Nationalism rather than Communism

. . . If we do not earnestly espouse populationalism and weld together our four meg mass into a strong nation, there is danger of chinaware's organism lost and our people destroyed" (Yatsen 133).

If we compare this with the revolutionary disposition of the Communists, an inclination which would tear the country and people into disorderly factions, it is actualise that Nationalism and the Kuomintang (the Nationalist judicature) were the best choices for China if we value, like Hobbes, a nation united under a strong g overnment which seeks not turbulent change but security, order and rubber eraser for the people.

An different important factor in rejecting Communism and pass judgment Nationalism, both from sunbathe Yatsen's and Hobbes's points of view, is that Communism as an external gesture would require China to leap right over the merge principles of Nationalism, moving from the old clan- and family-oriented stance of Confucianism directly to international Communism.

This would clear not suit a politic each(prenominal)y undeveloped nation such as China in that era. Nationalism, on the different hand, would lead to a people united under a government which would assure them security, order and civility, as Hobbes argues the sovereign should do.

The topographic point of the sovereign, be it a monarch or an assembly, consisteth in the end, for which he was trusted with the soverei

gn power, namely the procuration of the caoutchouc of the people; to which he is obliged by the law of nature. . . . moreover by safety here, is not meant a bare preservation, but also all other contentments of life, which every man by lawful industry, without danger, or hurt to the commonwealth, shall acquire to himself (Hobbes 143).

This passage stands in strong support of Nationalism over Communism.

Although Sun Yatsen's ideals take him to believe in more democratic government, he complete that in the turmoil of the third decade of the twentieth century, what China required was stability and order and unity of government and people. This he believed in opposition to the Communists who favored a more international or "cosmopolitan" and turbulent, revolutionary approach to development.

In Hobbes, the people give up power to the sovereign in substitute for safety and security of life and property. In the Nationalism of Sun Yatsen, on the other hand, Hobbes' sovereign power is divided among the people and the government. the people will have "power over the government. . . . This political power is popular sovereignty." The "government organs," on the other hand, "will be powerful and will manage all the nation's business" (Yatsen 135).

Sun Yatsen, however, argues convincingly that cosmopolitanism of the Communist sort was plainly another incarnation of "China's theory of world empire cardinal thousand years ago." Communism would be, in effect, a reverse to the past. In addition, Sun Yatsen argues that Nationalism would
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.