China is the most important contemporary example that any successful process of construction of national power is the result of a convenient conjugation of an attitude of ideological insubordination with the dominant train of thought and of an effective state impulse.
After the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, a new ruler came to power in the People’s Republic of China. A few years later, Deng Xiaoping would stand tall as its new conductor.  Though as much from the dogmatic Marxist left as from orthodox liberalism, the process started by Deng Xiaoping was considered as a “historic breakthrough”, and for China’s rulers this transformation initiated by him simply meant a “methodological change” in order to reach the same objective for which – in its great majority- those same rulers had accompanied Mao: the rebuilding of China’s national power. From 1978 on, Deng Xiaoping strived for the reconstruction of China’s national power –the same power that Mao had previously sought down the path of socialism- through the idea of Sun Yat-sen.  Deng Xiaoping thus took up once again, when he could have turned the balance of power in his favor, Sun Yat-sen’s idea, that had driven the first attempt at ideological insubordination of modern China.
It is important to redeem, on this point, the idea and action of the conductor of the first movement of ideological insubordination of contemporary China, an idea that was created at a historical moment – early 20th century – that was very peculiar for that country. This vast country found itself, at that time, in a pitiful situation of subordination under which –not being a formal colony of any of the dominant countries of the time – it was, as Sun Yat-sen himself held, a “hyper-colony”, meaning, an non formal colony of all the European powers, but also of Japan and even the Unites States.
Modern day forceful China, whose levels of growth surprise us daily and whose growing development and might would hinder any other observer from preaching that she is not an independent international interlocutor, a little more than one-hundred years ago it was a country plagued with the dominant powers, a cheap provider of raw materials, an a battlefield propitious to settle matter of world predominance between subordinating countries; in synthesis, an object as easily manipulated and shaped as the most set back subordinated countries in the world today.
It is indispensable to remember these references as a starting point for the current splendor of China, not only because many observers – seem to forget it but rather because China’s current growth and might are the fruits of an ironclad national will and a solid state impulse that allowed the oriental giant, in just a few years, to go from set back and absolute subordination to the position of independent international interlocutor that it now holds. The beginning of the process that lead subordinated China to reach contemporary threshold of power had as a starting point the ideological and founding insubordination of Sun Yat-sen. His ideas, later resumed by Deng Xiaoping and followed to the letter by his successors, made it possible for the miracle of China reaching its current threshold of power and autonomy possible, starting from levels of subordination and set back similar to or worse than that which the majority of the countries in Latin America show.
The Political Figure of Sun Yat-sen
Sun Yat-sen, who was born in 1866 in the midst of a family of modest peasants, received a “westernized” education in the Christian missionary schools of Canton, where he converted to Protestantism. The contacts he established from his conversion on made it possible for him to finish his high school in Honolulu and later to study medicine in Hong Kong.
In July of 1900 an army of forty-thousand men made up of soldiers from England, France, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Russia, the United States and Japan, crushed the Boxer Rebellion that had risen up against the foreign occupancy of China. The Boxer Rebellion was born out of the secret society of Yi He Tuan, the “Society of Harmonious Fists”. They were baptized as the “boxers” due to their practicing of boxing and fighting, exercised as a means of stopping the foreign troops present in China. The Boxers were born in Shantung and spread rapidly, despite the repression ordered by the imperial government. Their support base was fundamentally peasant, which made the rebellion turn into a mass movement.
Foreign legations demanded a more energetic repression of the Manchu government, but it was not in condition to carry it out. Therefore, to completely crush the popular rebellion, the foreign powers decided to intervene on their own. Eight countries gathered an army of forty-thousand soldiers at the command of the German marshal Alfred Graf von Walsersee who crushed the Boxer Rebellion. One of Sun Yat-sen’s uncles died fighting the foreign powers.
After the defeat of the Boxers, Sun Yat-sen progressively became the key figure of the Chinese revolutionaries that tried to overthrow the Manchu monarchy, establish democracy and break the economic dependence of China with respects to foreign powers. In that historical moment, to Sun Yat-sen – as for the majority of the Chinese revolutionaries – the enormous problems of his nation found their main explanation in the Manchu conquest and not in Western aggression. To the reasoning of the revolutionaries, Western aggression would not have been possible if China would have been governed by the Chinese (the Ming dynasty fell in 1644, when the Manchurians took control of the Imperial City).
Hence, until 1911 the main objective of the revolutionaries simply consisted of overthrowing the usurping dynasty, a task for which they expected – without some naivety – to have the support of Western powers.
The revolution against the Manchu monarchy broke out October 10th of 1911 and January 1st 1912 a constituent assembly gathered in Nanking proclaimed Sun Yat-sen the president of the newborn Republic of China.
Nevertheless, the opportunistic and pro-monarchic general Yuan She-kai, through a skilled handshake, obtained the abdication of the Manchu emperor on February 12th of that same year, and thus became a true referee of the situation. Before the military superiority of Yuan She-kai, the assembly named him president in place of Sun Yat-sen, who abided by the assembly’s decision convinced that, with it, it would avoid civil war.
It was after 1911 when Sun Yat-sen developed the collection of his conceptions, affirming his conviction that in order for there to be perspectives of a victorious revolution it would be necessary to approach as much the working classes, the peasants, as the national bourgeoisie. Sun Yat-sen founded in 1912 the Kuomintang –which means “national people’s party”- that aspired to organize, into one sole front, as much the small merchants and land owners as the intellectuals and peasants. A few years later it went into exile. China began a period of absolute anarchy, known as the “predominance of the war lords”.
In 1917 Sun Yat-sen returned to China and, despite the fact that he reorganized the Kuomintang as a front of classes with the objective of achieving national unification and independence, he received the support of the Soviet Revolution and established contacts with Lenin. This alliance assured him, after a tortuous process, the help of the Soviet Union, desirous to counter the enormous influence that Western capitalistic powers exercised over China.
Sun Yat-sen died on March 12th of 1925 and left the Kuomintang firmly organized as a poly-class political party, bragging an effective army and backed by the communists. Just one year after Chang Kai-shek, at the head of the Kuomintang, was able to “clean up” all of China south of the Yang-tse River of the “war lords”.
In those years, the political circumstances that China struggled through were observed from Latin America with great attention. This attention, of which we will only mention a few examples, clearly shows the similarity that the most renowned Latin American thinkers of that era perceived between the reality of far off China – in mid-struggle to free itself from the lassos of the hegemonic powers that bound in – and themselves. It is nothing audacious to state that in those days the capacity of autonomy and decision making that China possessed was just as precarious as that of Latin America. The following course of history will do nothing more than to demonstrate where the path of ideological insubordination leads and as where leads that of false “peripheral realism”. It will suffice to observe the absolutely peripheral situation in which the majority of our Latin American countries were left prostrate and the levels of power and autonomy that China gained.
To uphold this similarity we bring to collation some paragraphs of an article from February 1927, a short time before the fall of Shanghai, in which the great Peruvian thinker Jose Carlos Mariategui would write:
The Chinese people find themselves in one of the brashest days of their revolutionary saga. The government’s revolutionary army of Canton threatens Shanghai, or rather, the citadel of foreign imperialism and, in particular, British imperialism. Great Britain threatened to go to combat, organizing a military disembarking in Shanghai. […] And, pointing out the danger of a decisive victory on part of the Cantonese, denounced as Bolsheviks, it makes the effort to mobilize against China, revolutionary and nationalistic, all the great powers. […]
The danger, of course, does not exists for any other means other than for the imperialists to dispute or divvy up the economic dominion of China. The Canton government dos not lay claim to more than the sovereignty of the Chinese in their own country. […] The Chinese people fight simply for their independence (and against) […] the humiliating and vexatious treaties that they impose customs tariffs on China that are against its interest and that exempt the foreigners from the jurisdiction of its judges and laws. […] The Kuomingtang advocates and sustains the principles of Sun Yat-sen, absolute chieftain of China, in whom the most irresponsible slander could not uncover an agent of International Communism. (Quoted by Jose Carlos Mariategui, 1997: 134)
In this same way, a few days after the taking of Shanghai, another great thinker and politician of Latin America, the also Peruvian Victor Raul Haya de la Torre, states from his exile in England:
The triumph of the Cantonese troops, that Chang Kai-shek commands, over Shanghai, the richest and most important city in China, it implies that, without a doubt, one of the most important victorious steps towards unity has been taken by the great Asian republic under the flag of the Kuomintang. The complete dominance of the Kuomintang over china will imply victory of the anti-imperialistic nationalistic policy and will change the course of events, indefinitely. Great Britain has clearly seen the danger and has sent thousands of soldiers to wait, guns ready. […] In Russia, the Cantonese victory has been received as a national victory. […] It is extraordinary how the Chinese victory is shaking the conscience of the Asian peoples. (Haya de la Torre, 1985, 3: 101)
Days after publishing this article, from Lima and in total coincidence with the analysis of young Victor Raul Haya de la Torre, the already mentioned Mariategui states:
The conquest of the millennial capital no longer finds unsurmountable obstacles. England, Japan, the United States, will not cease to conspire against the revolution, exploiting the ambition and the venality of the accessible military chiefs to their suggestions. The intention to tempt Chiang Kai-shek is already being warned. […] But it is not likely that Chiang Kai-shek fall into the net. One must give him the necessary height to appreciate the difference between the historic role of a liberator and that of a traitor to his people. (Quoted by Jose Carlos Mariategui, 1997: 138)
However, Jose Carlos Mariategui erred in his analysis and Chiang Kai-shek fell into the net. The process of founding insubordination initiated by Sun Yat-sen was then left truncated.
The Political Thought of Sun Yat-sen
We have to this point overlooked a synthetic revision of the political actions of Sun Yat-sen and the Popular and National Party founded by him. It goes without saying that a complete and exhaustive exposition of Sun Yat-sen’s thoughts exceeds the limits of this work. Thus we will expose just a brief synthesis of the idea of the founder of the Kuomintang.
Broadly, the political doctrine of Sun Yat-sen goes by the name of “The Three Principles”; this is also the title of his last work, published in 1924. It was in 1905 that Sun Yat-sen used this expression for the first time, seeking to integrate his points of view on nationalism, democracy and the wellbeing of the people into a sole political and revolutionary project.
According to Marie-Claire Bergere, it is necessary to have in mind that Sun Yat-sen went along permanently re-creating his political doctrine according to the ever-changing situation of China and the world, always trying to respond to new circumstances with the reality that he proposed. To him from theory to reality and not from reality to theory needed to always be adopted. As was for other Chinese thinkers – Mao Zedong included- resolved to modernize their country, ideological importation should be at the service of Chinese national objectives. To import new concepts did not imply the adoption of the systems from which they had been born but rather, simply, to use those ideas that seemed most useful to the Chinese national objective (Bergere, 1994: 402).
One cannot state in a general manner –claims Sun Yat-sen- that ideas or good or bad. It is necessary to see if they are useful or useless for reaching our objectives. If they are useful to us, they are good; if they are useless to us, they are bad. (M. Elia Pascal, LeTriple Démisme de Suen Wen, Shanghai, Bureau sinologique de Zi-kawei
, quoted by Bergère, 1994: 403)
To create his political idea, Sun Yat-sen started with the strong idea that China’s evils came mainly from the loss of national conscience on behalf of the great majority of the Chinese people. To him the majority of the Chinese had lost the sense of nation this was the “key” that explained the chaotic situation that the nation was going through: “The Chinese”, claimed Sun Yat-sen, “fell no sentiment of loyalty towards the State-nation, they no longer recognize themselves in it and they claim no obligation with respects to the nation and the State” (quoted by Bergere, 1994: 407). As a logical consequence it is necessary to work intensely to achieve the reconstruction of national conscience of the Chinese people. To Sun Yat-sen, a “great national rebirth” had to come about to reinstall the lost values, whose respect had been able to create the Chinese identity for centuries. He considered that during the 19th century different parts of the Chinese national territory had been amputated” by foreign powers. England, France, Japan and Russia threw themselves on China, tearing off pieces of the “body” of the Chinese nation. The objective of foreign powers was therefore to occupy the soil of the nation. However, he states, from the beginning of the 20th century foreign powers abandoned the policy of territorial occupancy because they understood the enormous difficulty of conquering a territory as vast as China. Moreover, giving up the formal occupancy of that territory, they wished to avoid the rivalries towards which the conquering and divvying up of China would inevitably take them.
Nevertheless, foreign powers, Sun Yat-sen affirmed, did not abandon their objective of “dominating” China and they simply “switched tactics”; they then “slid” from “political oppression to economic oppression”. Foreign powers, namely England, came to the conclusion that they should abandon the objective of achieving political dominance of China in order to try to obtain economic dominance”. But the fact that China was not formally colonized created in the majority of the Chinese population, according to Sun Yat-sen, the illusion that China was a free nation (Bergere, 1994: 409-410).
To the founder of the Kuomintang, a correct analysis of the Chinese reality cannot but start from clear evidence that the Chinese refuse to recognize: “China is a dominated nation”, he affirms.
Sun Yat-sen recognizes that it is true that China, unlike other nations of Africa or Asia, had not been “formally colonized”, and it was because of this that it continued maintaining some of the “formal attributes” of sovereignty. However, with respects to his contemporary fellow countrymen he stated that:
“[the Chinese] are wrong when they jest of the Koreans and Vietnamese calling contemptuously calling them slaves without a motherland”(quoted by Bergere, 1994: 411). He would not tire of warning that the Chinese did wrong in being prideful that their country had not been colonized by any foreign power because –referring to the situation of those years- he stated that: “In reality China has a status inferior to that of a colony because with respects to a colony, at least the metropolis has some responsibility, but with respects to a semi-colony it has none: “China is a colony of all the countries with which it has signed those unjust and leonine treaties”, a fact that turned the Chinese people into a “slave of all the powers” (411) that had “jerked” out of China those unjust treaties. To express the situation of excessive inferiority, humiliation and dominance that China suffered on behalf more than six foreign powers, Sun Yat-sen created the hyper-colony concept. China was a hyper-colony because its sufferings, its state of domination, went beyond that of a simple colony; without formally being a colony of any power it was, in reality, a “semi-colony” of all foreign powers, that proposed unto themselves the indirect dominance of that nation and that exercised over it the most raw and merciless imperialism (Bergere, 1994: 411).
Between 1918 and 1920, Sun Yat-sen exposed his idea on the economic development in a series of articles published in the magazine Construction, official organ of the Kuomintang. These articles were later compiled and published in a book that was edited under the name Plan of National Reconstruction. The work consists of two large parts, the first titled “Psychological Reconstruction” and the second, “Material Reconstruction”. In 1921 the second part of the writing of the Kuomintang leader was translated into English and published in London under the title The International Development of China. Sun Yat-sen later exposed his economic reflections in a more complete and trimmed manner during the conferences that, in 1924, he gave for the doctrinal formation of the political frames of the Kuomintang, conferences that integrated his third book, The Threefold Principle. In The International Development of China the founder of the Kuomintang begins his reasoning with a simple argument, but a convincing one. The fundamental reality of Chinese society is poverty,9 and “the radical remedy for that evil is industrial development” (Sun Yat-sen, The International Developmentof China , quoted by Bergère, 1994: 320), following the example of the United States and Germany that, through industrial protection, went from agricultural nations to industrials powers. Modern China, with its amazing, sustained and accelerated development, is the best example of what the measure in which these ideas were translated, with political decisions and state impulse, into palpable realities.
According to Sun Yat-sen, in order to carry out the reconstruction of China a great project of national development was needed that would plan out that industrial development and kick start the construction of railways, the channeling of the larger rivers, the construction of dams and all the infrastructure necessary that would allow it overcome poverty and economic dominance from foreign powers.
Nevertheless, the challenge of modernizing and industrializing China, in order to “catch back” lost time it had to turn, in as much as was possible, with the West and not against the West. Because it was the West that possessed the capital, the industrial equipment and the technicians that China needed in order to start its national development. But the participation of foreign capital in China’s development had to be regulated thinking always in the long-term and in national interest. Thus the leader of the Kuomintang stated:
During the construction and commissioning, all the big national projects will be engineered and managed by Western experts […] who, as part of their obligations, would have to train up Chinese assistants destined to replace them in the future. (Sun Yat-sen, The International Development of China , quoted by Bergère,1994: 320)
Looking over these ideas can lead us nowhere else but to amazement for, written almost ninety years ago, however, they sound like a story of how powerful modern China was able to overcome its situation of subordination and enter into the restricted group of main player nations of history. It looks even more like a story of recent events than one of a future proposal.
There is no doubt that this ideological insubordination would show the way down which China would be able to cross the threshold of power and once again become, after a dark period of submission, a subject of history.
The Materialization of Ideas
To further support our asseveration, we need nothing more than to give a quick overview of the policies that, from approximately 1979 on, China has been applying. Of the mere re-telling of the facts one could not only extract with clarity that the policies of the Chinese State followed Sun Yat-sen’s proposals with an almost meticulous neatness, but also that, beyond this, it can be seen that the obtained result is not the fruit of randomness but rather of the correct application of those policies. Thus, in 1979 in southeast China the first four “Special Economic Zones” are created and in 1984 fourteen more coastal cities open up to foreign capital. In 1990 the process had already begun to reach the interior of the country. Multinational companies satisfactorily welcomed the new model of Chinese development: national capitalism rigidly directed by the central State.
According to the World Investment Report created by the UNCTAD, the annual average of direct foreign investments in China between 1980 and 1985 reached 718 million dollars. Ten years later, in 1995, these investment were already fifty times higher than between 1980 and 1985. In 1996, they added up to 40,180 million dollars and in 2001 they reached 46,846 million dollars. In twenty years, of the five-hundred largest consortiums in the world, four-hundred had already been installed in the People’s Republic of China. In the city of Shanghai alone ninety-eight multinational companies had been established. From 1990 on the wave of foreign investments in China made by companies from the United States, Europe and Japan became a constant occurrence in the international economy.
Without a doubt, 1990 was the year in which the “Chinese model of development” was able to turn an important page in the economic history of the People’s Republic given that, from that year on, China had a positive commercial balance through which in just 1997 and 2001 it was able to gain foreign exchange for 159,700 million dollars. No other economy in the world since then has been able to match the growth rate of China’s domestic gross product since it has maintained an annual increase rate of 10 percent since the decade of the 80’s, in a sustained and uninterrupted way. To such a point that today, in economic jargon, to say “to grow at Chinese rates” means saying to grow a lot, in a quick and sustained way.
From then on, Chinese leadership had the fundamental objective of creating a group of monopolies with the capacity to operate worldwide. Between 1980 and year 2000 exportation capital grew from 148 million dollars to 402,400 million dollars, or rather, 2,700 times over. A large part of those investments flowed, increasingly, towards countries on the way to development or outright under-developed ones, with the end goal of exploiting imperative raw materials for the continuation of the development of the People’s Republic of China.
In 1998 the Chinese state businesses had already completed investments in twenty-four States of Latin America and had created 195 companies, be it under the title of joint ventures or of purely Chinese companies, with a total investment volume of more than 300 million dollars. In 1992 the Chinese consortium Shougang purchased the Marcona iron mine in Peru, for which it paid a sum of 120 million dollars. It is important to point out that the leaders in Chinese capital exportation are two completely state-run petroleum companies: China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and SINOPEC. China National Petroleum reached a sales volume of 41,500 million dollars in 2001 and, officially, obtained earnings of 5 billion. SINOPEC, on its side, was hot on its heels by reaching a sales volume of 40,400 million dollars that same year. In 1993 CNPC had gained petroleum concessions in Iraq, Kazakhstan, Peru, Sudan and Venezuela, and tried to penetrate Turkmenistan, Indonesia and Iran. For a brief period the Chinese petroleum consortiums in condition to compete in an aggressive way –especially in the Near East in socialist ex-Soviet republics of Turkestan- with American, European and Russian companies.
The policy of “capital exportation” was accompanied, from the beginning, by a policy of “population exportation”. This last policy is oriented towards the creation, abroad, of large Chinese colonies. Its “strategic” objective consists of establishing, in the near future, important population hubs that can remain linked, culturally and emotionally, to China and that therefore tend to be “loyal servants” of Chinese foreign policy.
For a correct analysis of the Chinese economic process it would help to have in mind that the Beijing government never stopped “orienting and planning” foreign capital investment. Until the 90’s the Chinese government oriented the greater part of its foreign capital towards production based on heavy labor in the Special Economic Zones. Nevertheless, from that date on, it tried to orient the penetration of foreign capital towards the production of more advanced assets that would demand a large amount of capital and technology. Thus huge conglomerate companies were created with Chinese state companies with the goal of obtaining an important transfer of capital and technology. The leadership left clearly established that, in order to do business in their country, foreign companies had to transfer technology. A true politico-jurisdictional translation of the old postulations of Sun Yat-sen.
From 1990 on, China decided to take a great leap forward to an economy based on knowledge. State impulse was then aimed at developing an autochthonous technological capacity – that would match the West- in order to use it as a base for the consecution of the greatest capacity of technological innovation possible. The Chinese State then sent thousands of scientists to be educated in universities in the United States and Europe:
Willing to reach the West, the Chinese leaders knew that that would be impossible if China focused exclusively on the low technology development, while the United States shed itself of the industries of the second wave and hurried to create a high-tech economy. Therefore, they decided that China needed more than factories where workers were exploited. It also needed its own sector of high added value, intensive knowledge and worldwide reach. (Toffler, 2006: 435)
From 1990 on the Chinese leadership decided to carry out a “parallel development” strategy. This strategy came from the main idea that China should not concentrate all its energy on accelerated development but rather, at the same time that the industrialization plan was developed, it should “try to develop an economy of intensive knowledge, avoiding, where possible, the traditional stages of industrialization” (Toffler, 2006: 403).
The strategy of transfer of technology was particularly visible in the automobile industry and in that of telecommunications. On this strategy, Adalbert Niedenzu states in his study Die Automobilindustrie in China (www.lehrer-on-line.de, July 1st of 2002):
The joint ventures serve the Chinese government like “milk cows” of the Chinese automobile sector. That means that the foreign firm makes an important transfer of technology to China, for which the Chinese government intervenes directly in the negotiations and determines what technology should be transferred. […] Furthermore, on the Chinese side, it is stipulated that for joint ventures a large part (up to more than 90 percent) of the parts used must be produced in China and not imported from abroad.
Once again, political fact does not stray from the precepts of development and directives lined out by Sun Yat-sen.
Today, state impulse is mainly set in the terrain of high technology, in which Chinese companies begin to successfully compete with their foreign rivals. Currently, the Chinese computer market –that until 1990 was in the hands of IBM, Compaq and Hewlett-Packard- is being penetrated by the Chinese computer manufacturer Legend, which currently possesses a local market of 27 percent.
In 2030 China could become the largest economy in the world and, in such case, very probably surpass that of the United States by 50 percent, which would then take second place. India, whose economy could reach the equivalent to half that of China, would take third place and Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Brazil, considered individually, would not represent even one tenth of the Chinese economy.
By this possibility becoming reality, which would imply a sustained growth of China for a prolonged period of time, this country would be elevating, once again in history, the threshold of power, just as did the United States in its time by having completed its process of industrialization.
1. During a brief period starting in 1976, Hua Guo Feng, as chosen successor to Mao, conducted the destiny of the People’s Republic of China. Nevertheless, the meeting the Party Central Committee that officially approved Hua’s position as successor to Mao, also approved “the return of Deng Xiaoping, who would become a member of the Politburo Permanent Committee, vice-president of the Party, vice-Prime Minister and Senior Chief of State of the ELP. […] Between 1978 and 1979, Hua Guo Feng’s position became more and more vulnerable. In 1979 his ambitious decennial plan was practically discarded. On the contrary, between 1978 and 1980, following the ideas of Deng Xiaoping, “the first steps to de-collectivize agriculture were taken and to introduce autonomy of management in public urban companies”. In the fifth session of the eleventh Central Party Committee, celebrated in February of 1980, Zhao Ziyan y Hu Yaobang, two key advocates of Deng Xiaoping, were chosen as members of the Politburo Permanent Committee. In August 1980, Hua renounces his charge as Prime Minister and is replaced Zhao Ziyang. Deng Xiaoping therefore becomes the new rudder for the People’s Republic of China (Bailey, 2002: 213-215).
2. For more on the reforms of Deng Xiaoping (1978-1988), see John Fairbank (1996).
3. For more on the Boxer Rebellion, see Jean Chesneaux (1970).
4. For more on Chinese nationalism as a movement aimed mainly at overthrowing the Manchu monarchy, see Marie-Claire Bergere (1994: 409)
5. For more on the relationship between the Chinese Revolution of 1911 and Sun yat-sen, see Eugene Anschel (1986), Harold Schiffrin (1968).
6. For more on the Chinese Revolution of 1911, see Marie-Claire Bergère (1968), Albert Maybon (1914).
7. In 1912 Lenin, in an article titled “Democracy and Populism in China”, analyzed the political figure of Sun Yat-sen. There he praised “the true democratic spirit” of Sun Yat-sen and his “warm sympathy for the masses”, but he observes that he is, at the same time, the bearer of naïve ambitions and small bourgeoisie. In another article, dated Abril 1913, under the title of “The struggles of the party in China”, Lenin analyzes the political party founded by Sun Yat-sen and he comes to the conclusion that the weakness of the Kuomintang is in its incapacity to attract the great mass of the Chinese people towards the revolutionary current and he criticizes the weakness of the Kuomingtang leaders, calling them “dreamers and indecisive”. Political avatars made Lenin not be able to later continue analyzing the future of the Chinese Revolution, which took him to state, in 1921, that “I know nothing of the insurgents and revolutionaries of southern China” commanded by Sun Yat-sen. For more, see Shao-ChuanLeng and Norman Palmer (1960: 53).
8. For more on the policy followed but the Soviet Union in China, see Allen Whiting (1954).
10. International Economy, November-December of 1996, informed that the annual income of the fifty million expatriated Chinese added up to approximately 540 thousand million dollars, more or less equal, therefore, to the domestic gross product of mainland China. According to this publication, the expatriated Chinese controlled around 90 percent of the Indonesian economy, 75 percent of the Thai economy, 60 percent of the Malay economy and all of the economies of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. The worries with respects to this situation even took an ex Indonesian ambassador in Japan to publicly warn about a “Chinese economic intervention in the region that would not only exploit that presence but that could even lead to the creation of puppet governments sponsored by China” (SaydimanSuryohadiprojo,“How to Deal with China and Taiwan”, Asahi Shimbun, Tokio, September 23rd of 1996, quoted by Z. Brzezinski, 1998: 172).
ANDREWS, C.M., The Colonial Background of the American Revolution, ed. Univ. de Yale, New Haven, 1924.
ANDREOTTI, Gonzalo Cruz, “Introducción general” a POLIVIO, Historia. Libros I-V, Madrid, Ed. Gredos, 2000.
ARON, Raymond, Paix et guerre entre les nations (avec une presentation inédite de l’auteur), París, Calmann-Lévy, 1984.
BAILEY, Paul, China en el siglo XX, Barcelona, Ed. Ariel, 2002.
BEER, G.L., The Old Colonial System, 1660-1754, ed. Macmillan, Nueva York, 1912.
BENEYTO, Juan, Fortuna de Venecia. Historia de una fama política. Madrid, Ed Revista de Occidente, 1947.
BEY, Essad, Mahoma: Historia de los árabes, Buenos Aires, Ed. Arábigo-Argentina El Nilo, 1946.
BENZ, Wolfgang, Amerikanische Besatzungsherrschaft in Japan 1945-1947. Dokumentation. Vierteljahrshefte fur Zeitgeschichte, 26 .Jhg, 2H, abril 1978.
BIEDA, Karl. The Structure an Operation of the Jananese Economy. Sydney, ed John Wiley, 1970.
BRINES, Russel. Mac Arthur’s Japan. New York, ed Lippincott, 1948.
BROSSAR,DE, Maurice, Historia Marítima del mundo, Madrid, ed. Edimat, 2005.
BROCHIER, Hubert. Le miracle économique japonais 1950-1970. Paris, Calman-Levy, 1970
BRZEZINSKI, Zbigniew, El gran tablero mundial. La supremacía estadounidense y sus imperativos geoestratégicos, Barcelona, 1998.
CARMAN, H. J., Social and Economic History of the Uneted States, ed. Heath, Boston 1930.
CLAPHAM, John, The Economic Development of France an Germany, 1815-1914, Londres, Cambridge University Press, 1936.
CLARK, V. S., History of Manufactures in ten United States, 1607-1860, ed. Carnegie Institution, Washington, 1916.
CLAUDER Anna, American Commerce as Affected by the Wars of French Revolution and Napoleon, 1793-1812, ed Univ de Pensilvania, Filadelfia, 1932.
CLAUSEWITZ, Karl von, De la guerra, Buenos Aires, Ed. Labor, 1994.
CLOUGH, Shepard Banroft, France: A History of Nacional Economics, 1789-1939, Nueva York, ed. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1939.
COLE, G.D.H, Introducción a la historia económica, Buenos Aires, ed. Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1985.
COSANZA, Mario Emilio, The Complete Journal of Towsend Harris, First American Consul General and Minister to Japon, New York, ed Japan Society, 1930
COSTA, Darc, Estrategia nacional, la Cooperación sudamericana como camino para la inserción internacional de la región, Ed. Prometeo, Buenos Aires, 2005
DAWSON, William, Protection in Germany: A History of German Fiscal Policy During the Nineteenth Century, Londres, ed. P. King, 1904.
DAWSON, William, The Evolution of Modern Germany, Nueva York, Ed Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1919.
DERRY T.K y WILLIAMS Trevor, Historia de la tecnología, Madrid, Ed Siglo XXI, 2000.
DROZ, Jacques, La formación de la unidad alemana 1789/1871, Barcelona, ed. Vicens-Vives, 1973.
EGERTON, H.E.,Short History of British Colonial Policy, ed. Methue, Londres, 1924.
EAST, R. A, Business Enterprise in the American Revolutionary Era, Ed. de la Univ. de Columbia, Nueva York, 1938.
FAIRBANK, John, China: una nueva historia, Barcelona, ed. Andrés Bello,1996.
FERRER, Aldo, De Cristóbal Colón a Internet: América Latina y la globalización, Bs.As.,Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1999.
FERRER, Aldo, Historia de la globalización. Orígenes del orden económico mundial, Bs. As., Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2001.
FERRER, Aldo, Hechos y ficciones de la globalización. Argentina y el MERCOSUR en el sistema internacional, Bs. As., Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2001.
FRIEDLANDER, H.E y OSER, J, Historia económica de la Europa Moderna, México, ed. Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1957.
FULBROOK, Mary, Historia de Alemania, Cambridge, Ed.Cambrige University Press, 1995.
GADDIS, John Lewis, Estados Unidos y los orígenes de la guerra fría. 1941-1947, Buenos Aires, Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, 1989.
GUILLAIN, Robert. Japon Troisieme Grand. Paris, ed. Seuil, 1969.
HART Michael y NEGRI, Antonio, Imperio, Buenos Aires, ed. Paidos, 2003.
HART, Michael y NEGRI, Antonio, Multitud. Guerra y democracia en la era del Imperio, Buenos Aires, ed. Sudamericana, 2004.
HECKSCHER, Eli, The Continental System, an Economic Interpretation, Oxford, University Press, 1922
HORROCKS, J.W., A Short History of Mercantilism, ed. Metheu, Londres, 1924
HOFFMANN, Stanley, Jano y Minerva. Ensayos sobre la guerra y la paz, Buenos Aires, Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, 1991.
HOBSBAWM, Eric, Industria e Imperio, Buenos Aires, Ed. Ariel, 1998.
HOBSBAWM, Eric, La era de la Revolución 1789-1848.
HOBSBAWN, Eric. La era del capital, 1848-1875. Buenos Aires, ed. Planeta, 1978.
HUGH, Thomas, El Imperio Español. De Colón a Magallanes, Buenos Aires, ed. Planeta, 2004.
IMBER, Colin, El imperio Otomano, Buenos Aires, ed. Vergara, 2004.
JAGUARIBE, Helio, Un estudio crítico de la historia, Buenos Aires, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2001.
KONETZKE, Richard, El Imperio español, orígenes y fundamentes, Madrid, Ediciones Nueva Epoca, 1946.
HENDERSON, William, The Zollverein, Londres, Cambridge University Press, 1939
HOFFMANN, Stanley, Jano y Minerva. Ensayos sobre la guerra y la paz, Buenos Aires, Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, 1991.
HUGH, Thomas, El Imperio Español. De Colón a Magallanes, Buenos Aires, ed. Planeta, 2004.
LACY, Dan, El significado de la Revolución norteamericana, Buenos Aires, ed. Troquel, 1969.
LEVASSEUR, E, Histoire du commerce de la France de 1789 a nos jours, vol II, París, ed Arthur Rousseau, 1912.
LIANG, Quiao y XIANGSUI, Wang, Guerra senza limite, ed. Librería Editrice Goriziana, Gorizia, 2001
LIST, Friedrich, Sistema Nacional de Economía Política, Madrid, Ed, Aguilar, 1955.
LICHTEHEIM, George, El imperialismo, Madrid, ed. Alianza, 1972.
LUDWIG, Emil, Historia de Alemania, Buenos Aires, ed. Anaconda, 1944.
MAC ARTHUR, Douglas. Reminiscences. London, ed. Heinemann, 1964.
MIGUENS, José Enrique, Democracia práctica. Para una ciudadanía con sentido común, Buenos Aires, Emecé editores, 2004.
MCLUHAN, Marshall, Guerra y paz en la aldea global, Barcelona, ed. Planeta –De Agostini, 1985.
METHOL FERRE, Alberto y METALLI, Alver, La América Latina del siglo XXI, Buenos Aires, Ed. Edhsa, 2006.
MILLER, William, Nueva Historia de los Estados Unidos, Buenos Aires, ed. Nova, 1961.
MONIZ BANDEIRA, Luiz Alberto, Argentina, Brasil y Estados Unidos. De la Triple Alianza al Mercosur, Buenos Aires, Ed. Norma, 2004.
MONIZ BANDEIRA, Luiz Alberto, La formación de los Estados en la cuenca del Plata, Buenos Aires, Grupo Editor Norma, 2006.
MORGENTHAU, Hans, Política entre las naciones. La lucha por el poder y la paz, Buenos Aires, Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, 1986.
MORISHIMA, Michio, ¿Por qué ha triunfado Japón?, Barcelona, ed. Critica, 1997.
MORRISON, Samuel Eliot, Old Bruin. Commodore Matthew C. Perry, 1794-1858, Boston, ed. Little Brown, 1967.
NEUMANN, William, America Encounters Japan. From Perry to MacArthur. London, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1963.
NYE, Joseph, La naturaleza cambiante del poder norteamericano, Buenos Aires, Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, 1991.
OHKAWA, Kazuski and ROSOVSKI, Henry. Japanese Economic Growth. Trend Acceleration in the Twentieth Century. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1973.
PANICAR, K.M., Asia y la dominación occidental. Un examen de la historia de Asia desde la llegada de Vasco da Gama 1498-1945, Buenos Aires, ed. Eudeba, 1966.
PIERENKEMPER, Toni, La industrialización en el siglo XIX , Madrid, ed. Siglo XXI, 2001.
PINHEIRO GUIMARAES, Samuel, Cinco siglos de periferia. Una contribución al estudio de la política internacional, Buenos Aires, Ed. Prometeo, 2005.
POLIBIO, Historias, libros I-V, Madrid, Ed. Gredos, 2000.
POHLE, Ludwig, Die Entwicklung des deutschen Wirtschafatslebens im letzten Jahrhundert, Leipzig, ed. Teubner, 1923.
POTEMKIN, V. , Historia de la Diplomacia, Buenos Aires, ed. Lautaro, 1943.
PUIG, Juan Carlos, Doctrinas internacionales y autonomía latinoamericana, Caracas, Ed del Instituto de Altos Estudios de América Latina de la Univ. Simón Bolívar, 1980.
REISCHAUDER, E.O. Histoire du Japón et des Japonais de 1945 a 1970. Paris, ed Seuil, 1970.
RIBEIRO, Darcy, El proceso civilizatorio: de la revolución agrícola a la termonuclear, Buenos Aires, Centro editor de América Latina, 1971.
SEDILLOT, René, Histoire des Colonisations, Paris, ed. Fayard, 1958.
SCHULTZ, Helga, Historia económica de Europa, 1500-1800, Madrid, ed Siglo XXI, 2001.
SCHMOLLER, Gustav, The Mercantile System and Its Historical Significance, ed. Smith, Nueva York, 1931.
TAKAHASHI, Kamekichi, The Rise and Development of Japan’s Modern Economy, Tokio, The Jiji Press, 1969.
TOFFLER, Alvin, La revolución de la riqueza, Buenos Aires, ed. Sudamericana, 2006.
TOYNBEE, Arnold, La civilización puesta a prueba”, Buenos Aires, Emecé Editores,1967.
TRIAS, Vivian, El Imperio británico, Cuadernos de Crisis n°24, Buenos Aires, ed. Del noroeste, 1976.
TRYON, R.M.Household Manufactures in the Unites States, 1640-1860, ed. Univ. de Chicago, Chicago, 1917.
UNDERWOOD FAULKNER, Harold, Historia Económica de los Estados Unidos, Buenos Aires, ed. Novoa, 1956.
WARD, Robert. “Democracy and Planned Political Change”. The Japan Foundation Newsletter, vol. IV, n° 6, febrero 1977.
DUSSEL, Enrique, “La china (1421-1800). Razones para cuestionar el eurocentrismo”, Otro Sur, Año 1, n°2, Rosario, agosto 2004.
HACKER, Louis, “The First Amecican Revoluction”, Columbia University Quaterly, n° XXVII, 1935.
HAN, Su ngjoo. “Japan’s PXL decisión. The Politics of Weapons Procurement”. Asian Survey, vol XXIII, n° 8, 1978.
HATA Ikuhiko, “Japan under Occupation”.The Japan Interpreter, vol 10, Winter 1976.
HOBSBAWM, Eric “Un imperio que no es como los demás”, Le Monde diplomatique, Bs. As., año IV, n° 48, junio 2003.
NYE, Joseph, “Política de seducción, no de garrote”, Clarín, Buenos Aires, 11 de septiembre 2006.
ZAITSEV, V. “Japan’s Economic Policies: Illusions and Realities”.Far Eastern Affaier, n°1, 1978.
SATO, Seiichiro. “The Trouble with MITI”, Japan Echo, vol. V, n°3, 1978.