"The Coming Landbridge Era of Civilization: Lyndon LaRouche, Sun Yat-sen and a new Chinese-American Partnership" by Robert Wesser
“I consider it a singular plan of the fates that human cultivation and refinement should today be concentrated, as it were, in the two extremes of our continent, in Europe and in China, which adorns the Orient as Europe does the opposite edge of the earth. Perhaps Supreme Providence has ordained such an arrangement, so that, as the most cultivated and distant peoples stretch out their arms to reach each other, those in between may gradually be brought to a better way of life.”
- G.W. Leibniz, Novissima Sinica, 1697
On May 7-9 in Beijing, China, the Chinese government sponsored the historic“International symposium on Economic Development of the Regions Along the New Euro-Asia Continental Bridge”. Now, 299 years after the great German philosopher Leibniz’s proposal, the idea of the Eurasian Land Bridge comes from the opposite end of the continent. With the Landbridge proposal, the Chinese government has put the physical reconstruction of the global economy back on the table, and has begun to collaborate with other Asian countries in the construction of the various branches of this “New Silk Road” on their respective territories. In the context of its current fiveªyear plan, which will transform the physical geography of China, Beijing is forcefully accelerating this Landbridge integration, and has already begun construction on many large-scale water, railroad, and energy infrastructure projects, aimed at completion by the year 2010. (1)
According to the report of Mr. Rui Xingwen, chairman of the China Development and Promotion Commission of the New Euro-Asia Continental Bridge, the Continental Bridge will usher in the third era of human civilization, replacing, first, the dependence of ancient cultures on the conveniences of river systems, and second, the predominant dependence of modern industrial civilization on coastal area development. This new Landbridge economy era will open up the vast land-locked areas of our planet, (presently about 80% of the total land area of the globe) to massive development and the further cultivation of human civilization. [GRAPHIC 1]
According to Rui:
“It is imaginable, that future human society will neither be hindered by oceans, nor be frustrated by severe cold, altitude and desolation any longer. Transcontinental high-speed trains and expressways will circle the globe, and bring unprecedented new opportunities for existence, development and prosperity to human society. It will further promote the reciprocity and cooperation of the regional economy, integration and opening of the market system, joint development and comprehensive utilization of resources, development and sharing of science and technology, construction and operation of transcontinental energy, transport and communications networks, and improvement and enhancement of the regional environment. All these aspects will help the landbridge economy become prosperous; hence, human society will enter into a new era -the continental bridge era, which is the third development era of human society...
“Asia and Europe have a long history of economic and cultural exchanges and cooperation. Two thousand years ago, the ancient Silk Road linked the two continents. Economic cooperation and cultural exchanges along the ancient Silk Road had a great impact, not only on the splendid ancient civilization
achieved by human society, but also on the formation of modern civilization. Up to now, it is still one of the most important spiritual ties that links Asia and Europe. The new Euro-Asia continental bridge is developed on the basis of these ties, and therefore is called the Modern Silk Road. It will be bound to play a more important role in promoting the modern Euro-Asia economic and cultural exchanges and cooperation, and in enhancing the development of modern Euro-Asia civilization.” [GRAPHIC2]
The present Chinese initiative loudly echoes the early Twentieth Century intervention into world politics by the great Chinese statesman, Dr. Sun Yatsen. At the end of the First World War, Sun Yatsen realized the impending disaster of the“peace” agreement negotiated to serve the geopolitical interests of the Entente Cordial imperialist powers. In 1919, the same year as the Versailles conference, Sun Yat Sen issued an alternative policy proposal in the form of a comprehensive scheme for the development of China through her integration with the rest of the Eurasian continent. Sun entitled this policy paper {The International Development of China}, and conceived of it as the centerpiece of a global plan to prevent further conflict and war.
The first public, comprehensive proposal in the direction of developing the Eurasian continent in recent times, was made by American economist and former presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche at an historic October 1988 press conference in then West Berlin.
LaRouche proposed that, in light of the imminent collapse of the economies of the Soviet Union and COMECON nations, the early reunification of East and West Germany was urgently required to provide the necessary advanced industrial-scientific base for the sorely needed rapid economic reconstruction of Eastern Europe (beginning with Poland), and ultimately of Russia and points east. When the borders of Eastern Europe opened a year later, LaRouche proposed the so-called Paris-Berlin-Vienna “Productive Triangle” aimed at making this region, with the largest density of industrial and scientific capacities
in the world, into an engine for developing the East by means of large transportation arteries and integrated corridors of development.(2) Previously, in August of 1983, LaRouche had issued a comprehensive international proposal for “A Fifty Year Development Policy for the Indian-Pacific Ocean Basin.” In this proposal, LaRouche laid out the numerous great infrastructure projects necessary to realize the full economic potential of this, the most populated region of the planet. (3 ) Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, LaRouche expanded his “European Triangle” proposal to include an integrated infrastructure program for rapid transit, roads, waterways and energy production and distribution for the entire Eurasian continent.
However, as of this moment, China is the only major country in the world actually engaged in real, physical economic development. Over the past 25 years, the increasing “globalization” of the world economy, based on various “free trade” and “post-industrial” dogmas, has, in fact destroyed entire areas of the United States economy, particularly in the more skilled, productive sectors. Europe, also, has been devastated, with it’s industrial productive capacity collapsing by 40 percent of what it was in 1989. For Russia and Ukraine, globalization in the form of the so-called IMF reforms, has collapsed industrial production by 70 percent!
Worse, in contrast to the vision of a global future spelled out at the May Beijing conference, a completely opposite proposal for the world economy was put forward in June at the so-called “Group of Seven” summit in Lyons, France. Panicked at the impending blowout of the entire international financial system, now overbloated by trillions of dollars of completely worthless speculative paper, the heads of state of the seven largest industrial countries announced their willingness to place the world economy under the supranational dictatorship of the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. Defying all reality, the summit communique stated that “globalization of the world economy is
irreversible and has led to a considerable expansion of wealth and prosperity in the world”, and “since the summit in Halifax [1995], economic development has been on the whole positive and disparities of economic performance among us have been narrowing”. In reality, such “globalization” policies have drastically reduced the per capita wealth producing capacity for most of the world, creating conditions where the richer, upper 10 percent of the population has become wealthier, while the vast majority plunges into poverty, hunger and disease. The same communique then admits this fact, stating that “because of globalization of the economy, the poorer countries may accentuate their inequality and certain parts of the world could become marginalized.” Here, the pleasant-sounding diplomatic term “marginalized” means, that certain parts of the world are to be simply “written off”, banned from any economic development, and condemned to poverty. Hence, to enforce this “marginilization”, the summit declaration specifies the enhanced power of the U.N., the IMF, the World Bank and WTO to intervene and to impose their global economic dictates, above and beyond the wishes, protests or interest of individual nations! (4)
In times of crisis like these, what the world greatly needs is the right {ideas} to guide it, as well as the knowledge of the {history} of those ideas. Obviously, the failed policies of the supranational institutions, and their horrible plan for “marginilizing” entire areas of the planet must be rejected out of hand, and replaced with a completely different set of policies and bi-lateral agreements among sovereign governments.
It is in this spirit that we wish to introduce the reader to the ideas and world-historic significance of Sun Yatsen’s early twentieth century career, placed in the context of the present battle for the ideas of American statesman Lyndon LaRouche. Through doing this, we are deeply convinced that a new American-Chinese partnership can rapidly become the pathway on which human civilization might successfully travel into the Era of the Landbridge, and provide the much needed antidote to those forces who would impede its natural development.
Landbridge vs. Empire
But, from whence, historically, come these theories of “globalization” and “marginilzation”? In his recent document, “Now, Rid NATO of the Entente Cordial”, Mr. LaRouche explains:
“Throughout the Twentieth Century, the greatest single obstacle to justice for all peoples of this planet, has been the rabid so©called ‘geopolitical’ determination of the British Empire and its accomplices, to prevent the establishment of efficient forms of continuing economic cooperation between industrialized western continental Europe and the most populous regions of the Pacific and Indian oceans’ litorals. A foisted war between Russia and Japan, early in this century, and, after that, two so-called ‘world wars’, and one prolonged excursion to the brink of general intercontinental thermonuclear warfare, have been foisted upon the peoples of this planet, by that selfªperceived ‘geopolotical interest’ centered in the capital of the British Empire and its hangers-on. That delayed undertaking, bridging the relatively vast, and sparsely developed spaces of Central Asia, is the natural pivot for the recovery and continued growth of the physical economy of the world as a whole.
“The development of modern forms of rail and magneticªlevitation transport, from Brest in France, through the great rail-hubs such as that of Berlin, to the shores of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, is the natural centerpiece of a global recovery of growth rates in the planet’s physical economy as a whole. These transport links, reinforced by improved and extended inland-waterway systems, and by the development of the infrastructural elements of power-production and pipelines along the pathway of the development corridors defined by the transport links, open the back door across Eurasia for the greatest economic expansion of economic growth in history...”(5)
As LaRouche states, the idea of an integrated Eurasian continent has been the historic nightmare of the British Empire for more than 100 years, and two world wars in thiscentury have been launched to sabotage such a development. Since the power of the British Empire has been based on the monopoly over sea trade and its various “choke points” (ie., Gibraltar, Suez, Singapore, etc.), any development of infrastructure of the land areas, and the resulting industrial explosion, would jeopardize their stranglehold over the world economy. In the early Twentieth Century, geopoliticians like Halford Mackinder, Haushofer, and others openly stated, that if the Eurasian landmass were allowed to develop, then the “Atlantic Rim” powers, ie., the Anglo-Dutch empire and their co-opted American junior partners, would loose their power forever. Thus, the British strategy of so-called “geopolitics” was formulated promoting the idea of “balance of power politics”. In practice, this meant the deliberate manipulation of the various nations and powers of Eurasia against each other. Through these means, any alliance for Eurasian development could be sabotaged by keeping the entire continent continually emersed in conflict and war.
During the period of the First World War, the most accurate description of this British geopolitical strategy was offered by non other then Dr. Sun Yatsen. Within the pages of this little known document, entitled {The Vital Problem of China}, Sun exposed this British grand strategy, and issued a plea to the Northern Chinese government to maintain its neutrality and have no part in joining the British Entente scheme:
“...The key policy of England is to attack the strongest country with the help of the weaker countries, and join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of a third country. This British foreign policy has remained essentially unchanged for two centuries. When England befriends another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight a third country. When an enemy has been shorn of his power, he turns into a friend, and the friend who has become strong, into an enemy. England always remains in a commanding position; she makes other countries fight he wars and she herself reaps the fruits of victory. She has been doing so for hundreds of years...
“In other words, Britain seeks friendship only with those which can render her services, and when her friends are too weak to be of any use to her, they must be sacrificed in her interests. Britain’s tender regard for her friends is like the delicate care usually shown by farmers in the rearing of silkworms; after all the silk has been drawn from the cocoons, they are destroyed by fire or used as food for fish. The present friends of Britain are no more than silkworms, and they are receiving the tender care of Britain simply because there is still some silk left in them...” (6) [GRAPHIC 3]
At the time that Sun Yat-sen wrote this, the Berlin-Baghdad railroad, already under construction at the outbreak of the First World War, would have opened up the Balkan peninsula, as well as Asia Minor and the Middle East to modern industrial and agricultural development. Also, the planned extension of this rail line to Basra and to the Persian Gulf at Kuwait, would have provided an alternate and faster route between Europe and India, directly challenging the British maritime monopoly on this route via Gibraltar, Suez, and into the Indian Ocean. Since Berlin was to be the intersection point of the Trans- Siberian and Baghdad railways, the completion of the Berlin to Baghdad railway, expected for about 1915, would have made Berlin into the undisputed rail hub of the entire Eurasian land mass. This would have made Germany the industrial power of Western Europe, and, in alliance with Russia and a free China, for example, would have served as a base for the massive overland development of Eurasia.In the beginning of the Twentieth Century, such development wouldhave meant the final death of the British Empire. [GRAPHIC 4]
Thus, the British orchestrated the Sino-Japanese and subsequent Russo-Japanese wars, as well as the Balkans conflict, precisely through the geopolitical means described by Sun then, and by LaRouche today. This created the Entente Cordiale between England and France, and later the Triple Entente between England, France and Russia. The Entente was ultimately joined by the United States, which had been corrupted under the increasing political and cultural dominance of certain pro-Confederacy, pro-slavery elements, allied historically to the British Crown. This “balance of power” nightmare achieved its desired effect, sabotaging Eurasian integration and development and plunging the world into the bloodiest war in history.
Sun Yatsen’s Development of China vs. Versailles
Following the disaster of the First World War, Sun YatSen fully realized that the only real future for world peace, was the ability to use the massive modernization and industrial development of China as a new base for the revival of the Eurasian overland network. This plan, circulated throughout the world as {The International Development of China}, could thereby completely outflank the British geopolitcal strategy for Europe and Asia, a strategy whose only result would be further conflict and war. Dr. Sun’s 1919 {The International Development of China} was therefore the principle international proposal of the time aimed precisely toward that end, and was an attempt to revive the earlier, pre-war proposals of Russian Count Sergei Witte and France’s Gabriel Hanotaux. In it, Sun proposed a network of over 100,000 miles of rail transport which would have integrated a modernized China into a community of sovereign nations throughout Eurasia, and ultimately would have included the newly independent nations of the colonized southern hemisphere. The 1919 international circulation of {The International Development of China} served as a concrete alternative to the British inspired post-World War I Versailles arrangements.
By itself, Dr. Sun’s 1919 work is one of the boldest and most comprehensive development plans of the modern era. Since a detailed account of its numerous railway, waterway, and industrial development projects are beyond the immediate scope of this report, we choose rather to focus briefly on the central premise of the entire scheme. Nonetheless, a thorough review of this work is absolutely essential in conceptualizing the modernized version of the infrastructure laid out by Dr. Sun in light of the present drive toward Eurasian integration, and the development of a modern China. As stated above, the core of the 1919 proposal was the development of China through her integration with the rest of the Eurasian continent. In Program I of {The International Development of China}, Dr. Sun’s first priority was the development of a massive east©to©west railway network over the Mongolian Plain. This grand design, which included a north China deep water port connected to over 7,000 miles of rail, was to serve as the “gateway” to the rest of the world, without which there could be no proper internal development of China. [GRAPHIC 5]
The core of this great project was to include:
“I. The construction of a great Northern Port on the Gulf of Chihli.
“II. The building of a system of railways from the Great Northern Port to the Northwestern extremity of China.
“III. The colonization of Mongolia and Sinkiang.
“IV. The construction of canals to connect the inland waterway systems of North and Central China with the Great Northern Port.
“V. The development of the iron and coal fields in Shansi and the construction of an iron and steel works.” (7)
According to Dr. Sun:
“These five projects will be worked out as one program, for each of them will assist and accelerate the development of the others.
“The Great Northern Port will serve as a base of operation of this International Development Scheme, as well as a connecting link of transportation and communication between China and the outer world.”
Dr. Sun’s “outer world” did not refer merely to those maritime powers who had access to China via her eastern Pacific Ocean seaports. Dr. Sun’s connection of China to the “outer world” included a strategic thrust in the other direction, namely west, thus linking up China to the rest of the Eurasian continent:
“...our projected railways will command the most dominating position of world importance. It will form a part of the trunk line of the Eurasian system which will connect the two populous centers, Europe and China, together. It will be the shortest line from the Pacific Coast to Europe. Its branch from Ili will connect with the future Indo-European line, and, through Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, will link up also with the future African system. Then there will be a through route from our projected port to Capetown. There is no existing railway commanding such a world important position as this.”
Dr. Sun then boldly proposed that his 1919 plan be the “keystone in the arch” of any post-war international agreements, specifically the newly formed League of Nations:
“If the above program could be carried out gradually, China will not only be the ‘dumping ground’ or foreign goods but actually will be the ‘economic ocean’ capable of absorbing all the surplus capital as quickly as the industrial nations can possibly produce by the coming industrial revolution of nationalized productive machinery. Then there will be no more competition and commercial struggles in China as well as in the world...
“The world has been greatly benefitted by the development of America as an industrial and commercial nation. So a developed China, with her four hundred millions population, will be another New World in the economic sense. The nations which will take part in this development will reap immense advantages. Furthermore, international cooperation of this kind cannot but help to strengthen the Brotherhood of Man.”
In the preface to one of the editions of {The International Development of China}, Dr. Sun issued a very clear warning to the entire world that his proposal was absolutely necessary to avoid a second world war:
“As soon as Armistice was declared in the recent World War, I began to take up the study of the international Development of China, and to form programs accordingly. I was prompted to do so by my desire to contribute my humble part in the realization of world peace. China, a country possessing a territory of 4,289,000 square miles, a population of 400 million, and the richest mineral and agricultural resources in the world, is now a prey of militaristic and capitalistic powers©©a greater bone of contention than the Balkan peninsula. Unless the Chinese question can be solved peacefully another world war greater than the one just past will be inevitable. In order to solve the Chinese question, I suggest that the vast resources of China be developed internationally...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 present spheres of influence can be abolished; the international commercial war can be done away with; the internecine capitalistic competition can be gotten rid of, and last but not least, the class struggle between capital and labor can be avoided. Thus the root of war will forever be exterminated so far as China is concerned.”
Contrary to many modern views, Sun’s proposal was not some isolated utopian dream. Immediately after the First World War, the pro-development industrial circles of German Foreign Minister Dr. Walter Rathenau, now free from the war-time restrictions of the Kaiser, opened up extensive discussions with Dr. Sun’s friends in Shanghai to participate in the great China project.
This must be seen in light of the independent German-Russian “Rapallo” agreements for joint economic development negotiated between Rathenau and Chicherin in May 1922. Also by that time, industrialist circles from America’s west coast had already negotiated $3 billion worth of trade deals with Russia to assist in her plans for industrialization, in exchange for coal and oil concessions in Siberia. Rathenau’s 1922 independent “Rapallo” agreements with Chicherin thus began a process of the potential formation of a joint German- U.S.-Russia-China postwar alliance for the industrial development of Russia and China, linked up by a revived overland rail network. Fueled by Sun’s plan for the massive development of China’s economy and people, this new Eurasian alliance would have put the British Empire, along with her “geopolitics”, into the grave forever. [GRAPHIC 6]
As witnessed by America’s entry into the First World War on the side of the British, perhaps the greatest tragedy of this period was the corruption of the United States away from the intent of its founding fathers, and of Abraham Lincoln’s ideal of a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” By the time of Sun’s 1919 proposal, both American political parties had been taken over by pro-Empire Anglophiles who sought to use the power and influence of America in service of the British Empire. On the Republican Party side, the combined assassinations of the patriotic presidents Lincoln, Garfield, and finally William McKinley in 1902, handed over the U.S. presidency to self-avowed “Anglo-Saxon race patriot” Theodore Roosevelt. A personal friend of Britain’s King Edward VII, Roosevelt followed in the footsteps of his uncle, James D. Bullock, head of the Confederate secret service in Europe. Likewise, on the Democratic Party side, Woodrow Wilson was a protege of {his} uncle, who was also a leading advocate of the Confederacy in the state of Virginia. Wilson was a fanatical admirer of the culture and traditions of the ruling British aristocracy, and used the office of the White House to revive the “Lost Cause” of the Confederate States of America. Through Wilson’s personal promotion of the infamous film {Birth of a Nation} (otherwise known as {The Clansmen}), America saw the mass recruitment to the terrorist Ku Klux Klan, which, accordingly, grew by five million members during the 1920’s! Thus, Wilson’s readiness to push the United States into the First World War in order to save the British Empire should come as no surprise.
The depth of the takeover of America’s foreign and economic policy by the Anglophile faction is perhaps best illustrated in the official response of the United States Department of Commerce to Dr. Sun’s 1919 proposal. In a letter to Dr. Sun dated May of 1919 (one month after the Versailles conference), U.S. Secretary of Commerce William Redfield’s answer to Sun could just as well have come out of the mouth of one of today’s financial bureaucrats or accountants at the World Bank or International Monetary Fund:
“...You doubtless are fully aware that it would take billions of dollars to carry out even a small portion of your proposals and that most of them would not be able to pay interest charges and expenses for some years to come. The first question to be decided, therefore, is how the interest charges on the necessary loans could be met. The revenues of the Chinese Republic are already too heavily burdened with the interest charges on existing government loans to warrant further charges, and hence it would seem necessary for the present to limit the projects for development to those which seem sufficiently remunerative to attract private capital.” [SUGGESTED GRAPHIC 7]
Although Wilson was replaced as U.S. president in 1920 by Warren G. Harding, whose political base included some of the more Pro-development, anti-British American industrialists, treachery and murder proved effective weapons to finally sabotage this potential alliance for Eurasian development. In the summer of 1922, a mere few months after Rapallo, Walter Rathenau was conveniently assassinated in Germany. Simultaneously, a massive assault was launched against Dr. Sun, aimed at driving his Southern Government out of Canton and killing him if possible.
This assault against Dr. Sun was carried out by warlord Chen Chiong©ming, financed with $500,000 by Sir Charles Addis, manager of the London branch of the Hong Kong©Shanghai Bank! Shortly thereafter, President Harding died mysteriously from complications stemming from alleged “food poisoning” while on a west coast tour of the United States. With the London inspired financial dictats of the Versailles treaty thus secured, the
German economy was reduced to rubble, and the world was soon on a path to depression, fascism and, precisely as Dr. Sun had warned, a second world war.
China’s “Ancient Learning” and the American System
In light of this history, the critical importance ofLaRouche’s battle to retake the United States as a power committed the cause of Eurasian development today should be clear. But, upon what deeper foundation shall a new Chinese-American partnership be established?
Let us look more closely into the philosophical basis of Sun Yat©sen’s ideas of politics and economy. In the last lecture on Nationalism from the 1923 Three Principles of the People series, Sun made an impassioned appeal to all Chinese that the revival of China’s “ancient learning” combined with the highest achievements of Western European science was the only actual basis for a modern Chinese republic. Like Leibniz and theAmerican Founding Fathers, Sun insisted that the foundation and mission of the modern Chinese nation must be the moral development of the individual. Of all the various Confucian texts, Sun singles out the “Great Learning”:
“.....What is this ancient learning? .... China has a specimen of political philosophy so systematic and so clear that nothing has been discovered or spoken by foreign statesmen to equal it. It is found in the ‘Great Learning’: ‘ Search into the nature of things, extend the boundaries of knowledge, make the purpose sincere, regulate the mind, cultivate personal virtue, rule the family, govern the state, pacify the world.’ This calls upon a man to develop from within outward, to begin with his
inner nature and not cease until the world is at peace. Such adeep, all-embracing notion is not found in or spoken by any foreign political philosopher; it is the nugget of wisdom peculiar to China’s philosophy of state and worthy to be preserved.” (8)
In the same lecture cited above, Sun explains that with this“ancient learning” as its foundation, the Chinese state would be able to rapidly assimilate western scientific advances where“human power is able to ‘usurp the power of nature’, so that what heaven assigns to natural forces, human labor itself can thus accomplish.” In December of 1918, Dr. Sun explicitly warned his fellow revolutionaries that, ultimately, it is the development of the individual human mind which is the basis of all political and economic developments:
“ ‘The best method of struggle is to kill the mind.’ So, ancient military strategy teaches us. That is why the national program for reconstruction of our Party suffered from the blow inflicted on our minds by the enemy. The nation is an assembly of individuals, and individuals, in turn, are receptacles of mind.
Thus the affairs of the people are the result of the expressions of mind of groups of individuals. While we believe in our minds the practicability of any plan, be it to move mountains or to fill up the sea, it can be easily accomplished. But when we are convinced of the impracticability, even of such simple acts as to move our hand or to break a twig, they cannot be carried out. Truly great is the power of mind.
“Mind is the beginning of everything that happens in the world. The overthrow of the monarchy was carried out by the mind, the construction of the Republic was delayed and later brought to nought by this same mind. Just at the beginning of the victory of the Chinese Revolution, the revolutionaries themselves became the slaves of the theory of the difficulty of action and the easiness of knowledge, began to look at my plan as a Utopia and empty words, and renounced responsibility for the reconstruction of China...thus the affairs of the Chinese Republic have become more and more complicated and the difficulties of the Chinese people have grown with every passing day.”(9)
Quite lawfully, the Confucian ideal of the moral development of the individual as the basis of the state, the core of Sun’s ideas of politics and economy, harmonizes completely with the ideas of the traditional “American System” approach to physical economy, and with LaRouche’s scientific advancement of those ideas today. To illustrate this, we quote here a few sentences from LaRouche’s recent paper on NATO, cited above, although we highly recommend this and other of LaRouche’s works be read in full:
“...The worthy distinction of the human race, that places it, absolutely apart from, and above the beasts, is that cognitive power inhering uniquely in the human individual, the power both to effect, and to comprehend, valid axiomaticªrevolutionary discoveries of natural principles of our universe. It is by that means, that the power of man over the universe, per capita is successfully increased. Such, according to the implications of Genesis 1:26-30, is the individual human soul.
“Human nature, so defined, is the subject of a branch of physical science, {physical economy}, which was first established, and further developed by Gottfried Leibniz, during the course of 1671-1716. In this branch of science, we measure the demographic performance of society in respect to rates of improvement per capita, per family household, and per square kilometer of relevant area of the Earth’s surface. The measurement of these rates involves notions of efficient function based upon that potential increase of the productive powers of labor, the which is derived solely from the cumulative level of valid axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of principle, in physical science and Classical art-forms.” (10)
Historically, the American System of political economy had been associated with the circles of Benjamin Franklin and first U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, the great German railroad designer Friedrich List, and with Abraham Lincoln, and American System economists Matthew and Henry Carey. The battle of the American Revolution was the thirteen colonies’ insistence on their independence from the British Crown in order to establish a free and sovereign republic whereby all citizens were guaranteed their inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This took the form of the absolute sovereignty of the nation state (republic) which, by providing government backed credit through national banking, could foster the development of infrastructure, manufacturing, mining, universal education, etc. In this way, the sovereign state “promotes the general welfare” by creating the material and cultural conditions required for the expansion of the true wealth of society: the constant increase, and, as LaRouche states {potential} increase of the density of human minds capable of“usurping the power of nature.” Thus, The American System of political economy was formulated as the direct antithesis of the British oligarchical “free trade” system, based on usury, slavery, and colonial exploitation.
In the series of lectures which compose Sun’s most wellªknown doctrine, The Three Principles of the People, Sun focused precisely on the idea of using the state to develop the “productive powers of labor” of the nation. According to Dr. Sun, China must:
“First...begin to build means of communication, railroads and waterways, on a large scale. Second, we must open up mines. China is rich in minerals but alas, they are buried in the earth! Third, we must hasten to foster manufacturing....we must quickly employ state power to promote industry, use machinery in production, and give employment to the workers of the whole nation.”
The doctrine of the Three Principles of the People was the core of Sun Yatsen’s political philosophy, and loudly echoed Abraham Lincoln’s “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”
[SUGGESTED GRAPHIC 8] The Principle of “People’s Sovereignty” was to insure the rights and duties of a republican citizenry to rule their own nation, free from enslavement by a feudal or financial aristocracy.
The Principle of Nationalism would secure the sovereignty of the nation from either foreign imperial manipulation and subjection, or internal disunity, heteronomy and, ultimately civil war. However, Sun Yatsen realized that a truly free and sovereign China were only possible when the vast majority of its people could be lifted out of poverty and backwardness. This could be accomplished if the nation were unified around the national mission of increasing the “Livelihood” of the people, through the promotion of such “great projects” as national railway development, modernization of agriculture, national waterworks, universal education, etc.
Sun Yatsen thus insisted that the leadership of the Chinese revolutionary movement must thoroughly master the Principle of Livelihood:
“Livelihood is the center of government, the center of economics, the center of all historical movements. Just as men once misjudged the center of the solar system, so the old socialists mistook material forces for the center of history...We can no longer say that material issues are the central force in history. We must let the political, social, and economic movements of history gravitate around the problem of livelihood.”
With the development of the people’s “productive powers of labor”, ie., the Principle of Livelihood, as the basis of the nation, then the supposed problems of “class war” and the like were eminently solvable. Below, Sun echoes the American System idea of a possible “harmony of interests” between labor and capital when the power of human labor is allowed to prosper:
“...When production is large and products are rich, the capitalists naturally make fortunes and the workers receive high wages. From this point of view, when the capitalists improve the living conditions of the workers and increase their productivity, the workers can produce more for the capitalists. On the capitalists’ side this means greater production; on the workers’ side higher wages. Here is a reconciliation of the interests of capitalists and workers, rather than a conflict between them....Class war is not the cause of social progress, it is a disease developed in the course of social progress. The cause of the disease is the inability to subsist and the result of the disease is war. What Marx gained through his studies of social problems was a knowledge of diseases in the course of social progress. Therefore, Marx can only be called a social pathologist; we cannot say that he is a social physiologist....Marx, in his study of social problems, found only one of the diseases of society; he did not discover the law of social progress and the central force of history.”
Dr. Sun’s insistence on the Principle of Livelihood also allowed him to see through the fraud of the British East India Company employee Thomas Malthus, and his bogus theory of “zero population growth”:
“.....a hundred years ago an English scholar named Malthus bewailing the world’s overcrowded condition and the limited supply of natural resources for its use, advocated a reduction of population and proposed the theory that ‘population increases in a geometrical, food in an arithmetical ratio.’ Malthus’ theory appealed to the psychology of the French and their love for pleasure. They began to propose that young men should not be embarrassed with family cares and that young women should not bear children; the methods they used to reduce the birth rate were not only the natural ones but also artificial ones. A century ago, France’s population was larger than any other European country, but because of the spread of Malthus’ideas to France and their reception there, the people began to,practice race suicide, and today France is suffering from too small a population, all because of the poisonous Malthusian theory. China’s modern youth, also tainted with Malthus’doctrine, are advocating reduction of the population, unaware of the sorrow which France has experienced. Our new policy calls for increase of population and preservation of the race, so that the Chinese people may perpetuate their existence along with the French race and other races of the world.”
In a wonderful passage from the lectures on Livelihood, Sun proves that this “poisonous Malthusian theory” is simply fraudulent, when the real issue of development is addressed:
“....Compare China and France: the population of France is forty millions, of China four hundred millions; the area of France is about one-twentieth the area of China. Thus China’s population is ten times that of France and her territory twenty times that of France; yet the forty million French people with one twentieth of China’s land can, by improved methods of agriculture, produce a sufficient supply of food for themselves.
If China, twenty times the size of France, would follow the example of France, develop intensive agriculture and multiply production, we would certainly produce at least twenty times as much food as France. France can now support forty million people; China would be able to support at least eight hundred million people. Not only would the people of the country be free from the dread of famine, but there would exist a food surplus which we might contribute to the use of other countries.”
The American founding fathers conceived of a future United States of America as “a beacon of hope and temple of liberty for all mankind.” Likewise, Sun Yat©sen conceived of the mission of a modern China, guided under the Three Principles of the People, as a “divine obligation” to the benefit of all mankind:
“...If we want China to rise to power, we must not only restore our national standing, but we must also assume a great responsibility towards the world. If China cannot assume that responsibility, she will be a great disadvantage not an advantage to the world, no matter how strong she may be. What really is our duty to the world? The road which the Great Powers are travelling today means the destruction of other states; if China, when she becomes strong, wants to crush other countries, copy the Powers’ imperialism, and go their road, we will just be following in their tracks. Only if we ‘rescue the weak and lift up the fallen’ will we be carrying out the divine obligation of our nation. We must aid the weaker and smaller peoples and oppose the great powers of the world. If all the people of the country resolve upon this purpose, our nation will prosper; otherwise, there is no hope for us. Let us today, before China’s development begins, pledge ourselves to lift up the fallen and to aid the weak; then when we become strong and look back upon our own sufferings under the political and economic domination of the Powers and see weaker and smaller peoples undergoing similar treatment, we will rise and smite that imperialism. Then will we be truly ‘governing the state and pacifying the world’ “.[SUGGESTED GRAPHIC 9]
For a new Chinese-American Partnership
Unlike 75 years ago, a vibrant and potent political force, led by LaRouche and his ideas, exists in America today, and is committed to winning the United States back to the cause of real economic development. The successful outcome of this great battle in the United States will secure a new Chinese-American partnership for Eurasian development. The natural inclination of the American System and LaRouche’s scientific method of physical economy to Sun’s Confucian vision of China’s mission for all mankind, creates a beautiful harmony of ideas which can very rapidly become the basis of this new partnership.
Ironically, this revived spirit of Sun Yat-sen among Chinese people today can play an indispensable role in that battle by helping to breath new life back into the soul of America. In a Sept. 5, 1996 article published in the {Indian Express}, geopolitician Samuel Huntington, author of the infamous “clash of civilizations” doctrine, claimed that the major EastªWest conflict of the immediate period ahead will be between the
United States and China. According to Mr. Huntington, “China is unwilling to accept American leadership or hegemony in the world. The U.S. is unwilling to accept Chinese leadership or hegemony in Asia.” For those who have studied Sun Yat-sen and LaRouche today, the thrust of Mr. Huntington’s manipulative “balance of power” politics become as clear as day. Fortunately, the days of such balance of power political doctrines and analysis will soon crumble under the weight of the rotting financial system upon which they are premised. Instead, we truly believe that, if given the choice, most Americans would prefer to travel alongside their Chinese brothers and sisters on the road to the new Landbridge Era of civilization; to choose instead to heed the warning and wisdom of Dr. Sun’s words in his statement “To the Friends of China in the United States”, released in 1912 to the citizens of the United States, the first nation in the world to recognize the Republic of China: [SUGGESTED GRAPHIC 10]
“We understand too well that there are certain men of power not to include for the present certain nations—who would view with a greater or lesser satisfaction an internal rupture in the new [Chinese] Republic. They would welcome as a move toward the accomplishment of their own ends and designs a civil war between the provinces of the north and the south; just as, fifty years ago, there was applause in secret (in certain quarters) over the terrible civil strife in the United States.
“Americans of today who were alive in those dark days of the great republic will remember the feelings in the hearts of the people—the bitter and painful thoughts that arose from the knowledge that foreigners were hoping and praying for the destruction of the American Union.
“Had the war been successful from the South’s standpoint, and had two separate republics been established, is it not likely that perhaps half a dozen or more weak nations would have eventually been established? I believe that such would have been the result; and I further believe that with the one great nation divided politically and commercially outsiders would have stepped in sooner or later and made of America their own. I do not believe that I am stating this too forcibly. If so I have not read history nor studied men and nations intelligently.
“And I feel that we have just such enemies abroad as the American republic had; and that at certain capitals the most welcome announcement that could be made would be that of a rebellion in China against the constituted authorities.
“This is a hard statement to make; but I believe in speaking the truth so that all the world may know and recognize it.”
Today, Chinese and American patriots are indeed fortunate to have the opportunity to lead human civilization out of the present, doomed financial system, and into the Era of the Landbridge. Clearly, a China guided by the ideas of Confucius and Dr. Sun Yat-sen allied with a United States guided by LaRouche’s ideas and influence, is the necessary combination to defeat our shared “enemies abroad.” Toward this end, we highly suggest a further, much more in-depth review of the original writings and ideas of Sun Yat©sen, alongside with those of Lyndon LaRouche.
This great challenge to Chinese patriots was best expressed in the closing sentences of Dr. Sun’s 6th Lecture on Nationalism:
“If we want to be able to reach this ideal in the future, we must now revive our national spirit, recover our national standing, unify the world upon our ancient morality and love of peace, and bring about a universal rule of equality and fraternity. This is the great responsibility which devolves upon our four hundred millions. You, gentlemen, are apart of our four hundred millions; you must all shoulder this responsibility and manifest the true spirit of our nation.”
NOTES:
1. For a detailed account of the Beijing Conference, including text of Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s and others’ speeches, see, {EIR}, vol. 23 #25, July 14, 1996.
2. For a more in©depth discussion of LaRouche’s personal role in accelerating this process through his formulation of the Strategic Defense Initiative, see, “SDI, the Technical Side of Grand Strategy”, by Lyndon LaRouche, {EIR}, vol. 23, #29, July 19.1996.
3. see “A Fifty Year Development Policy for the Indian-Pacific Oceans Basin”, by Lyndon H. LaRouche, {EIR}, August, 1983.
4. For an analysis of the G-7 summit in Lyons, including text of the communique and a thorough refutation of its claims, see {EIR} vol 23, #29, July 19, 1996.
5. “Now, Rid NATO of the Entente Cordial”, by Lyndon LaRouche. {EIR}, vol 23, # 27, June 18, 1996.
6. {The Vital Problem of China}, Sun Yat©sen, english edition, Sino© American Publishing Co., Ltd., Taipei, 1953.
7. all English quotes taken from {The International Development of China}, Sun Yat©sen, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1929.
8. this quote and all others taken from {San Min Chu I, The Three Principles of the People}, Sun Yat©sen, Frank Price, trans., Ministry of Information of the Republic of China, Chungking, 1943.
9. from {Memoirs of a Chinese Revolutionary}, Sun Yat©sen, AMS Press, New York, 1970.
10. op. cit. For a thorough review of LaRouche’s economic method, see LaRouche’s economic textbook {So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics}, by Lyndon LaRouche, {EIR}, 1995.