Sun Yat-sen differs from the empirical collectivists of the West in that he has an end to his program, which is to be achieved over a considerable period of time. The means are such that he can be classified with those Western thinkers; his goal is one which he took from the ideals in the old ideology and which he identified with those of the communists, although not necessarily with the Marxists. He said, at the end of his second lecture on _min shêng_: Our way is community of industrial and social profits. We cannot say, then, that the doctrine of _min shêng_ is different from communism. The _San Min Chu I_ means a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”—that is, the state is the common property of all the people, its politics are participated in by all, and its profits are shared by all. Then there will be not only communism in property, but communism in everything else. Such will be the ultimate end of _min shêng_, a state which Confucius calls _ta t’ung_ or the age of “great similarity.”(327) Perhaps no other passage from the works of Sun Yat-sen in relation to _min shêng_ could illustrate his position so aptly. He describes his doctrine. He labels it “communism,” although, as we have seen, it is quite another thing than Marxism. He cites Lincoln. In the end he calls upon the authority of Confucius. To a Westerner, the ideal commonwealth of Sun Yat-sen bears a remarkable resemblance to the world projected in the ideals of the ancient Chinese. Here again there is “great similarity,” complete ideological harmony, and the presumable disappearance of state and law. Property, the fount of war, has been set aside, and men—animated by a profound and sincere appreciation of _jên_—work together, all for the common good. The Chinese will, in this Utopia, have struck down _might_ from the high places of the world, and inaugurated an era of _the kingly way_ throughout the earth. Their ancient doctrines of benevolence and peace shall have succeeded in bringing about cosmospolitanism. There are, however, differences from the old order of ideals. According to the Marxists, nationality, after it has served its purpose as an instrument in the long class struggle, may be set aside. Speculation of this sort is rare among them, however, and it is difficult to envision their final system. To Sun Yat-sen, however, there was the definite ideal that the Chinese live on forever. This was an obligation imposed upon him and his ideology by the teleological element in the old ideology which required that humanity be immortal in the flesh and that it be immortal through clearly traceable lines of descent. The individual was settled in a genealogical web, reaching through time and space, which gave him a sense of certainty that otherwise he might lack. This is inconsistent with the Marxian ideal, where the family system, a relic of brutal days, shall have vanished.