Marxism puts spirit of the Borg ahead of the spirit of the individual

November 22, 2021

Updated February 6,  2022

by Glen Wallace

The tradition begun by the French Revolution is one of disregard for the individual citizen as a precious spirit being. Instead this new tradition of leftism started by the French revolutionaries is one of treating the society as a whole as one spirit and the only spirit that matters. While Hegel was a mere teenager when the revolution began, his mindset paralleled and was undoubtedly influenced by the revolution. Hegel's writings, insofar as any understanding can be gleaned from his ramblings, seem to put the historical movements of societies as a whole as some grandiose necessary happening that should be glorified and romanticized. But nowhere does Hegel seem to glorify or romanticize the life of the individual, even though the ontology of the life of the individual is much more solid and tangible than that of the life of any given nation or society. Also, Hegel seems to make the naturalistic fallacy of confusing what is the case in terms of the movement of history with what ought to have been the case in history.

Hegel was in delusional fantasy world, and yet many have gobbled up his works as though he provided some helpful insight into why the world works the way it does and how to order society from a political philosophy standpoint. Marx was one of those that did gobble up Hegel, and as a result we have had to deal with the refuse that is Marxist communism corrupting many minds that originally had the best of intentions when they began forming their social political philosophy. Many were drawn into Marxism by Marx's correctly pointing out the unfairness that does exist in the workplace in term of the distribution of wealth for those who produce and those own the means of production. What must not be forgotten though, is that one should never necessarily adopt a whole ideology of a thinker just because he made a few particularly good points on one topic.

Even L Ron Hubbard may have made a few good points, but that doesn't mean you should join the cult of Scientology. Which brings up the question of whether Marxism is itself a religion. Marx famously wrote that “religion is the opium of the people”. While that may have one assume that Marx was therefore against religion entirely. That may not be a safe assumption. His statement may have been something of a trick to on the reader to go along with his religion. That is, once the people have abandoned their previous religion, they would be more easily manipulated into joining Marx's religion without realizing what was happening to them or what was going on.  The Jacobin's of the French Revolution attempted to do something along those lines; whereby they, on the one hand, declared a war on traditional religion, while, on the other hand, attempted to form their own religion that ostensibly entailed, among other things, a worship of its martyr Marat.  I say 'ostensibly' because it is unclear if there were some occult foundations to any of the revolutionaries ideologies beyond its ostensible primary goal of egalitarianism.  For instance, there is the puzzling placement of a pyramid drawing on their 'Declarations of the Rights of Man' constitution.  Often times, images of pyramids are used to denote participation in a secret society, of which only members of that society understand the meaning behind the pyramid symbol.   

Let's look at one peculiarity of Marx; in most, if not all, of the photos of him, he is seen posing with one of his hands hidden underneath his jacket. The same is the case with Stalin and Napoleon often hiding their hands in photographs or paintings. The phenomena of hiding ones hand when posing for a photo or portrait is known as 'the hidden hand' and it is a very real phenomena that seems to have a ritualistic nature to it; one could say even a religious ritualistic nature. There has been a lot of speculation about the reason for posing with one's hand hidden, but what makes the most sense to me is that the hidden hand represents the poser demonstrating their belief and commitment that they are being guided by some secret mind or spirit that only the initiated know about. Now, one would think that if anyone was to form a political philosophy or order a society according to the philosophy of an individual such as Marx, wouldn't one want to know what was guiding Marx? Doesn't it seem like he's playing games with his hidden hand posing while at the same time effectively deriding and accusing the religious of being hooked on opium just because they're religious? So Marx, if you're not religious, why do you feel the need to constantly stuff your hand inside your jacket every time your photographed. Was it some sort of strange OCD impulse? Or more, likely, was it some sort of religious ritual, that in so doing, makes you, Marx, something of a hypocrite?

Is the unfair distribution of wealth something of a lure used to draw in members of the Marxist philosophy?  Often times, cults use lures to draw in members.  Sometimes the lures are a need to belong to something that the cult member recruit was missing in the ordinary world. While that missing thing drawing in the member may be benevolent, that doesn't necessarily mean the cult as a whole is also benevolent.  One shouldn't confuse the lure with the ideology of any philosophical paradigm either.  Yes, there is a significant degree of unfairness generally in the distribution of wealth between the worker mixing their labor with the material world in their creation of the end product and the capitalist owner selling that product.  However, Marx also fails to recognize the risk involved with the capitalist owner investing in the hiring of labor along with the necessary capital expenditure required to create the product.  Additionally, there is a degree of irony in the fact that mechanism generating the unfairness against the worker is the capitalist system, that, if it didn't exist, would there be the same degree of overall wealth to be shared fairly to begin with?  There's some confusion with Marx as to whether he's arguing for the abandonment of the capitalist marketplace altogether, or is he arguing for the workers to get a bigger 'piece of the action' in that marketplace.  Marx and Engels were very prolific authors, but they seemed incapable of narrowing down their points down to a practical, clear goal that could be implemented in the real world.  Instead, they're all over the place with no clear idea presented of what they were for.  

There is a puzzling, seeming paradox between the Western capitalist nations simultaneously appearing to take orders from the Marxist CCP while at the same time seem genuinely at odds with the CCP.  Could it be possible that Hegelianism is a religion and Marxism and Corporatism are merely separate sects of that same religion that sometimes cooperate, while at other times war with each other over a shared goal of achieving Hegelian synthesis?  

I believe the best science fiction writers were not merely writing to entertain, they were also writing to educate and warn us of the dangers of technology magnifying the inherent hazards of unchecked political power.  The writers of the Star Trek series, in creating the character of The Borg Collective, seemed to have prescience in envisioning the current push towards transhumanism and the metaverse, while at the same time carried Hegelianism to its logical conclusion; the dissolution of the individual.  Now the CCP, Big Tech and the Davos Crowd are are giving every indication of proceeding to create a real world Borg Collective based on the philosophy of Hegel.