_ 310 International Development_, pp. 220-221.
_ 311 International Development_, pp. 6-8.
_ 312 International Development_, p. 198.
_ 313 International Development_, p. 199. Sun Yat-sen discussed only two of these essentials (food, clothing) in his lectures on the _San Min Chu I_. According to Tai Chi-tao, he was to have continued to speak on the topics of “Housing,” “Health,” “Death,” “Conclusions on Livelihood,” and “Conclusions on the San Min Doctrine,” but the only person who may know what he intended to say on these subjects is Mme. Sun Yat-sen. (See Hsü translation, “The Basic Literature of Sunyatsenism,” pp. 39-40.)
314 This is based upon statements made by Judge Linebarger to the author. According to him, Sun Yat-sen had few of the prejudices of class, one way or the other, that affect the outlook of so many Western leaders. He did not believe that the only possible solution to the problem of livelihood was the Marxian one, and was confident that the Chinese Nationalists would be able to solve the problem. This question was to him paramount above all others; the life of the masses of Chinese citizens was the life of China itself.
317 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 326. The discussion of Bismarck runs from p. 322 to 326; the length of the discussion shows what Sun thinks of Bismarck’s acuteness, although he disapproved of Bismarck’s anti-democratic stand.
320 Price translation, pp. 434-435. In the d’Elia translation, pp. 465-466. The Price translation has been quoted in this instance because Father d’Elia translates _min shêng_ as “the economic Demism,” which—although interesting when used consistently—might not be clear in its present context. Sun Yat-sen’s courteous use of the word “communism,” in view of the Canton-Moscow entente then existing, has caused a great deal of confusion. The reader may judge for himself how much Sun’s policy constitutes communism.
321 One or two further points concerning the land policy may be mentioned. In the first place, it is the land which is to be taxed. A tax will be applied, according to this theory, on the land, and the increment will also be confiscated. These are two separate forms of revenue. Furthermore, lest all land-holders simply surrender their land to the government, Sun makes clear that his taxation program applies only to land. It would consequently be quite advantageous for the owner to keep the land; the buildings on it would not be affected by the increment-seizure program, and the land would be worth keeping. “The value of the land as declared at present by the landowner will still remain the property of each individual landowner.” (d’Elia translation, p. 466; Father d’Elia’s note on this page is informing.) The landowner might conceivably put a mortgage on the land to pay the government the amount of the unearned increment, and still make a handsome enough profit from the use of the land to amortize the mortgage.