Maurice William

From The Social Interpretation of History by Maurice William, 1921

In former days Socialists would smile at statements by non-Socialists to the effect that there seem to be fifty-seven different varieties of Socialism ; but can we smile at that statement to-day? No longer have we one International, but two, and each charges the other with being a traitor to humanity and to �scientific Socialism.�

Who, in the present chaos and upheaval, would undertake to define the aims and methods of Socialism? Does Socialism mean the dictatorship of the proletariat and civil war, or does it mean Social Democracy? Does it mean the destruction of the State or does it mean legal methods through the democratic state machinery? Does it mean class rule or does it mean the abolition of class rule? The following is one of the articles adopted by the Congress of the Communist International held in March, 1919; �The revolutionary epoch demands that the proletariat should employ such fighting methods as will concentrate its entire energy, viz.: the method of mass action, and lead to its logical consequence—the direct collision with the capitalist state machine in an open combat..� Do our leaders wish us to accept this as the correct Socialist position?

Is it the aim of Socialism to emancipate the masses or does it aim to enslave the bourgeoisie? . . .

New York : Sotery, 1921,
Introduction, pages xxv � xxvi.

Comment :  this is all very well and I find Mr. William as credible an author as any I have seen ; perhaps more credible than most of the 'socialists' I have seen, in terms of a sort of personal integrity which does include telling the people what one does mean — and not otherwise in order to mislead them.

However, his having valiantly demolished some parts of the opus by Karl Marx, Mr. William happily retains some other parts which were perhaps no better than what he had demolished. Those articles were influential on Sun Yat-sen, and this looms large in the certain vague sort of confusion that had followed the latest works of the latter.

What one finds objectionable is the 'direct taxation'. I would contend that this is a fundamentally bad idea ; secondarily, this was and technically is un-constitutional in the U.S.

WPT.

From Human nature and conduct by John Dewey, 1922

. . . Harmony of social interests is found in the wide-spread sharing of activities significant in themselves, that is to say, at the point of consumption.* But the forcing of production apart from consumption leads to the monstrous belief that class-struggle civil war is a means of social progress, instead of a register of the barriers to its attainment. . . .

      * Acknowledgment is due � The Social Interpretation of History � by Maurice William.

New York : The Modern Library, 1957, page 272.

From The Social Question : Definitions and Solutions by Sun Yat-sen, August 1924

. . . an international group of Marxianists from Germany, France, and Russia, exhibited a strong sectarian spirit in the controversy ; and each group blamed the other as not being true Marxianists.

The significant result of this controversy is that some people have begun to throw doubt on the Marxian theories. A sound theory, like Newton�s law of gravity, can be tested again and again, and still be found true and sound ; but it is said that the controversy among the Marxianists is an evidence that the Marxian theory of the materialistic interpretation of history is open to doubt, and moreover, cannot be tested. What is, then, the determining force in history ? Recently an American disciple of Marx by the name of William,¹ after making a deep study of Marx�s philosophy, came to the conclusion that the disagreement between fellow Socialists was due to defects in Marxian doctrines. He sets forth the view that the Social Question, not the material environment, is the determining force in history, and that the level of subsistence is the heart of the Social Question. In other words, the problem of livelihood is the central force in social progress ; and social progress is the central force in history. Since subsistence is an element in livelihood, the theory of the American scholar is in entire accord with the Kuomintang Doctrine of Livelihood. For over twenty years we have preached the Doctrine of Livelihood instead of socialism because the term livelihood is more exact and suitable to define the nature of the Social Question than these terms, socialism or communism. What is more interesting, this discovery on the part of the Marxian scholar and the development of new knowledge after the World War show so much more clearly that our Doctrine of Livelihood is consistent with the law of progress and is not a mere parroting of what others are saying.

      ¹ Maurice William:   The Social Interpretation of History.   New York, Upshitz Press, 1920.

THE FALLACY OF �CLASS STRUGGLE"

To solve the problem of livelihood, according to the American writer referred to above, is man�s constant endeavor ; and thus it is the law of social progress—the gravity-law of history. This new theory of the social interpretation of history is fundamentally different from Marx�s materialistic interpretation of history. . . .

( LECTURE ONE Delivered on August 3, 1924 )
SUN YAT-SEN HIS POLITICAL AND SOCIAL IDEAS
Compiled, Translated and Annotated by Leonard Shihlien Hsü.
University Park, Los Angeles :
University of Southern California Press, 1933, pages 400-1.

From a Preface by Oswald Spengler, 1924

William is right in denoting the class-warfare teaching of Marx as socio-pathological. For the class-war, when it has been unleashed by one party, has, on the whole, accomplished nothing�save to render social life more difficult and to brutalize it, and to breed a class of paid labor leaders who make a business of Marxism. . . .

( The Social Interpretation of History by Maurice William,
"German translation by Wolfgang Groeger.
Trowitzsch & Son, Berlin, 1924." )
Sun Yat-sen versus Communism, page 175.

From Sun Yat-sen versus Communism by Maurice William, 1932

AUTHOR�S INTRODUCTION

Of vital interest to those students of economic and social movements who desire to understand the present, and to foresee the future trend of Chinese history, will be the proof, here presented for the first time, of Dr. Sun�s anti-Bolshevist, anti-Marxian, sympathies and teachings. Is revolutionary China likely to follow the example of revolutionary Russia ? The answer to this question is the key which unlocks the door of presage to world history for generations to come. Most careful scholars are now agreed that China will follow what she conceives to be the authentic instructions of her lately deified hero, Sun Yat-sen. But what are these instructions? On this point, there is bitter disagreement.

Comment :  It seems that Sun Yat-sen was rather uncommitted, in any way, to communism or anti-communism. This is somewhat in contradiction to his own acceptance of anti-marxian theses, since the Muscovy branch of communism, which was at issue then, was strictly allied with the "teachings" (a bunch of fallacies more like it) of Marx. — (WPT).

The reason for the controversy is not far to seek. It lies in the fact that Dr. Sun�s own position underwent a radical change in the latter months of his life, and that his final instructions to his followers were completely anti-Marxian, and thus in direct contrast with his earlier teachings, which showed a decided leaning toward the extreme Marxian doctrines. Upon the subject of Marxism, and the doctrines correlative thereto, Dr. Sun�s last writings are directly contradictory of his earlier ones. The apologists for Bolshevist Russia have had much ado, therefore, to present to the world that interpretation of Dr. Sun�s teachings which shall be to Russia�s own best interests. The method used has been constantly to represent Dr. Sun�s earlier views as his final and authentic instructions. The Marxists cite abundantly from Dr. Sun�s earlier writings in support of their contention that he accepted Marxism without reservation. They had had, so far, the best of the argument. They can and do prove Dr. Sun to have been, at one time, a convinced Marxist. What they are careful to avoid doing is to consider his later repudiation of the Marxian doctrines. When the present Nationalist Government challenges the Russian interpretation, the Marxians have hitherto been able to retort, with some shoe of plausibility, that the Nationalists have failed to present conclusive proof of their own anti-Marxian interpretation of Dr. Sun�s instructions. The proof exists, however, and is here presented in detail for the first time.

The Bolshevists have told the truth about Dr. Sun—the partial truth, which is more misleading than the lie direct. He who would know the whole truth should add to the Bolshevist account the factors which they have been so careful to suppress.

The reader who is also a student of Dr. Sun Yat-sen�s philosophy will find it helpful to bear in mind certain dates of considerable significance. In the form in which they now exist,¹ Dr. Sun�s lectures n Nationalism and Democracy were delivered between January 27 and April 26, 1924. They are thoroughly Marxian in tone. My own Social Interpretation of History was as yet unfamiliar to him. But internal evidence, as well as the testimony of Dr. Sun�s intimates² shows that he must have come upon my work almost immediately thereafter, and must have devoted the next few months to an intensive study of it.

His first lecture on �The Principle of Livelihood� was delivered some three months later—August 3, 1924. How thoroughly Dr. Sun had, by this time, rejected Marxism, the reader may discover for himself by a reference to Part III of this volume. Mr. Price, the translator of San Min Chu I, has printed this lecture of August 3 under twenty-two topic headings. It will be seen that Dr. Sun has drawn upon my Social Interpretation of History for material for most of these twenty-two topics, and that many of them have their source exclusively in material first published in The Social Interpretation. Several of the topics in Lecture II also have their origin in theories first formulated and published in The Social Interpretation. Lectures III and IV, on the other hand, are devoted, respectively, to practical problems of food and clothing, and show but little evidence of direct influence. In brief, a comparison of the two works will indicate that Dr. Sun did me the honor of adopting my theoretical viewpoint, but made his own practical applications. When it is recalled that the subtitle of my book is : A Refutation of the Marxian Economic Interpretation of History, the Russian apologists may well be asked: How could a convinced and orthodox Marxist have based his theories of social and economic reconstruction in China upon A Refutation of the Marxian Economic Interpretation of History. Since publication of The Social Interpretation of History was conceived with the idea of meeting the challenge of Marxism, Bolshevism, and Communism, it has been a source of gratification to me to learn that my work has proved useful to Dr. Sun Yat-sen and to the Chinese nation in their efforts to combat Soviet Russia�s aim to Bolshevise China.

Dr. Sun rejected Marxism, and accepted in lieu thereof the theories advanced in The Social Interpretation of History. The significance of this fact is that modern Nationalist China has followed Dr. Sun�s teachings in rejecting Marxism. In consequence, China today is basing her policies upon those democratic lines which should logically lead to ever-closer relationship with the democratic West.

The appearance of this volume offers me the first opportunity to indicate my gratitude to the many distinguished men and women who have been so encouraging and so helpful in their response to my Social Interpretation of History. The very first letter to reach me, indicating a general agreement with my views, came from Dr. David Starr Jordan.³ The first formally to accept my views as against those of Karl Marx was Dr. John Dewey.⁴ Dr. Dewey was also the first to announce from the public platform the relation of The Social Interpretation of History to San Min Chu I.⁵

The first published information regarding the acceptance by Dr. Sun of the theories of The Social Interpretation of History, was given by Mr. John McCook Roots.⁶

Miss Mary van Kleeck, Director, Department of Industrial Studies, Russell Sage Foundation, was the first to write me regarding the connection between the two works. Miss van Kleeck, in an effort to see that correct identification was made of Dr. Sun's American source material, devoted much effort and correspondence to that end. It was through her investigations that the discovery was made that The Social Interpretation of History had been Dr. Sun's constant companion during the last months of his life.

Dr. Jeremiah Jenks,⁷ Research Professor of Government in New York University, was the first to base a lecture upon the influence of my study on Dr. Sun's final conclusions. This lecture, under the title, "Why China Repudiated Bolshevism," was delivered at New York University, February 6, 1929. Mrs. Jenks has been kind enough to give her consent to the use of abstracts from Dr. Jenks' lecture as a preface to this study.

Dr. Oswald Spengler was the first to write a preface to a translation of my work.⁸

I am indebted to Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, not only for his valuable foreword but, and this more especially, for the kindliness which led one of the busiest men in the nation to devote to this purpose the not inconsiderable time needed for a critical examination of the material upon which the foreword is based.

I wish to express to Professor James T. Shotwell my appreciation for all the trouble he has taken in personally investigating the extent of the Sino-American intellectual coöperation and in presenting the results of his investigation to the public. Dr. Shotwell was the first historian to recognize the significance of the intellectual relationship of the East and the West and his article on "Sun Yat-sen and Maurice William," Political Science Quarterly for March, 1932, was the result of his belief that a more general knowledge of the facts in the case would prove of value to all who recognize the need for a better understanding between China and America.

Dr. Harley Farnsworth MacNair, Professor of Far Eastern History and Institutions, the University of Chicago, was the first to draw attention in a published volume⁹ to the relation between the San Min Chu I and The Social Interpretation of History and to point out its implications.

Professor William J. Gies has for many months given unstintingly of his time, his scholarship, and his editorial experience toward the effective launching of this volume. Indeed, this study could not have been published without his wholehearted coöperation. Professor Gies was also the first to bring the result of my research formally to the attention of an international association devoted to research.¹⁰ I feel unusually honored in having Professor Gies� name associated with this volume through his contribution on �The Relationship between the Social Interpretation of History and the San Min Chu I.� It is plain that my indebtedness to Professor Gies is of a nature that I can never hope to repay. I can, however, acknowledge the extent of my indebtedness, which I am glad to do publicly and with a sense of the deepest gratitude.

Inasmuch as I had been, prior to the publication of The Social Interpretation of History, a complete stranger to all of these scholars, I find it difficult to express the gratitude I feel for their interest and encouragement. I need hardly add that they are in no way responsible for the views or criticisms expressed in these pages. That responsibility is solely my own.

To Miss Susanna Broomall, formerly secretary to Dr. Jeremiah Jenks, I am indebted, since Dr. Jenks� death, for invaluable assistance and suggestions based upon Dr. Jenks� study of my work, and upon his experience with Chinese conditions.

I gladly acknowledge my indebtedness to my secretary, Miss Pearl Graham, for her invaluable services in selecting and collating the material from San Min Chu I and The Social Interpretation of History.

In view of the historical importance of this synthesis of American and Chinese thought, I should be glad to receive comments from the readers of this study, many of whom will doubtless be in a position to add considerably to my own knowledge of its history. Communications may be addressed :

MAURICE WILLIAM    

  130 West 57th Street
    New York City

 

      ¹ San Min Chu I
      ² Letter of L. T. Chen, editor, the San Min Chu I, see page 8.
      ³ Letter fro Dr. Jordan to the author, August 18, 1920.
      ⁴ John Dewey : Human Nature and Conduct, 1922, p. 273.
      ⁵ Memorial meeting for Sun Yat-sen, March 13, 1927.
      ⁶ Asia, May, 1927, �Sun Yat-senism.�
      ⁷ Died, August 24, 1929.
      ⁸ German translation by Wolfgang Groeger.  Trowitzsch & Son, Berlin, 1924.
      ⁹ China in Revolution, by Harley Farnsworth MacNair, University of Chicago Press, 1931, pp. 88-90.
      ¹⁰ International Association for Dental Research, Ninth General meeting, March 21-22. 1931, Memphis, Tennessee.

Baltimore : Williams & Wilkins 1932.

William, Maurice Title Sun Yat-sen versus communism : new evidence establishing China's right to the support of democratic nations / by Maurice William Publisher Westport, Conn. : Hyperion Press, 1975 Description xx, 232 p. ; 23 cm ISBN 0883551691 Language English Note Reprint of the 1932 ed. published by Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore Note Includes bibliographical references and index Subject Sun, Yat-sen, 1866-1925

William, Maurice. Title Sun Yat-Sen versus communism; new evidence establishing China's right to the support of democratic nations, Publisher Baltimore, The Williams & Wilkins company, 1932. Description xx, 232 p. diagrs. 24 cm. Language English Subject William, Maurice. The social interpretation of history. Communism. Sun, Yat-sen, 1866-1925.

William, Maurice. Title The social interpretation of history: a refutation of the Marxian economic intepretation of history, Publisher Long Island City, New York, Sotery publishing company [c1921] Description xxxi p., 1 l., 397 p. 21 cm. Language English Subject Marx, Karl, 1818-1883.