Maurice William, a heterodox American Socialist (and dentist) and author of a "revisionist" critique of Marxism called
The Social Interpretation of History,
https://books.google.com/books?id=PfETAAAAIAAJ was only one of many such critics--but believed himself to be an unusually important one. For some reason, by 1924 William's 1920 book got into the hands of Sun Yat-sen. William later maintained that Sun was on the verge of embracing Marxism-Leninism in 1924 (at the time of his famous lectures on the
San Min Chu I (Three Principles of the People)
https://sunyatsenfoundation.org/wpcore/wp-content/uploads/San-Min-Chu-I_FINAL-3-Principles.pdf and that only a reading of William's book changed his mind. "It is, briefly, the thesis of Dr. William that it was his own book which saved China from Bolshevism by making an anti-Marxian out of Sun after he had fallen prey to the Bolshevist philosophy. Dr. William writes of the lectures on Nationalism and Democracy; "In these lectures Dr. Sun makes clear that his position is strongly pro-Russian and pro-Marxian, that he endorses the class struggle, repudiates Western democracy, and advocates China's cooperation with Bolshevist Russia against capitalist nations."(182) Dr. William then goes on to show, quite convincingly, that Sun Yat-sen, with very slight acknowledgments, quoted William's _The Social Interpretation of History_ almost verbatim for paragraph after paragraph in the lectures on _min sheng_. [livelihood]
At first glance, William's thesis seems plausible. The lectures on Nationalism And Democracy are full of praise for Lenin and Soviet Russia:
"Now again the big Powers are alarmed by Russia; they are more afraid of her than ever, and with good reason; for the new policy of Russia will destroy not only Russian imperialism, but world imperialism; it will destroy not only world imperialism, but also the entire capitalistic system of the nations. In name, the political powers of modern states are controlled by their respective governments; but in reality, they are manipulated by private capitalists. The new policy of Russia, I believe, will breakdown this monopoly; and so all capitalists of the world are much alarmed. The world is facing a serious crisis; and as a result of this crisis, great changes will take place."
"Contrary to the expectation of the imperialists, the 150,000,000 Slavs have risen to speak a word of justice for the oppressed nations, and to oppose imperialism and militarism. The Powers attacked Lenin, as my Russian friend said, because he declared that 1,250,000,000 people were being overridden by the 250,000,000 people and because Lenin, furthermore, engaged in the actual work of liberation and of self-determination. Throughout his life he wrought to emancipate the small nations from the tyranny of the Powers. In spite of the attacks upon Lenin by the capitalist Powers, the world is realizing that it should no longer be bound by hypocrisy and deceit. Since the war, political consciousness of the peoples of the world has evidently progressed to a higher level than ever before."
"When the Russian people learned that imperialism was historically wrong, they set up a revolution in 1917 and overthrew imperialism at home. They then negotiated for peace separately with Germany. After the Allied nations had negotiated the peace with Germany, the imperialistic Powers intervened in Russia, because Russia, whose policies were contrary to those of the imperialist Powers, was a menace to them. Russia endeavored to unite the small nations to fight against imperialism and capitalism. Such a policy is fundamentally in harmony with the Wilsonian doctrine of self-determination of nationalities. Judging from the experience of the European War, imperialism renders no great benefit to any nation, whereas liberty for all nationalities is the only principle by which humanity will ever be saved."
OTOH, in the lectures on Livelihood, Sun attacks Marxism strongly, with arguments often borrowed from William. The driving force in history is not class struggle but providing for the people's livelihood, and class struggle is a "pathology" that develops in the course of this. Contrary to Marx, Europe and America had made great progress in four ways: "(1) improvement of the social conditions of the working class; (2) socialization of transportation and communication facilities [Sun notes that even "individualist" America had to resort to government control of the railroads during the War] (3) creation of direct taxation, and (4) socialization of distribution [cooperatives, etc.] "
"Now the question is: What has caused these four factors of economic progress? According to Marx's way of reasoning, they should be caused by class struggle, that is, by the conflict between capital and labor, but historical facts have proved the contrary. They are the results, not of class struggle, but of mutual understanding between capital and labor and of their realization of the fact that capital will make higher profits and labor better wages through greater efficiency; resulting in cheaper costs of production and therefore in business prosperity; and also by the realization that these in turn are only possible by improving the working conditions, the transportation systems, the taxation systems, and the systems of distribution. In other words, modern economic progress is caused by the harmony, not the conflict, of the economic interests of society. Why is there such harmony? Because all men must live and must face the everlasting problem of livelihood. They either perish through conflict or live through co-operation. Class struggle, therefore, is not the cause of social progress, but a kind of social disease, which develops when a social group lacks the means of livelihood and resolves as the last resort to use abnormal means of obtaining its livelihood. Marx's trouble was that he mistook a social pathological condition for the cause of social progress; so rightly he should be called a "social pathologist" not a "social physiologist."' That last characterization was clearly borrowed from William; and Sun explicitly acknowledges a debt to William, though he also says that William is just saying what the Guomindang had long argued:
"What is, then, the determining force in history? Recently an American disciple of Marx by the name of [Maurice] William, after making a deep study of Marx's philosophy, came to the conclusion that the disagreement between fellow Socialists was due to defects in Marxian doctrines. He sets forth the view that the Social Question, not the material environment, is the determining force in history, and that the level of subsistence is the heart of the Social Question. In other words, the problem of livelihood is the central force in social progress; and social progress is the central force in history. Since subsistence is an element in livelihood, the theory of the American scholar is in entire accord with the Kuomintang Doctrine of Livelihood. For over twenty years we have preached the Doctrine of Livelihood instead of socialism because the term livelihood is more exact and suitable to define the nature of the Social Question than these terms, socialism or communism. What is more interesting, this discovery on the part of the Marxian scholar and the development of new knowledge after the World War show so much more clearly that our Doctrine of Livelihood is consistent with the law of progress and is not a mere parroting of what others are saying."
Like so many critics of Marxism in the 1920's (including William) Sun sees the success of Henry Ford as a refutation of Marx's theories:
"Not knowing of this new theory, Marx had said that in order to exact the maximum of surplus profit the capitalists would insist on three conditions, namely, small wages, long hours, and high prices. That these three conditions are not logical can be proved by the greatest money-making industries of modern times. The Ford factories which are well known to all of us, are among the largest of modern factories, and their enormous output of motor cars which are distributed all over the world, result in a profit of over a hundred million dollars a year. What are the manufacturing and business conditions in these factories ? Their equipment, both in the factories and in the business offices, is perfectly suitable for the job in hand; and conforms to all regulations for the protection and health of the workers. The longest working day is not more than eight hours, and the lowest wage received per day by any worker is five dollars gold or ten dollars Chinese currency, while many workers receive higher wages. Besides high wages, these factories provide playgrounds for the workers' recreation, medical and health offices for the treatment of the sick, schools for the education of new workers and workers' children, and in addition life insurance for the workers, so that after a worker's death his family receives both insurance money and a pension.
"When we come to the question of the prices of Ford cars, all those who have bought Fords know how reasonable the prices are. While ordinary cars cost five thousand dollars (Chinese currency), the Ford car costs not more than one thousand five hundred dollars. In spite of its very reasonable price, the Ford has a powerful engine and is especially suitable for mountain roads and it can be used for long periods without the danger of breakdowns. Because of their low price and high endurance quality, Ford cars are sold all over the world; and in consequence, the Ford factories are making immense profits. The economic and industrial principles underlying the prosperity of the Ford factories contradict in three aspects at least Marx's theory of surplus value. Instead of insisting on long hours, low wages, and high prices, the Ford factories have (1) decreased the working hours, (2) increased wages, and (3) reduced the price of their product. What Marx knew after his years of research into the Social Question were facts, but he failed to anticipate the changing conditions and new developments of the future..."
***
So, is there a contradiction between the praise of Lenin and Soviet Russia in the lectures on Nationalism and Democracy and the critique of Marxism in the lectures on People's Livelihood that can be explained only by Sun having read Maurice William's book in the course of his lectures? IMO, the answer is No. Leaving aside the fact that Sun explicitly says that William is merely reinforcing what the GMD had long believed (after all, Sun had come across Henry George long before he knew about Maurice William), it has to be noted that Sun in his earlier lectures never praises Marxism as such. He praises Lenin and Soviet Russia as anti-imperialists and real champions of the self-determination of nations. Indeed, Sun views Lenin's New Economic Policy as proof that Marxism would not yet work for Russia, let alone China: "It is self-evident, then, that we who undertake to solve the problem of the people's livelihood in China may admire Marx's profound scholarship, but should not follow his methods for they are not suited to the conditions of this country. Even Soviet Russia, after the years of experience following the Revolution, has adopted a new economic policy, because, not being as highly developed economically as England or the United States, Marxism did not work there. If Russia's economic standard is too low to practice Marxism, how can China practice Marxism? So what Marxists propose to do will not solve China's Social Question."
Actually, Sun does equate the Min Sheng (Livelihood) principle with Communism--but clearly he means "Communism" in a non-Marxist sense. Note the echoes of Henry George, of Lincoln, and of Confucius' "Great Harmony":
"...Thus by "equalization of land ownership" we mean the socialization of any increment to the original land value through public improvements or social progress. This is the essence of the doctrine of livelihood; and is, in fact, one kind of communism, communism of future increment, not of present ownership. This is the most equitable form of communism because in this way the property class does not suffer the least loss. It differs fundamentally from the Western system of nationalization which enables the government to confiscate property or to rob the people of what they have. According to my system, at its present values the land will still be privately owned. When this is clearly understood by the landlords, they will no longer worry about the Kuomintang principle of equalizing land values...
"In the course of solving China's Social Question, our object is the same as that of foreign countries, namely, to free the people from the suffering caused by the unequal distribution of wealth and to make them happy and contented. Our way is community of industrial and social profits. We cannot say, then, that the doctrine of livelihood is different from communism. The San Min Doctrine means a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"—that is, the state is the common property of all the people, its politics are participated in by all, and its profits are shared by all. Then there will be not only communism in property, but communism in everything else. Such will be the ultimate end of the Doctrine of Livelihood, a state which Confucius calls ta t'ung .or the age of "great similarity."..."
***
Paul Linebarger gives the
coup de grace to any idea that Maurice Wiliam "saved" Sun from embracing Marxism:
"It would be unjust and untruthful to deny the great value that William's book had for Sun Yat-sen, who did quote it and use its arguments.(183) On the other hand, it is a manifest absurdity to assume that Sun Yat-sen, having once been a communist, suddenly reversed his position after reading one book by an American of whom he knew nothing. Even Dr. William writes with a tone of mild surprise when he speaks of the terrific _volte-face_ which he thinks Sun Yat-sen performed.
"There are two necessary comments to be made on the question of the influence of Maurice William. In the first place, Sun Yat-sen had never swerved from the interpretation of history by _jen_, which may be interpreted as the humane or social interpretation of history. Enough of the old Chinese ideology has been outlined above to make clear what this outlook was.(184) Sun Yat-sen, in short, never having been a Marxian, was not converted to the social interpretation of history as put forth by Dr. William. He found in the latter's book, perhaps more clearly than in any other Western work an analysis of society that coincided with his own, which he had developed from the old Chinese philosophy and morality as rendered by Confucius. Consequently he said of William's rejection of the materialistic interpretation of history, "That sounds perfectly reasonable ... the greatest discovery of the American scholar _fits in perfectly_ with the (third) principle of our Party."(185) The accomplishment of Maurice William, therefore, was a great one, but one which has been misunderstood. He formulated a doctrine of social evolution which tallied perfectly with Chinese ideology, and did this without being informed on Chinese thought. He did not change the main currents of Sun's thought, which were consistent through the years. He did present Sun with several telling supplementary arguments in Western economic terms, by means of which he could reconcile his interpretation of social history not only with Confucian _jen_ but also with modern Western economics.
"The other point to be considered in relation to Maurice William is a matter of dates. The thesis of Maurice William, that Sun Yat-sen, after having turned Marxian or near-Marxian, was returned to democratic liberal thought by William's book, is based on contrast of the first twelve lectures in the _San Min Chu I_ and the last four on _min sheng_. Dr. William believes that Sun read his book in the meantime and changed his mind. A Chinese commentator points out that Sun Yat-sen referred to _The Social Interpretation of History_ in a speech on January 21, 1924; his first lecture on the _San Min Chu I_ was given January 24, 1924.(186) Hence, in the twelve lectures that Dr. William interprets as Marxian, Sun Yat-sen was speaking from a background which included not only Marxism, but _The Social Interpretation of History_, as well..."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39356/39356.txt
(William was of course only one of many western Socialists who tried to refute and revise Marx, and obviously his work did not have the earthshaking importance--saving China from Communism for decades!--that he thought it did. But he is still an interesting man. "At the same time, William was deeply involved in the socialist movement. He wanted to remake society, but also get ahead himself. To this end he studied law part time, but gave that up when he heard Meyer London, New York city's first and only socialist congressman, denounce lawyers as "parasites." (London, by the way, was himself a lawyer.) Casting about for a career, William was advised: "Become a dentist, comrade. Under the most perfect system of society, there will still be rotten teeth.")
https://www.international.ucla.edu/china/MauriceWilliamsArchives/bio