From Sun Yat-sen and Communism by Shao Chung Len and Norman D. Palmer, 1960
With respect to Marx, Sun’s views were quite critical. He rejected explicitly the Marxian theories of historical materialism, class war, and surplus value, and called Marx a mere social pathologist. He criticized the inconsistencies of Marxism and pointed out the contradictions between Marx’s predictions and the actualities of the modern economic world. In support of his argument, he referred to the theory of social revolution [i.e. evolution] of Maurice William, whose book The Social Interpretation of History apparently had impressed him deeply and had helped fortify his own ideas. Sun said of Williams’ theory:He set forth the view that the materialistic conception of history is wrong; that the social problem, not material forces, is the center which determines the course of history, and that subsistence [survival ?] is the heart of the social problem. This social interpretation of history, he believes, is the only reasonable one. The problem of livelihood is the problem of subsistence. This new theory of this American scholar tallies exactly with the third principle of our party. William’s theory means that livelihood is the central force in social progress, and that social progress is the central force in history; hence the struggle for a living and not material forces determines history.( page 24 )
Undoubtedly the most important difference between Sun Yat-senism and Chinese Communism lies in their fundamentally divergent ideological bases. The former is based on Western democracy and Confucianism ; the latter is based on Marxism-Leninism. According to Dr. Sun, the principles which he had held in promoting the Chinese revolution were “in some cases copied from our traditional ideals, in other cases modeled on European theory and experience, and in still others formulated according to original and self-developed theories.” Sun never advocated wholesale Westernization. By fusing Chinese and Western thought, he tried to construct a solution specifically for China. Although he expressed some doubts about the applicability in Chine of Western representative systems, he was fundamentally a believer in democracy and popular sovereignty. Throughout his writings and speeches, he often made references to such liberal thinkers of the West as Rousseau, Montesquieu, Jefferson, Henry George, and Maurice William. Time and again he attributed his Three Peoples’ Principles to President Lincoln’s classic phrase—”the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” For instance, in a speech on “The Three Peoples’ Principles” in 1921, Sun stated:
The principles of President Lincoln completely coincide with mine. He said: “A government of the people, elected by the people and for the people.” These principles have served as the maximum of achievement for Europeans as well as Americans. Words which have the same sense can be found in China. I have translated them: “nationalism, democracy, and socialism.” Of course, there can be no other interpretations. The wealth and power of the United States are a striking example of the results of great men’s teachings in the country. I am glad to observe that my principles, too, are shared by the greatest political minds abroad and are not in contradiction to all the world’s democratic schools of thought.The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, boasts that it “guides its entire work by the Teachings which unite the theories of Marxism-Leninism with the actual practice of the revolution—the though of Mao Tse-tung—and fights against any dogmatist or empiricist deviations.” Like Dr. Sun, Mao Tse-tung is opposed to wholesale Westernization, and he wants to Sinonize Marxism to meet China’s realities. . . .
In contrast to Sun, Mao is a foe of Western democracy and a faithful student of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. His fundamental ideas are firmly based on the Marxist dogma of class struggle and dialectical materialism. He accepts the standard Bolshevik interpretation of Chinese society as “feudal.” His program of agrarian reform and New Democracy for China corresponds basically with the Leninist-Stalinist theories of revolution in semicolonial areas. In other words, Chinese Communism developed by Mao Tse-tung is a legitimate and genuine development of Marxism-Leninism,* and ideology quite different from the democratic principles of the West, which contributed much to Sun Yat-senism.
* So long as any “Marxism-Leninism” could ever be considered as legitimate. The ‘philosophy’ of Marx was based on fundamental fallacies ; that by Lenin occasions one doubts about his person overall ; (was he totally deluded or was he a total liar). The achievements by Mao Tse-tung do not convince to his personal genuineness in the slightest degree, his purpose was the Kremlin-orchestrated grab for power while ‘ideology’ was mainly the question of what slogans to use to rouse the masses. — (WPT)Of particular interest in this connection re the different interpretations of history by Sun Yat-sen and the Chinese Communists. Coinciding with the view of Maurice William, Sun advocated the “livelihood,” or social interpretation of history. In a lecture on his Third Principle, he declared:
Livelihood is the center of government, the center of economics, the center of all historical movements. Just as men once misjudged the center of the solar system, so the old socialists mistook material forces for the center of history. . . . We can no longer say that material issues are the central force in history. We must let the political, social, and economic movements of history gravitate about the problem of livelihood. We must recognize livelihood as the center of social history.Just as he rejected Marx’s materialistic interpretation of history, so did he criticize the corollary Marxian theory of the class war. According to Sun, mankind’s struggle for continuous existence is the cause of social progress, while class war is merely a disease developed in the course of social progress. Since Marx was concerned with nothing but the disease, he can only be called a social pathologist. . . .( pages 129 – 132 )
New York : Praeger, 1960.
Leng, Shao Chuan, 1921- Title Sun Yat-sen and communism, by Shao Chung Len and Norman D. Palmer. Publisher New York, F. A. Praeger [c1960] Description viii, 234 p. 22 cm. Series Foreign Policy Research Institute series,10 Praeger publications in Russian history and world communism,no. 91 Language English Note Books that matter. Note Bibliographical references included in "Notes" (p. 183-217). Bibliography: p. 219-227. Subject Sun, Yat-sen, 1866-1925.