by Neil Martin
September 26th, 2009

Dedicated to the memory of Glenn Narez^{1On October 13th a long time Philippines LaRouche Society(PLS) member Glenn Narez passed away due to leptospirosis(a kind of disease one gets from flood water contaminated with animal urine, and others. A couple of weeks ago, Typhoon Ondoy devastated Manila and because of government's neglect and lack of country's infrastructure particularly on flood protection system, the 80% of Manila has been flooded. Glenn's place in Paranaque is not to be excluded in the areas that were damaged by the typhoon.
 
Glenn enjoyed organizing with the PLS at campuses and he loved working on the philosophical and scientific ideas which underlie the economic ideals of the PLS. While in the hospital Glenn text messaged Ver and Butch, a member and founder of the PLS, informing them about his condition. He told them that he was waiting to go into the Intensive Care Unit. Butch, head and founder of the PLS sent him inspiring words on the immortality of man to keep Glenn's spirit strong, and Glenn replied thankfully,
 
"...this may be premature, but I love you all..."}

What would happen if the Asia Union had their very own Maastricht treaty? Recently, Japan's prime minister Yukio Hotoyama, a great fan of the Euro, made a proposal to Prime Minister Wen of China and President Lee Myung Bak of South Korea, for an implementation of Asia's very own Eurozone.

The Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which created a new currency, the Euro, to be used in place of the former national currencies, also stipulated that European countries’ budget deficits may not exceed three percent of their Gross Domestic Product. This so-called Euro zone has not brought growth anywhere in Europe; it's sole purpose was to destroy the sovereignty of Germany, and Europe besides. China could never have built the Three Gorges Dam, nor have a space program, if there were an Asian Union. Furthermore, the Chinese has the largest dollar reserves of any country at 2.27 trillion U.S. dollars. China would be hit the hardest by such an insane policy for Asian currency.

Instead, China and Russia have recently struck a strategic accord that serves to give value to China's $2.27 trillion in reserves. What China and Russia did this past week has put them on a trajectory to have China actually add value to the U.S Treasury Bonds. The agreements that were made, consisted of a plan under which, rather than buying raw materials from Russia, China is to make investments into the internal improvements of Russia, including rail and resource development; in addition, China will take part in the ownership of companies in Russia that represent the real economy. This draws China, and Russia into the domain of LaRouche 's Four Power pact.

Which of these two directions will China commit to in the current global crisis? To ensure China’s choice of the latter, it is imperative that her patriots, and their cohorts in the United States, look deep into modern China's founding father, Sun Yat Sen.

In this paper it will be shown that Sun Yat Sen (1866-1925) was an advocate of the American System, and anyone who is an advocate of the American system has to know what the British are all about. The British brought opium to China; the United States gave Sun Yat Sen knowledge about the American System of political economy. Sun assimilated these ideas, and he wanted them implemented in China.

Introduction

“With this message of peace and goodwill the Republic of China cherishes the hope of being admitted into the family of nations, not merely to share their rights and privileges but also to cooperate with them in the great and noble task called for in the building up of the civilization of the world.”

This was the last sentence in Sun Yat Sen's announcement of the formation of the Republic of China in early 1912. However, the British Empire refuse to allow for a policy of building civilization; they seek to destroy it.

China’s greatest loss to the British Empire was not the two Opium Wars. It was the war that would have made China a true Republic, but the winner of that war was the British Empire. The British used every method in their play book to destroy a China that was hell bent on adopting American System policies, about which no other Chinese except for Sun Yat Sen knew in great depth. At that time, of course, why would Prince Edward of the British empire allow for a Republic of China? It was he who organized for the dismissal of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck of Germany, who had implemented the policies of America's greatest economist of the 19th Century, Henry Carey; and the ousting of Bismarck launched the organizing of WWI, a war that Prince Edward set up to destroy the American System influence in Continental Europe.

It must be emphasized, that the greatest war China lost was the one to become a Republic. But why was a Chinese Republic something the British Empire could not tolerate? For this we are going to have to look into the mind of Sun Yat Sen to see why such a republic was the worst nightmare to the British Empire. What kind of mindset would one have to have to do battle with this British Empire?^{2Monetary theory is a complete attack on nation's sovereignty. Well maybe not for Europe because for some reason they like being subjugated.}

Sun Yat Sen's mind

Born in 1866, Sun Yat Sen could have spent his career as a doctor and surgeon, but as a teenager he had gone to Hawaii to study, and was educated by an American family, the Damons, who came from the Republican circles in the U.S. Sun became a passionate advocate of the American System, and the work of Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln in particular.

Sun decided to quit his practice and devote the remainder of his life into making China a republic, and to prevent China from being chopped up by the imperial powers. In his plea of 1894 to Li Hung Chang, a person with a high position in China's government, Sun Yat Sen wrote, “The superior ones are unwilling to live useless lives and, no matter how lowly their status, will make the nation their own responsibility.” This plea to Li Hung Chang was widely circulated. One of the best parts of this piece is Sun conveying that domestic commerce should be protected, and that foreign commerce should not be given red carpet treatment. Hsu Leonard^{3Hsu Leonard 'translation of The Three Principles of the People is the best, just forget about Frank Price's. Hsu also wrote a book called The Political Philosophy of Confucius.} who was commissioned by the Guomingtang Party to translate Sun’s work into English, revealed that a section in Sun’s plea to Li Hung Chang contained a part about abolishing free trade. China was not protecting her domestic market—the Chinese merchants were taxed more than foreign merchants—but this should have been the other way around. Wrote Sun, “Ever since China began trading with the West, all the privileges and profits of that trade have been seized by the West. Why is this so? It is because they have been protecting their commerce while we have not.” The only goods that should freely flow throughout a country are the goods made by that country and goods that a country does not have the technology to make.

In his plea, Sun refuted British Empire apologists Parson Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), and British economist David Ricardo (1772-1823). Malthus stated that humans reproduce geometrically while plants increase in number only arithmetically. Ricardo stated that man first inhabits the best soils and then, finally, finds himself on land that is useless. Thus, natural population growth purportedly must outstrip food supply, leading to famine.

Here is what Sun said: “In making man the intelligent being among the myriad things, heaven has provided the myriad things for his use. And even though these things are inexhaustible, it is up to man’s intelligence to put them to good use.”^{4From his plea to Li hung Chang, in Prescriptions for Saving China} In this brief sentence, Sun implicitly asserts that entropy does not exist for human economy.

Furthermore, Sun says, “Man cannot eat soil, but soil can produce the five grains and the hundred fruits to feed man. Man cannot eat grass, but grass can nurture the six animals, which provide meat for his table. Now, to be sure, earth and grass are inexhaustible, but only if man can study what is suitable for the soil and understand the nature of the soil. If we understand the laws involved, we can convert rocky and barren solid into fertile land. This is the soil of science, and chemistry of agriculture. By differentiating the Biological laws of species and by distinguishing the differences in their productivity of animals, man can hold sway over them. Those are the botany and zoology of agriculture. Sunlight can enhance growth, electricity can accelerate the process of maturation; this is the physics of agriculture. Once agriculture is enlightened, the productivity of the same patch of land will multiply several times, which amounts to transforming one acre of land into several acres and enlarging one country into the size of several countries. Consequently, although the size of the population may increase several times, the threat of famine need no longer exist. This is why I advocate the speedy creation of agriculture schools.”^5Ibid.

Sun wanted to harness the powers of the Earth, and the most productive way to do this was through machinery of all sorts. In his plea to Li Hung Chang, Sun said, “How can those who strive to enrich the nation not stress the use of machinery?” Machinery to Sun had a very high value. He conveyed that China should not only acquire agricultural machinery, but reproduce it on its own.

Another example that Sun gave pertaining to improving China, was increasing the power to transport capital goods: “But commerce will develop only if the transportation system is well developed.” Sun spoke about building railroads throughout China, which he would later elaborate in his “International Development of China.” (The American transcontinental railway was part of the 1860 and 1864 Republican Party platforms.)

Sun knew the importance of the railroad. The railroad was the ultimate means logistically and productively, to send goods to remote regions, or to send food to regions that suffered a bad crop.
Sun would later say that “Today, nations regard railroads as lifelines rather than merely a way to facilitate their merchants’ shipping.”

In addition to this, Sun spoke of a new technology called hydro-electric dams. What kind of mind would advocate these types of technologies, an American System protégé, or a monetarist theorist?

The British Empire as understood by Sun Yat Sen

The British have never been allies with China. In 1917, Sun wrote a piece on the “The Question of China’s Survival.” This piece was written to argue that China stay neutral and not enter World War I on the British Empire’s side. The thing to focus on in this piece is what Sun Yat Sen says about the British. Sun questioned why the British methods of starving people to death were humane, while Germany, which did the same thing, to Belgium and Serbia, was considered inhumane. He speaks of how in a span of two years, 19 million Indians had been killed by starvation due to fact that the British Empire simply took a large volume of India’s grain. “What kind of Humanity is this?” Sun asks.

India was supposed to pay $1 billion to support of the Empire’s war. But that was made null and void, because it would have led to a extravagant tax on cotton. Sun then talks about how the French were laying extreme taxes on the Vietnamese peoples' good farm land, land that the Vietnamese had developed, but then had to leave because they could not pay the taxes to farm on the land that was naturally theirs. Imperial law does not work to champion the cause of the weak, but of the strong.

The Empire does not follow international law. It follows imperial law, and imperial law favors 'might is right' or 'the survival of the fittest'. This is how the British took control of Burma, Malaya, India, the Transvall (now South Africa), and Hong Kong. Sun then mentions supplying the Chinese with opium part of international law.

Later in “The Question of China’s Survival,” Sun wrote, “Without India, the British Empire is nothing but a third rate country.” He elaborated on that by saying, "but for India the larger part of British commerce would vanish. Once its roots have been injured, British commerce will naturally lose its power to attract, and Britain's ability to rule supreme over the world market will be gone for good! In other words, the survival of India means the survival of Britain. Without India, there would be no colonies, commerce, or navigation. Domestically, Britain would no longer be self sufficient; abroad, it would no longer be able to rely on foreign resources to sustain itself. How could it manage to survive?"

Sun then reveals how the British protect their prized colony India without going to war. The sponsorship of Japan by the British Empire was to check Russia. Japan thought that she was the winner, and the prize money was to have a bigger sphere of influence over Korea. However it was the British that had gained without firing a bullet. India was safe. Well, safe that is, from foreign powers, but not the British Empire.

There is too much to cover in Sun’s brilliant piece. There is a part where Sun compares the British treatment of its allies or colonies to a silk worm farmer, who draws the silk from its silkworms, then throws the worms to the fish as fish food. “Obviously,” wrote Sun, “for Britain, the value of an ally lies in its usefulness as a means of promoting British interests. When it loses its strength, its very sovereignty will naturally be sacrificed to British interests. This is the attitude of the breeder toward his silkworms.”

The British Empire's plan for China

Sun Yat Sen knew the British game, and the productive future of China was not a part of it. In Sun's speech on Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism^{6Cosmopolitanism is an economic term referring to a 'universal' economic sphere, above particular nations. For example, Adam Smith dealt with the economy of the 'individual' and the economy of the 'world', i.e. Cosmopolitical economy, but rejected the existence of the economy of nations.} No. 4, Sun was blunt to a British Consul General.

Here is how the dialogue^{7Questions on China's survival Prescriptions on Saving China} went: Sun said, “During the European War [World War I], I established the Constitutional Government in Canton. One day the British Consul General called on me at the Generalissimo’s office to talk over the possibility of the Southern Government entrance into War. I asked:
“Why should we enter the war?’
“Fight Germany,” the Consul General said, “because she robbed you of Tsingtao, and you should get it back.”
“Tsingtao,” Sun replied, “is far away from Canton. How about Hong Kong, Burma, Nepal, and Bhutan, which were once either our own territory or tributary states, and which are much closer to Canton than Tsingtao? At the present time you, the British Empire, have an eye on Tibet. Ordinary logic suggests that if China is strong enough to get back her lost territories, she should proceed first to get back the closer and bigger ones. Tsingtao is but a small place, and Burma is bigger than Tsingtao, and Tibet is still bigger.”
"I came to talk business!”, remarked the irritated Consul-General.
"I am talking business too!", Sun answered.
We stared at each other for a long time. Then I broke the silence by saying:
“Our civilization is two thousand years ahead of yours. While we are only happy to help you advance yours to our stage, we cannot be pulled backwards by you. Two thousand years ago we abandoned imperialism. We have been peace lovers ever since. We could of course welcome the War if its purpose were peace, justice, and equality… We consider the brutalities of your might as nothing short of barbarism….”

Sun also gave another reason for not entering the war. “I do not want to see our nation transformed into a militaristic nation, a nation defying justice and right as is the case with your nation. Your suggestion is that after China has entered the War, you will send to China an experienced army officers to train good Chinese soldiers and supply China with the best sort of ammunition and arms, and within six months you will be able to turn out 300,000 to 500,000 well trained men and send them to the front; but I say that China’s entrance into the War would be a disastrous thing.”
“Why would it be disastrous?” the British Consul General interrupted.
From there, Sun addressed the implications of this. He did not want for China to have a nucleus of Chinese Militarism.

2009 represents both Darwin’s and Lincoln’s birthday

Sun clearly showed how Darwin’s “origins of species” was not applicable to men. In Henry Carey’s the Unity of Law, he said modern economists think of man as a mere beast, as Darwin would later. Mankind, Carey shows, has the power to live by understanding natural law, which animals were incapable of knowing. Sun shredded Darwin’s malicious thought of comparing animals to man. Sun says that “men [are] guided by the principle of mutual aid. Society and the sciences are a concrete expression of this mutual aid, morality, love, friendship, and justice—all forms of expressing mutual aid.” Sun later conveyed that mankind only nurtures itself and advances through following natural law.

Darwin dares to regard man as a being that disregards love, justice, morality, and friendship as obsolete. Darwin endeavored to make the bestial “survival of the fittest” applicable to mankind. This was not done by accident; this was as evil as Malthus’ overpopulation theory. Sun said, “the evolution of man has outgrown this principle which governs the world of animals.” Man will always be increasing his progress geometrically; as for animals, their capabilities are fixed.

It should be noted that the last Hawaiian school Sun Yat Sen went to was Oahu Charity school , established by the American Board of Commissioners of Foreign Missions, part of patriotic circles associated with the American System of political economy. This is where Sun got his first dose of key American figures like Hamilton, Washington, and Lincoln, who became his favorite. Sun's Three Principles of the People - Nationalism, Republicanism, and People's Livelihood (or General Welfare)- were modeled on Abraham Lincoln's famous concept of a national government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Lincoln’s influence shows in many aspects of Sun’s work. As mentioned before, the Republican Party platform of 1860 and 1864 called for a transcontinental railway to link the East with the West.

In Sun’s The International Development of China, he called for 200,000 miles of railways for China. In 1862 Abraham Lincoln signed into law the creation of land grant universities. These universities dealt with agriculture foremost, and also technology. Sun, in his plea to Li Hung Chang, argues for the necessity of having agricultural schools. Abraham Lincoln was in favor for high protective tariffs. Sun Yat Sen also supported them, as shown in his Three Principles of the People. Each section includes a part in which Sun advocates protective tariffs.

Lincoln favored and fought for major internal improvements—development of canals, making rivers navigable, and, most importantly, building railroads. Sun Yat Sen also took this position of building internal improvements; especially rail roads. Lincoln’s core policy,"short and sweet like an old lady’s dance, " as he liked to quip, is suggested by this quote: "I’m in favor of a National Bank, ^{8The favoring of a National Bank is very significant. The National Bank is the most valuable player when it comes to protecting the Harmony of interest Commerce, Agriculture and manufactures.} the internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff."

Sun Yat Sen favored a National Bank for China, too. This is revealed in a speech he gave announcing the Central Bank of China. For Sun, Central means National, and not like the European term Central, for independent central banks. Sun wanted South China’s government to use the force of protectionism to assist commercial enterprises, and that was accomplished through the 'National' Bank.

To Sun it was very important to promote the people’s livelihood, and to do for people what people could not do for themselves. A perfect example of this was building various infrastructure projects. In regard to government, Lincoln stated that "The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, what ever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not so well do, for themselves, in their separate, and individual capacities."

And lastly, Lincoln’s vision for reconstruction of the South was loaded with plans for economic development, and so was Sun’s reconstruction policy. Sun said, “The primary requisite of reconstruction lies in the people’s livelihood." Promoting the people's livelihood, meant creating the conditions from whence people could prosper.

These ideas, such as a national bank, high protective tariffs, and internal improvement projects, led me to a discovery that Sun Yat Sen was indeed something different, a protégé of the American system, and this can not be found in any biography of Sun Yat Sen, with the partial exception of John C.H. Wu's book Sun Yat Sen, the Man and His Ideas, and Sun Yat Sen, A Portrait by Stephen Chen and Robert Payne.

As for the rest of the biographers, the most they say is that he became a Christian and was influenced by the West. What influence? British Free Trade, or the American System of Political Economy? This is not elaborated, and this is where they fail.

Sun Yat Sen on Bismarck

There was another head of state whom Sun Yat Sen liked, and that was Otto von Bismarck, ^{9Bismarck http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=11924 Or watch Helga Zepp LaRouche's webcast of September 22.} German Chancellor from 1867-1890, who was also directly influenced by Abraham Lincoln's policies, through Lincoln's economist Henry C. Carey. Sun said in regard to Bismarck in his speech on democracy, number four of his speeches on democracy, "In less than ten years under the new political order Germany astonished the world by her rapid progress in industrial, military, and educational accomplishment." Bismarck also paved the way for preventing trusts from being established in Germany, by nationalizing key sectors of the German economy.

Sun, knowing the importance of economic essentials, was against trusts. Trusts deliberately chose not to promote the people’s livelihood. The vitals for the livelihood of the people were “major industries such as railways, electricity, water irrigation," and others that were to be operated by the state, and Sun thought that China should imitate the methods adopted in Germany under Bismarck. Doing so conveyed something important; Sun was an admirer of Abraham Lincoln and of Bismarck, both of whom had implemented what Henry Carey had drafted.

In another speech on The Three Principles of the People, Sun Yat Sen spoke about Bismarck's success. He united Germany, implemented policies that served to make his government the benefactor to the people, and initiated programs like state pensions and state insurance. "He established many state banks and other corporations in the interests of the working class. In other words, he used his political power extensively to enforce the general welfare programs," wrote Sun. To go even further, Bismarck made the working day eight hours. (In contrast to this success, Karl Marx told workers in London that this could happen only if the capitalist system gave way to the socialist system.)

Bismarck also implemented workman's compensation, “regulated the working conditions of children, and women and instituted workers' pensions and social insurance.” Sun said in his speech on Democracy number 5 that, “none of the more democratic governments in the West are as efficient government as that of Bismarck.” The result was very satisfactory to the workers of Germany. This created a situation in which Germans remained in their homeland because of the Henry Carey reforms that Bismarck carried out, while other countries in Europe had people leaving for the United States.

They were leaving because they wanted a better life, but the ironic thing is, that Europeans wanted weak governments, and weak governments are useless in a time of crisis. Here’s what Sun Yat Sen said about the other European countries on the continent: “The Europeans on the contrary want their government as weak as possible. A powerful government, though built on democratic principles, is not tolerated by the People of Europe, for fear it may misuse the political power of the people and repeat the dreadful deeds of feudal autocracy. In as much as the people of a modern state have the ultimate control of the power of the state, they can change or overthrow their government at their pleasure." But is it a wise thing for the people to get rid of a strong government?

Sun Yat Sen on Karl Marx

In Beijing's Tienanmen Square, there is a painting of Karl Marx. What would Marx do today, concerning advocating a Four Power agreement, and replacing the monetary system with a credit system? He was a British agent; 'nothing substantial' would be the answer. We are talking about a man who considered class struggle to be the reason behind progress.

Sun said this about Marx: “[What] Marx knew after his years of research into social questions were facts, but he failed to anticipate the changing conditions and new developments of the future. Not knowing these new theories, he drew false conclusions from his own suppositions.” Sun said of Marx: “Class war is not the cause of social progress, it is a disease developed in the course of social progress.” Marx thus knew nothing of the real process of social progress, Concluded Sun: “Marx can only be called a social pathologist. Not a social physiologist.”

For example, Marx did not know that Ford's motor company could make profits, by decreasing working hours, increasing wages, and reducing the prices of his product. Marx settled with the thought that "lower wages, longer hours, and high prices” were here to stay, and that was the best means for capitalists to create profit.

Marx once conveyed that small wages, long hours, and high prices would insure that the capitalist would gain a lofty profit. He attained his information without insisting that man could change the situation and have the capitalist and laborer act in harmony instead of discord.

Marx's labor theory was also wrong. He did not take into account that before laborers of a factory labored, they needed raw materials to be fashioned, and those raw materials had to be extracted from the Earth, then transported to the factory; the mode of transport had to be built; the raw materials to create the mode of transport had to be to transported to a manufacturer; and there needed to be infrastructure to do all this transporting. To draw the raw materials from the Earth, equipment to do that needed to be available, and that equipment also had to be fashioned.

And, all those laborers needed food. Thus, we have more than one set of producers who create surplus value: the farmer adds to surplus value, the different laborers add to the surplus value, and the consumers also add to the surplus value.

Sun commented, “It seems to be absurd, then, for Marx in his 'Surplus value' theory to ignore all direct and indirect contributions by persons of labor."

Sun Yat Sen on Adam Smith

In Sun Yat Sen's “The International Development of China,” he discusses competition. The British view of trade, says Sun, is simply a means to grab up foreign markets to subjugate them. A trade of equivalents does not exist. It's more like enforcing the importing nation to grant extra territorial rights without needing to use gunboat diplomacy. The winner of this competition gets a monopoly - but didn't Adam Smith denounce monopolies? Only when countries used protectionism did they ward off the British attack on their manufactures and ultimately their sovereignty.

Here's what Sun said about free trade: “Commercial warfare, or competition, is a struggle between the capitalists themselves. This war has no national distinction. It is fought just as furiously and mercilessly between countries as well as within the country. The method of fighting is to undersell each other, in order to exhaust the weaker rivals, so that the victor may control the market alone and dictate terms to the consuming public as long as possible. The result of commercial war is no less harmful and cruel to the vanquished foes than an armed conflict. This war has become more and more furious every day since the adoption of machinery for production. It was once thought by 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.” ^{10Henry Carey on concentration, and competition. Concentration is a term used heavily by Henry Carey. Carey wanted a concentration of a harmony of interest all through out the states. This would be of the greatest interest to the farmer, merchant and manufacturer. Protective tariffs will do away with the invisible army of competition. If there were anarchy brought to a country by free trade legislation competition, would virtually destroy, the harmony of interest a nation once had.}

Sun Yat Sen on the Protective Tariff

Sun spoke about the protective tariff three times in his The Three Principles of the People. In his Nationalism speech, number 2, called The Political and Economic Forces, Sun presented the protective tariff as a means to battle economic pressure. He compared the protective tariff to a fortress which was the first line of defense against foreign attack. He used the example of the United States' use of the protective tariff to ensure that her economy would not remain only agricultural. European goods did not find a cheap home in the United States. Through the protective tariff, European nations were not allowed to undermine the development of the United State's sovereign industrial policies through competition.

In his second speech on democracy, Sun said that “one of the concrete ways by which the Chinese government could help the workers to save the annual loss of 500 hundred million dollars is effective tariff control.” This $500 million in imported goods crushed nascent Chinese industry, and only the highest political power in China, the government, could put an end to unfair competition. However, Sun said, this depended on a strong government, and were this to come to fruition, industries could be highly developed, the economic status of the Chinese workers would be improved substantially, and their life would be much more comfortable.

In his last speech pertaining to the people’s livelihood, Sun spoke of unequal treaties, such as those imposed on China after the British opium wars of the 19th century, designed to give one country the advantage and to effectively subjugate the other country. This, he said, made it possible for foreign nations to come into China’s house, not by smashing a window, but by being warmly received. He noted that through this means, China’s maritime and native customs duties were not controlled by China, but by foreign nations. Whose interest was this serving? Surely not the clothing industries of China.

“No free independent country in Europe or in America suffers any such treaty restriction on tariffs as our country does," Sun asserted. "Every Government is free to fix its own tariff rates according to the economic conditions of the country and its relations to other countries.” These countries, at will, could easily set up protective tariffs to ward off economic invasion, but China could not.

To get rid of this problem, which was severely hurting the people’s livelihood, Sun said, “Political power is, therefore, essential to protect home industries from undue competition.” In a later part in the speech, Sun speaks of the United States again, on how they went from a agriculture-dominated economy to an economy fostering industry through protective tariffs, and as a result of this, “America and the industries in America flourished splendidly. Now the United States has surpassed Britain in industrial development.” Sun then spoke of Germany, and what protective tariffs had done for her. Sun concluded that the American and German example must be followed by China if she wanted to have strong industries, and not be merely a colonial market where foreign capital goods strolled through China effortlessly and unhindered.

Before I go on, let me emphasize that there is no idea in any of Sun’s writings of China having an extensive cheap export market. This extravagant export market, which until recently was touted as China's ticket to economic development, has done nothing for Chinese economic independence, nor is it helping the people’s livelihood on the whole. Sun would not have allowed this scheme, calling it a policy of treating the Chinese as “piglets.” He said that the first piglets were the Chinese who were sent overseas to work, but who never came back. But now, there is a new set of piglets: they don't go abroad, they work in China making goods for the West. Sun would not have tolerated an economic policy that created more piglets! Promoting the people’s livelihood will never be done by free trade that needs cheap labor, piglets. It is done by a government that practices the American System of political economy.

Sun Yat Sen and the international development of China

In 1922, in his masterpiece, the international development of China Sun called for Western nations to assist China in developing. This involved the retooling of the war machinery in the West after WWI. Sun said, “In this case China will require machinery for her vast agriculture, machinery for her rich mines, machinery for her extensive transportation systems and machinery for all her public utilities. Let us see how this new demand for machinery will help the readjustment of war industries.”

“The work shops that turn out cannon can easily be made to turn out steam rollers for the construction of roads in China. And all sorts of warring machinery can be converted into peaceful tools for the general development of our country's resources.” Sun called this plan a second industrial revolution, which “will increase the productive power of man many times more than the first one.” What he was promoting was indeed revolutionary, calling for the West to retool their industries.

However, this not to be. It was contrary to the vision of those powers who created the Versailles treaty ending World War I in 1918. This was still the pre-Franklin D. Roosevelt era. Later, when FDR came into the U.S. Presidency, he built up the civilian machine tool sector. This allowed for the U.S Auto sector to transform her industry for the World War II mobilization. The U.S. out-produced the Nazis, vastly. What if FDR's Arsenal of Democracy, after the war, were retooled to develop China? It must be stressed that what was required was a sovereign nation state, the longest lasting republic, the U.S, under a president, FDR, who knew full well the British game, and insisted that the United States would not accept the post WWII policies that the British wanted – Imperial policies based on maintaining her colonies. Roosevelt's “no more colonies” policy was also intended for the other European colonial powers.

Henry Carey, in his Principles of Social Science, wrote, “Next among the qualities by which man is distinguished from all other animals, is that of responsibility before his fellow man, and before his Creator, for his actions.” When did the British Empire ever manifest this?

The British Empire has a marvelous track record in failing to develop countries, but they sure can do pillaging. Sun wanted all aspects of industry and infrastructure to enable China to have a real economy. What he proposed was, that were the U.S to take the lead, the British Empire would be kicked out of China.

Sun's plan for China's industrialization was to have large-scale infrastructure projects, including: “100,000 to 200,000 miles of railroads; 1,000,000 miles of roads; improvement of existing canals; construction of new canals; regulating rivers; making rivers more navigable; the construction of telegraph lines throughout the country; the development of commercial harbors; the building of modern cities; with public utilities to be constructed in all railway centers; water power development; iron and steel works, and cement works on the largest scale; mineral development...; agricultural development; irrigation work on the largest scale, in Mongolia and Sinkiang; reforestation of Central and North China. Integration of Manchuria, Mongolia, Sinkiang Kokonor, and Tibet.”

Sun proposed that a railroad policy, that would yield the most productivity, was one between a densely populated area and a thinly populated area. The densely populated area would receive raw materials from the thinly populated area, and production in the densely populated area would have to increase in productivity, i.e., in productive powers of labor, including an increase of energy-flux density, to meet the needs of a thinly populated area, resulting in true, physical profit. Commerce between the two,served to give new industrial capacities to the less developed area, this would raise the latter's productivity and standard of living. Eventually, the area that was once thinly populated would have developed the capacity to develop other, still thinly populated areas.

In a later part of international development of China,Sun wrote that there should be “cash with lower interest or credit” or credit geared towards China building up the manufacturing of mining machinery. Sun said that by “distributing tools and machinery to the surplus workers in China, the mining industry is developed by leaps and bounds. And the more the mining industry is developed, the more will be the demand for tools of machinery.” Sun also stated that factories should take advantage of strategically located areas close to mining regions where highly skilled labor was located. In the beginning of this section, Sun said, “Mining and farming are the two most important means of producing raw materials for industries:

“As farming is to produce food for man, so mining is producing food for machinery. Machinery is the tree of modern industries, and, the mining industry is the root of machinery. Thus, without the mining industry there would be no machinery, and without machinery there would be no modern industries which have revolutionized the economic conditions of mankind. The mining industry, after all, is the greatest factor of material civilization and economic progress." Sun wanted China to develop all sorts of industries, from the production of paper to the production of steel.

Sun on Central banking (National Banking)

On August 16th, 1924 in his speech, The Fundamentals of National Reconstruction, Chapter 10, Sun announces the formation of a National Bank of China. “Gentlemen: the opening of the Central Bank of China today marks the opening of the first bank established by the Revolutionary Government. In establishing this bank, the government desires to finance commercial enterprises, therefore, today also marks the beginning of government participation in business enterprise.”^{11This speech by Sun Yat sen is found no where but only in the Fundamentals of National Reconstruction. The Government taking part in financing commercial enterprises. This is the role of the national bank. It's interests are to the people and not promoting the free markets that have never established a concentration of manufacturing in a country} Had this to come to fruition, China would have been free of the oligarchic monetary system.^{12This monetary system needs to be left to die, for no good Samaritan would help the monetary system.} Sun, in a later part of the speech, said, “There is no denying the fact that banking has a tremendous effect upon economic relations in society.” Sun learned this all too well, in 1912,while he was in charge of receiving funds from Western countries for China to develop a massive railway system, which he himself had designed. The British and J.P. Morgan the conduit of the British for the United states.

This consortium would supposedly be the generous lenders for China, but these banks had no intention to see China build up her rail system. Sun did not receive even one penny from them. One historian said: “The banking consortium stemmed from efforts of the foreign powers to control China's foreign credit,” This is too soft. In fact, the banking Consortium wanted to destroy China.

Consortium occupied Chinese land, or had major spheres of influence in China. The British Empire took control of Tibet and owned Hong Kong, and treated all of southern China as its sphere of influence; France had Shanghai; Japan had an eye on Manchuria, and they had controlled Taiwan since 1895, Germany had Tsingtao, Russia outer Mongolia, and at that time the U.S, although it did not colonize China, did not interfere. This was the first bank Consortium. The U.S dropped out, but didn't do a thing to prevent it. This Consortium did not like Sun Yat Sen at all. Sun refused to allow for China's sovereignty to be compromised by these financial interests, and this is why the British agent Yuan Shi Kai was made president. Yuan Shi Kai showed no concern on whether or not China would become a Republic or sub colony, and even worse, sections of China becoming annexed or partitioned.

How to Develop Chinese Industry

To Sun, capital was not money. Monetarists look upon money as capital, but any protégé of the American System would dismiss this. It is said that “money makes the world go 'round,” but the monetary empire will never truly develop a country. Sun asked in his How to Develop Chinese Industry, “What is capital? It is a fallacy that most people regard metallic money as capital. Capital consist in machinery ^{13It should come to surprise that nations that do not have a machine tool sector are the poorest of all nations.} which can assist human labor in the production of goods.” This statement alone demonstrates Sun's recognition that physical economy, and not the accumulation of currency, is the source of actual wealth. In that same chapter, Sun stated what the West could do to help China, which was to export some of their machinery to allow China to get a head start in developing. Essentially, this would represent an investment by the U.S., to play a part in developing China as a future partner. But, Sun also recognized, such an investment would soon need highly skilled labor to operate the machinery. So, he proposed that “more schools be established, and more students sent abroad to study in technological colleges.”

What Three policies would Sun organize around?

Sun's focus of organizing for thirty years was China becoming a Republic, obtaining an "arsenal" of machinery, and having railways to open up certain parts of China, and to serve as the link to the Eurasian land bridge connecting Europe, Asia, and Africa. Were he still living, he would be at the forefront of organizing for them today.

The Monetary Empire subjugates nations, and deprives them from becoming nations that are sovereign. It faces no opposition from Europe. The Monetary Empire is fine with anybody who wishes to enslave their nations with the monetary system, but as for nations who seek to annihilate the Monetary Empire they seek their destruction. Sun Yat Sen would have organized up a storm for the Four Power alliance who's objective is to replace the Monetary Empire with a world wide Hamiltonian Credit System. Sun saw what a Monetary Empire did to China, and he would not want any country enslaved to it. He also knew what their policy was for China: not a Republic but a slave to the Monetary Empire.

Related Media

Related Updates

Editor's Choice