The purpose of this study is to find out whether Dr. Sun Yat-sen's land program, i.e., the "equalization of land-ownership" and "land to the tillers," is equivalent to the nationalization of land. The views expressed herein are solely those of the writer.
To begin with, it is necessary to define the Chinese term Tu Ti Kuo Yo which literally means the state ownership of land. Some people use the term in the sense that the state has the ultimate right of property to the land within its territorial jurisdiction.1 Others employ it to denote the public lands which the state owns as corporate possessions. Both the views are irrelevant to the question when we attempt to discuss the land problem.
In our discussion of the land problem here, the expression "state ownership of land" is used to mean the nationalization of land. It is an institution in contradistinction to the private ownership of land.2 All private landownership is abolished if land is nationalized. Land is nationalized when all private land is taken over by the state with or without payment of compensation. Proceeding on the assumption that the state ownership of land is so defined, we propose to examine Dr. Sun's land program in what follows.
Let us first consider the question of the equalization of land-ownership. Recently it has often been said that the equalization of land-ownership as enunciated by Dr. Sun Yat-sen is nothing but the nationalization of land. The main basis of this thesis is Dr. Sun's own assertion that the equalization of land-ownership is the "state ownership of land."
As far as the present writer is aware, Dr. Sun made such statements only in 1912, and die not repeat his words afterwards. Speaking before the Shanghai office of the Tung Meng Hui, the predecessor of the Kuomintang, Dr. Sun indicated in April, 1912 that "if land and big enterprises are owned by the state, their products can still be shared by the people."3 In a speech delivered before a group of newspapermen in Canton on May 4 of the same year, he pointed out that "as there is today practically no room for equalization (of land-ownership), we have worked out a plan for natural equalization. The plan includes (1) the land tax ad valorem and (2) the state ownership of land. There will be no fear of unequal distribution of land if these two measures, each supplementary to the other, are carried out at one and the same time."4 On May 13, Dr. Sun told a prominent newspaperman that "with respect to the livelihood of the people, I would favor the taxation of deeds and the equalization of land-ownership. The latter will be carried out through (1) the land tax ad valorem and (2) the state ownership of land."5 "I would like to have the landowner," he went on to say, "fix the value of his land himself. He will be checked by the policy of state ownership of land. If his land is assessed too low, the government can buy it back according to the declared value." "The state ownership of land," he added, "would do no harm to the people."6 In his address given May 15-17 on the subject of the Schools of Socialism, he observed that "the public ownership of land is an excellent idea."7
It is interesting to note that notwithstanding his statements like the above, Dr. Sun actually did not advocate the nationalization of land at all. What he meant by the state ownership of land is literally what is known as the program of "buying of land according to its value," one of the methods to be employed for the equalization of land-ownership. This is confirmed by Dr. Sun's own remarks. In a farewell address to members of his party (Tung Meng Hui) after his resignation as Provisional President, he declared on April 1, 1912, that "there are people who favor the state ownership of land in order to achieve equalization. But I am afraid the government will not have the financial power to buy back all the land of the country. The best way would be for people to pay the land tax."8 Moreover, even at the moment when he said the idea of equalization is simply the state ownership of land, he asserted: "The state ownership of land does not require all land to be bought back by the state. If some land, coupled with the construction work on it like houses, cemeteries, etc, is needed for the building up of, say, highways or towns, the state may get it by purchase at a price fixed when the deeds were taxed."9 "There are," he added, "many scholars in the world who are in favor of the nationalization of land. They are, indeed, right and have all my sympathy. But it seems to me that it is not necessary to have all land nationalized; it would be sufficient to nationalize the land needed."10
D. Sun's statements cited above serve to show that the equalization of land-ownership as set forth by him is by no means synonymous with the nationalization of land. It is simply a program for the government to buy back land according to its value, coupled with the right of eminent domain. Taken together, these two measures constitute the gist of the equalization of land-ownership program.
In this connection, it is necessary to add that these two measures, though having the same effect of turning private land to the state, carry with them different meanings. As we know, there are four concrete steps in Dr. Sun's plan to equalize land-ownership. These are: First, the landowner assesses his land himself and reports its value to the government. Second, the government taxes the land ad valorem, if it is found that the declared value of the land is not lower than its real value. Third, the government buys back the land according to the declared value, if the declared value is found to be lower than the real value. Fourth, future increments revert to the state. From these four steps it can be seen that the program for the government to buy back land according to its value serves only as a check to a possible low assessment on the part of the landowner. On the other hand, the eminent domain is the right of expropriation in case the government needs a certain piece of land for a particular purpose. It has nothing to do with the question whether the landowner makes a low assessment of his land or not.
There is another question which deserves attention. That is that despite his refusal to accept the idea of a general nationalization of land, Dr. Sun did favor the state ownership of a particular class of land, viz., the new urban land. According to him, when a new city is planned, the tract of land intended for its site should be bought by the government before the city is built up. In this case, the future increments will automatically go to the state. In other words, the new urban land together with its increased value will all belong to the state. In discussing the municipal problems in Kiangsi province, Dr. Sun said in 1912:
"The existing streets should not be changed. We must only select a huge tract of land to build up a new civic and business center. When government offices, schools and banks all move there, the old quarters will naturally become obsolete. These can then be reconstructed without difficulty. As for the new tract of land needed, it shoaled be bought by the government."11
This, then, is Dr. Sun's idea of public ownership of the new urban land. This idea finds expression in quite a few sections in his book "The International Development of China" published in 1922. In regard to the projected Great Northern Port, he observes: "The land which we select to be the site of our projected port is now almost next to nothing. Let us say two or three hundred square miles be taken up as national property absolutely for our future city building. If, within forty years, we could develop a city as large as Philadelphia, not to say New York, the land value alone will be sufficient to pay off the capital invested in its development."12 With respect to the projected Great Eastern Port, he declares: "The land between Chapu and Kanpu and farther on will not cost more than fifty to one hundred dollars a mow. The state should take up a few hundred square miles of land in this neighborhood for the scheme of our future city development."13 "To create Pootung Point," he adds, "therefore, as a civic center and to build a new bund farther on along the left bank of the new canal in order to increase the value of the new land which would result from this scheme must be kept in mind."14 As regards the construction of the river ports along the Yangtse, Dr. Sun advocates the requisition of lands to build up new commercial centers in Chinkiang,15 Nanking,16 Pukow,17 and Wuhan.18 In these places, the increased land values should all revert to the state. He expressed the same views in regard to the building of a new city at Canton.19
As we know, Dr. Sun's plan for the new urban land is only part of his program for the equalization of land-ownership. Certainly we cannot identify a part with the whole and maintain that the equalization of land-ownership is precisely equivalent to the nationalization of land.
Let us now turn to another program of Dr. Sun, viz., land to the tillers. These days, people are heatedly arguing with one another about the question whether this program means the nationalization of land also. My answer is in the negative.
As we know, the policy of equalization of land-ownership was intended for the urban land. The program Dr. Sun offered for the solution of the farmland problem is land to the tillers. It was not until his late years that he proclaimed this agrarian program. It is a matter of regret that he did not make clear what it really means and how it should be put into effect.
With respect to the concept of this program, Dr. Sun had only this to say:
"If we want to alleviate the sufferings of the farmers, we have to let the tillers have their land. That is to say, the farmers must reap the fruits of their own labor. Their fruits of labor must not be taken away by others."20
As to whether in this program the farmers should be allowed to own the land they till or merely to till the land placed in their hands, Dr. Sun did not amplify.
It is, however, noteworthy that whenever he mentioned the idea of land to the tillers, Dr. Sun laid great stress on the point that the farmers should reap all the fruits of their labor. "If all the foodstuffs produced as a result of the cultivation of land," he pointed out, "should belong to the farmers, they would be all the more encouraged to cultivate their land. If they all feel encouraged to cultivate their land, the produce would mount up. But today most of the produce has gone to the landlords. Most foodstuffs the farmers have painstakingly produced in a year have ultimately gone to the landlords. As a consequence, many farmers are not interested in cultivating their land and lots of land have become waste and unproductive."21 There can be no doubt that it the farmers are to receive all the fruits of their labor, the best way would be for them to own the land they till. For this will make it possible for them not to pay rent to others.
There is every indication that Dr. Sun persisted in his viewpoint in this regard. The manifesto of the first national convention of the Kuomintang says among other things that "the Kuomintang proclaims that the state should give land to those farmers to till who have no land and are tenants."22 It would appear that this passage has a double significance. In the first place, the government should help the landless farmers to get land. Secondly, the government should rent land to the farmers. In dealing with the colonization of Mongolia and Sinkiang in his work "The International Development of China," Dr. Sun declares: "The land should be bought up by the state in order to prevent the speculators from creating the dog-in-the-manger system to the detriment of the public. The land should be prepared and divided into farmsteads, then leased to colonists on perpetual term. The initial capital, seeds, implements and houses should be furnished by the state at cost price on cash or on the installment plan."23
Moreover, Dr. Sun sought to limit land holdings, safeguard the farmers' rights and improve their living. In his New Year message in 1923, Dr. Sun indicated that "in due course of time private land holdings must not exceed the limit provided by law," and that steps must be taken to "improve the organization of the rural districts and the living of the peasantry so that the tenant farmers may stand on an equal footing with the landlords."24 If this means anything, it means that the tenant farmers should have both the opportunity and the capacity to buy land for themselves.
On the basis of the foregoing investigation, it is safe to conclude that Dr. Sun Yat-sen's program of land to the tillers is definitely not the nationalization of land. Rather it is a program under which the farmers must own the land they till. After all, land-ownership for the farmers is the best guarantee that they would reap the fruits of their labor. Remarks:
1. The Chinese Land Law provides in Art. 10 that "land within the territory of the Republic of China shall belong to the whole body of the people of the Republic of China."
2. It is provided in the Article cited above that "...the land the ownership of which is acquired by the people according to law is the private land."
3. Volume "Speeches," Dr. Sun Yat-sen's Collected Works (Chung Li Chuan Shu) compiled by the Committee on Party History, the KMT Central Reform Committee P.65
4. ditto P.81
5. Volume "Statements," Dr. Sun's Collected Works P.24
6. ditto P.26
7. Volume "Speeches" P.214
8. ditto P.48
9. ditto P.81
10. Volume "Speeches," Dr. Sun Yat-sen's Teachings (Chung Li I Chiao) published by the former Ministry of Information P.164
11. Volume "Statements," Dr. Sun's Collected Works P.88
12. Sun Yat-sen: The International Development of China, New York and London. 1922 P.16
13. ditto P.34
14. ditto P.38
15. ditto P.57
16. ditto P.59
17. ditto P.60
18. ditto P.64-66
19. ditto P.86-87
20. Volume "Speeches," Dr. Sun's Collected Works P.1125
21. Volume "The Three Principles of the People," Dr. Sun's Collected Works P.481
22. Volume "Manifestoes," Dr. Sun's Collected Works P.225
23. Sun Yat-sen: The International Development of China P.24
24. Volume "Manifestoes," Dr. Sun's Collected Works P.198-199