On The Triple Demism of Sun Yat-sen

Paschal M. D'Elia

[Part 2]

Dr. James T. Shotwell, Professor of History, Columbia University; Director of Division of Economics and History, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in his article "Sun Yat-sen and Maurice William", published in the March, 1932 issue of Political Science Quarterly, says:

"Although in his earlier writings there were passages which might be interpreted as socialist in the orthodox sense, and at the moment he sorely needed the practical help which the Soviets were offering, yet questions of expediency were boldly set aside in the framing of his gospel of social reform. The American critic of Karl Marx and not Marx himself furnished the text in which he shaped his own individual thinking and so set the course of the new China definitely away from Communism. …Some of the early associates of Sun Yat-sen do not accept any such interpretation of his thinking. To some of them at least the protest against exploitation by capitalism, both foreign and native, means that class warfare must still be made on Marxian terms. The division therefore between the Left wing of the republican movement in the Kuomintang and the middle class leadership of the government in Nanking finds its doctrinal center in the interpretation of those pages of Sun Yat-sen's third Principle which were based upon or quoted from Dr. William's book. The important question for both present-day China and for future history is the interpretation of these passages. What effect did Dr. William's book have upon Dr. Sun Yat-sen's mind and how much is the Chinese Republic to base its social philosophy upon these passages alone? ...There are few problems in the political thinking of today more important or more compelling than this one. …It would be a mistake to conceive of it merely in terms of personalities. Behind both Dr. Sun and Dr. William lay two conditioning forces, China and America; as the England of the Industrial Revolution lay behind the philosophy of Marx. Viewed from this angle, the acceptance of William's text in the San Win Chu I is itself a justification of his theory of the social interpretation of history. That theory discovers the clue to the movements of politics, not in a class warfare of producers against exploiters, but in the dominant need of the whole social body, that is to say, of the mass of the consumers. ...In his denial that the proletariat must emancipate itself by overturning the capitalistic state, Dr. William was giving expression to the experience of America where the emancipation is taking place within the State itself. This was also the process which Dr. Sun envisaged for China, and so the principle of "Livelihood" was definitely substituted for that of socialism or communism, which had been loosely used by Dr. Sun as synonyms for his Third Principle before he had read Dr. William's book. Viewed in this light we have not merely the meeting of two minds but of two civilizations; the American and the Chinese. ...It would seem that the time has come to recognize the mediating work of Dr. William which Dr. Sun Yat-sen himself recognized in the San Min Chu I. How great the service he rendered, only history will show."

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

"In the latter (Principle of Livelihood) part of his book, Sun seems no longer to believe in the class-struggle. …If the country had gone Communist, it could not have counted on any foreign help beside that of Russia. …There was a long struggle between these forces, but apparently the anti-Communists have triumphed, due practically entirely to the fact that Dr. Sun Yat-sen had been intellectually convinced by Dr. William's book."

Dr, Arthur W. Hummel, Chief, Division of Chinese Literature, Library of Congress, writes:

"It is astonishing to see how a book like your Social Interpretation of History could so radically alter the views of a powerful leader on another continent. This needs to be recorded in detail for historical if no other reasons."

Dr. J. J. L. Duyvendak, Professor of Chinese, Leyden University, Holland, in a personal letter to me, said:

"It is certainly necessary to make more widely known how much of his ideas on the Third Principle Dr. Sun derived from your book, which is decidedly anti-Marxian. That in spite of the constructive element in the doctrine of the Three Principles, the general impression, as left by the first two parts, is that they are chiefly destructive and that in the propaganda this feature has certainly been much emphasized. Dr. Sun left these two sides of his teaching unreconciled, thereby laying the germ for conflict within his own party. Seeing how great the hold is, which his name and his doctrine have on the Chinese people, it is the more desirable to bring out and emphasize the constructive element in his teaching, which may counteract some of the harm done by the other."

Dr. J. Leighton Stuart, President, Yenching University, Peiping, writes:

"It is certainly curious that an American should have turned the whole current of political thought for the man whose writings at present are the bible of the dominant political party in this country. ...This volume ought to have wide circulation in China and I trust will lead to a Chinese translation. I should like to add my own admiration of the interpretation you have given in refutation of that of Karl Marx and my delight that this should have come to the notice of a man whose writings are virtually molding the political thought of this country at so critical a time."

Mr. Grover Clark, Consultant on Far Eastern Affairs, writes:

"I have just finished going over rather carefully your Sun Yat-sen Versus Communism and find it of very extraordinary significance. The earlier suggestions as to the part which your Social Interpretation of History played in changing Sun's thinking -- which I had from the material which you were good enough to show me last winter -- are very much more than confirmed and you give the only really convincing explanation of the contradiction in the San Min Chu I which I have seen. My thought of the turn against Communism has been that it was in large part due to objection to the methods and attitude of the Russians in China at the time."

"These I still think had a very great deal to do with the final break in 1927 -- but there seems to be no doubt that the change which your book brought in Sun's ideas paved the way for that break and very definitely gave the anti-Communists the possibility of justifying the break out of the mouth of the founder of the Kuomintang. That was a contribution which you, through your Social Interpretation of History, made to the development of China -- a contribution of far-reaching importance."

"Sun took the Marxian slant in his earlier Three Principles lectures and yours in the later ones. It would be interesting to know how far back into his thinking the Marxian point of view, had its roots. In any case, your Social Interpretation of History had and is having a great deal of influence."

To summarize: Interpretations of Dr. Sun's Social philosophy have not proved helpful in promoting peace and unity in China. Left interpretations are acclaimed by Dr. Sun's Left disciples, but only embitter the Right. Right interpretations are acclaimed by Dr. Sun's Right disciples but only embitter the Left. These conflicting interpretations are directly responsible for recent civil wars.

Instead of concentrating upon interpretations, something constructive might possibly be achieved from an effort to determine the underlying causes for Left and Right interpretations of Dr. Sun's teaching. Such an investigation would establish I believe, that for nearly twenty years Dr. Sun had consistently taught a Left, revolutionary version of his Principle of Livelihood. His earlier disciples were given ample opportunity throughout all those years to become thoroughly saturated with Dr. Sun's original version. But in the last months of his life (August, 1924), Dr. Sun repudiated this version and in its stead accepted the one presented in the Social Interpretation of History and which is based upon diametrically opposite principles - evolution through harmony of interests between capital and labor as against revolution through conflict of interests. The name, Principle of Livelihood, was all that Dr. Sun salvaged from the original version which he now discarded. Naturally, this made for confusion. The Left wing can justify a Left version since this was the version Dr. Sun had consistently taught for twenty years. The Right wing can justify its Right version on the ground that this was Dr. Sun's final mandate to his disciples. The publication of his conflicting versions in the same volume, the San Min Chu I, made for more confusion. Although Dr, Sun's lectures were not published in book form until after his death, his opposing views, which he had no opportunity to reconcile, laid him open to the unjust charge of mental instability.

Had Dr. Sun died after completing his lectures on the Principle of Nationalism and Principle of Democracy and before he had made a study of The Social Interpretation of History, there would have been no basis for the present conflict ever the correct interpretation of the Principle of Livelihood. His original Left interpretation which had served him for nearly twenty years would have remained unchanged. Thus there would have been no confusion leading to civil war between Left and Right disciples. We would have seen a united China, united on the basis of Dr. Sun's unrepudiated Left version of his Principle of Livelihood. A united Left China would have meant a sovietized China, perhaps united with Russia against the democratic nations and for World Revolution.

On the other hand, if Dr. Sun had lived long enough to revise his Principle of Nationalism and Principle of Democracy, and his earlier Left version of his Principle of Livelihood, to conform with his final views, this reconciliation in Sun's ideas could not have failed to bring about the reconciliation of his Left and Right disciples who aim to apply Sun's ideas. Such revision would have paved the way for a united, peaceful, China dedicated to evolutionary progress through the methods of democracy.

But Dr. Sun is dead. His principles remained unreconciled. Dozens of volumes have been written in an effort to interpret Sun's views. They have failed of their purpose. They failed because the did not present a complete and therefore a true picture of Sun Yat-sen. Some presented his Left and some presented his Right side. These volumes are just propaganda. They take sides. No statement giving only one side of Sun's opposing views can hope to reconcile the opposing groups. The tragic proof of the hopeless failure of such attempts lies in the fact that both sides prefer to fall back upon the method which, to them, seems far more convincing, the method of the bullet.

What does this situation teach? It indicates that nothing is to be gained by disregarding facts. Sun's writings are a public record. We should state all the facts and seek to reconcile the opposing views in Sun's writings, Only by this means can we hope to reconcile the differences between the Left and Right Wings and bring peace to distracted China. Dr. Sun's prestige could not suffer through a presentation of the unvarnished truth. On the contrary, a close study of his writings would enhance his prestige as an open-minded student, ready at all times to change his views as new facts indicated the need for revision. This rare trait in Dr. Sun is fully recognized and evaluated in Part I of Sun Yat-sen Versus Communism.

It is the existing confusion regarding his thinking which has caused many writers to ridicule Dr. Sun as a thinker and to disparage his San Min Chu I as "social and political chop suey". Such unkind thrusts are not without their influence and world opinion of Dr. Sun and of those who follow Dr. Sun is largely shaped by these superficial writings. But when the truth becomes more generally known, it will not redound to the credit of these writers. The public will learn that Dr. Sun's pro-marxian views as presented in his lectures on the Principle of Nationalism and Principle of Democracy and his anti-Marxian views as presented three months later in his lectures on the Principle of Livelihood were assembled and published in the same volume only after his death. It is plain that the appearance of his conflicting views in the same volume is a matter over which Sun had no control and should not therefore be held against him. To cite the conflicting views in the San Min Chu I in justification of the charge that Dr. Sun was "mentally unstable" and inclined to "leap from philosophy to philosophy" is to betray an easy readiness to defame the character of a man who is no longer here to face his detractors.

Unquestionably, Dr. Sun did change from a pro-Marxian to an anti-Marxian position. But is that proof of "mental instability and intellectual immaturity"? Quite the contrary! Openly to renounce a philosophy he had accepted for over twenty years and publicly to proclaim his renunciation at a time when the success of his Party was wholly dependent upon Russian aid, called for qualities of greatness. Dr. Sun's courageous act established his place among the great men of our times.

Other leaders had espoused Marxism for equally as many years and their experience too forced them ultimately to reject it as a philosophy and as a program. In France, Briand was an outstanding example. In England, MacDonald and Snowden have recently rejected the class struggle philosophy. In America, there are any number of high-minded men and women who before the World War held the pro-Marxian position originally advocated by Sun Yat-sen.

Would it be fair to accuse Briand, MacDonald, and Snowden of "mental instability and intellectual immaturity" because they had repudiated Marxism? Yet none of these had to take the risks Dr. Sun was compelled to take when he rejected Marxism.

Dr. Sun's repudiation of his earlier identification of his Principle of Livelihood with Marxian Socialism is not of itself responsible for the confusion regarding his position. It was his untimely death less than eight months following his repudiation which led to the general confusion. There can be no confusion regarding the position of Briand or MacDonald because both had been given an opportunity to explain their reasons for rejecting Marxism. But had these former Marxians died before explaining their position, the confusion which now centers about Sun's final views would also have arisen regarding their final views. Having repudiated their former Marxian position, it is clear that no amount of interpreting could possibly reconcile Briand's and MacDonald's former pro-Marxian with their final, anti-Marxian views.

Sun's claim to greatness is not based solely upon the rare courage he showed in rejecting Marxism at a time when it meant to risk the success of the revolution to which he had devoted his life. Sun's epoch-making service to democracy through his crushing defeat of the Bolshevists' plans for World Revolution is yet to be fully evaluated. Pravda, the official organ of the Soviet Government, in an article entitled "The Revolutionary Compass", made the proud boast:

"The world-wide nature of our program is not mere talk, but an all-embracing and blood-soaked reality. …Our ultimate aim is World Communism. ...The Communist international ... leads the grand fight on the Asiatic continent and in China it represents such a force that the world's bourgeoisie is compelled to defend itself against the Communist peril. …The Chinese Revolution is the depot of the World Revolution".

To whom is the world indebted for being spared the horrors of World Revolution as "an all-embracing and blood-soaked reality"?

Soviet Russia very frankly admits that she staked all her hopes on China as "The depot of the World Revolution". Who upset Russia's well laid plans by depriving her of the "depot of the World Revolution", thus compelling her to abandon her plans for the destruction of democracy? It was Sun Yat-sen who dealt the fatal blow from which the Communist International has never recovered.

To defeat the Kaiser's attack upon democracy cost the world millions of lives and billions in treasure. The defeat of Russia's threat to democracy will ultimately come to be recognized as having been principally the work of one man, Sun Yat-sen.

Stalin himself frankly admitted that the defeat of Bolshevism in China meant the defeat of the World Revolution. He further admitted that it was this defeat which compelled Russia to change from a policy of destruction upon a worldwide scale to a policy of construction within Russia, or what is popularly known as the Five Year Plan.

To appreciate what this change of policy signifies for the world it is only necessary to remember that the strategy for World Revolution called for the encouragement of discontent, the promotion of strife, and industrial chaos. What an ideal condition the present industrial depression would have presented for World Revolution propaganda! The more prostrate the industrial order, the better the possibilities for World Revolution. Russia would now be devoting all her energies not on the Five Year Plan as is the case today, but in promoting her plan for World Revolution. She would have sent her agitators, just as she had sent them to China. She would have sent large funds, just as she sent them to China. The result? Every country would by this time have known something of the horrors to which China and Germany were subjected when Russia applied her methods of World Revolution in those countries.

Today, we are witnessing the remarkable phenomenon of an acute world-wide depression accepted as peaceably as were the days of prosperity. Unlike the program for World Revolution, the success of the Five Year Plan depends upon a peaceful and prosperous capitalist world! Russia's interests are thus inseparably bound up with the interests of hated Capitalism! For this unbelievable situation, the capitalist nations, the democratic nations owe a debt to Sun Yat-sen. History will yet accord Sun the honors due him for his great service in promoting peace and in preserving civilization.

Yet, by some strange decree of fate, Dr. Sun's rejection of Marxism which did so much to promote world peace, made for civil war between his own followers. This unhappy result is due, as we have seen, to the fact that his earlier disciples remain true to his earlier revolutionary views, while his later disciples support his final views.

For four years I have been a silent but heart-sick observer of the tragic results flowing from this anomalous situation. Every year I saw renewed civil wars and the useless sacrifice of thousands of innocent lives. The Chinese Finance Minister reported in a public statement that eighty-seven percent of the income of the Nationalist Government had to be appropriated for military purposes because of civil wars. I read the harrowing details of the frightful flood which was one of the greatest disasters in all history, bringing suffering and death to untold millions. Every observer is aware that this ghastly toll was directly traceable to expenditures for civil wars, leaving no funds for the proper upkeep of dykes. Stunned by these cruel events, I came to realize that I must share the responsibility for every drop of blood shed through honest misunderstanding between Dr. Sun's loyal followers.

By virtue of the great honor which Dr. Sun conferred upon me in embracing the views presented in my Social Interpretation of History in the last months of his life., I have come to feel that it is mandatory that I discharge my obligations to Dr. Sun and to the Chinese people by leaving nothing undone which could aid in realizing Dr. Sun's dream of a united, peaceful China to the attainment of which he gladly laid down his life.

I confidently predict that when the basis for the present misunderstanding between Dr, Sun's loyal followers shall have been removed, China will present a concrete demonstration of her extraordinary vitality and capacity for unity which will confound her enemies and arouse the admiration of her friends. Such a demonstration of latent power will be China's conclusive answer to those who contend that "for her own good China should be dismembered or controlled by foreign powers because her leaders are incapable of unity and her people lack the capacity for self-government."

In the last analysis, therefore, unity based on understanding, is China's fundamental problem. Should my recent study, Sun Yat-sen Versus Communism: New Evidence Establishing China's Right to the Support of Democratic Nations, prove of some help in promoting unity through understanding. I shall feel that I had, in some slight measure, proved worthy of the great honor which Dr. Sun conferred upon me in accepting this philosophy presented in The Social Interpretation of History, and, to some degree, had discharged the responsibility which fell to me as a result of Dr. Sun Yat-sen's untimely death.

Those who would promote peace on earth and goodwill to men should unite in support of the constructive forces in China. Many years ago, Secretary of State, John Hay predicted that:

"The world's peace rests with China and whoever understands China socially, politically, economically, or religiously, holds the key to world politics during the next five centuries."

Let us join in promoting unity and understanding both for the good of China and as an essential step in the restoration of world economic progress and international peace.

With sincere appreciation, Cordially yours, Maurice William

Nationalism (Principle of) / Sun Yat-sen / Lecture I

Page 74:

During the European War a revolution broke out in Russia and overthrew the Empire. Mow Russia is a new nation, a socialist nation, very different from the old. Her race is a Slavonic race. A century ago (Russia) had a population of 40,000,000 inhabitants, now she has 160,000,000 which means that it has quadrupled. Her national power also increased fourfold. For the last few centuries Russia has been the strongest nation of the world. Not only did the Asiatic countries, such as Japan and China, fear her aggression, but even the European countries, as England and Germany, feared her encroachment.

After the European War the Russians themselves overthrew imperialism (Czarism), and from an imperialistic nation, changed (Russia) into a new socialistic state. This caused another greater change in the world. It is only six years since that change was accomplished. In those six years the Russians have reformed the interior of their country and changed the former policy of force into a new policy of peace (sic). This new policy has not only abandoned the wild ambition of invading all the other countries but it has (rather aimed) to check the strong, to assist the weak, and to uphold justice.

Then all the countries of the world grew afraid of Russia. This fear of Russia, which the different countries entertain at present, is more terrible than the fear they formerly held, because this policy of peace not only overthrew the Russian imperialism, but (purposed) to overthrow also imperialism in the (whole) world. Moreover, it purposes to overthrow not only imperialism but also capitalism in the (whole) world, because while externally the government in every country seems to be in the hands of the politicians, it is in reality controlled by the capitalists. It is because the new, Russian politics aim at overthrowing that control, that the capitalists of the (whole) world are greatly alarmed. All this produces in the world (affairs) a very great change by which the trend of the world currents will be affected later on.

Page 76:

After that great war, the pre-seeing men predicted that in Europe there will no longer be a spark sufficient to light another such international conflagration, but that in all probability, a war between races will be inevitable, as for instance, a war between the Yellow and the White race. But since the advent of the new Russian movement, when privately I gauge the future trend from the past, (I foresee) that great international wars will be inevitable. But these wars will not start between different races; they will start between (numbers) of the same race, White against White, and Yellow against yellow. These wars will be wars of social classes, wars of oppressed against oppressors, wars of right against might.

What was the aim of the Slavonic race after the Russian revolution? The Slavs preached (the following doctrine): "Let us check the strong, assist the weak, oppress the rich, help the poor. Throughout the world let us in a special way spread justice and do away with inequality". When these ideas began to spread over Europe, all the weaker and smaller nations received them enthusiastically.

RUSSIA

Page 77:

When England and France, before the European War, wanted to overthrow German imperialism, Russia too sided with them. And then, after she had sacrificed I do not know how many lives and what great amount of wealth, halfway (in the war) she revolved to recall her troops and to proclaim the revolution. And why? Because the Russians were too much oppressed. That was the reason why they started the revolution, put in practice their socialism, and resisted (a policy of) might. then all the Powers of Europe rose in opposition to that doctrine (socialism, or rather bolshevism). Therefore, they united to check it through military expeditions. Happily, Russia, endowed with the spirit of the Slavic races, succeeded in holding out against the Great Powers. At present, unable to oppose Russia by armed force, the Powers merely refuse to recognize her as a nation. It is a negative boycott (and even now England has already formally recognized Russia).

Why are the different countries of Europe opposed to the new Russian doctrine? Because all the Europeans advocate a policy of invasion, of force, of injustice, whereas the new doctrine of Russia wants to check force by means of justice. It is because these principles contradict those of the Great Powers that until now these latter have been thinking of exterminating them. Before the revolution Russia also held that force and injustice vouch for the solidity of a nation, but now she is opposed to that theory. It is because Russia opposed that theory that all nations by common consent led military expeditions against her.

This is the reason for my saying that in the future, wars will be wars of might against right.

GERMANY

Germany is at present the oppressed nation of Europe.

ASIATIC RACES

In Asia all the weaker and smaller races, Japan excepted, are oppressed by the might, and endure manifold sufferings. As they suffer from the same evil, they mutually console one another, but a day will surely come when they will unite in order to resist oppessive nations.

The wars of the future will be wars between oppressed and oppressors.

The oppressed nations will unite among themselves and at the risk of their lives will certainly fight against the oppressive nations. Then wars will spread over the whole world. In the future those representatives of the White race who favor justice will ally themselves to the representatives of the Yellow race who long for justice. And (on the other hand), the White defenders of might will, of course, make common cause with the Yellow defenders of might. When those two alliances will be consummated a great war will be inevitable.

This is the course of events that will shape the world wars of the future.

Nationalism (Principles of) / Sun Yat-sen / Lecture IV

Page 147:

But as an unexpected result of that war a great hope arose for mankind, namely, the Russian Revolution.

Revolution in Russia had manifested itself early. Even before the European War, in 1905, an attempt was made at revolution, but it miscarried. The great task was achieved during the European War. The revolution broke out again during the European War because of the great awakening wrought in the Russian nation as a result of the war experience.

Russia at first was one of the Allied Nations. When the Allies were fighting Germany, Russia mobilized her troops, over 10,000,000, not by any means a small army. Had the Allies not been helped by Russia, the western European front would have been quickly smashed by Germany. It was because of the embarrassment caused to Germany by Russia in the East that the Allies were able to hold out against Germany for two or three years, and that finally, from defeated, they become victorious. In the midst of the war Russia began to think matters over and realized that to help the Allies to defeat Germany was merely to help one might defeat another, and that nothing good would result in the end. Both the soldiers and the people awoke, broke away from the Allies, and made a separate peace with Germany.


Page 148:

Why did the Allies send their armies against Russia? This is the reason: The Russian people had just awakened to consciousness. They noticed that the sufferings which they were daily undergoing resulted only from imperialism. To eliminate those sufferings they could not help getting rid of imperialism and advocating the self-determination of nations. All the other nations opposed this policy and so led together their own armies against her (Russia), (Yet) Russia's principles and Wilson's principles sounded the same accord; both declared that the weaker and smaller nations have a right to self-determination and to freedom. After Russia had proclaimed that principle, all the weaker and smaller nations of the world eagerly praised it, and by common accord looked for self-determination.

As far as imperialism is concerned, Europe did not derive much benefit from the calamities she experienced during this Great War. But because of the Russian revolution which sprang forth from the war, a great hope arose for mankind.


Page 149:

But the Russian Revolution succeeded. 150,000,000 Russians broke away from the Whites and disapproved of this White race's encroaching behavior. At present they are just thinking of forming an alliance with the weaker and smaller Asiatic nations in order to resist the (other) tyrannical races. Only 250,000,000 men (of these tyrannical nations) are left, and they still intend to conquer the other 1,250,000,000 by inhuman ways and by force of arms.

Therefore from henceforth all mankind will be divided into two fighting camps; on one side will be 1,250,000,000 men, and on the other 250,000,000. Although those in the latter group are in the minority, they occupy the most powerful and prosperous position in the world, and their political and economic strength is immense. They will conquer the weaker and smaller nations by means of those two forces. If the armies of land and of sea used by political engineering are not sufficient, economic pressure will be used, and if that sometimes does not succeed, the oppressors will encroach upon (the oppressed) with the political force of navies and armies. Their political power cooperates with their economic power, just as the left hand helps the right. They have very unmercifully oppressed the majority of 1,250,000,000 men. But Heaven does not comply with man's will. Suddenly 150,000,000 men of the Slavic race rose to oppose imperialism and capitalism, and to fight inequality in behalf of mankind.

So, in my last lecture, I told you that a Russian said to me: "The reason why the Powers opposed Lenin was because he dared to assert that the majority of men, 1,250,000,000 are oppressed by the minority, 250,000,000". Lenin did not only say this, but he preached the self-determination of oppressed nations and fought against inequalities on behalf of the oppressed people of the world. The reason why the Powers attacked Lenin is because they wanted to do away with the pre-seeing members of mankind and look for their own security. But now that mankind has awakened and has understood that the rumors created by the-Powers are false, men will not let themselves be deceived any longer.


Page 149:

These are the circumstances in which the political ideas of the world's races have progressed until they have reached the light.


Footnote on Page 149:

Having read the preceding, both here and in the foregoing lectures, for instance, Nos. 32-41, 43, 44, 170, 171, one could hardly deny the tremendous influence of Soviet Russian ideas on the mind of Sun Yat-sen. We have just heard from his own lips an eloquent and masterful apology for the Russian Revolution. Further on, in Book II, Chapter II and V, we shall endeavor to understand and explain it more fully.


Footnote on Page 150:

Must we not recognize in all the above and the following statements of Sun Yat-sen concerning Russia, the much to be regretted influence of Borodin?

The original manuscript includes a note that "All footnotes in black are by Dr. E'Elia. All footnotes in red type are by Maurice William." From the copy available for this transcription, no distinction was possible as to the author of footnotes.

Footnote on Page 193:

In his address to the Secret Consistory, June 20, 1927, Pope Pius XI, while deploring the barbarous acts, the conflagrations, and the murders caused by the Civil war with regard to the Catholic Missions in China, emphatically stated: "Certainly, all these acts are repugnant to the generous and peace-loving nature of the Chinese people."

Nationalism (Principle of) / Sun Yat-sen / Lecture VI

Page 206:

But what will finally be the responsibility of China in regard to the world? At present the course followed by the Powers is the destruction of other nations. If China, in gaining power and prosperity, was also to destroy the other nations and to follow imperialism of the Powers and go their road, she would only be following in their footsteps. Therefore we must, first of all, decide on our policy, namely, to "help the weak and lift up the fallen". In that way we shall fulfill our duty as citizens. We must assist the weaker and smaller nations and oppose the World Powers. If all the people of the country resolve upon this purpose, the Chinese nation will proper. But if we do not resolve on this purpose, there is no hope for the Chinese nation. Let us today, before China's development begins, resolve to "help the weak and lift up the fallen", and so that when we shall be strong and prosperous, mindful of the sufferings which we ourselves now endure through the political and economic oppression of the Powers, if we ever see weaker and small nations endure the evils we now suffer, we shall smite the imperialism. That will mean to "govern the country rightly and to pacify the world."

Democracy (Principle of) / Sun Yat-sen / Lecture IV

Page 324:

For this reason German democracy, although very flourishing, had not sufficient strength to oppose the government. While Bismarck was in power, not only did he dominate the world in political, military and diplomatic affairs, but he also dominated the people by a very energetic method in regard to the democratic movement. Thus, for instance, in the second half of the XIX Century, after the Franco-German War, there were in the world not merely democratic, but also 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. [Pprinciple of Livelihood]

When that theory became known, people lost their zeal for political rights. They now wanted to struggle for economic rights. This was a struggle of the working against the wealthy classes. Associations of workmen had developed in Germany at an early period. And so socialism developed first in Germany. All the greatest socialist thinkers of the world are Germans. Thus, you all know of the great Socialist Marx; he is German. Even the old Russian revolutionists, who practiced Marxism, were disciples of Marx. German socialism developed very much at that time.


Page 325:

Socialism was originally related to democracy. After those two theories had started, they should have developed side by side. Europe had democratic revolutions following upon democratic ideas. Why should there not be an economic revolution following at that time in the wake of a well developed socialism? Because it was just at the time when the power was in the hands of Bismarck that socialism was born in Germany. Others would certainly have opposed socialism by political force. Bismarck did not use that method. He thought that in view of the great intelligence of the German people and the big strength of the labor organizations, it would be useless to attempt to use political force to crush it.


Page 331:

Recently Russia invented another form of government. That government is not representative; it is absolute popular government. In what does that absolute popular government really consist? As we know very little about it, we cannot judge it aright, but we believe that this "absolute popular government" is evidently much better than a representative government.

Note by Dr. E'Elia on The Economic Demism or Sociology (Principle of Livelihood) of Sun Yat-sen

The expression (Chinese characters) has caused much trouble to the translators of Dr. Sun Yat-sen. Frank Price has rendered it in English by "The Principle of Livelihood", whereas the "Well-known Sinologue" translator of The Three Principles has adopted the expression "Social Welfare". Were it necessary for us to give our own interpretation, we should prefer to speak of "The Social Question".

But we have the authentic thought of the master. Above, in No. 574, after having informed us that socialism came into existence in the second half of the XIX Century, Sun Yat-sen immediately adds: "That principle, viz., socialism, is _the economic Demism which I advocate." (Chinese characters) Likewise, in an address given in June 1921, he said: "The _economic Demism is the socialism of the present day (Chinese characters).

He could not have indicated more clearly the equivalence: "Economic Demisam, viz., socialism." If he used the expression (Chinese characters) instead of (Chinese characters) it is not only because he wished to retain the Demist trilogy, but also because he wanted to express a shade of meaning. He wanted to show even in the phrase that the vital point of the question was not the historical materialism, as stated by Marx, but the "people's life" (Chinese characters). He explains that thought_at length_in the first lecture of the third part [Delivered on August 3, 1924, three months after Dr. Sun had completed his lectures on the Principles of Nationalism and Democracy and immediately after he had made a study of The Social Interpretation of History]

That is what caused us to adopt the word "socialism" in our first French edition. But as will be convincingly shown by the reading of this third part, and especially by Chapter V of Book II, despite the repeated assertions of Sun Yat-sen, the word "socialism" is not synonymous with economic Demism. [Unaware that Dr. Sun had repudiated his pro-Marxian definition of socialism in favor of The Social Interpretation of History, Dr. D'Elia had made an effort to reconcile Sun's conflicting views. Book II, Chapter V is very largely devoted to an appreciation of the material Sun accepted from The Social Interpretation of History. - Maurice William]

It seems as though, led astray by the terminology, the author of the Triple Demism designates as socialism any system which seeks a solution to the social question; accordingly, since the social question is the question of the economic life of the people, the economic Demism is, according to him, socialism.

But considering the connotation of that term and its use in Western languages, the exact word, the word which expresses the meaning implied by Sun Yat-sen in his system, must here be sociology, and not socialism, even though the term "sociology" might not be a literal translation of the Chinese expression.

Dr. Sun might have had reasons of his own for confusing the two terms; we have our own reasons for making a distinction and, so to say, for reading his own thought more clearly than he himself did. This justifies our use of the equivalence; Economic Demism, or Sociology.


Footnote -- Page 406:

In this third part we take the term life, and the life, not in the biological or psychological, but in the economic connotation. In that sense we speak of "costly living", "increase in living", "cost of living", etc.

All these "...isms" are far from being synonymous as Sun Yat-sen here intimates. To be precise it would be necessary to distinguish between all those doctrines whose rather vague meanings can-not easily be compiled into precise formulae.


Footnote -- Page 407:

We shall see later on, in Book II, Chapter V, that, despite some of the assertions of Sun Yat-sen, which make his economic Demism synonymous with socialism, communism, and collectivism, it differs sufficiently from these, to form another separate "ism". His economic Demism may be called socialism because both aim at solving the social question; it may also be called communism because it advocates a certain community or equalization of property. [Cf. further, Nos. 350-858.] The words might be ever so much alike, the ideas conveyed by the words remain distinct.


Page 411:

Sociology or Economic Demism (Principle of Livelihood) / Sun Yat-sen / Lecture I

Page 411:

The social question is nothing else but the economic Demism about which I want to speak to you today. Why do I not today of socialism as the foreigners do? Why do I use that old Chinese expression (Chinese characters) "min-sheng" (people's life) instead of "shehuichui" (Chinese characters) (socialism)? There is a weighty reason which we shall now proceed to consider.


Page 412:

At present there are people in China who look upon the terms "socialism" and "sociology" as meaning the same thing. That is a mistake, and not only Chinese but foreigners as well make that mistake. Because in these three English words, "society", "sociology" and "socialism", the first half of the words is identical (soci), many people confuse them. As a matter of fact, the English term socialism is derived from the Greek. The primitive meaning of the Greek word whence socialism is derived signifies "comrade", something similar to the common Chinese expression for partner (Chinese characters).

As for sociology, it deals with the study of the conditions of society, with social evolution, with the phenomena of social groups. Socialism deals with the study of social economy and of the question pertaining to the (economic) life of man, that is to say, with the question of the means of livelihood of the people. It is for that reason that I use the term "economic Demism" instead of the word "socialism". My main idea in using that term was to lay a true foundation and to go back to the clear source. I wanted to show clearly the real nature of the question. I wanted to make it possible for the people to understand the meaning as soon as they hear the term.


Page 414:

Is the economic Demism about which I speak to you today really different from socialism?

The most important question which confronts socialism is the social-economic question. That question is no other than that of the life of a class of people, Since the invention of machines these have taken from men the greater part of their work. The working class is no longer able to subsist and this gave rise to the social question. Therefore what made the social question rise up was originally the desire to solve the question of the "people's life".

Hence, from this partial view-point the social question is the question of the "people's life", and we may say that the economic Demism is the main theme of socialism. At present the socialism of each individual country has its own tenets, and the methods which it advocates to solve the social question vary in each country. But, in reality, is socialism a part of the economic Demism, or is the economic Demism a part of socialism?


Footnote -- Page 414:

This paragraph must be noted if we wish to understand what Sun Yat-sen means by socialism; it seems to us as though his economic Demism is merely a socialism of words or of etymology, as will be discussed at length further on in Book II, Chapter V.


Footnote -- Page 418:

But, moreover, we must remember that the exchangeable value of an object does not depend solely on the amount of time put into its making, as Sun Yat-sen following Williams proves conclusively in the course of this lecture. Other factors intervene, as, for instance, the usefulness of the rarity of the object, in a word, the law of supply and demand. The quality of work too must be taken into account. The efforts of organization and of direction must also be renumerated according to their correct value.


Footnote - Page 421:

We must give credit to Sun Yat-sen for this splendid refutation of Marxism. Never did he speak as well as when he attacked the leader of socialism.


Footnote - page 423:

(2) Dr. Sun drew his best arguments to oppose the doctrine of Marx from Dr. Maurice William's The Social Interpretation of History, a Refutation of the Marxian Economic interpretation.

Footnote --

(l) The Triple Demism dates back to the years 1897-1898; in 1924, the year during which the lectures were delivered, it was therefore already 26 or 27 years old. The importance of this correction of Dr. Sun, "not socialism, but the economic Demism" cannot be over-estimated, as it already shows that we would be wrong to think, as other misleading expressions of his might induce us to do, that in his opinion these two terms, "socialism" and "economic Demism", are synonymous.


Page 423:

In the last years in America, a disciple of Marx, [Maurice] Williams, went more deeply into Marxism and, noticing that its adherents are quarrelling among themselves, (he concluded) that this was certainly due to the fact that the theories of Marx had some weak points. So, he published his opinion which declared that the theory of Marx, viz.,_ that matter is the center of gravity of history, is false, that it is the social question which is the center of gravity of history, and that in the social question itself the center of gravity is livelihood.

That sounds perfectly reasonable. Now, the problem of the economic Demism is the problem of livelihood. Hence, the greatest discovery of that American scholar fits in perfectly with the third (Livelihood) principle of our Party.


Page 424:

According to the statement of this American scholar, all efforts of mankind in times past as well as present, consist in trying to solve the problem of self-livelihood. The search for a solution to the problem of livelihood is the law of social evolution, hence, the center of gravity of history. The materialism of Marx, which failed to discover the law of social evolution, is not the center of gravity of history.

In order to understand which of the theories of these two scholars - Karl Marx and Maurice William] is finally the true one, we must examine their principles in detail and see whether they conform to the reality of modern social evolution.


Page 433:

Therefore, in his study of the social question Marx found out only the pathological side of society; he did not discover the law of social evolution. The law of social evolution and the center of gravity of history is the statement discovered by that American scholar [Maurice William], viz., that man is striving for subsistence.


Footnote -- Page 457:

In China the Communist Party, properly so-called, dates back to 1919. For five years it recruited supporters only among students who had studied in Russia, and among the workingmen in Shanghai and Hong Kong. It was only in 1924 that Sun Yat-sen, probably under the pressure of events and in order to increase the number of his followers, admitted the Communists into his Party. But it is worth noticing that even here he takes to task those "modern zealots" who "use their utmost strength in order to bring about Communist Party to agitate". Anyhow, three years later, they were driven out by the supporters of_the late leader. Since then the new government of Nanking, the _very_one _ which considers the Triple Demism as the supreme code, has more and more expurgated itself of this undesirable communistic element and has missed no occasion to hunt down the Communists. [Cf. above, Introduction, Chapter I, p. 27-28 and, farther on, Book II, Chapter V [the Nanking government is carrying out Dr. Sun's last instructions to build upon the American anti-Communist principles. Maurice William].


Footnote -- Page 468:

This is another important statement which must be kept in mind [Cf. No. 863 and farther on p. 474, note 1]. In fact, the aim of the economic Demism is not to do away with capital, but merely to restrain it. In that it differs from the economic systems condemned by the Catholic Church.


Footnote -- Page 470:

It seems as though here the economic Demism reminds us somewhat of State Socialism. From hearing Sun Yat-sen describe the greatness of Germany under the State Socialism of Bismark his sympathies could be discovered. But now he is more explicit. Already in his system of (nationalization of the unearned increment), he was less concerned with raising of public funds than with reducing excessive wealth. Here he multiplies and increases the monopolies of the State in industry, means of communication and of transportation, exploitation of mines, etc. By doing this he hopes to prevent the accumulation of large capital and to spare China the evils arising from private capital, the greatest of which is the class struggle. During the War the various warring governments have been forced, in order to face the difficulties of the struggle, to take under their command all the natural resources, and the control of industry and commerce. What these governments have done temporarily and under especially critical circumstances in order to achieve the public good, that same thing Sun Yat-sen wishes to see realized in China, not only in time of war, but always.

But it must be kept in mind: (a) that he does not posit as a thesis, as do the Socialists, that private property is an injustice which must be done away with in the name of equality; on the contrary, he asserts that China under a system of small ownership has enjoyed peace until the day she was invaded by foreign industrialism; (b) that he speaks of the possible buying back of land on the part of the state, and not of confiscation; (c) that he reassures the owners and promises them that they will retain the ownership over what they presently possess and they "will not suffer any loss"; (d) that elsewhere he does not deny the right of private capital whenever it can be self-sufficient and that he wishes only to restrain it.


Footnote -- Page 471:

From what Sun Yat-sen, reporting the opinion of Borodin and of his clique says here and further on, viz., that since Marxism has miscarried in Russia, it is still less practicable in China because the economic level of the country is much lower than that of Russia, some have attempted to conclude that Dr. Sun thought of putting Marxism into practice in China as soon as the economic level of the country will have reached the level of that of England or of America.

In our opinion such a view overlooks two things; first, that Sun Yat-sen gives here merely an argument ad hominen; to the fanatical Marxists who urged him to bolshevize China he had the good sense to reply: "but you yourself confessed that if Russia was not ready for Marxism, China was still less so." That is the gist of the argument concluded in January 1923 between him and Mr. Joffe, Soviet Ambassador to China. The second thing to be kept in mind is that Sun Yat-sen invented his Demist system in order to solve the social question presently. He estimates that through that system wealth will be sufficiently equalized so as to prevent the existence of great capitalists in the future. Since great capitalists will not exist, the class struggle will have no cause for existence, and since it is that struggle alone which gives Marxism a reason for existence there will be no reason for having recourse to Marxism, not even when industry will be greatly developed in China. Moreover, without mentioning the wet blanket which he throws on young students infatuated with the new doctrines, the long and victorious refutation of Marxism, made ex professo bv Sun Yat-sen does not leave any doubts that his opinion is decidedly anti-Marxist [Economic Demism or Sociology (Principle of Livelihood) Lecture I, delivered August 5, 1924. This lecture is almost a verbatim statement from The Social Interpretation of History. Maurice William].


Footnote -- Page 474-5:

In order clearly to understand the economic Demism proposed by Sun Yat-sen, it is necessary to remark that he recognizes a double kind of capitalism; private and national capitalism. "Al1 matters that can be and are better carried out by private enterprise should be left to private hands which should be encouraged and fully protected by liberal laws. And in order to facilitate the industrial development by private enterprise in China, the hitherto suicidal, internal taxes must be abolished; the cumbersome currency must be reformed, the various kinds of official obstacles must be removed, and transportation facilities must be provided. All matters that cannot be taken up by private concerns and those that possess monopolistic character should be taken up as national undertakings." In this national undertaking, foreign capital has to be invited, and foreign experts and organizers have to be enlisted. Property thus brought into existence will be state owned and be managed for the welfare of the whole nation. Foreign experts will be entrusted with the administration until the Chinese government is able to fully reimburse the capital and interest, but they will be obliged to employ natives and to train the Chinese so that later on these will be able to fill their places.

When the capital and interest of each undertaking are paid off, the Chinese government will have the option to use either Chinese or foreign experts to manage the concerns as it thinks fit.

We have here a valuable testimony of the esteem in which Sun Yat-sen held the foreigners and of the role which he assigned to them in the reconstruction of China. Hence he is not a xenophobe, as some attempt to characterize him. If elsewhere he attacks what he calls the foreign "ethnic, political, and economic oppression", it is because he speaks from the point of view of Chinese patriotism [These attacks were made in his lectures on the Racial Demism (Principle of Nationalism and Political Demism (Principle of Democracy) which were delivered before Dr. Sun accepted the Anti-Marxian American principles. [Maurice William].