Sun Yat-sen, Minsheng, Marxism, and the Question of Labour

Abstract

The chief political philosophy of Sun Yat-sen 孫逸仙 (1866-1925), the famed San Min doctrine (三民主義, lit. the Three Principles of the People), has over the years been subject to ample academic speculation on its true connotations. Sun's views on the question of labour, communism, Marxism, Leninism, etc., disseminated through the minsheng (民生) constituent of his ideology, is particularly notorious for its ambiguity. Strikingly, even the term "minsheng" per se has been translated and interpreted in many ways, sometimes as "socialism, " other times as a much more Confucian-imbued "people's livelihood. "Three periods deemed crucial in de development of Sun's minsheng doctrine are singled out in this article for further investigation: 1905, the year Sun Yatsen initially elaborated on the San Min doctrine (incl. minsheng); 1921, the year Sun published his The International Development of China (Shiye jihua 實業計畫) after two years of isolated self-reflection in Shanghai; and 1924, when Sun systemized his ideas to some extent during the First United Front (di yi ci Guo Gong hezuo 第一次国共合作, 1923-1927) between his KMT and the CPC under Soviet auspices. Special attention will be given to the last period, where Sun's ideas vis-à-vis Marxism allegedly underwent a noteworthy transformation during the summer of 1924. The argument will be made that an ideological evolution in Sun's discourse is indeed present during this summer, but not at all unanticipated when one takes Sun's citations of 1905 and 1921 in mind and considers his inspirators.

Full text

Critical Theory
Volume 6 Number 1 2022
5 Energy and subjectivity: Psychoanalysis between zizek and deleuze
Clayton Crockett
26 Sun yat-sen, minsheng, marxism, and the question of labour
Jasper Roctus
46 A study of badiou's politics of truth
Hui Lv
59 On lacanian transgression
—
—
Beyond the pleasure-reality principle and the limitation of law
ShengZhou Yu
75 Acceleration, alienation and resonance
—
—
A review on the three core concepts of hartmut
rosa's critical theory of social acceleration
Hanting Li
85 Taixu and the question of labour
Bart Dessein
97 Youth, labor and the new world: Labor writing in cross-culture perspective
Weijian Yang, Shangkun Li
106 Art production in the light of biopolitics: An investigation centered on negri and agamben
Yuling Zhang
114 Ex nihilo: The basic logic of badiou's philosophy
Zhenjiang Han
121 Retrieving the 'voices of the voiceless': Historiographical issues in writing the history of the
chinese labour corps
Dominiek Dendooven

Critical Theory
2022, VOL. 6, NO. 1, 26-45
DOI: 10.47297/wspctWSP2515-470202.20220601
Sun Yat-sen, Minsheng, Marxism, and the Question of Labour
Jasper Roctus., PhD researcher, Ghent University, Belgium
Abstract
The chief political philosophy of Sun Yat-sen 孫 逸 仙 (1866-1925), the
famed San Min doctrine (三民主義,lit. the Three Principles of the People),
has over the years been subject to ample academic speculation on its true
connotations. Sun's views on the question of labour, communism,
Marxism, Leninism, etc., disseminated through the minsheng ( 民 生)
constituent of his ideology, is particularly notorious for its ambiguity.
Strikingly, even the term "minsheng" per se has been translated and
interpreted in many ways, sometimes as "socialism," other times as a
much more Confucian-imbued "people's livelihood. "Three periods
deemed crucial in de development of Sun's minsheng doctrine are
singled out in this article for further investigation: 1905, the year Sun Yat-
sen initially elaborated on the San Min doctrine (incl. minsheng); 1921,
the year Sun published his The International Development of China (Shiye
jihua 實業計畫) after two years of isolated self-reflection in Shanghai; and
1924, when Sun systemized his ideas to some extent during the First
United Front (di yi ci Guo Gong hezuo 第一次国共合作, 1923-1927)
between his KMT and the CPC under Soviet auspices. Special attention
will be given to the last period, where Sun's ideas vis- à -vis Marxism
allegedly underwent a noteworthy transformation during the summer of
1924. The argument will be made that an ideological evolution in Sun's
discourse is indeed present during this summer, but not at all
unanticipated when one takes Sun's citations of 1905 and 1921 in mind
and considers his inspirators.
KEYWORDS
Sun Yat-sen; Republican China; Socialism; Marxism; Communism; Three
Principles of the People (San Min zhuyi)
Introduction
This concise paper, however, will not go too deeply in the abstruse semantics behind Sun Yat-
sen ’s minsheng doctrine, but instead focusses on the inspirations and connotational evolutions of
the principle during his life. It should be remembered that Sun ’s philosophy was extremely volatile
and adapted itself pragmatically to new political circumstances. Or, as Harold Schiffrin (1980, p. 252)
has aptly stated: “ The importance of the San-min Chu-yi (sic) lectures was not a matter of
intellectual coherence or of particular policies, but of exhortative effect.” That seemed to
correspond with Sun ’s own pragmatic vision on doctrinal matters, as he stated in 1924: “ What is a
doctrine? A doctrine is a sort of thought, a faith, and a force.” (甚麼是主義呢？主義就是一種思想、
* Corresponding Author: Jasper.roctus@ugent.be

27
一種信仰和一種力量。).1 Comments made by Marie-Claire Bergère (1998, p. 353) seem to tally with
these remarks, as she held that the purpose of Sun ’ s ideology was to appeal to action rather than to
(deeper) thought. Despite possibly indeed lacking a deep layer of thought, this article proposes that
a somewhat consistent ideological line can nevertheless be discerned in the evolution of Sun ’ s
minsheng doctrine.
Three periods will be singled out below for further investigation: 1905, the year Sun Yat-sen
initially elaborated on his San Min doctrine (incl. the minsheng doctrine); 1921, the year Sun
published his The International Development of China (Shiye jihua 實業計畫) after two years of
isolated self-reflection in Shanghai; and 1924, when Sun systemized his ideas to some extent during
the First United Front (di yi ci Guo Gong hezuo 第一次国共合作, 1923-1927)2 between his KMT and
the Chinese Communist Party (Zhongguo Gongchandang 中国共产党, CPC) under Soviet auspices.
Special emphasis is put on the last period, where Sun’ s ideas vis-à-vis Marxism allegedly underwent
a noteworthy transformation during the summer of 1924. The argument will be made that an
ideological evolution in Sun ’s discourse is indeed present during this summer, but not at all
unanticipated when one takes Sun ’s citations of 1905 and 1921 in mind and considers his
inspirators.
Finally, it should be noted that the selection of these three “snapshots” of Sun’ s ever-evolving
minsheng doctrine is undeniably somewhat arbitrary, and is not meant to imply that in-between
these periods no significant ideological conceptualization took place; it is merely a pragmatic choice
due to constraints of time and space.
1905: Sun Yat-sen ’s Initial Conceptualization of the Minsheng Doctrine
Sun Yat-sen’ s first traceable usage of the term minsheng predates his initial conceptualization of
his San Min doctrine in 1905. In 1894, two years after Sun had finished his education in Hong Kong
and a decade after he had been baptized as a Christian,3 by means of a reformist letter to the senior
Qing-statesman Li Hongzhang 李 鸿 章 (1823-1901) titled Explaining the Great Plan to Save the
Country to Li Hongzhang (Shang Li Hongzhang chenjiu guo da jishu 上李鴻章陳救國大計書), Sun
hoped to obtain employment as a governmental official to implement a reformist agenda aimed at
alleviating the poverty of the Chinese farmers.4 Altogether, Sun used the word minsheng four times
in this letter. The connotation Sun gave to the term, however, can equated to an abbreviated version
1 The quote is taken from Sun's first speech on the doctrine of minzu dated January 27, 1924, see Sun Yat-sen (1989,
vol. 1, p. 3-12). Note that this translation, as well as all subsequent translations unless stated otherwise, are the sole
responsibility of Jasper Roctus, this article's author.
2 Although civil war would break out again in 1927, there would eventually be a Second United Front between the KMT
and CPC between 1937 and 1945, when both Parties united to resist Japan's invasion. Afterwards, the concept of a
Third United Front was occasionally proposed by the CPC when enticing the KMT to unify China.
3 Sun studied at an Anglican institution in Hawaii before converting to Protestant Baptism at the age of eighteen
during his advanced studies in British-controlled Hong Kong. See among others Kayloe (2017, p. 26-27); Schiffrin (1980,
p. 27).
4 Sun's reformist ideas expressed in the letter to Li Hongzhang were heavily influenced by reformers such as the Hong
Kong barrister sir Kai Ho 何啟 (1859-1914) and Qing literati Zheng Guanying 鄭觀應 (1842-1922/23), who both had
urged the Qing-court to learn from the West in matters such as parliamentary democracy and free trade to get rid of its
"backwardness." While Sun tried to emphasize his Western education and familiarity with the ideas the two men
proposed to make up for his lack of proficiency in the Chinese Classics, most of the Qing-establishment would look
down on him nevertheless due to his low birth . See, among others, Schiffrin (1968, p. 27-40); Schiffrin (1980, p. 29-36);
Kayloe (2017, p. 36-39); Gordon (1993, p. 185-86).
Critical Theory

28
of the Chinese idiom guoji minsheng 国计民生 (lit. national economy and people ’ s livelihood),5 and
seems unrelated to his later minsheng doctrine. Guoji minsheng as a whole appears once in Sun ’ s
letter to the elderly statesman:
As with today ’ s indiscriminate tax levying, the malpractices of minor Mandarin officials, and the
rancor and malpractices of merchants, [this situation] truly cannot be maintained for a long time.
Completely depriving people of their hard-earned wealth like this absolutely brings no benefits to
our guoji minsheng.
以今日關卡之濫征，吏胥之多弊，商賈之怨毒，誠不能以此終古也，徒削平民之脂膏，於國計民
生，初無所裨；
6
With regard to the three instances where Sun Yat-sen used the term minsheng without the
addendum of guoji, an analogous connotation can be perceived. This, for instance, can be observed
in Sun ’s advocacy for reforms that could enable agricultural and industrial efficiency in China
similar to the “ Occident” (taixi 泰西, i.e. the West):
While natural sciences have been discussed, and machinal technology has been perfected, it is
equally significant to bear in mind that if one does not use material resources sparingly, then there
will be nothing to consolidate the foundation of the country and enrich minsheng. This also explains
why the people from the Occident rarely undertake matters that do not bring them profit.
物理講矣，機器精矣，若不節惜物力，亦無以固國本而裕民生也，故泰西之民，鮮作無益。7
The letter to Li Hongzhang, which remained unanswered as the elderly statesman was
preoccupied with the military and diplomatic outfall of the first Sino-Japanese war (Zhong Ri jiawu
zhanzheng 中日甲午战争, 1894-95), can be considered a turning point in the life of Sun Yat-sen, as it
would be the final Chinese proposal by his hand to primarily have a “reformist” nature – he would
infrequently keep writing in a reformist manner in English to appeal to the West ’ s conservative
establishment.8 In November 1894, Sun would play a prominent role in establishing the
revolutionary Xingzhonghui (興中會, lit. “Revive China Society” ). Similar to his earlier letter, however,
the Xingzhonghui ’s principles did not yet include many of Sun ’ s later more intricate philosophical
designs. The organization ’s slogan and membership oath of “ Overthrow the Manchus, restore
China, establish a Republic; if one harbors disloyalty, God will see to it” (驅除韃虜9，恢復中華，創立
合眾政府10；倘有貳心，神明鑒察。), instead betrayed Sun ’ s Christian inspirations (prospective
members also had to swear their loyalty on the bible), as well as a racially-imbued focus on the
5 This idiom can be – crudely – translated to "national economy and people's livelihood," and can be understood as
pertaining to one's economic living standards.
6 The letter compiled during June 1894 can be found in Sun Yat-sen (1989, vol. 4, p. 3-11).
7 Ibid. As also stated in note six, one can clearly observe here that Sun attempted to disguise his lacking credentials in
the skills traditionally required to work as a governmental official by boosting a strong understanding of the West.
8 Two of such "reformist" articles by Sun in English, China's present and future: The Reform party's plea for British
benevolent neutrality (March 1, 1897) and Judicial reform in China (July 8, 1897), both likely written during his stay in
London, can be found under respectively appendix 1 and appendix 3 in Anderson (2016, p. 187-201 and p. 206-14).
China's Present and Future can also be found in Sun Yat-sen (1989, vol. 10, p. 63-86).
9 The term dalu 韃虜 was a popular derogatory (lu holds the connotation of slave) term for Tartar people around the
turn of the 20th century. In this context it was used to emphasize the non-Chineseness of the Qing dynasty's Manchu
rulers.
10 The somewhat obscure term hezhong zhengfu 合 眾政府 would before long be replaced by minguo 民 國 in Sun-
related discourse to refer to the ultimate goal of founding a republic. While both pertain to a republican system, the
first term primarily holds the connotation of a federation – likely based on the American political system – while the
second term implies a country (self-)governed by its people.
Jasper Roctus. and Jasper Roctus.

29
theme of nationalism.11 Furthermore, the oath ’s simplicity can be seen as representative for the low
educational background of many of the Xingzhonghui ’ s members and the organization ’ s close ties
with so-called “secret societies, ” which had used similar vows when opposing the Qing dynasty.12
A year later in 1895, Sun Yat-sen would be baptized as a revolutionary with his participation in
the failed Guangzhou Uprising (Guangzhou qiyi 广州起义),13 after which he escaped to Japan.
Sixteen chaotic years in exile and nine more failed uprisings followed, before Sun ’s eleventh
revolutionary attempt – the Wuchang Uprising of 1911 (Wuchang qiyi 武 昌 起 义) – finally
succeeded.14
To find Sun Yat-sen ’s first usage of minsheng as a (sub-)doctrine (zhuyi) of his San Min doctrine,
one has to look at his discourse during 1905. Having been exposed to left-wing ideals during his
stay in London in 1896 and 1897,15 Sun had concocted the doctrines minquan and minsheng as
additions to his already established ideas on minzu (which at the time still largely could be equated
to the racial-imbued anti-Manchuism also found in the above oath of the Xingzhonghui) to combat
the copious societal problems of late-Qing China.16 In a 1905 speech in Brussels to Chinese
exchange students on the occasion of the establishment of the Zhongguo Tongmenghui (中國同盟
會, often translated as “China/Chinese Revolutionary League” )17 – essentially the successor
organization to the Xingzhonghui – Sun discussed his San Min doctrine (which at this point he
merely referred to as “san da zhuyi 三大主義” , lit. “ the Three Big Doctrines”) for the first time. Since,
on average, the membership of the Zhongguo Tongmenghui was by now better educated than it had
been during the early days of the Xingzhonghui, when the organization had primarily centered
around Chinese Christian compatriots with ties to Sun ’ s native region in Guangzhou, Sun saw both
opportunity and purpose in increasing the ideological depts of his political philosophy.18
In the autumn of 1905 Sun Yat-sen therefore officially printed his ideas in the form of a
“publication” (fakanci 發 刊詞) which was spread by the revolutionary Minbao (民 報, lit. people’s
11 The oath that new members of the Xingzhonghui had to take can be found under the Members' Oath of
Xingzhonghui (Xingzhonghui huiyuan shici 興中會會員誓詞) dated November 24, 1894, in Sun Yat-sen (1989, vol. 9, p.
239). Harold Schiffrin (1968, p. 42-43) has noted, however, that it remains unclear just how much of this oath was really
applied at the time and how much can be considered a "retroactive attempt" by later historians.
12 For an early account of Sun's involvement with secret societies, see DeKorne (1934). The involvement of the
Xingzhonghui with secret societies reached its zenith during the Huizhou uprising of October 1900, which was almost
entirely depended on their involvement. See Jansen (1967, p. 82-104); Schiffrin (1968, p. 227-29).
13 On October 26, 1895, Sun Yat-sen and his fellow Xingzhonghui conspirators attempted to take Guangzhou by
surprise in one strike. The plan ended in a complete failure when it was leaked to local Qing officials. See among others,
Restarick (1931, p. 39-46); Kayloe (2017, p. 45-53); Bergère (1998, p. 55-59).
14 For a comprehensive yet concise overview of the ten failed uprisings by Sun preceding his eventual success in 1911,
see Kayloe (2017, p. 166-83).
15 There exists considerable controversy about the length of Sun's stay in Europe during the late 19th century. While he
himself attested to a stay of two years (until 1898) and claimed he also went to France, a stay of less than a year limited
to London and some place in England seems more likely. See for example Wells (2001, p. 11-14).
16 See ibid. (p. 9).
17 Another choice of translation can be found in one of the earliest Western biographies on Sun by Lyon Sharman
(1934, p. 97-100), who opted for a translation as "Together Sworn Society" to give expression to the secret society
nature of the organization.
18 Harold Schiffrin (1968, p. 7-9) and Tjio Kayloe (2017, p. 125-30) both noted that the intellectualization and
diversification of the Xingzhonghui membership started after the Boxer Uprising of 1900. Sun apparently had a hard
time handling this change initially, but succeeded eventually in maintaining his leadership role. While many
intellectuals had their misgivings about Sun's connections with the semi-criminal secret societies, they were won over
by his rousing speeches and rhetorical skills.
Critical Theory

30
paper) newspaper issued in Japan, where he was staying in exile at the time.19 In this publication
Sun mentioned his three doctrines as separate concepts that could explicate the strength of the
West: “I maintain that all evolutions of Europe and America can be explained through three great
doctrines, namely, minzu, minquan, and minsheng.” （余維歐美之進化，凡以三大主義：曰民族、曰民
權、曰民生 。）
20
Sun Yat-sen’ s choice to opt for three beguiling keywords was inspired by the French
revolutionary slogan of Liberté, égalité, fraternité (liberty, equality, fraternity) and Abraham Lincoln ’ s
(1809-1865) “of the people, by the people, for the people” that he had gotten acquainted with
during his many stays abroad (Wells 2001, p. 34).21 Sun perceived a set chronological order in the
manner that the “great doctrines” of minzu, minquan, and minsheng had emerged in the West, and
applied them in a universalist manner:
[After] the fall of Rome, the doctrine of minzu emerged, and the European countries achieved
their independence; when their countries were imperialistically ruled and autocracy was upheld,
their subjects could not bear the suffering, and the doctrine of minquan emerged. Around the end
of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century, autocracy collapsed and the
establishment of constitutionalist political bodies increased. The [Western] world became civilized,
the intelligence of its people gradually increased, and materials were proliferated. A hundred years
have been sharper (more fruitful) than a thousand years. After economic problems followed political
problems, however, [a need for] the doctrine of minsheng emerged in force. The 20th century must
become an outstanding era for the doctrine of minsheng.
羅馬之亡，民族主義興，而歐洲各國以獨立；洎自帝其國，威行專制，在下者不堪其苦，則民權主
義起，十八世紀之末，十九世紀之初，專制仆而立憲政體殖焉；世界開化，人智益蒸，物質發舒，百年
銳於千載，經濟問題繼政治問題之後經濟問題繼政治問題之後，，則民生主義躍躍然動則民生主義躍躍然動，，二十世紀不得不為民生主義之擅場時二十世紀不得不為民生主義之擅場時
代也代也。。(Sun Yat-sen 1989, vol. 2, p. 256-57; Emphasis mine)
Through this quote one can observe that in Sun Yat-sen ’ s eyes, the West had already successfully
managed to establish the minzu and minquan doctrines – thereby accomplishing more in 100 years
than China had during 1000 years of feudalism – while the minsheng doctrine remained something
unfinished that absolutely “must” (budebu 不 得 不) be accomplished during the 20th century to
prevent even more societal disturbances. Clearly, despite the absence of any direct references to the
ideology, socialism had inspired Sun in conceptualizing his minsheng doctrine, as he had been
shocked by the London slums, the general imbalances in British society, and had met with socialist
scholars during his stay in the city.22 It was the era of the Fabians23 and Socialists, and Sun witnessed
with his own eyes that not everybody had profited from Great Britain ’ s industrial successes
19 The Minbao newspaper served as Party newspaper of the Tongmenghui and spun 24 volumes between August 1905
and August 1908, when the Japanese government ordered it to be shut down (two more volumes were nevertheless
illegally printed during 1910).
20 The Minbao Publication (Minbao fakanci 民報發刊詞) dated November 26, 1905, can be found in Sun Yat-sen (1989,
vol. 2, p. 256-57).
21 Sun Yat-sen (1989, vol. 1, p. 67-76) himself prominently discussed his interpretation of the French slogan during his
second speech on the minquan doctrine, dated March 16, 1924, and made a comparison between the slogan and his
San Min doctrine in the opening lines: "During the French revolution, the slogan of their revolution was liberty, equality
and fraternity. This can be well-compared to the Chinese revolution's usage of the three doctrines of minzu, minquan
and minsheng." ("法國革命的時候,他們革命的口號是自由、平等、博愛三個名詞,好比中國革命,用民族、民權、民
生三個主義一樣。")
22 For information about Sun's (possible) meetings with foreign scholars during his stay in London see among others,
Wells (2001, p. 10-28); Anderson (2016).
23 For all intends or purpose, in the context of this article, Fabians can be considered "more gradual socialists."
Jasper Roctus. and Jasper Roctus.

31
(Schiffrin 1968, p. 136). Subsequently, Sun would be less convinced about the superiority of laissez-
fair capitalism.
After noticing the apparent absence of any serious attempt towards societal rebalancing in the
West during the late 19th century, Sun Yat-sen sought a developmental path for China that
incorporated his minsheng doctrine as both a preventive and preemptive force. Using China ’ s
underdeveloped state to its advantage, Sun aimed to achieve a revolution that was faster and more
thorough than what had transpired in the West during the 19th century:
The societal festering of Europe and the United States has already quietly sustained for multiple
decades. Even if it is discovered now, it cannot be eliminated swiftly. [If] our country would be the
first to employ governance through the minsheng doctrine, one would see that [similar] disasters
have not sprouted yet. It is true that political and social revolutions can be accomplished in one
campaign; when we look back at Europe and the United States, they are left behind [in this aspect].
夫歐美社會之禍 ，伏之數十年，及今而後發見之，又不能使之遽去。吾國治民生主義者，發達最
先，睹其禍害於未萌，誠可舉政治革命、社會革命畢其功於一役；還視歐美，彼且瞠乎後也。(Sun
Yat-sen 1989, vol. 2, p. 256-57)
Despite Sun Yat-sen’ s vague mention of wanting to avoid the “societal rot” (shehui zhi huo 社會
之 祸) he had witnessed during his stay in London, direct references to any kind of left-wing
ideology remained absent. To understand why Sun did not espouse socialist designs more
prominently – despite said negative experiences and observations in London – one has to consider
that the revolutionary was still looking for Western support during the first decade of the 1900s in
his quest to overthrow the Manchu establishment. As no Socialist parties were – yet – in power in
the countries he singled out as potential supporters to his cause (i.e. the United States, Great Britain,
and France), conducting himself as a socialist politician would have been highly counterproductive.
Be that as it may, Sun’ s exclamations about the minsheng doctrine did likely raise a few eyebrows
among some of his fellow members in the Zhongguo Tongmenghui, who undoubtedly saw much
more use in nationalist propaganda as a means to depose the Manchu dynasty.
Sun Yat-sen ’s Socialist Inspirator: Henry George
Except for the abovementioned pragmatic incentives to keep his socialist inspirations in the
background, there was another reason for the considerable ambiguity surrounding Sun Yat-sen ’ s
minsheng doctrine: his ideas by this point were organized and schematic at best. While the finer
connotational tenets of Sun ’s ideology at this point therefore remain undefinable, it is at least clear
that the crux of his minsheng doctrine around 1905 was centered around the perceived necessity to
introduce a single land-tax to balance the excesses of (large) land ownership. This was essentially a
socialist bid to achieve a more egalitarian society.
After his stay in England in the late 19th century, Sun Yat-sen had likely realized that long-term
socio-economic solutions were needed to enable his dreamed revolutionary success. The
Xingzhonghui’ s singular focus on nationalistic (minzu) anti-Manchu slogans therefore had become
inadequate to him. As Harold Schiffrin stated,
Essentially, Sun drew two conclusions from his Western experience: first, that society was
dynamic and not static; and second, that the current direction of change pointed toward some form
of socialism-or governmental intervention in economic activity in order to ensure a more equitable
sharing of wealth. (Schiffrin 1957, p. 550)
The second observation in particular led Sun to embrace American economist and philosopher
Henry George (1839-1897) and his magnum opus Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry into the Cause of
Industrial Depressions and of Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth, The Remedy (1879). George was
Critical Theory

32
an American political economist that aimed to prevent the societal upheavals predicted by Karl
Marx (1818-1883)24 from becoming reality through a land-equalization scheme. Under what would
become known as “Georgism” (also known as Geoism) or the “single tax movement,” George
explained why poverty subsisted despite the West ’s growing wealth and recent technological
advantages, and proposed a scheme where tax on labor would be replaced by a singular tax on
land.25 While said ideas could be seen as Fabian or socialist, as they essentially implied a
redistribution of economic rent, Georgism received praise from all sides of the political aisle as it left
the capitalist free market forces intact and could thus also be interpreted as a “ capitalist fix.”
Similar to Henry George ’s ideas, in Sun Yat-sen’ s preliminary plans, landowners would still enjoy
the rights to set the price of their land and retain set value of this land, but any price-increase
resulting from social improvements and progress would have to go to the state to be used for the
benefit of the Chinese people. Sun affirmed that landowners could still enjoy the right to state the
value of their land by themselves – according to which they would be taxed – but, to prevent
wanton undervaluation to decrease one ’ s tax burden, the state would enjoy the right to buy the
land at the given price.26 Sun called this “Equal Land Rights” (Pingjun diquan 平 均地權, which can
also be interpreted as a more active “equalization of land rights” ), a term that started to appear
around 1903 in Sun-related discourse.27
It is not entirely certain just how Sun Yat-sen got exposed to Henry George ’s ideas, but it is
probable that he learned about the American philosopher ’s ideas during his stay in London. As
George passed away during Sun’ s sojourn in London, it seems likely that Georgism must have
momentarily received amplified media attention, thereby also catching Sun ’ s eye. A second
possibility is that Sun ’ s Japanese friend Miyazaki Toten 宫 崎 滔 天 (1871-1922), an eccentric
philosopher and adventurist who befriended Sun during the latter ’ s exile in Japan, introduced him
to Georgism. Considering that Toten (1902, p. 31-45) described in his autobiography My thirty-three
years' dream (1902) how his brother had initiated him in George ’s philosophy at a young age,28 it
seems highly likely that he discussed this with Sun at a later date as well.
24 It should be noted that George did not refer to Marx nor his ideas directly in his Progress and Poverty. Furthermore, in
a letter paying his respects to Marx after his demise in 1883, George lamented that he had lacked the opportunity to
read Marx's works as they had, at the time, remained untranslated in English. He did, however, say that "As I understand
[the works], there are several important points on which I differ from them." Marx himself, however, did sense that
George's ideas were aimed at upending the predictions found in his works, and was very direct in his dismissal of the
single land-tax. Marx stated in 1881: "[The single land-tax] is therefore simply an attempt, decked out with socialism, to
save capitalist domination and indeed to establish it afresh on an even wider basis than its present one." See http://
georgistjournal. org/2012/09/25/henry-georges-letter-at-the-funeral-of-karl-marx/ (last accessed January 4, 2022) for
George's letter on the occasion of Marx's demise in 1883, and https://www.marxists. org/archive/marx/works/1881/
letters/81_06_20.htm (last accessed January 4, 2022) for Marx's attack on Georgism two years prior.
25 In his Progress and Poverty, George primarily explained the reasons why poverty subsists in "books" I to V, and
introduced the land-tax solution in books VI to IX. See George (1912).
26 Found under point four of the Revolutionary strategy: The revolutionary strategy of the Tongmenghui, declaration of the
formation of a military government (Geming fanglue: Tongmenghui geming fanglue, junzhengfu yan 革命方略:同盟會革命
方略 軍政府宣), The completed works list this document as "1908", but 1905 or 1906 seems more likely, see Sun Yat-
sen (1989, vol. 1, p. 233-35). Found through Lin Sein (1974, p. 208-09) (who also lists it as 1905).
27 One of the first "official" references by Sun to Georgism can be found in the oath that students of the Tokyo Aoyama
Military School (Dongjing qingshan junshi xuexiao 東京青山軍 事學校), founded by Sun in the autumn of 1903, had to
take. Here, "equalization of land rights" was added to the aforementioned slogan of the Xingzhonghui. See Sun Yat-sen
(1989, vol. 6, p. 549).
28 In Sun Yat-sen and the Japanese, Marius Jansen (1967, p. 54-58) also discussed the possibility that Toten's brother had
spoken of Henry George's philosophy to Sun.
Jasper Roctus. and Jasper Roctus.

33
That Sun Yat-sen choose to connect Henry George ’s ideas to the perils of late-Qing China is
hardly surprising, as the American philosopher amply cited Chinese cases in his Progress and Poverty
to make his argument.29 The fact that George not only praised China as a great ancient civilization
while simultaneously criticizing its stagnation under Qing-rule,30 and sharply condemned imperialist
practices in general,31 made it even more suited to serve as Sun ’ s ideological foundation in saving
China. Most crucial to remember in the context of this paper, however, is how Sun used Henry
George ’s single-land tax to “prevent” a violent societal collapse similar to the outcomes predicted
by philosophers like Karl Marx,32 an outcome that would of course clash with his aforementioned
assessment that “political and social revolutions can be accomplished in one campaign.” Sun’ s
message was clear: due to her backwardness, China still had time to avert the imbalances and
“societal rot” he had witnessed in the West if George ’s land-tax ideas were instated. This way, China
could reap unprecedented benefits by concurrently embarking upon industrial and social
revolutions.
Henry George ’s ideas thus appeared in the four core principles of the Zhongguo Tongmenghui.
Article two of the society ’s general manifesto of 1906 build on the aforementioned three slogans of
the Xingzhonghui, removed the “Christian pledge,” and added equal land rights: “Article two, this
organization takes, 1) expelling the Manchus; 2) recovering the Chinese nation; 3) establishing a
republic; and 4) equalizing land rights, as its mission” (二條 本會以驅除韃虜，恢復中華，創立民國，
平 均 地 權平 均 地 權 為 宗 旨 。)33 Emphasis mine. These four principles would serve as a rallying cry for the
Zhongguo Tongmenghui in the years to come.
1921: Have Capitalism Create Socialism
After Sun Yat-sen ’ s eleventh revolutionary attempt, the Wuchang Uprising of 1911, succeeded,
he was made provisional president of the newly founded Republic of China. By 1912 the Zhongguo
29 Most frequently in his work, Henry George referred to China to prove the fallacy of the theory of Malthusian
population growth. For example, George (1912, p. 111-12) stated that the decedents of Kongzi 孔 子 (551-479 BC,
commonly known in the West as Confucius) should have numbered in the septillions (24 zeros) by the 19th century if
demographer Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) had been correct, hereby claiming that under Malthus's theory, they
should have doubled in number every generation due to the societal privileges they had generally enjoyed since
Kongzi's death. This, obviously, did not occur.
30 George (1912, p. 480) for instance stated: "The Hindoos and the Chinese were civilized when we were savages. They
had great cities, highly organized and powerful governments, literatures, philosophies, polished manners, considerable
division of labor, large commerce, and elaborate arts, when our ancestors were wandering barbarians, living in huts
and skin tents, not a whit further advanced than the American Indians. While we have progressed from this savage
state to Nineteenth Century civilization, they have stood still." Found through Trescott (1994, p. 364-65). For more
comparisons between George and Sun not mentioned within the scope of this article, see Trescott (1994).
31 George (1912, p. 117) referred more frequently to India when discussing the nefarious outcomes of imperialism , for
instance: "The millions of India have bowed their necks beneath the yokes of many conquerors, but worst of all is the
steady, grinding weight of English domination— ". George (1912, p. 121) did not fail to indirectly extend this
condemnation to China: "What is true of India is true of China. Densely populated as China is in many parts, that the
extreme poverty of the lower classes is to be attributed to causes similar to those which have operated in India," Found
through Trescott (1994, p. 366-67).
32 Whether Sun in this stage of his life was already (well-)acquainted with Marx's ideas remains questionable at best.
For all intends and purposes, however, he was effectively aiming to prevent Marxist class struggle through the usage of
George's philosophy.
33 The General Regulations of the Zhongguo Tongmenghui (Zhongguo Tongmenghui Zongzhang 中國同盟會總章) can be
found in Sun Yat-sen (1989, vol. 9, p. 251-53).
Critical Theory

34
Tongmenghui had evolved into a full-fletched political party, the Guomindang (國民黨, Nationalist
Party), a short-lived predecessor of the later Zhongguo Guomindang ( 中 國 國 民 黨 ，Chinese
Nationalist Party, KMT ) that won the parliamentary election of 1912 and 1913.34 Sun was succeeded
as provisional president in 1912 by military leader Yuan Shikai 袁 世 凯 (1859-1916), who seized
absolute autocratic powers a year later by ousting the Guomindang and, eventually, all other
political parties. After a brief “Second Revolution” (er ci geming 二次革命, 1913) to oust Yuan failed
due to a lack of military prowess, Sun was forced into exile to Japan for another three years.
Following Yuan ’ s aborted attempt to become emperor in 1916, the warlord era (junfa shidai 军阀时
代, 1916-1928) commenced in earnest and China was left fragmented. Sun returned to China in the
same year, and in 1917 he was made generalissimo (da yuanshuai 大元帥) of a counter-government
in Guangzhou. This endeavor failed miserably, and by 1918 Sun had once again entered self-
imposed exile, this time in Shanghai.35
During his two years in the city, Sun Yat-sen spend time systemizing his ideas and would become
obsessed by the idea of “state-led,” or, as Audrey Wells (2001, p. 94) called it, “ forced”
industrialization as a means to achieve the modernization of China. There are multiple reasons for
Sun ’s heightened interest in industrialization around this time: Sun had personally witnessed the
success of the process under an Asian context during his stays in Japan ; the Soviets had just seized
power in Russia and were able to command an impressive industrial machine through their war
communism; and the warring Western nations had also increased industrial state-control during the
First World War (1914-1918). While Sun did not disavow his earlier focus on land-equalization rights
in this treatise, the First World War had clearly shifted his focus more prominently to the blessings of
state power and industry-building.
Sun Yat-sen’s International Development of China, released in English in early 1921,36 can
essentially – admittedly somewhat anachronistically – be dubbed a “Marshal-plan” for China. The
highly detailed, but extremely unrealistic (it further reinforced Sun ’s already established negative
nickname of dapao 大 炮 , lit. “ big/loose cannon” ),37 plan that included a tutelary function for
Western powers in industrializing China, was essentially aimed at “ skipping” the inevitability of
34 The Guomindang existed for a little over one year between 1912 and 1913, when it was banned by Yuan Shikai and
subsequently dissolved. In said national assembly election the Guomindang won 269 of the 596 house seats available,
with the remainder divided up among other pro-Yuan parties. The elections are sometimes regarded as the most
competitive plebiscite in Chinese history. Turnout – just over 10% overall – varied greatly, however, and depended on
the degree of control the government had over China's many regions that were still in chaos. See also Spence (2012, p.
266-67).
35 For a terse but complete overview of Sun's difficult years in exile, see Bergère (1998, p. 246-86). Sun lost most of his
earlier political benefactors during this period, temporarily broke with the KMT and established the Chinese
Revolutionary Party (Zhonghua gemingdang 中華革命黨) in 1914, which did not gain a lot of support from his former
allies. In 1919 this Party (and Sun) would rejoin the reestablished KMT. For a study on the Chinese Revolutionary Party,
see Friedman (1974).
36 Note that the Chinese quotes in this chapter are a later translation based on the English version. The treatise would
be translated and released as shiye jihua 實業 計畫 (lit. "commercial plan") in Chinese on October 10, 1921 as second
part of the General Plan for National Reconstruction (jian guo fanglue 建國方略). In this work it would receive the subtitle
wuzhi jianshe 物質建設 (lit. material construction) to distinguish it from the biographical first part of the volume called
xinli jianshe 心 理建 設 (Lit. mental construction), which served as Sun's philosophical foundation. See Sun Zhongshan
(2011, p. 81-234); or Sun Yat-sen (1989, vol. 1, p. 423-552).
37 Especially during the years after Sun's provisional presidency – along with Sun's increasingly unrealistic
developmental plans – this nickname had gained traction. This was further reinforced through anti-Sun propaganda by
the Yuan-led government after his failed second revolution. For an apt summary of this period see Schriffrin (1980, p.
160-201).
Jasper Roctus. and Jasper Roctus.

35
class struggle that Karl Marx had predicted, and have capitalism and socialism work hand-in-hand to
bring prosperity to China. In a somewhat similar vein to his earlier exhortations on Georgism, Sun
stated (note that the passage is omitted in Chinese version).:
In order to solve the Chinese question, I suggest that the vast resources of China be developed
internationally under a socialistic scheme, for the good of the world in general and the Chinese
people in particular. It is my hope that as a result of this……the class struggle between capital and
labor can be avoided. (Sun Yat-sen 1921, p. XI; Emphasis mine)
为了解决中国的问题，我建议在社会主义框架之下国际化地开发中国的大量资源，以利于整个
世 界 ，尤 其 是 中 国 人 民 。 我 希 望 如 此 。。。 能 够 避 免 资 本 和 劳 动 力 之 间 的 阶 级 斗 争 。 Own
translation.
The chronological connection between the above statement and Sun Yat-sen ’s Georgist
exclamations during the 1900s is clear: Sun was still looking for a way to achieve rapid development
of China in “one campaign” while avoiding the societal festering he had witnessed in the West. By
the 1920s, Sun had expanded on his Georgist viewpoint, and had come to believe that capitalism
according to laissez-faire Smithsonian competition had run its course while more (socialist) state
intervention was required:
It was once thought by the economists of the Adam Smith school; that competition was a
beneficent factor and a “ sound” economic system, but modern economists discovered that it is a
very wasteful and ruinous system. As a matter of fact, modern economic tendencies work in a
contrary direction, that is, towards concentration instead of competition. (Ibid., p. 235)
彼司密亞丹派之經濟學者，謂競爭為最有利益之主因，為有生氣之經濟組織。而近代之經濟學
者，則謂其為浪費，為損害之經濟組織。然所可確證者，近代經濟之趨勢，適造成相反之方向，即以
經濟集中，代自由競爭是也。(Sun Yat-sen 1989, vol. 1, p. 538-41)
Analogous to his rhetoric in the 1900s, Sun Yat-sen proposed a view that China ’ s backwardness
could be a chance, not an obstacle, in achieving his “one campaign” to develop the country, as
Marxist issues such as class war were not yet applicable to China ’ s circumstances. Despite his above
negative comment on Smithsonian economics, he thus invited capitalists to China to exploit its
deprived working class and help develop the country:
Class war is a struggle between labor and capital. The war is at present raging at its full height in
all the highly developed industrial countries.38 Labor feels sure of its final victory while capitalists are
determined to resist to the bitter end. When will it end and what the decision will be no one dares to
predict. China, however, owing to the backwardness of her industrial development, which is a blessing in
disguise in this respect, has not yet entered into the class war. Our laboring class, commonly known as
coolies, are living from hand to mouth and will therefore only be too glad to welcome any capitalist
who would even put up a sweat shop to exploit them. The capitalist is a rare
specimen in China and is only beginning to make his appearance in the treaty ports. (Sun Yat-sen
1921, p. 236; Emphasis mine)
階級戰爭，即工人與資本家之戰爭也。此種之戰爭，現已發見於各工業國家者，極形劇烈；在工
人則自以為得最後之勝利，在資本家則決意以為最苦之壓迫。故此種之戰爭，何時可以終局，如何
可以解決，無人敢預言之者，中國因工業進步之遲緩中國因工業進步之遲緩，，故就形式上觀之故就形式上觀之，，尚未流入階級戰爭之中尚未流入階級戰爭之中。。
吾國之所謂工人者，通稱為苦力，而其生活祇以手為飯碗，不論何資本家，若能成一小工店予他等
以工作者，將必歡迎之。況資本家之在中國，寥若晨星，亦僅見於通商口岸耳。(Sun Yat-sen 1989,
vol. 1, p. 538-41; Emphasis mine)
While in the previous citation Sun Yat-sen utilized China ’s backwardness to claim it not yet had to
worry about the possibility of class war, he took this argument a step further in the final sentence of
38 Note that Sun largely compiled his work in 1918 and 1919, when multiple communist uprisings, such as the failed
German revolution (1918-1919) and the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic (1919), rocked war-torn Europe.
Critical Theory

36
his treatise, as he clarified it could be prevented entirely. He summarized this in his idea of having
capitalism and socialism work hand-in-hand to create a bright future for China and the world (note
the differences between the English and Chinese versions, where the emphasis lies on foreign
capitalism creating Chinese socialism):
In a nutshell, it is my idea to make capitalism create socialism in China , so that these two
economic forces of human evolution will work side by side for future civilization. (Sun Yat-sen 1921,
p. 237)
簡括言之，此乃吾之意見，蓋欲使外國之資本主義外國之資本主義，以造成中國之社會主義中國之社會主義，而調和此兩種人類
進化之經濟能力，使之互相為用，以促進將來世界之文明也。(Sun Yat-sen 1989, vol. 1, p. 538-41;
Emphasis mine).
Although Sun Yat-sen’ s minsheng doctrine was not directly referred to in his International
Development of China, the idea of “avoiding class struggle [entirely]” clearly constituted a novel
dimension that expanded upon his idea of a “revolution in one campaign” coined during the
Zhongguo Tongmenghui era. Sun ’s ever-expanding toolkit in achieving his stage-skipping
revolution is worth remembering when one investigates his – somewhat – systemized version of the
San Min doctrine in 1924.
1924: The San Min Doctrine’ s Marxist Fluctuations
Sun Yat-sen resurrected the Zhongguo Guomindang/KMT (now with the addendum of
“Zhongguo/Chinese” ) in 1919 and embarked upon another stint as generalissimo of a counter-
government in Guangzhou in 1921. Around this time the Soviets had successfully overthrown the
Russian empire and had (mostly) decided the Russian civil war (1917-1923) against a dispersed anti-
communist opposition in their favor. Therefore, they felt the time had come to search for allies to
spread the revolution abroad.39 Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin had in his Theses on the National and
Colonial Questions (1920) decided that – ostentatiously temporary – alliances between communist
parties and bourgeois revolutionary parties were warranted in the early stages of spreading the
revolution abroad.40 As the CPC at this point was still too weak to be a major force in the ongoing
struggle between Chinese warlords, the Soviet Union indeed reached out to the Sun and his KMT –
despite their “ bourgeois” nature.
Initial contacts between Sun Yat-sen and the Soviet Union were made in early 1920, and in
January 1923 Sun and Soviet representative Adolph Joffe (1883-1927) signed a joint manifesto that
created an alliance between the Soviet Union, the CPC, and KMT. Although Sun and the KMT were to
be the alliance ’s leader, the CPC was allowed to retain its own Party structures, and its members
could join the KMT on individual basis (Spence 2012, p. 301-09). However, concessions in line with
Sun ’s aforementioned worries about China ’ s backwardness and the possibility of class struggle
were also made toward the KMT, as the manifesto stated: “Dr. Sun Yat-sen believes that a
Communist organization, or even a Soviet system, cannot be adopted in China, since China lacks the
39 For overviews of Sun's revival of the KMT and the establishment of the United Front, see among others, Bergère
(1998, p. 293-351); Wilbur and How (1989, p. 18-139).
40 The manuscript dated June 5, 1920, can be found in Lenin (1977, vol. 31, p. 144-51). The Soviet shift to alliances with
bourgeois Parties should be seen under the light of the failures of "purely" communist revolutions in Europe during the
preceding years. It should also be noted that Lenin had already shown interest in allying with Sun at a much earlier
date. On July 15, 1912, in his D emocracy and Narodism in China Lenin (1977, vol. 15, p. 163-69) had stated: "[The Chinese
proletariat] will probably form some kind of Chinese Social-Democratic labour party. Which, while criticising the petty-
bourgeois utopias and reactionary views of Sun Yat-sen, will certainly take care to single out, defend and develop the
revolutionary-democratic core of his political and agrarian programme."
Jasper Roctus. and Jasper Roctus.

37
conditions to successfully adopt a communist or a Soviet system.” (孫逸仙博士以為共產組織，甚至
蘇維埃制度，事實上均不能引用於中國，因中國並無可使此項共產主義或蘇維埃制度實施成功之
情形存在之故。)41
By the autumn of 1923, Sun Yat-sen had indeed become the leader of the United Front between
the CPC and his own KMT with significant support of the Soviet Union. Around this time, he had
gotten even more impressed by the Soviet Union ’ s economic system, as the Soviets had
abandoned war communism in 1921 in favor of a more flexible “New Economic Policy” (NEP) that
allowed some limited free market initiatives. Sun likely viewed this as proof substantiating his 1921
thesis that capitalism and socialism could be combined, and stated that the Soviets ’ governmental
systems should not be feared despite its official “communist ” denomination.42 The Soviets had in
the meantime also noticed that Sun ’ s intellectual designs could be aligned with their own ideology.
Sun being the leader of the bourgeois allies deemed vital in China ’s preliminary stage of revolution,
they intended to maximize the propaganda value of his main ideological construction: The San Min
doctrine. Thus, Sun was enticed by the Russians to elucidate his philosophy in more detail through a
set of lectures. Sun willingly acceded to this request, and planned six lectures for each of the three
subcomponents of his San Min doctrine.
A considerable amount of (pro-)Soviet rhetoric could be observed in Sun Yat-sen ’s early lectures
on the doctrines of minzu and minquan between January and April. Especially the theme of anti-
imperialism was emphasized, which came to no surprise as the KMT had just held its first “National43
Congress” (Zhongguo Guomindang di yi ci quanguo daibiao dahui 中國國民黨第一次全國代表大會,
January 20 - January 30, 1924) under United Front auspices where this subject was also
accentuated.44 The United Front ’s rhetorical focus on anti-imperialism even tempted Sun to
somewhat break with his 1921 rhetoric and embrace the Marxist idea of class struggle. During his
first lecture on the doctrine of minzu (held on the eight day of the congress) Sun gave class war a
personal spin by envisioning it as a worldwide struggle for justice and equality, fought between the
imperialist oppressors (roughly equal to the West minus the recently defeated Germany) and the
oppressed (roughly equal to the rest of the world). Sun proclaimed, “This kind of class war will be a
war been the oppressed and the oppressors; a war between right and might.” (那種戰爭是階級戰
爭，是被壓迫者和橫暴者的戰爭，是公理和強權的戰爭。)45
On the second day of the KMT congress Sun Yat-sen also provided an elucidation of his minsheng
doctrine, and tried to reassure the right-wing of the KMT, which had gradually been growing
suspicious of the pro-Soviet overtones that their Party was taking, that the existence of the United
Front could be explained through his doctrine. Simultaneously, Sun did not fail to please his Russian
41 Taken from point one of the Joint Declaration on Sino-Russian Relations with Joffe (Wei Zhong-E guanxi yu Yuefei
hexuanyan 為中俄關係與越飛聯合宣言) of January 16, 1923, see Sun Yat-sen (1989, vol. 2, p. 116-17).
42 In a talk titled The Diplomatic attitude to be adopted (waijiao shang ying qu de taidu 外交上應取的態度) dated August
9, 1922, Sun Yat-sen (1989, vol. 2, p. 559-60) for instance stated: "Our people are as horrified by Russia today as they
ever were. It has been more than a year since Russia's New Economic Policy transformed its communism to state
capitalism and relaxed the ban on private ownership. But the people of China are not aware of this and still call them
communists and radicals." (今日吾國人士對俄之恐怖心,固猶如昔。至於今日俄國之新經濟政策,早已變更其共產主
義,而採用國家資本主義,並弛私有之禁,其事已逾一年;而國人不察,至今尚指其為共產主義,為過激派。)
43 While the KMT's Guangzhou government was by this point only in control of (large parts of) China's southern
Guangdong province, delegates representing other parts of China were also present. In that sense, it was a "national"
congress.
44 For an account of the congress and its preparations, See Wilbur and How (1989, p. 93-100).
45 Taken from Sun's first speech on the minzu doctrine dated January 27, 1924, found in Sun Yat-sen (1989, vol. 1, p. 3-
12).
Critical Theory

38
benefactors by synthesizing communism with the minsheng doctrine: “Our Party is committed to
the minsheng doctrine, which includes “socialism,” “communism” and “collectivism. ” (本黨既服從
民生主義，則所謂「社會主義」、「共產主義」與「集產主義」，均包括其中。)46 In the last segment of
the speech Sun again reassured the KMT delegates by stating that communism was indigenous to
China – thereby somewhat contradicting the Sun-Joffe manifesto of the year before that had stated
China was not ready to adopt it – as the ideology already had already been practiced “more
effectively than in Russia ” during the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom (Taiping Tianguo 太平 天国, 1851-
1864) of iconoclastic revolutionary Hong Xiuquan 洪 秀 全 (1814-1864).47 Sun elaborated: “ The
practice of communism did not originate in Russia, but was already practiced in our country
decades ago by Hong Xiuquan in the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, and, it was more effective than in
Russia.” (至共產主義之實行，並非創自俄國 ，我國數十年前 ，洪秀全在太平天國已經實行，且其功
效較俄國尤大) (Sun Yat-sen 1989, vol. 3, p. 416-18)
Off-the-record Sun allegedly even went a step further in his reassurances to right-wing KMT
members that his minsheng doctrine was the superior overhanging principle to communism, and
specified that the Soviets’ introduction of “national capitalism” through the NEP had proven that
they should study the KMT’ s principles instead of the other way around.48 It was likely due to similar
reasons that Sun payed a lot less emphasize on Georgism around this time, as many KMT-members
that belonged to the Party ’ s right-wing owned considerable quantities of land. Sun clearly was
treading a tightrope between his increasingly ideological divergent benefactors and staying true to
his original ideological inspirations.
After successfully completing his lecture sets on the doctrines of minzu and minquan between
January and April, Sun Yat-sen took a break and eventually held his first speech on minsheng on
August 3, 1924. The four-month break between his lecture series on the doctrines of minquan and
minsheng was, as will be explained in the final section of this paper, extremely significant. In
attendance on August 3 was the leading Soviet advisor that had been dispatched to support the
United Front, Mikhail Borodin (1884-1951), who must have been hoping for more (pro-)communist
and Marxist rhetoric by Sun, preferably similar to his exhortations of January of that year. One might
think that Borodin must have indeed been contented when Sun repeated his statement from
January that Communism, socialism, and his minsheng doctrine where essentially one and the same:
Right now, I am using the word minsheng to talk about one of the biggest problems that has
occurred in foreign countries over the past 100 years, and those problems are social problems.
Therefore, the doctrine of minsheng is socialism, also named as communism, that is also, the
46 See Explanation about the minsheng doctrine (guanyu minsheng zhuyi zhi shuoming 關於民生主義之說明) found in
Sun Yat-sen (1989, vol. 3, p. 416-18).
47 For a complete overview of the life of Hong Xiuquan and the Taiping rebellion, see Spence (1996). The fact that Sun
made references to Hong Xiuquan comes to no surprise, as he had already identified himself with the iconoclastic
Taiping leader on multiple previous occasions. Both men were Cantonese (Hong's birthplace was merely a few dozen
kilometers from Sun's hometown), both men were Christian, and both were very opposed to China's traditional ways.
Sun's university friends had allegedly called him the "second Hong Xiuquan." See among others Schiffrin (1968, p. 15-
23); Kayloe (2017, p. 22); Wells (2001, p. 1-2 and p. 108-09).
48 Said comment allegedly served as a reply to members of the KMT's right-wing San Francisco branch that had been
worried about the increasingly pro-Communist orientation of the Party during January 1924 (Wilbur and How 1989, p.
94-95). Wilbur and How (1989, p. 129) stated in footnote 70 that they have witnessed this quote in minutes found in the
KMT archives in Taipei.
Jasper Roctus. and Jasper Roctus.

39
doctrine of da tong.49
我現在就是用民生二字，來講外國近百十年來所發生的一個最大問題，這個問題就是社會問題。
故民生主義就是社會主義，又名共產主義，即是大同主義。(Sun Yat-sen 1989, vol. 1, p. 129-45)
Sun repeated this in his second minsheng-lecture a week later, when he ambiguously stated that
the only differences between the minsheng doctrine and communism could be found in their
discrepant methodology:
Today, I will distinguish between communism and the minsheng doctrine. It can be said that
communism is the ideal of the minsheng doctrine, and the minsheng doctrine is the practice of
communism. Therefore, there is no actual difference between the two kinds of doctrines; what you
have to distinguish, is on the methodological level.
我今天來分別共產主義和民生主義，可以說共產主義是民生的理想，民生主義是共產的實行，所
以兩種主義沒有甚麼分別；要分別的，還是在方法。(Sun Yat-sen 1989, vol. 1, p. 146-57)
Notwithstanding such seemingly pro-Soviet rhetoric, however, Mikhail Borodin and Sun Yat-sen
allegedly got into an extremely heated argument after the first minsheng-lecture (Wilbur 1976, p.
243-45). The reason for this was that despite Sun ’ s syncretic overtures toward communism in the
lecture, he had also sharply criticized Marxism. In a similar vein to his discourse from 1921, Sun
(1989, vol. 1, p. 129-45) had remarked that, “Class warfare is not a cause of social evolution, but a
disease that occurs when a society evolves.” (階級戰爭，不是社會進化的原因，階級戰爭 ，是社會當
進化的時候，所發生的一種病症。)
To comprehend Sun Yat-sen ’ s seemingly conflicting comments, one has to once again consider
his aforementioned discourse during 1921 on the compatibility of state-power, capitalism, and
socialism – ideas that are harder to align under Marxist premises – as well as the ideological
persuasions of his inspirator Henry George. To prove that state power and capitalism could indeed
be combined with socialism, Sun instead cited German state chancellor ’ s Otto von Bismarck (1815-
1898) and his idea of state socialism (staatssozialismus). Similar to Sun, Bismarck ’s policies had
intended to prevent the rise of class struggle and labour problems through heavy-handed usage of
state power to guide capitalism in a bid to improve workers’ rights. Sun stated,
In Germany, when Otto von Bismarck was in power, he used state power to relieve the suffering
of workers. The working hours were set by the state at eight hours [maximum]; the [minimum] age
and [maximum] working hours of young people and women were also subject all kinds of
restrictions by the state; the pensions and insurance premiums of workers were also set by the state.
The capitalists of the country were required to implement [these measures].
德國當俾士麥執政的時代，用國家力量去救濟工人的痛苦，作工時間是由國家規定了八點鐘；青
年和婦女作工的年齡與時間，國家定了種種限制；工人的養老費和保險費，國家也有種種規定，要要
全國的資本家担任去實行全國的資本家担任去實行。。(Ibid.; Emphasis mine)
Even more infuriating for Mikhail Borodin must have been Sun Yat-sen ’ s disavowal of Karl Marx ’ s
surplus theory. Besides Otto von Bismarck ’s state socialism, Sun had by this time been – at least
moderately – impressed by America ’s reforms during the early 20th century that had reigned in
some of laissez-faire capitalism ’s greatest excesses through increased market regulations. This also
had likely reinforced his viewpoint that capitalism could be controlled without a bloody class
struggle.50 Somewhat exemplary for his beliefs, Sun praised the American Ford company ’ s
technological innovations that had actually shortened workers ’ hours, increased workers’ wages,
49 The Confucian idea of da tong zhuyi 大 同主 义 is often translated as the doctrine of great unity. While a detailed
discussion of Sun's peculiar choice to mention this concept falls outside the scope of this paper, it can be seen as an
attempt to even further indigenize communism by aligning it to traditional Chinese thinking. For an overview of the
fluctuating interpretation of da tong throughout Chinese history, see Dessein (2017).
50 Also noted by Chang Chung-Tung (1982, p. 12-13).
Critical Theory

40
and decreased the price consumers had to pay. In a direct attack on Marx, Sun argued,
What Marx said was that the capitalists wanted to extend the working hours of the workers, and
what the Ford car factory implemented was to shorten the working hours of the workers. What Marx
said was that capitalists wanted to reduce the wages of workers, and what the Ford Motor Company
implemented was an increase the wages of the workers. What Marx said was that capitalists wanted
to raise the price of products, and what the Ford car factory implemented was to lower the price of
products.
馬克思所說的是資本家要延長工人作工的時間，福特車廠所實行的是縮短工人作工的時間。馬
克思所說的是資本家要減少工人的工錢，福特車廠所實行的是增加工人的工錢。馬克思所說的是
資本家要擡高出品的價格，福特車廠所實行的是減低出品的價格。(Sun Yat-sen 1989, vol. 1, p.
129-45)
After his fight with Mikhail Borodin, the third and fourth minsheng-lectures by Sun Yat-sen would
mostly avoid jeopardizing de United Front and did not contain significant ideological debates on
Marxism; the speeches were primarily concerned with practical issues, such as the lack of food and
clothing in China, respectively.51 Despite the obvious “calmer” ideological nature of these lectures,
Sun did not fail to emphasize his renewed belief in a much more gradualist or Fabian approach than
he had espoused during his earlier lectures. For example, in his third minsheng-lecture Sun stated,
[If] we practice the minsheng doctrine in solving China ’ s food problem, we can only make
gradual changes to the system of capitalism, and cannot immediately overthrow it.
我們實行民生主義來解決中國的吃飯問題，對於資本制度，祇可以逐漸改良，不能夠馬上
推翻。52
Although Sun Yat-sen ’ s “Marxist moment” had clearly passed, there would be no further
opportunity for the Chinese statesman to develop or elaborate his standpoint in more detail. Sun
would only manage to complete four of the planned six speeches,53 as his health deteriorated
rapidly, and he decided to go to Beijing after a new government was installed to see if a
reunification of China through peaceful reconciliation could be achieved. Before any actual
negotiations could commence, however, Sun was hospitalized, and in March 1925 he passed away
at the age of 58.
The trigger for Sun Yat-sen ’s Anti-Marxist fervor: Maurice William
Due to Sun Yat-sen ’ s premature death, one can only guess what might have befallen the United
Front under said transformations in his political rhetoric, had he lived longer. Sun himself had by the
end of his life been aware of the limitations of the medium of speech in explaining his San Min
doctrine, and felt apologetic about the “unfinished” state of his political philosophy in general.
Therefore, he expressed his wish that the KMT would objectively systemize his ideas at a later date.54
51 Sun's third lecture on "the problem of food" (chifan wenti 吃 飯問 題) of August 17, 1924, and his fourth lecture on
"the problem of clothing (chuan yi wenti 穿衣問題) of August 24, 1924, can be found in Sun Yat-sen (1989, vol. 1, p. 157-
70 and p. 170-81).
52 Taken from Sun's third speech on minsheng dated August 17, 1924, and found in Sun Yat-sen (1989, vol. 1, p. 157-70).
53 Audrey Wells (2001, p. 93) stated that Sun's planned fifth and sixth lecture would have likely talked about the
subjects of shelter and travel. Sun's successor as KMT leader Chiang Kai-shek 蔣介石 (1887-1975) eventually completed
the lectures, but choose to emphasize Sun's anti-Marxism in his two supplements for political reasons. See Chiang Kai-
shek (1947, p. 277-88).
54 As noted by Wells (2001, p. 61-62). Sun Yat-sen (1989, vol. 1, p. 1) himself also referred to this in his preface to the San
Min doctrine (San min zhuyi: zixu 三 民 主 義 : 自 序), published on March 30, 1924, as he stated his wish for a more
coherent monograph in the future.
Jasper Roctus. and Jasper Roctus.

41
This, however, did not occur, and until the present-day both the KMT and CPC (as well as third
forces) have continued to pragmatically (re)interpret Sun’ s political philosophy to suit their own
means.
Finding an explanation for Sun Yat-sen ’s final ideological shift to renewed anti-Marxism during
the autumn of 1924 is nevertheless feasible. The first part of the answer has already been
chronologically provided in this paper: anti-Marxism was in line with most standpoints that Sun held
throughout his life. While Sun had no problem stating that communism was equal to his minsheng
doctrine, as both philosophies were equally ambiguous – at least during the 1920s – and therefore
could be pragmatically interpreted (which he did by stating that communism was indigenous to
China), Sun saw no use for the societal upheavals predicted by Karl Marx, and did not want to limit
his revolutionary toolkit through subscribing to any ideological orthodox. His dream of achieving a
clean “political and social revolution accomplished in one campaign ” remained paramount at all
times. Sun ’ s short fling with the concept of class struggle during the pinnacle of United Front
cooperation in early 1924, therefore, was a pragmatic exception, not the ideological rule, and
pragmatically combining state power, capitalism, and socialism, remained Sun ’s ultimate goal up to
his demise.
Still, one might wonder what caused Sun Yat-sen, in spite of the fact that he must have been
aware that this would lead to arguments with his Soviet benefactors and could jeopardize the
United Front, to return to rhetoric similar to 1905 and 1921 during his first minsheng lecture in
August 1924. Except for practical motives that this article glossed over for the sake of brevity, such
as Sun ’ s ‘ cooling ’ anti-imperialist fervor and his increasing dissatisfaction with the internal
workings of the United Front,55 there was another prominent reason for his renewed anti-Marxism;
Sun had read a work by an obscure American philosopher during the summer of 1924 that aligned
perfectly with his own opinions, namely, the Social Interpretation of History: A Refutation of the
Marxian Economic Interpretation of History (1921) by Maurice William (1881-1973). While it remains
unclear how Sun acquired the work, and when exactly he read it (in detail),56 it most certainly helped
Sun strengthen his faith in his original political persuasions, as it promoted a social instead of
materialistic interpretation of history.57
55 Sun's acceptance of the Soviets' anti-imperialist line around the KMT congress of January 1924, such as his
abovementioned comments on a class war between the oppressors and the oppressed, could also be related to his
conflict with the imperial powers a few months prior to the congress. In the autumn of 1923, multiple Western
countries had sent warships to pressure Sun to release the customs rebates that his Guangzhou government
threatened to withhold. Multiple scholars have noted that Sun's rhetoric during this period was extremely erratic. See
for instance Wilbur (1976, p. 183-90); Braisted (2009, p. 23-29). Harold Schiffrin (1980, p. 252-57) has in this regard stated
that while the minzu doctrine was written under the threat of the imperial powers and the need to please his Russian
supporters, both factors had diminished in importance by the summer of 1924.
56 Sun Yat-sen (1989, vol. 3, p. 416-18) had already briefly referred to William during the aforementioned elaboration on
his minsheng doctrine of January 21, 1924, but did not touch upon his philosophy in detail yet, nor referred to his
name, and just cited him as someone that allegedly understood the crux of his minsheng doctrine. It is also possible
that Sun had already read William's work in detail by this point, but did not want to jeopardize the flourishing United
Front cooperation by making too many anti-Marxist comments. In his 1932 Sun Yat-sen versus Communism, William
(2013, p. XIV) also stated that it remained unclear how and when Sun obtained the book.
57 This has, among others, been suggested by one of the first authors to write a paper on the connection between Sun
and William: James Shotwell. Shotwell (1932, p. 21) stated: "Dr. Sun saw at once in the arguments of Dr. William a
confirmation of his own innate tendencies with reference to socialism, for which he had hitherto found no statement in
terms of logical and systematic reasoning. Dr. William supplied him with a conception of socialism which renounced
the class war as historically and economically false, and in the text of the San Min Chu I whole passages of Dr. William's
book were embodied en bloc."
Critical Theory

42
Maurice William had been born in Kharkov, Tsarist Russia, before emigrating with his family to
America at the age of 8, where he would graduate as a dentist and work with great zeal in improving
the profession’ s standards.58 It seems likely that William ’ s social commitment to improving the
extremely lacking practices of, and access to, dentistry during his day must have brought him into
touch with left-wing ideology, but the exact details remain unknown. In the introduction to his
work, William (1921, p. VII) stated to have drawn most inspiration in studying Marxism from the fact
in 1919 the ideology – after decades of speculation – had finally been actually implemented
somewhere in the world (i.e., the USSR).59 In one way or another ( William ’ s life and inspirations are
still a topic in dire need for more research), William (1921, p. 231) seemed to have been disappointed
with what he found through his research, and concluded: “we have seen were Marx made his
mistake. He dealt with effects, not causes, but mistook them for causes.” Instead of dealing with
productive forces like Marx, which William refuted as the prime force of history, William proclaimed
his faith in the power of the consumer (ibid.).60 This kind of rhetoric found an audience in Sun Yat-
sen, who, as mentioned above, had also commented in 1921 that Marxism was not applicable to an
underdeveloped country like China, but did actually believe in the power of its more than 400
million potential consumers.
With Maurice William and his Social Interpretation of History in mind, the background of Sun Yat-
sen ’s ideological persuasions and exhortations in late 1924, such as his above reference to class
conflict being a sickness, become clear. In the introduction to his work William had similarly stated,
The Social Interpretation of History is based upon the theory that man's effort to solve his
problem of existence is the propelling motive force in history. This is primarily a consumer problem.
Class conflict is an effect, not a cause. (William 1921, p. IX)
Furthermore, the motivations for Sun Yat-sen ’ s abovementioned “ Ford example” also become
apparent if one takes in mind that he had probably consulted a chapter in the Social Interpretation of
History where Maurice William described the many factors which decides a product ’ s value. To
prove the impossibility of Marx ’s surplus theory, William argued,
…to whom does the Surplus Value extracted by Ford and his associates belong? How is it
possible for a worker to determine the full value of his labor and so be able to tell when he is
obtaining the "full product of his toil"? Neither Marx nor Engels ever undertook to answer that
question for the individual worker or any group of workers. On the contrary, Engels admits, that
there are difficulties with the popular claim of the worker to the full proceeds of his labor. (Ibid., p.
103-04)61
Once again, William saw a solution in focusing on the consumer-side of the economic spectrum,
and proposed social grounds as prime determent of the flow of history instead of materialistic
causes. In his first speech on the minsheng doctrine on August 3, 1924 Sun Yat-sen directly payed
tribute to William and his ideas, and remarked,
Recently, an American disciple of Marx named Williams [sic],62 after making a deep study of
Marx ’s doctrines, concluded that the disagreement between fellow socialists is due to the
inadequacies in Marx ’ s doctrines. He published the viewpoint that the materialistic conception of
58 For a rare overview of William's background, see Konstant (1974, p. 1343-44).
59 William (1921, p. VII) remarked: "My conclusions, challenging the historic and scientific validity of Marxian Socialism,
were formulated in 1919. That was a singularly inappropriate year to question theories which at least in one country
had been translated into historic fact."
60 Also noted by Shotwell (1932, p. 25).
61 Found through Wells (2001, p. 98).
62 Ironically fitting, considering the obscure status of William, Sun himself also wrongly transcribed the American
philosopher's name by adding a -S (Weilianshi 威廉氏)
Jasper Roctus. and Jasper Roctus.

43
history is wrong, that the social problems are the center which determines the course of history, and
that survival is at the heart of social problems. This social interpretation of history, he believes, is the
only reasonable one. The problem of minsheng is the problem of survival. The new theory of this
American scholar tallies exactly with the Third Principle of our Party.
近來美國有一位馬克思的信徒威廉氏，深究馬克思的主義，見得自己同門互相紛爭，一定是馬克
思學說還有不充分的地方，所以他便發表意見，說馬克思以物質為歷史的重心是不對的，社會問題
才是歷史的重心；而社會問題中又以生存為重心，那才是合理。民生問題就是生存問題，這位美國
學者最近發明，適與吾黨主義若合符節。(Sun Yat-sen 1989, vol. 1, p. 129-45)
Clearly, by August 1924, Sun Yat-sen had finally found a suitable theoretical foundation for his
dream of preventing the “societal rot ” he had witnessed himself in London in the span of one grand
socio-political campaign that would lead China to greatness. The fact Maurice William was not a
celebrated scholar was irrelevant for Sun, who had never been much of a great academic himself
anyway. Results would surely speak louder than the pen, but Sun ’s short remaining life span upset
his grand plans. Despite William ’s own efforts in publishing another work in 1932 titled Sun Yat-sen
versus Communism, in which he made a comparative study to prove a connection between his ideas
and Sun ’ s philosophy existed,63 William was never seen as an important inspirator of founder of the
Republic of China, and before long faded away in obscurity.
Conclusions
This paper has proposed that the evolution of the most convoluted constituent of Sun Yat-sen ’s
San Min doctrine, minsheng, was not as erratic as it might have appeared to those that (only)
observed the doctrine ’ s ever-changing ideological focal points. Whereas Sun ’ s minsheng-
conceptualizations originally failed to mention left-wing inspirations because of his hope to entice
Western governments in supporting the KMT, they equally overemphasized the role of communism
after the establishment of the KMT ’ s United Front with the CPC under Soviet auspices in 1923. While
it is therefore impossible to conclude anything conclusive based on Sun’ s rhetoric through this
aspect alone, a clear overlaying ideological trend throughout his life is nevertheless discernable.
Despite its ambiguousness, Sun Yat-sen’s minsheng doctrine held certain tenets that stayed
identical throughout his life. At all times, the connotation that Sun wanted to attach to the term
minsheng, was that of a doctrine that could rise above all the squabbling ideologies present in the
world – primarily capitalism and communism; an ideology that could achieve his vision of a
“political and social revolution that can be accomplished in one campaign.” Somewhat ironically,
the minsheng doctrine itself has instead become the main point of ideological contention between
Sun ’s communist and capitalist successors that have laid claim to his intellectual heritage, as they
provided it with their own nuances.
Sun Yat-sen viewed his minsheng doctrine as something more sophisticated than orthodox
ideologies like laissez-faire (Smithsonian) Capitalism and Marxism. He believed that his doctrine
could “ skip” both the capitalist vices he had witnessed in London, as well as Karl Marx ’ s
teleological prediction of an unavoidable class struggle that might have upended his ultimate goal
of rapidly developing China. This grand final objective can always clearly be seen throughout the
chronological development of Sun ’ s minsheng doctrine, which despite its ever-changing focal
points (e. g., Henry George (1905), state power/industrialization (1921), Maurice William (1924)),
always stayed aligned with the aim of swiftly reviving China without bloodshed. While it is therefore
extremely likely, had Sun lived longer, that many more ideological divergent inspirations would
63 See William (2013).
Critical Theory

44
have joined the ranks of the likes of Henry George, Abraham Lincoln, Otto von Bismarck, and
Maurice William, this goal would have undoubtedly remained unchanged.
While said individual focal points have not yet been satisfactory researched as possible
inspirations/inspirators of Sun Yat-sen – both within this scope of this concise paper as well as in
general – while they most certainly are deserving/requiring of such treatment, we hope that at least
some insight has been provided into Sun ’s ideological persuasions vis-à -vis capitalism, Marxism,
communism, and socialism. While Sun undeniably was an ideological pragmatist; his benefactors
and organizational ties fluctuated on many occasions; and the true connotations of his minsheng
doctrine have remained unclear until long after his demise, his patriotic faith in a swift Chinese
revolution more thorough than anything the world had ever witnessed never wavered.
Works Cited
Anderson, P. (2016). The lost book of Sun Yatsen and Edwin Collins. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Bergère M. (1998). Sun Yat-sen. Translated by Janet Lloyd. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.
Braisted, W. (2009). Diplomats in blue : U.S. naval officers in China, 1922-1933. Gainesville: University
Press of Florida.
Chang Chung-tung (1982). "Dr. Sun Yat-Sen’ s Principle of Livelihood and American Progressivism."
Chinese Studies in History 15: 4–19.
Cheng Chu-yuan (2003). "The Originality and Creativity of Sun Yat-Sen's Doctrine and Its
Relevancy to the Contemporary World." American Journal of Chinese Studies 10: 149-162.
Chiang Kai-shek (1947). China's destiny & Chinese economic theory. Translated by Philip Jaffe. New
York: Roy Publishers.
DeKorne, J. (1934). "Sun Yat-Sen and the Secret Societies." Pacific Affairs 7: 425-433.
Dessein, B. (2017). "Yearning for the lost paradise : the “Great Unity” (datong) and its
philosophical interpretations." AZIJSKE STUDIJE 5: 83–102.
Friedman, E (1974). Backward toward revolution; the Chinese Revolutionary Party. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
George, H. (1912 [1879]). Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry into the Cause of Industrial Depressions
and of Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth, The Remedy. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page, & Co.
Godley, M. (1987). "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: Sun Yat-sen and the International
Development of China." The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs 18: 109-125.
Gordon, L. (1993). “ The minsheng principle of Sun Yat-sen.” Zhongguo Wenhua Yanjiusuo Xuebao
2: 185-197.
Gregor, A., and Chang, M. (1982). "Marxism, Sun Yat-Sen, and the Concept of ‘ Imperialism. ’ "
Pacific Affairs 55: 54–79.
Jansen, M. (1967). The Japanese and Sun Yat-sen. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kayloe, T. (2017). The unfinished revolution: Sun Yat-Sen and the struggle for modern China.
Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions.
Konstant, M. (1974). "Maurice William: dentist and political thinker." The Journal of the American
Dental Association 88: 1343-1346.
Lenin, V. (1977). V. I. Lenin Collected Works, Volumes 1-45 (Complete). Fourth edition. Moscow:
Progress Publishers.
Lin Sein (1974). "Sun Yat-sen and Henry George: The Essential Role of Land Policy in Their
Doctrines." The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 33: 201-220.
Miyazaki Toten (1982 [1902]). My thirty-three years' dream : the autobiography of Miyazaki Tten.
Translated by Eto Shinkichi and Marius B. Jansen. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Jasper Roctus. and Jasper Roctus.

45
Restarick H. B. (1931). Sun Yat-sen the liberator of China. Whitefish: Literary Licensing, LLC.
Schiffrin, H. (1957). "Sun Yat-sen's Early Land Policy: The Origin and Meaning of "Equalization of
Land Rights"." The Journal of Asian Studies 16: 549-564.
Schiffrin, H. (1968). Sun Yat-sen and the origins of the Chinese revolution. 2nd pr. Berkeley (Calif.):
University of California press.
Schiffrin, H. (1980). Sun Yat-sen, reluctant revolutionary. Boston: Little, Brown.
Sharman, L. (1968 [1934]). Sun Yat-sen : his life and its meaning : a critical biography. Whitefish, MT:
Kessinger Publishing.
Shotwell, J. (1932). "Sun Yat-Sen and Maurice William." Political Science Quarterly 47: 19-26.
Spence, J. (1996). God's Chinese son : the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom of Hong Xiuquan. New York: W.
W. Norton & Company.
Spence, J. (2012). The search for modern China. Third edition. New York: W.W. Norton.
Sun Yat-sen 孙逸仙 (1919). Memoirs of a Chinese Revolutionary: A Programme of National
Reconstruction for China. Reprint. Delhi: Facsimile Publisher.
Sun Yat-sen (1941 [1921]). The International development of China. Second edition. Chungking,
Hong Kong: The China Publishing Company.
Sun Yat-sen 孙逸仙 (1989). “Guofu quanji” 國父 全集 [The Complete Works of the Father of the
Republic]. Taibei shi: Jindai Zhongguo chuban zhongyang wenwu jingxiao.
Sun Zhongshan 孙中山 (2011 [1920]). “Jianguo fangle” 建国方略 [General Plan for National
Reconstruction]. Beijing: Zhongguo chang ’an chubanshe.
Trescott, P. B. (1994). "Henry George, Sun Yat-Sen and China: More than Land Policy Was Involved."
The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 53: 363–375.
Wells, A. (2001). The political thought of Sun Yat-sen: development and impact. Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire New York: Palgrave.
Wilbur, C. M. (1976). Sun Yat-sen, frustrated patriot. New York (N.Y.): Columbia university press.
Wilbur, C., and How, J. (1989). Missionaries of revolution: Soviet advisers and Nationalist China, 1920-
1927. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
William, M. (1920). Social Interpretation of History: A Refutation of the Marxian Economic
Interpretation of History. New York: Sotery Publishing Co.
William, M. (2013 [1932]). Sun Yat-Sen Versus Communism: New Evidence Establishing China's Right
To The Support Of Democratic Nations. Whitefish: Literary Licensing, Llc.
Endnotes
Critical Theory