you in favor of or opposed to the Triple Demism?"; "Does that law, that plan conform to the Triple Demism?" . Things have gone so far that sentences of death or of life imprisonment have been contemplated against all anti-revolutionists, meaning thereby all those who would be bold enough to hold a doctrine opposed to the Triple Demism. Foreigners who witness a fact of this kind cannot understand it; they cannot go that far. But they are forced to bow before it and to admit it even in spite of themselves.

Sun Yat-sen's book has been broadcasted all over the country. It is meant to be the code of the new generations. It has to bring forth a new nation. In the mind of the present leaders of China this book must be made a compulsory text for all the schools, even mission schools. Mention is even made of one school for girls which used no other textbook nor programe of study but the Triple Demism. At the end of the school-year students must pass a special examination upon this new topic. In the tests for government offices the candidate must, first of all, chow that he has mastered the Demist doctrine.

It is possible that the educative factor of experience will break down, at least in part, some of the infatuations, nay, of the illusions of the first enthusiasm. But it would take a very perspicacious mind to foretell the day when that movement made of admiration and enthusiasm for Sun Yat-sen and his doctrine will die out or take a different course.

In view of this fact -- for it is necessary to face the real situation in the China of today -- which daily assumes greater proportions, the Catholic Church cannot and must not stand aside. With much more reason than the poet Terence, she cries out always and everywhere: "humani nihil a mo alienum puto" (Nothing relating to man is foreign to me). What then, when there is question of that immense "human reservoir", as Pius XI calls China, and especially when there is question of so many immortal souls?

The Church, who in the course of her long existence has encountered so many similar experiences, must face the existing conditions. Through her marvelous faculty of adaptability to all climates, to all temperaments, to all races, to all situations, to all changes, social, political, economic, and others, she, eternally young amid times which grow old, and perfectly identical throughout the ever-changing spaces, will, no doubt, make use of the new trends of thought to bring into souls the message of Christ, her divine King. In China at the present time, confronted with the work and the doctrine of Sun Yat-sen, she must give her already numerous children of today and her still more numerous children of the morrow, a direction, a watchword, even if it be only one of tolerance and of laissez-faire, i.e., let things take their natural course. She knows that even though her children are good and pious, they cannot, in the words of the apostle, "go out of the world", of this modern world in which they have to live. She knows that unless she is the one who speaks to them about these new doctrines, they will be in danger of becoming acquainted with them through warped and hostile comments.

The Church, as a rule, does not favor a policy of abstention. She prefers to oppose the instruments of good to instruments of evil, a good newspaper to an evil one, Catholic art and Catholic press to immoral art and immoral press. In China, then, to a Demism which, but for her, might become anti-Christian, she will oppose a Demism which, through her, will be acceptable to Christians and at the same time to the sane element of the Chinese nation. In the modern current she will trace a line of conduct, and, through her ministers, she will endeavor to show to her children in how far the Chinese can remain good Christians and yet adopt the doctrines of Sun Yat-sen. In presence of that new doctrine, it is necessary that she be able to answer those three questions which may disturb the Christian conscience of today:

1. Are all the theories of Sun Yat-sen good and to be accepted?
2. Are they, on the contrary, all evil and fit to be condemned in block and a priori?
3. Do they contain some unobjectionable parts which, after they have been separated from some utopias, equivocations, and errors, can be offered to the public?

Hence it is fitting to see whether and how, without failing in her divine mission, the Catholic Church can continue to live her own life, even in the midst of the Demist current. It is fitting to lighten this, her most arduous task, by examining what in this book, meant to be imposed even upon her, directly or indirectly touches her divine mission. We undertake to do this in a spirit of filial and complete submission to competent authority, and we heartily submit beforehand to the eventual decisions of the Church; we undertake this without sacrificing in the least any principle of dogma or morality, without omitting the restrictions, criticisms and indispensable rectifications, but also in a frankly confessed spirit of sympathetic intelligence and apostolic foresight. We believe -- and most authoritative and well qualified personages of the Church believe with us -- that in doing so we are in the path of practical truth for the present and especially for the future. For it is not inconsiderately that we attempt to give this appreciation, the fruit of well-nigh three years of assiduous study of the Demist text. Before undertaking the task we have surrounded ourselves with all the guarantees which Christian and religious prudence could suggest in so important a matter. The reader will do us the favor to take our word for it.

Moreover, we do not claim to make here an exhaustive study of the Triple Demism. We intend to give only an interpretation which has been suggested merely by the objective, conscientious, and prolonged study of the text; we propound it as plausible, nothing more. To some readers it might seem rather indulgent. To these we shall say that our attitude is based on the Demist theories such as they are expressed in the book, without regard for the explanations and conclusions of some fanatical commentators of disciples. We add that we shall gratefully receive remarks and suggestions, for we have in view truth and nothing but truth without leaning to either side.

Footnote - Page 545:

"The Church," wrote Pope Pius X, "The Church in her long history has always and in all cases clearly demonstrated that she possesses a marvelous power of adaptability to the varying conditions of civil society. Without ever impairing the integrity and immutability of faith or of morals, ever safeguarding her sacred rights, she bends and easily accommodates herself, in all that is contingent and accidental, to the vicissitudes of times and to the new exigencies of society".

The statistics of 1920-1930 give as 2,498,015 the number of baptized Chinese Catholics, not including about 400,000 others who are preparing to receive Baptism.

Footnote - Page 546:

As to Young China, far from fearing constructive criticisms, she, on the contrary, welcomes and solicits them. Not so long ago, through her principal representative, President Chiang Kai-shek, she said: "...it is to be hoped that, beginning with 1930 the Press of the whole country will efficaciously and wisely contribute to the welfare of the country by studying the real facts and by assisting the Party and the Government through its criticisms, in the discussion of all matters. The Press is the proper channel and organ of opinions it represents public opinion. Therefore, since members of the Press have deep insight into the affairs of the country, they should give utterance to their opinions and thoughts. It is, therefore, hoped that, beginning from the first day of the 19th year of the Republic (January 1, 1930), the Press of the country will make valuable and helpful contributions -- based upon actual facts and in the form of criticisms and discussions -- of Party and government politics and of the military, financial, foreign, and judicial affairs of the country. Free and unrestrained criticism … of the defects and shortcomings of the Government will be welcomed. It is also hoped that the authors of such discussions and criticisms will mail copies to me thereof. All views and suggestions of any value will be followed and acted upon, for not only may I be enabled thus to avoid many mistakes and blunders, but the future of the country and of the Party will also profit thereby." Message to Journalists, Dec. 28, 1929.

Statement by Maurice William
Based Upon Dr. D'Elia's study: The Triple Demism of Sun Yat-sen

A copy of my statement to Dr. D'Elia is inserted at this point in the hope that it may prove helpful as a key, enabling the reader to appreciate more fully Dr. D'Elia's difficulties, since he did not have this advantage when seeking an explanation for Dr. Sun's conflicting views. M.W.

130 West 57th Street
New York City June 1st, 1932

Dr. Paschal M. D'Elia, S. J.
Sinological Bureau
Shanghai, China

My dear Dr. D'Elia:

I cannot forego the pleasure of extending to you my warmest congratulations upon your remarkable study The Triple Demism of Sun Yat-sen. I have been particularly impressed by Book II which is an extraordinarily fine piece of interpretative writing.

The closing sentence in your chapter on "Must We Pass Judgment", in which you state "…we shall gratefully receive remarks and suggestions for we have in view truth and nothing but truth", I construe as an invitation to all who may be in a position to throw light upon the possible causes of the apparent contradictions in Dr. Sun's teachings. In the hope, therefore, that they may prove helpful in this connection, I am forwarding to you under separate cover two volumes, The Social Interpretation of History, published in 1921, end "Sun Yat-sen Versus Communism", just off the press. I am enclosing with this letter some additional material which may also be of aid in clearing up the confusion regarding Sun Yat-sen1s thinking.

Dr. Sun's untimely death compelled his disciples to resort to the alternative of interpreting his teaching. Even a superficial knowledge of the facts is enough to disclose that the seven years following Dr. Sun's death have developed two schools of opposing interpretations-a Left and a Right school. Left interpretations are supported by copious quotations from Dr. Sun's writing; Right interpretations too are supported by copious quotations from Dr. Sun's writing. What have these achieved? Have they promoted peace and unity in China? Who would be so rash as to contend that the opposing interpretations have been of benefit to China? This much has been established -- Left interpretations succeed in convincing only those who hold Left interpretations, while Right interpretations succeed in convincing only those who hold Right interpretations of Dr. Sun's teaching. But each side has utterly failed to convince the other.

What is the lesson to be drawn from this discouraging picture? We cannot escape the conclusion that interpretations, after a thorough going test of more than seven years, have proved a hopeless failure as a means of promoting peace and unity among Dr. Sun's disciples. Nay, more than that! Experience has demonstrated that interpretations have actually proved a menace to China and a potential menace to the world.

One cannot examine into the causes of civil wars which have menaced China in the past seven years without realizing that they are directly due to conflicting interpretations of Dr. Sun's teaching. These civil wars are tragic proof of the hopeless failure of all attempts to interpret Dr. Sun and proponents of the conflicting interpretations prefer to fall back upon the method which, to them, seems far more convincing -- the method of the bullet.

For the present, the proponents of Right interpretation are in control of the Nationalist Government, but so long as such influential figures as Mme. Sun Yat-sen, Eugene Chen, and others are striving for the downfall of the Nationalist Government, civil wars will menace the peace of China. Who can say that the fortunes of war may not again bring the government under the control of the Left wing and thus restore the Left program which dominated China between 1923 and 1927?

It is plain that little is to be gained from blinking the fact that there can be no unity and peace so long as China remains half Left and half Right. We should concentrate upon an effort that holds out a promise of convincing not those already convinced, but those who are still opposed, if we would promote peace, instead of conflict, in China.

If I may be permitted to say so, your statement (Page 547), "Our attitude is based on the Demist theories such as they are explained in the (Sun's) book without regard for the explanations and conclusion of some fanatical commentators or disciples", constitutes the key to civil wars in China. This statement is also voiced by Mme. Sun, for the Left, and Chiang Kai-shek, for the Right. Each can and does quote Sun in proof that "Our attitude is based on the Demist theories such as they are explained in the book": and so long as each side stands by its own "attitude … without regard for the explanations and conclusions of some fanatical commentators or disciples", just so long will civil wars continue to ravage China. The road to peace and unity can be reached only through a new approach. Disregard must give way to the most scrupulous regard for the explanations and conclusions of those of Dr. Sun's disciples who hold opposing interpretations of his teaching. They should be granted the same honesty of purpose they are expected to grant to their opponents. To concede honesty of motive, is to lay the foundation for good-will and understanding.

Much comfort is to be derived from the hope that both the Left and Right factions may be equally loyal to Dr. Sun. Such loyalty may well serve as the foundation for unity in China, For it seems safe to assume that were Dr. Sun here to clarify his position, both factions would prove their loyalty by following his instructions.

It remains therefore for the living to take up the task death deprived Dr. Sun of the opportunity to complete.

It would seem that the first step in a program of constructive service for China should consist of an investigation of the claim made by the leaders of both factions that, "Our attitude is based on the Demist theories such as they are explained in the book". Can it be possible that Dr. Sun's book contains evidence that could justify and support both Left and Right interpretations of his theories? Your own valuable study draws attention to the Left ideology which dominates Sun's development of his Principle of Nationalism and Principle of Democracy. You then proceed to point out how in his Principle of Livelihood, Dr. Sun presents an anti-Marxist, anti-Communist position. What does this establish? It seems to prove that it was Dr. Sun's Left and Right Ideology which gave rise to his Left and Right disciples and it proves further that both groups are essentially honest since their conflict springs from a desire to continue their loyalty to their departed leader.

How did Dr. Sun come to hold conflicting views? This question cannot be answered unless due consideration is given to a matter of some importance but which, strangely enough, has been completely overlooked by most commentators. I am referring to the fact that after giving his series of six lectures each on the Principle of Nationalism and the Principle of Democracy, which he delivered over weekly intervals between January 27 and April 26, 1924, for some mysterious reason, Dr. Sun discontinued his lectures. He did not give a single lecture on his Three Principles during the months of May, June, and July. It was not until August 3, 1924, that he delivered the first lecture on the Principle of Livelihood. There must have been some explanation for Dr. Sun's sudden and strange silence. What was the explanation? Dr. Sun said in his preface, "...it now happens that the Kuomintang is being reorganized and our comrades are beginning to engage in a determined attack upon the minds of our people. They are in great need of the profound truths of "San Min Chu I" (The Three Principles of the People) ... as material for propaganda. So I delivered one lecture a week". Yet, in spite of the "great need", Dr. Sun discontinued his lectures and waited more than three months before delivering the first of the series on the Principle of Livelihood. Why? What was absorbing Dr. Sun's attention during those three months? The stated views of eminent scholars may help to shed light upon this question.

The following is quoted from China in Revolution by Dr. Harley Farnsworth MacNair, Professor of Far Eastern History and Institutions, University of Chicago:

"Two facts related to the 'San Min Chu I' have not received the attention they deserve; first, that a period of more than three months elapsed between the presentation of the two series of six lectures each on the principle of the People's Nationalism and the Principle of the People's Sovereignty and the last four lectures on the Principle of the People's Livelihood; and second, that during this period a book entitled The Social Interpretation of History by an American scholar, Dr. Maurice William of New York City, fell into Dr. Sun's hands which profoundly affected his philosophy of history and revolution as presented in the analysis of the third principle." (Page 88)

Dr. James T. Shotwell, Professor of History, Columbia University; Director of Division of Economics and History, Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, and member of the Research Committee; Institute of Pacific Relations, writes as follows:

"The reading of The Social Interpretation of History by Dr. Sun Yat-sen may yet turn out to have been one of the most important single incidents in the history of modern Asia, for the consequences were immediate and far-reaching and have only just begun to show their full extent in the orientation of China. This may seem like an extravagant statement and yet it seems amply justified by a study of the facts in the case. …In August, 1924, Dr. Sun gave the third of his Three Principles, that which deals with social reform, in the terms set forth by Dr. William." [From an article entitled "Sun Yat-sen and Maurice William," Political Science Quarterly, March, 1932.]

Dr. Jeremiah W. Jenks, Research Professor of Government, New York University; Honorary Economic Advisor, Nationalist Government of China, in a lecture on "Why China Repudiated Bolshevism", delivered at New York University on February 6, 1929, spoke in part as follows:

"In the latter part of his book (The San Min Chu I), he (Sun) changed his views quite decidedly and that change was apparently brought about by there falling into his hands in some way (we do not know how), an American book written by Dr. Maurice William of New York City. It is entitled The Social Interpretation of History. Dr. Sun read this book with a great deal of care and in the latter part of his own book he adopted Dr. William's principles. In many cases, he adopted them so completely that. Dr. Sun's book is almost a transcript of William's."

Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, Secretary of the Interior; Past Chairman of the Institute of Pacific Relations, said:

"The interaction of mind upon mind shown by the effect of Mr. William's The Social Interpretation of History upon Dr. Sun is dramatic if not epochal. …The points in Mr. William's book found hospitable lodgment in his (Sun's) mind and, interpreted by him, they have become of great significance in the unfolding of the new China." [From: Foreword to "Sun Yat-sen Versus Communism" by Maurice William.]

In a personal letter dated April 10, 1928, Dr. John Dewey, Professor of Philosophy, Columbia University, wrote me as follows:

"At a memorial meeting to him (Sun Yat-sen) last winter a year ago where I spoke, I called attention to his use of your book. …I congratulate you upon the growing public recognition of the book. I am always glad to hear witness to its value."

Mr. L. T. Chen, Editor of the Frank W. Price English translation of the San Min Chu I, wrote to Miss Mary van Kloeck of the Russell Sage Foundation, as follows:

"I learned from a personal friend of Dr. Sun that the Social Interpretation of History was a constant companion to him" (in the last months of Dr. Sun's life).

The facts presented by these scholars bring to mind two very interesting questions:

1. Is there any relation between Dr. Sun's study of the Social Interpretation of History and his conflicting views?
2. Is there any relation between Dr. Sun'a study of The Social Interpretation of History and the conflict between his disciples?

We must go back to January, 1924, if we would trace the answers to these questions.

It should be recalled that Dr. Sun delivered his first lecture on the Principle of Nationalism on January 27, 1924. By April 23, he had completed the twelve lectures, six on the Principle of Nationalism and six on the Principle of Democracy. We have already noted that Dr. Sun did not lecture on his Three Principles during May, June and July. The delivery of his first lecture on the Principle of Livelihood was delayed until August 3, 1924. We have also noted that during those three months, Dr. Sun had evidently made an intensive study of The Social Interpretation of History. But it cannot be claimed that Dr. Sun's study of The Social Interpretation of History was responsible for his conflicting views unless we can prove four major points:

1. There is no conflict between Dr. Sun's disciples regarding the correct interpretation of the Principle of Nationalism and the Principle of Democracy because
2. There is no conflict between Dr. Sun's lectures on the Principle of Nationalism and the Principle of Democracy and the views be held on these subjects during the preceding twenty years. These lectures were delivered before he studied The Social Interpretation of History.
3. That the conflict between Dr. Sun's disciples centers exclusively around the correct interpretation of the lectures on the Principle of Livelihood because
4. Dr. Sun's lectures on the Principle of Livelihood do conflict with the views he held on this subject during the preceding twenty years. These lectures were delivered after Dr. Sun had made a study of The Social Interpretation of History.

How can we prove these four points? The only proof worthy of consideration is the testimony of leaders of both factions of Dr. Sun's followers. The first is that of Mme. Sun Yat-sen. She says:

"It is the third principle, that of the Livelihood of the People, that is at stake at this time," (China in Revolution, by Harley Farnsworth MacNair, Page 123)

"It is with regard to the third principle, The Principle of Livelihood, that the greatest trouble has arisen." (From the Inner History of the Chinese Revolution, by T'ang Leang-Li).

"It is particularly on the third' of Dr. Sun's Three Principles, namely, The Principle of Livelihood of the People that the cleavage between the two wings of the Kuomintang is most clearly brought out." (T. C. Woo, in The Kuomintang and the Future of the Chinese Revolution).

"Some say the Min-sheng principle (Principle of Livelihood) which is that of socialization of social and economic organizations has the same theoretical basis as communism." (General Chiang Kai-shek).

These citations could easily be multiplied, but this is obviously not the place for an all inclusive statement. Enough has been quoted to establish through authoritative sources that the conflict between the opposing groups centers about the Principle of Livelihood. On the other hand, the literature of the conflicting groups fails to disclose any evidence of a conflict over the correct interpretation of the Principle of Nationalism or the Principle of Democracy.

Since the evidence seems to establish that the conflict between Dr. Sun's disciples centers exclusively around the Principle of livelihood, an effort should be made to determine the nature of that conflict. What is the basis for the strife between Dr. Sun's followers and upon what grounds does each side justify its opposition to the other -- an opposition which takes the form of civil war? Let us again turn to the testimony of those best qualified to throw light on these questions. Dr. Harley Farnsworth MacNair, Professor of Far Eastern History and Institutions, University of Chicago, in his China in Revolution, presents Mme. Sun's position as follows:

"With the withdrawal of Borodin, his chief Chinese adherents withdrew from Hankow. Mme. Sun left for Shanghai and shortly for Moscow, declaring that with the stoppage of the agrarian and social revolution and the attacks being made on peasants and laborers, the revolution started by her husband had been betrayed and that there was nought but counter-revolution. In an impressive statement on the political situation issued in July, she declared:

"To guide us in the Chinese revolution. Dr. Sun has given us his Three Principles and his three policies. ...Twenty, thirty years ago Dr. Sun was thinking and speaking in terms of revolution that would change the status of the Chinese peasant. Dr. Sun's policies are clear. If the leaders of the Party do not carry them out consistently, then they are no longer Dr. Sun1s true followers and the Party is no longer a revolutionary party.'" (page 123)

Professor Arthur N. Holcombe in his Chinese Revolution states:

"The leaders of the Left wing contended that the success of the Northern Punitive Expedition made it possible to resume the original revolutionary program. No longer, they argued, should the needs of the workers and peasants be neglected upon the plea of military necessity. They demanded that the workers' and peasants' unions be revived and that the social revolution proceed along with the political."

The Foreign Policy Association reports as follows:

"The Reorganizationists comprise the Left wing of the Kuomintang. They claim that Nanking has not sufficiently stressed Sun Yat-sen's Third Principle, that of the People's Livelihood, and therefore has neglected the interest of the workers and peasants. This charge is upheld by Mme. Sun Yat-sen. ...If the Left wing leaders are able to carve out a sphere of influence in south China, however, they will have the chance to put their interpretation of Sun Yat-sen's principles to the test of practice." [From News Bulletin, May 8,1931]

The above states the position of Dr. Sun's Left disciples. What is the position of the Right wing?

"Nanking declares itself to be the only real exponent of the Kuomintang or Nationalist Party principles. It denounces one faction of its opponents as 'old style fedualists'; another clique it denounces as 'semi-communist', and still another is labelled 'reactionary'. It is noteworthy, however, that the opposing factions being called these hard names by Nanking have not changed their principles." [From Tortured China by Hallett Abend, Page 48]

General Chiang Kai-shek says:

"Some say that the Min-sheng Principle, which is that of socialization of social and economic organizations has the same theoretical basis as Communism. ...The Principle of Min-sheng does not come from materialism. Dr. Sun clearly explained that Chinese history is still in its infancy and the Marxian methods of revolution cannot be applied in this country. [Manifesto to the People, April, 1927.]

C. C. Wu says:

"We come now to the Third Principle, namely, Livelihood. As Dr. Sun has said, Livelihood is the centre of government, of economics and of all historical movements. ...A misconception which gained considerable currency at one time was that the economic principles of the Kuomintang were Communistic." [The Nationalist Program for China]

These conflicting interpretations of Dr. Sun's Principle of Livelihood are directly responsible for a state of confusion in which "Every faction of the opposition declares its loyalty to the principles of the Kuomintang or Nationalist Party; everyone of the armies fighting against Nanking is flying the Kuomintang Party flag and also the flag of the Nanking Government -- the flag of China. The Party is hopelessly disrupted." [Hallett Abend, Tortured China, Page 47]. And this report is supported by Chiang Kai-shek who says:

"The people are overwhelmed with sorrow because in territory brought under the revolutionary banner there has been dissension and because while all professed devotion to the San Min principles, the followers of the Great Leader appear to separate themselves into two camps." [Statement of Resignation from Post of Commander-in-chief of the Nationalist Army of China, August 12, 1927]

What is behind this tragic situation? Can it be possible that neither Mme. Sun Yat-sen nor Chiang Kai-shek has misrepresented Dr. Sun?

Are their conflicting interpretations merely a reflection of Dr. Sun's own conflicting interpretations of his Principle of Livelihood? These questions can be answered only through an examination of some of Dr. Sun's own definitions of his Principle of Livelihood.

In his lecture delivered on April 13, 1924, Dr. Sun said:

"After the Franco-German War, there were in the world not merely democratic but economic struggles. What was the outcome of the gradually receding democratic fever? Socialism. That 'ism' is what I_ advocate under the name of economic Demism (Principle of Livelihood)."

And in an address delivered in June 1921, Dr, Sun said:

"The Economic Demism (Principle of Livelihood) is the socialism of the present day."

These definitions support Mme. Sun's interpretation of the Principle of Livelihood, but refute Chiang Kai-shek's.

But on August 3, 1924, in his lecture on the economic Demism (Principle of Livelihood), Dr. Sun said:

"Our Kuomintang has been advocating the Principle of Livelihood for over twenty years; we have not championed socialism but the Min-sheng principle."

Plainly this refutes Sun's earlier definition, which, however, is still upheld by Mme. Sun and gives full support to Chiang Kai-shek's interpretation.

How did Dr. Sun happen to hold conflicting definitions of his Principle of Livelihood is the next question that must be determined. He has just informed us:

"Our Kuomintang has been advocating the Principle of Livelihood for over twenty years."

Let us see if we can trace the origin of and the definition he gave to this principle during all those years. In The Inner History of the Chinese Revolution, by T'ang Leang-Li, we find the following explanation of the origin of the Principle of Livelihood:

"From London he (Sun) went to the Continent to get into touch with the leaders of the Opposition Parties, notably with the Labour and Socialist Parties, which were becoming a factor of some importance in the national politics of the different European states. The First International was dead, but a new Socialist International came into existence in 1889, and Sun came into contact with their leading members, such as Longuet (the Grandson of Karl Marx) and Lafargue (Son-in-law of Karl Marx), who also introduced him to the study of Marxism.

"During his sojourn in America and Europe, Sun came into contact with social contrasts and inequalities which made a deep impression upon him. In Europe especially Sun noticed the active struggle of the working classes to improve the conditions of their existence, and to bring the capitalistic order of society ultimately to an end. It became clear to him that, although the advanced Western countries were politically powerful and the people were nominally sovereign, the broad masses were far from happy. The problem of the liberation of the Chinese people, Sun realized, would be a more complicated question than the mere overthrow of the Manchu Dynasty and the establishment of a democratic Chinese Republic, The political situation was not enough! It was only the first step towards the social and economic solution. The French Revolution of 1789 against monarchical authority ignored the problem of the distribution of wealth, and as a consequence, the establishment of a capitalist and plutocratic system of society was made possible. On the other extreme, Marxism gave an economic solution to the problem of capitalist exploitation, but ignored the vital principle of nationality. Finding either solution by itself unsatisfactory, Sun thus conceived the idea of the simultaneous settlement, by means of the revolution, of the questions of national independence, popular freedom and of the people's livelihood. To the lineal descendant of the T'ai-P'ing and the inheritor of the traditions of the secret societies the idea of a social revolution and of Socialism was nothing novel, far less something dreadful. ...In explaining the Third Principle, that of Livelihood, Sun Yat-sen adopts a frankly socialistic attitude: 'We want the social revolution because we don't want a handful of rich people to monopolize the whole wealth of the country.'"

In a speech published in his Memoirs of a Chinese Revolutionist, Dr. Sun confirms this pro-Marxian version of his Principle of Livelihood as follows:

"Our Party is revolutionary. ...When in the last years of the Tsing Dynasty, we were forced to establish ourselves in Tokyo, we determined the following as the fundamental principles of our party; Nationalism, Democracy, and Socialism."

"We must firmly know and remember that so long as all three_ principles have not "been carried into real life (even if one of them had "been completely realized), there can be no stable conditions of existence."

"The theory of socialism has become known in China comparatively recently. Its chief advocates usually limit their knowledge of this tendency to a few empty words without having any definite program. By long study, I have formed a concrete view of this question. The essence of socialism amounts to solving the problem of land and capital. Those who discuss the question of the brotherhood of peoples in America and Europe have in view only two problems -- labor and capital; but European conditions are very different from our own. The thing is that in Europe and America all their misfortunes arise from an extremely unfair distribution of products, whereas in China there is general poverty, since there are no large capitalists. But this, of course, should not serve as the reason for not advocating socialism; this would be a great mistake. If we see mistakes in Europe and America, we are bound to correct them; disproportion in the distribution of products, both in America and Europe, are a bad example for us. Therefore, I agitate for socialism, the_socialization of land _and capital. …We must admit that the degree of sacrifice required for the social revolution will be higher than the political. … Now, the time is approaching to carry into effect our great Principles of Nationalism, Democracy and Socialism. Only by the transformation of all three principle's into reality can our people live and develop freely."

Not only are the preceding quotations fair examples of Dr. Sun's original pro-Marxian version of the Principle of Livelihood, but they are typical of the version he had consistently taught his followers from 1907 to April, 1924, at which time he reaffirmed his faith in his original version in the following clear statement:

"Socialism is similar to the Principle of the_People's Livelihood which I have been advocating. When the people got hold of the theory of socialism they began to give up their eager fight for democratic rights and to struggle instead for economic rights. This war was_a_ class struggle between the workers and the wealthy class. You all know of the great "socialist Marx. …" [Principle of Democracy, Lecture IV]

It should be recalled that Dr. Sun did not lecture on his Three Principles during May, June, and July. It has already been suggested that he must have made a close study of The Social Interpretation of History during those three months. His first lecture on the Principle of Livelihood was delivered on August 3, 1924.

Does Dr. Sun in this lecture reaffirm his pro-Marxian definition of the Principle of Livelihood? After so thorough a drilling, covering nearly a score of years during which his disciples had the benefit of being trained by their master himself in every shade of its meaning, Dr. Sun's opening words introducing his lecture on the Principle of Livelihood were not what might have been expected. His audience must have been amazed to hear Dr. Sun say:

"The subject of my lecture today is Min-sheng Chu I , the Principle of the People's Livelihood. Min-sheng is a worn phrase in China. We talk about Kou-shin min-sheng, national welfare and the People's Livelihood, but I fear that we pay only lip service to these words and have not really sought to understand them. I cannot see that they have held much meaning for us. But if in this day of scientific knowledge we will bring the phrase into the realm of scientific discussion and study its social and economic implications, we shall find that it takes on an immeasurable significance. I propose today a definition for Min-sheng, the People's Livelihood."

Now, since Min-sheng "is a worn phrase in China", -- worn because Dr. Sun had been explaining and defining its meaning for almost twenty years - why did he find it necessary to tell his disciples "I propose today a definition for Min-sheng, the People's Livelihood"? Does it not seem clear from Dr. Sun's own language that what he proposed to give "today" was in fact a new definition for Min-sheng, the People's Livelihood? He had evidently arrived at the conclusion that his old definition, which had satisfied him for twenty years, was unscientific and therefore should be discarded. So he proposes "in this day of scientific knowledge, we will bring the phrase (The Principle of Livelihood) into the realm of scientific discussion".

What could have caused Dr. Sun to discard his old definition as unscientific and to have proposed "today" a new definition? Was the new definition based upon the old Marxian ideology or did it constitute a repudiation of the old ideology? Is there any relation between Dr. Sun's new definition of the Principle of Livelihood and the conflict between his Left and Right disciples? Many scholars have made a study of these questions and the following is quoted from their conclusions.

Dr. Harley Farnsworth MacNair, Professor of Far Eastern History and Institutions, University of Chicago^ in his work on China in Revolution, says:

"The lectures on the first and the second principles were delivered between January 27 and April 26, 1924; those on the third principle were given between August 3 and August 24. In the first two series the ideology, as well as the criticism of the great powers, presents the viewpoint of a follower of Marx; in the third series, however, a definite change of view is indicated. In point after point he cites Marx only to criticize the latter1s arguments and conclusions, and to advocate in their stead the theories which he had somewhat gropingly been developing for several years and which he found carefully and precisely formulated by the American thinker in the volume mentioned. In paragraph after paragraph Dr. Sun either quoted, almost word for word, or paraphrased, the arguments which he had found in The Social Interpretation of History. He now repudiated in reality several of his own earlier theories, without, however, directly calling attention to the_fact, and rejected Marx's materialistic conception of history, the necessity for the class struggle, and the theory of surplus values, substituting therefor the system of thought which he had recently discovered in Dr. William's work. ...The conflict of theory to be traced between parts of the earlier and the later writings of Dr. Sun accounts in part for the split between his adherents which followed his death. …From the viewpoint of the Russians and the significance of the spread of their Communistic doctrines in China, the Kuomintang leader died not a moment too soon; it would have been better had he passed from the scene at the end of April, 1924. There_ would have been fewer grounds for controversy among his followers."