How to Change the World Pt. 2: the lie of collectivist utopia

If the individual is not given rights and sovereignty above that of the state, then the divine is supplanted with the mundane, and the pride of man reigns in place of truth

In part one of this blog post I argued that Marxism, the professed ideology of the Black Lives Matter organization, encourages individuals to overlook the essential nature of individual morality in creating a better society. The collectivist narrative promoted by Marxism and consequently, Black Lives Matter, encourages possession by ideological arrogance, devotion to false materialist worldviews, and abdication of individual responsibility.

The detrimental effects Marxism has on society stem from its use of group politics to victimize segments of the population, and its complete reliance on materialist worldviews which detract from the importance of individual worth and morality. Marxism calls for the downfall of existing hierarchical and merit based socioeconomic systems so they can be replaced by state-enforced collectivism. The ideological fantasy of creating a system devoid of corruption and inequality through collectivist revolution has recently taken a hold upon many people in our country. This current trend reveals a shocking ignorance of the history of the 20th century, in which roughly 100 million people were killed by governments based on collectivist ideology.

When the priorities and values of a given society become augmented by ideas of collectivism, this society’s incremental progression towards truth is abandoned in favor of unnecessary and unstable revolution followed by totalitarianism. In this post I will focus on why I think collectivism continues to be a popular philosophy among political activists and why it is not an effective way to achieve societal improvement.

The Tower of Babel: a prideful shortcut

The tendency for prosperous civilizations to neglect individual behavior and search for utopia through radical, and misled, systemic change is illustrated in the story of the Tower of Babel. In this biblical narrative, people united by language, location, and desires to improve society, conclude that their traditional belief systems, created to lead individuals to happiness, salvation, paradise—to God—are inadequate. They decide that instead of relying on the ancient methods of societal improvement and individual fulfillment that uphold their society, they will attempt to radically alter these systems in order to reach their objective more quickly.

“And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.” (Gen. 11.4-8)

Though impressive, the efforts made by this ancient people to reach God were not motivated by a sincere desire to reach Him or to be better individuals, but rather a desire to make a name for themselves. They wanted to be known as those who had forged their own path to paradise. Motivated by pride, they took it upon themselves the challenge of reaching God and creating paradise on earth, not through individual morality and self-change, but through collective ideology and systemic change. What was the result? Chaos and confusion. Not paradise.

There are many today who like that ancient Mesopotamian people find very attractive the belief that the only thing separating mankind from a flawless existence is a figurative tower of babel or, as activists now claim, a socioeconomic system remade by state collectivism. However, societies which rely on collectivist narratives like Marxism to generate political change only succeed in producing arrogant individuals seeking shortcuts to salvation. Attempts at societal improvement don't lead to positive change unless traditional systems are appreciated and the individual is given prime importance and sanctity. Marxism calls for exactly the opposite, as it characterizes the existing system as fundamentally broken and prioritizes the ideals of group identity and social change above those of individual morality and God.

I believe the increasing acceptance of Marxist beliefs in our time is the consequence of a traditionally God-fearing, hardworking and free people having become prideful and beginning to worship their selves, their desires and their comfort. Individual commitment to self-betterment and the divine has been replaced by an acceptance of collectivist ideologies which promise to fix all social maladies at the cost of individual freedom. History teaches us that such absence of individual accountability to transcendent ideals leads to the justification of authoritarian regimes, the loss of human rights and the weakening of essential social institutions.

The following diagram attempts to illustrate this pattern:

Worship abounds of false gods such as: material wealth, comfort and group identity → Pride overtakes other values as the main motivator of human behavior → Traditional belief systems requiring accountability to God are abandoned → State collectivism (a figurative tower of babel) is used as a means to achieve ideological paradise → A decline in individual morality and devaluation of individual worth occurs → Anarchy is followed by eventual slavery in the form of lost individual rights and the formation of a totalitarian state

The record of the Tower of Babel teaches that when pride prevails in society it is inevitable that ideologies of state collectivism will surface and lead to the dissolution of social structures and the termination of collective progress. This runs contrary to the claim made by supporters of collectivist thought, that significant societal change cannot take place unless the group is given priority over the individual. In their eyes it is individualism, not collectivism, that promotes the selfishness and inequality which halt society’s progress. However, I am convinced that positive societal change, and the responsibility for bringing it about, rests at the level of the individual, and that collectivist belief systems, which pridefully deny the existence of God and replace Him with false visions of collectivist utopia, are to blame for the destruction of free societies and the creation of hell on earth (e.g. Germany, 1934-1945; USSR, 1922-1991; People’s Republic of China, 1949-present).

The consequence of collectivism

Collectivism, as defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica, is any “social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class.” Some may see this subjection of the individual to the collective as a selfless and moral act, but I think individual submission to the collective will is actually an act of cowardice and moral apathy. When an individual decides that support for a certain party or movement is a more effective form of activism than living a virtuous private life, they relinquish their responsibility and therefore their freedom (for one cannot be had without the other). Consequently, when we place the responsibility for our happiness on the system, or the state, we hand over our freedom as payment.

Marxism seeks to convince the populace that their support of radical political movements is more conducive to societal change than their individual behavior. It teaches that the only way to achieve paradise is by doing away with our current belief-systems, which are supposedly the cause of our suffering, and instituting a collectivist utopia. This inevitably leads people to self-righteously identify themselves as victims of the oppressive system and claim that their failures are the result, not of individual short comings or the inherent difficulty of life, but rather of their needs not being met by society. The responsibility to improve the world, therefore, no longer resides with the individual but rather falls upon the system and on the bad people (excluding yourself of course) who must change. This mindset is inherent to collectivist ideologies like Marxism and leads not to the creation of utopia but rather a society that is less free and less equal. I think this principle can be summarized the following way:

• A focus on systemic change according to group politics and collectivist ideologies produces weak, entitled, vain and submissive individuals who do not hold themselves accountable to more transcendent and demanding belief systems, which results in an increasingly degraded society.

On the other hand:

• A focus on individual improvement according to traditional belief systems and an open-minded search for truth produces strong, self-reliant, virtuous and capable individuals who are able to recognize their own ignorance and need to improve, which results in the slow collective progression towards truth and an increasingly peaceful and prosperous society.

The power of the individual

In order for a society to flourish, as ours most certainly has since its founding, “the interests of the individual…ought to be ethically paramount” (Definition of Individualism, Merriam-Webster). The philosophy of individualism emphasizes, and holds as sacred, the moral worth and responsibility of each individual. The Judeo-Christian tradition, upon which the West is built, maintains that the inherent value of the individual is intrinsically linked to the idea of God. The existence of God, which implies the reality of transcendent goodness and the infinite potential of man, transforms each and every individual into the nucleus of societal improvement. Marxism, being fundamentally atheist, functions as a kind of weak, materialist religion, which denies man his divine origin and subsequently, his unavoidable responsibility for moral behavior, and thus prevents any genuine societal improvement from occurring.

As an individual you are not to be defined or judged by your group identity, historical roots, ethnic origin, skin color, parents’ income, political party or religious beliefs, but rather by your identity as a representative of the divine, to be held accountable to, and judged by, divine law. This recognition of individual worth and individual responsibility portrays each one of us as the carrier of divine qualities which, though often dormant, are manifest when we do our best to live truthfully.

As beings capable of such good it follows that our society should be founded upon individualist principles that allow for individuals to be their own sovereign, capable of, and trusted to, making the world around them a better place. If the individual is not given rights and sovereignty above that of the state, then the divine is supplanted with the mundane, and the pride of man reigns in place of truth. Earthly paradise is created by virtuous individuals (not by virtue-enforcing government) who are united in their goal to reach God through sincere individual effort to improve, and not through some towering construction of the collective, either physical or ideological.

Log in to leave a comment below! Please continue this conversation by sharing your opinion in the comments section and sharing this blog post with your friends.