Dr. Karl Wittfogel, the German Marxist whose work on Sun Yat-sen is the most satisfactory of its kind, points out the apparent contradictions in the _San Min Chu I_: on the one hand, statements which are not only objectively but subjectively friendly to capitalism (on the excellence of the Ford plant; on the necessity for the coöperation of capital and labor)—on the other, the unmerciful condemnation of capitalism; on the one hand, the declaration that there is no capitalism in China—on the other, that capitalism must be destroyed as it appears; on the right, the statement that communism and _min shêng_ are opposed—on the left, that the communist doctrines are a subsidiary part of the ideology of _min shêng_.(175) How, asks Wittfogel, does this all fit together? He answers by pointing out the significance of Sun’s theses when considered in relation to the dialectical-materialist interpretation of recent Far Eastern history: His three principles incorporate in their _development_ the objective change in the socio-economic situation of China, in their _contradictions_ the real contradictions of the Chinese revolution, in their _latest tendencies_ the transposition of the social center of gravity of the revolution, which sets the classes in action, and whose aim is no longer a bourgeois capitalist one, but proletarian-socialist and peasant agrarian-revolutionary. Sun Yat-sen is according to this not only the hitherto most powerful representative of the bourgeois-national, anti-imperialist revolutions of awakening Asia; he points at the same time outwards over the bourgeois class limitations of the first step of the Asiatic movement for liberation. To deny this were portentuous, even for the proletarian communist movement of Eastern Asia.(176) The modifications which the Marxians have introduced into their programs with respect to the class struggle in colonial countries do not imply a corresponding modification of their ideology. The determinism adopted from Hegel, the economic interpretation of history—these and other dogmas are held by the Marxians to be universally valid despite their Western origin. We have seen what Sun’s chief Marxian exegete thinks of him. Now it may be worth while to consider the actual relations of Sun’s doctrines with some of those in Marxism. In the first place, Sun Yat-sen, during his stay in Shanghai, 1919-1922 (with interruptions), was very much interested in Communism and friendly to the Russian people, but not at all inclined to adopt its ideology.(177)