SumanPL

=__**To what extent did Chaing Kaishek implement the principle of People’s Livelihood in the period 1928-1937? **__=

Chaing Kaishek did not successfully implement the principle of people’s livelihood due to various reasons but most significantly due to his move away from Sun Yat Sen’s fundamental concepts. **good start**

Chiang Kaishek, subsequent to Sun Yat Sen’s death, was seen as the man //avoid - informal// who would implement all Sen’s principle and unite China under his leadership. Though it can be viewed that uniting China under one leadership was a difficult task, Kaishek was able to unite most of China under his rule but failed to implement Sen’s principles including people’s livelihood. Factors that demonstrate Kaishek’s move away from Sen’s principle include his desire to create a dictatorship rule over China, corruption in Kaishek’s chosen government and the lack of acknowledgement given to the 70% of the deprived population of China. //I like this summary style sentence. I am keen to see if you have used this to shape your essay?//

Sun Yat Sen’s principle of people’s livelihood majorly focused on achieving equality amongst Chinese citizens through equal share of resources welfare and protection of the poor, equality for women and education opportunity for all. Kaishek, in the period 1928-37, had only limited success in implementing Sen’s principle due to his move away from Sen’s original thoughts. Kaishek’s gradually started to move away from Sun’s fundamental concepts by firstly pursuing German Fascism **date** and consequently having dictatorship rule over China. The effect of this factor is demonstrated through Kaishek’s failure to provide Chinese citizens with equal share of resources, as the government focused drastically on the military and thus not distributing finance equally into the society.

There was a great inequality amongst Chinese people as 70% of the Chinese population that lived in poverty as they did not receive basic rights such as education and land. This can be further considered due the recount provided by an American journalist, Edgar Snow, “I saw...his father..who just died on the road. The shocking thing was that many of those towns there were still rich men...profited enormously.” This recount clearly demonstrated that resources were not being distributed evenly amongst the citizens due to Kaishek’s move Fascist rule which only focused on creating a dictatorship and benefiting from people already in power.

Another factor that demonstrated Kaishek’s move away from Sen’s original principals is the corruption in Kaishek’s government that resulted in the failed to successful implement Sen’s principle of people’s livelihood. As Kaishek significantly focused to maintain his indirect autocratic rule, he only gave his friends, relatives and others in support of him the position and power in the government. This clearly demonstrated the corruption and how people’s livelihood and equality was risked in order to gain control. Corruption was such a major part of the government that even Kaishek supporters started to realize its results and thus spoke against it. This is demonstrated through the quote by Hi Yingchin “Party headquarters at all levels are concerned only about quantity and pay no attention to quality of the members. The spirit of the party therefore became more rotten by the day.” The corruption also resulted in many peasants not receiving their possessions due to the land lords bribing high officials and depriving many of their income. Thus it can be considered that Kaishek’s move away from Sen’s original principles significantly through corruption significantly impacted the Chinese citizens by creating an inequality and depriving many of their possessions.

Lastly, Kaishek’s move away from Sun Yat Sen’s original principle can be demonstrated through the lack of acknowledgement given to the underprivileged citizens of China as identified through the failure in implementation of welfare and protection of the poor. It can be viewed that Kaishek did not achieve this at all as 70% of the population that involved the poor, in period through 1928-37, suffered famine and floods and little was done by Kaishek’s to assist these people. The conditions were worsened for the peasantry when Kaishek, due to military purposes, implemented 44 taxes upon all the citizens of China. One of Kaishek’s supporter viewed this to be very harsh on the peasantry and thus viewed it to be “The direct benefits to the people were very small because the government was not seeking to give immediate and direct help to the people...” Thus it can be viewed that due to lack of acknowledgement given to the peasantry, Kaishek did not achieve equality amongst the Chinese citizens and thus failed to implement Kaishek’s principle of people’s livelihood.

Though many historians have considered that Kaishek has made a genuine attempt in implementing Sen’s principles it can be considered, through the evidence presented in this thesis, that Kaishek did not implement Sen’s third principle of people’s livelihood. Therefore it can be considered that due to Kaishek’s move towards his own ideas rather than the one of Sen’s principle, he failed to implement Sun Yet Sen’s principle of people’s livelihood.

//**The logic and progession of the essay is highly developed. Your understanding is evident in much of what you have written. I would like to see a higher level of historical detail such as dates and statistics to support this. This is a great first effort and has you very much on the road to success in this course.**//