Sun’s third principle was that of the People’s Livelihood. “The Principle of the People’s Livelihood,” declared Sun Yat-sen, “is socialism, it is communism, it is Utopianism.” Sun’s use of the term “communism” here has given rise to serious controversy. Some have regarded the statement as a political tactic for relaxing tension between the Communists and the right wing of the
Kuomintang; others have considered it to be evidence of Sun’s pro-Communism48 Actually it was neither. In Sun’s mind communism was a term interchangeable with socialism and in its ideals not different from the traditional Chinese concept of utopia. His Principle of Livelihood was intended to be broader than all of these, including something of communism and something of collectivism, a term he often used to mean state communism.49 To Sun, communism was not necessarily the Marxist brand or the Soviet brand. In February 1924, he stated that Marxism was not communism; what Proudhon and Bakunin had advocated was really communism.50 Until August 1924, when he delivered his first lecture on the Principle of Livelihood, Sun had never equated his principle with communism; on the contrary, he had often stated that the People’s Livelihood was socialism, especially the state socialism that had appeared in Germany and other European countries.51 As will be seen later, the People’s Livelihood, both in principle and in method, was indeed closer to state socialism than to anything else. But it was characteristic of Sun not to adhere to any one persons doctrine; his People’s Livelihood was broader than state socialism. Its ultimate ideal was “communism” in the sense that all people should share the natural resources and national wealth. Thus, said Sun, “Communism is the ideal of People’s Livelihood, and People’s Livelihood is practical communism.” But the Principle of People’s Livelihood aimed at communizing future property, rather than existing property, so that no one who had property would suffer.53
To Sun, communism could not be realized for several thousand years, since the morality of the present world had not reached the stage where the formula “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” was practicable.54 Particularly in China the conditions
were not suitable for communism, for China had been suffering from poverty, not from unequal distribution of wealth. The urgent need, therefore, was to create wealth through industrialization. “In seeing a solution for our livelihood problem, we are not going to propose some impracticable and radical method and then wait until industry is developed. We want a plan which will anticipate dangers and forearm us against emergencies, which will check the growth of large private capital and prevent the social disease of extreme inequality between the rich and the poor.”55 To Sun the methods of the Russians were ones that would “burn the head and mar the forehead.”56
Communism was not only impracticable, it was also theoretically unsound. Sun criticized the Marxian materialistic conception of history and agreed with Maurice William that the struggle for subsistence, not the struggle between classes, was the central force in history.57 For Sun, cooperation rather than war was the law of social progress. In the struggle for subsistence, mutual trust and cooperation were essential to success; in class war the destructive effects might well obstruct social progress and make living difficult.58
Thus, the Principle of Livelihood was based on mutual dependence and cooperation between the classes. “Society progress through the adjustment of major economic interests rather than through the clash of interests. If most of the economic interests of society can be harmonized, the great majority of people will benefit and society will progress.”59 Sun did not deny the existence of class struggle, but he considered it to be an abnormal phenomenon in social development.60 He distinguished between the human world and the animal world. The latter was characterized by natural selection and survival of the fitters; the former was founded on conscience and justice. Mankind has attained the level of morality; it seeks progress
through mutual assistance. Society and state function on ethical principles. Men have not always been able to follow these principles because of the remnant barbaric nature they inherited from the animal world. Hence the ugly side of society, characterized by struggle, defeat, and elimination. But, in Sun’s view, the more civilized we become, the less natural selection will apply. And it is the duty of man to develop his human nature, to eliminate the animal instinct, to promote morality—in short, to replace natural selection with mutual assistance.61
Sun’s adoption of Maurice William’s arguments to refute Marx’s materialistic conception of history has led to the speculation that it was William who saved Sun from the influence of Communism. Thus Jeremiah W. Jenks, in a lecture at new York University in 1929, stated that “in the early part of his great book The Three Principles of the People Sun has apparently adopted the doctrine of Karl Marx and believes in the class struggle. . . . Later on, in the latter part of his book he changed his views quite decidedly and that change was apparently brought about by the falling into his hands of Maurice William’s the Social Interpretation of History.”62 Prompted by this assertion, William published in 1932 his Sun Yat-sen versus Communism, in which he attempted to establish: that Sun’s lectures on nationalism and democracy delivered between January 27 and April 26, 1924, were thoroughly Marxian in tone (He “endorses the class struggle” and “repudiates Western democracy”); that Sun at that time was unfamiliar with The Social Interpretation of History, which must have fallen into his hands immediately thereafter; that Sun must have devoted the next few months to an intensive study of it; and that in the first lecture on livelihood delivered on August 3, Sun boldly proclaimed that he had completely reversed his views on Marxism ad Bolshevism.63 We have
discussed Sun’s views on imperialism above, and we may say here that a careful reading of his lectures on democracy will show that in the Sun adopted the ideas of Western democracy, the separation of powers, and even direct democracy on the Swiss model. The lapse of time three months between the last lecture on democracy and the first lecture on livelihood was not due to Sun’s coming upon William’s book “almost immediately” after the last lecture on democracy nor his need for a period of intensive study, but in reality to an illness of two months.* Also, Sun had already mentioned The Social Interpretation of History once before, on January 21, 1924, at a meeting of the First national Convention of the Kuomintang.64 He made use of William’s arguments against Marxism because they fit in with his Principle of Livelihood. Maurice William did not save him from Communism, since he had never abandoned his own principles, which were quite different from Marxism.
* . Some details between the several authors' reports may vary and some are presumably inaccurate. That Sun Yat-sen might have known about and have mentioned William’s book already on 21 Jan 1924 had nothing to do with his perusing the text at later dates. That Sun had suffered a two-month illness, even if exactly accurate, would in no way prevent his careful study of the book by William — unless he was severely sick or in coma, of which there seem to have been no reports. On comparison of the texts by M. William and Sun Yat-sen, there can be no slighted doubt about the signal influence by the former on the latter ; incidentally, some of it questionable. Whether or not William had 'saved Sun from communism' posits a sharp either/or and a sort of 'straw-man' fallacy. It seems certain that William had contributed to the revisions by Sun of his assumptions, certainly regarding the Marxian forms of communism ; this might have been decisive in some events. "Refuted" in the meanwhile may have been several small inaccuracies by William, or by Jenks, possibly others, on matters of secondary importance, but little else. — (WPT)
Sun proposed two methods as a solution to the problem of livelihood :Equalization of land ownership and regulation of capital. The first, sometimes called land nationalization, was derived from the Theory of Henry George.65 Sun adopted George’s socialism because in China the land problem was so much more conspicuous than the problem of capitalism. Thus from 1904 to 1924, Sun spoke of equalization of land ownership as if it were the only solution to all economic inequities.66 . . . .
48. Ts’ui Shu-Ch’in, Sun Chung-shan yü kung-ch’an chu-I (Sun Yat-sen and Communism) (Hong Kong: Yachou, 1956), pp. 137 ff.
49. TLCS [Sun Yat-sen, “Sun-wen Hsüeh-shuo” (The Theory of Sun Yat-sen), in Tsung-li ch’üan-shu (Complete Works of the President, 2 vols. ; Taipei: The Central Committee of the Kuomintang, 1956], VII-B 892.
50. TLCS, I, 103-4.
51. TLCS, VII-A, 54, 66, 443; V, 456.
52. TLCS, I, 438; Sun, San Min Chu I, p. 416.
53. TLCS, I, 458.
54. TLCS, VII-A, 202-3.
55. Sun, San Min Chu I, p. 441.
56. TLCS, V, 409.
56. Maurice William, The Social Interpretation of History (New York : Sotery Publishing co., 19210.
58. TLCS, VII-A, 288.
59. TLCS, I, 411.
60. TLCS, I, 415; Sun, San Min Chu I, p. 391.
61. TLCS, II, 80-81; VII-A, 123, 201; VII-B, 708.
62. Maurice William, Sun Yat-sen versus Communism (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1932), p. xiv.
63. Ibid., pp. xvii, 4-5.
64. Wang Ch’ang-ku, “Pa Sun Chung-shan shou-shu min-tsu chu-I tzu-hsü” (Concerning Sun Yat-sen’s Personally Written Preface to His Principle of Nationalism), Ch’un-ch’iu, No. 146; 24 (1964); TLCS, VII-B, 893.
65. Henry George, Progress and Poverty, (1879; New York: Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, 1958), pp. 228 ff.
66. The term “equalization of land ownership” first appeared in the charter of the Chih-kung T’ang, 1904.