CynthiaPL

**
 * The Principle of People’s Livelihood (Equality)
 * To what extent did Chiang Kai Shek implement the Principle of People’s livelihood in the period 1928 – 1937? **

CHIANG Kai Shek’s implementation of the Principle of People’s livelihood in the period 1928 – 1937 was limited to the point of where it was sacrificed altogether. //**excellent**// As Sun Yat-sen’s successor Chiang Kai Shek was expected to fully put into practice his Three Principles declared during his 1911 Republican Revolution which included government responsibility for providing transport through improved infrastructure, education, supporting the peasantry, improving agriculture and land reform under the principle of the People’s Livelihood. Although, as the revolution progressed Chiang’s military background inevitably presented a conflict of interests and Chiang would come to favour Nationalism over all else, neglect evident in all of the aforementioned areas, the peasantry suffering most. **//this is a comprehensive and clear introduction. well done//**

The implementation of Principle of People’s livelihood in transportation and communication in China during 1928 – 1937 was severely deficient. Chiang’s efforts to modernise were vast. However, these efforts were chiefly directed towards improving China’s military forces and to a much lesser extent the People’s Livelihood and did little to stimulate the economy or benefit the people. For instance, Chiang’s endeavours to improve China’s infrastructure to serve a modernizing state included such developments as the building of the Guangzhou-Hankou railway in 1936 as well as distance of 115 703 kilometres of sealed highway in the same year, yet both these were designed specifically military use and for this reason did little to benefit China’s economy. This fact indicates Chiang’s focus on building military strength and furthering expansion to defend territory and tighten his hold on power. From this, we can infer that Chiang Kai-shek’s efforts to implement the Principle of People’s Livelihood seemed a mere counterfeit pretence to further his nationalistic ideals. **//good level of historical detail//**

During his lifetime Sun Yat-sen emphasised the need for education as a means of achieving national unity and developing skills needed for a modernization and Chiang made plenty an effort to achieve this, however his attempts ended in failure and no further effort was made to overcome the formidable task of educating a nation with a largely illiterate population of peasantry. Chiang’s most notable efforts within the field of education were making compulsory the national language (a step towards natioanl unification) and centralizing the educational administration. Whilst these changes were successful, educational opportunities were very unevenly distributed as Becker states it was a system that was ‘//highly injurious to the masses’//. For instance, most tertiary institutions were concentrated in major urban centres; 103 tertiary institutions were in Beijing and Shanghai whilst in the remote province of Shanxi there were only 4 places for every 10 000 students which, in turn, did nothing to help the already low enrolment rates. Undoubtedly, Chiang was severely incompetent in social matters, and his efforts to establish the Principle of People’s livelihood failed miserably, the nation’s classes were more disparate than ever. In addition, it must be noted that Chiang’s efforts to militarise China were not absent in the field of education. A League of Nations report was highly critical of foreign content of the curriculum and was concerned China was producing a social elite with nothing in common to the masses it had to lead functioning only to serve the interests of Chiangs expanding militia. Whilst there is evidence of a sincere effort to improve education, diminutive attempts were made to provide schools and opportunities in the countryside where 70 per cent of the population resided.

As a population of 350 million, reforming the peasantry would have been a difficult task to take on but they were a vital focus in the implementation of the Principle of the People’s Livelihood a view supported by Li who stated, in estimating ‘//the forces of the revolution we must emphasise that the peasantry is the important part//’. Despite this, the peasantry were largely neglected by Chiang Kai Shek his focus being the bourgeoisie, coastal cities, and landlords, (most of who held the traditional intellectual contempt for the peasant and for agriculture – they reflected Chiang’s ideals; each wished to serve their own interests in the modernizing world, the peasantry reflected the past). During the 1929-1931 floods and famine the government gave little practical relief to millions who lost homes and crops leaving most poverty stricken and 25 million suffering malnutrition whilst those who were rich (such as landlords) continued to reap the people of what they had left. This demonstrates Chiangs blunt ineptitude in implementing the Principle of the People’s Livelihood and failure to win over what should have been his highest priority. Chiang did nothing to relive the people of this devastation, as Edgar snow affirmed ‘//the shocking thing was that many of those towns there were still rich men, rice hoarders, money lenders, and landlords with armed guards to defend them while they profiteered enormously//’. The repercussions of this were revealed during the period 1938-1945 when more than 50 per cent of the peasantry were left in debt. This was Chiangs greatest failure and he himself would suffer the ramifications.

Not all Chiangs efforts were futile: the government did make a serious attempt to increase the productivity of Chinese farms. But even these attempts were marred by the abuse of corruption and efforts to implement the People’s of the People’s Livelihood would be abandoned. The Agricultural bureau of the Ministry of Industries and the Nationalist government sponsored research into new seed varieties, pesticides and fertilisers as well as introducing disease resistant plants and better marketing techniques which aided an improvement in silk, cotton and tea production. However, as Immanuel Hsu argues ‘//beneath the veneer of progress//’ was severe corruption and serious problems; a lack of money hampered further development (only 4% of expenditure went towards agriculture) due to deficit spending on behalf of the government whose income was mainly directed towards improving the military and expanding transport of little use to the people. In addition, the great depression had already led to falling prices and rents rang ing from 50 – 60 per cent of the total crop were common.  Again, efforts were made, this time to counter the growing indebtedness of the peasants by establishing agricultural cooperatives but by 1935 lending by these cooperatives accounted for only 1 per cent of total peasant borrowing. Thus, by 1937 vast majority of China’s peasantry remained locked in poverty and ignorance. Ultimately, the government was not seeking to give immediate and direct help to the people through drastic changes but preferred to follow a slow and gradual policy that, in the end, did naught. From this we can infer that Chiang obviously had a lack of vision for a social revolution and made no attempt to redistribute land amongst the peasants. It is unquestionable that Chiang Kai Shek’s efforts to implement the Principle of People’s livelihood in the period 1928 – 1937 were severely limited to the point where is was neglected altogether. Chiangs military interests and efforts to strengthen his hold on power meant sacrificing the Principle of People’s livelihood and leaving the peasantry as a low priority issue. Sun’s vision was a three-in-one deal and Chiang shopping trolley attitude p//**erhaps a little too informal**// revealed his incompetentece in social matters – destructive to the nation’s wellbeing and ultimately allowing Mao to mobilise the most important force of China’s revolution. One can deduce that Chiangs ignorance, military background and autocratic leanings were the reason for his ultimate downfall.


 * //I am really impressed with this essay. It is clearly articulated and has a high level of historical detail. Keep up this excellent work!!!//**