Would hive-mind collectivism benefit society?

What's the probability that if we are a hive-minded society, we become of one mind in that no one has motivation to have an original idea? No innovation. No challenges. No struggle. Sounds an awful lot like Tower of Babel mentality. Nope. Not my idea of an improved society. And that is precisely the end result of Marxism. No thank you. We are endowed with individual thought for good reason. Let's not mess with that. What's wrong with conflict, as long as it remains conflict of differing ideas, without someone thinking that their idea is better than another's, and is willing to prove it by physical force, which usually means it was not such a great idea. 

Conflict of idea is good? Now imagine those, but in harmony.

What in the world could be desirable about that? Universal understanding sounds like an ideal, but, again, where is any challenge to excel?

And that's desirable? Sounds like the perfect hell, to me. I am appalled you think a society of no creativity is a good thing. "Lasciate ogne speranza voi ch'intrate." - Dante [abandon hope, all ye who enter here.]

YES!!! Conflict of ideas fosters new ideas. It fosters creativity. The U.S. Patent Office, as a joke, declared in 1899 that as of 1900, the office would close, because all the inventions that could be made had been made. A joke, yes, but there's your proposed ideal society. Boring is only one description. Come on, man! Use your moniker better than that.

Define, hive-mind collectivism.

that shit from the giver is too creepy for me bro 

We are the Borg. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. 

I would like to debate this topic.

so would I, but I've imposed a personal hiatus from debate for a while until I have a sense that I have just one opponent in any given debate.

Are you talking about people in the comments, multiple debates on the same topic, or what?

I am talking about facing more than one opponent in a single debate. I know there are debates set up with teams opposing other teams, but, when the set-up [my set-up, as it happens] was for a single opponent taking the opposing view of my resolution, and a moderator [actually, the site owner] is consulted by my opponent, during the debate, and is asked to render an opinion on a statement made by that moderator, and that moderator reverses the content of his statement in order to rebut my argument [only, the moderator did not know he was being used for that purpose], I call that an imposed 2-on-1 condition, and a misuse of a stated policy that was in force as of the start of the debate. There has been no consequence to my opponent's action. In a word, I'm pissed. The action by my opponent has been sanctioned by the moderators. If you want to see the debate, it's https://www.debateart.com/debates/2221-resolved-referenced-sources-are-necessary-in-a-debate

Every hive has a queen.

Absolutely NEVER, NO FREAKING WAY

So systemically matriarchal?  The Iroquois 7 nation tribes had a system where the women chose their male chief.

I think much of USA constitution came from 7 nation tribes, except of the matriarchal aspect. Sad :--(

The three primary religions are patriarchal based i.e. writtten by men and primarily with mens interest in mind.

The Iroquois appear to have struck a proper system of balance and although much of USA constitution came from Iroquois, the matriarchal aspect were not carried over.

All biological life  primarily  comes from female { Xx }. Ex we have species of animals that are only female, and they make exact clones of themselves, whereas, nowhere on Earth to we find male { Xy } species that make clones of themselves.

Female = manager of time  ergo a more comprehensive, bilateral consideration of work investment

.....long term systemic considerations ergo 7 generations out type thinking.........

Male = time ergo focused on the job at hand with less comprehnsive, bilateral consideration of work investment

.....short term consideration of structural necessities for integrity ex triangulation...

Whatever gender Darwin deems as contributing to a fit species.

Every biological chemical reaction has been developed over millions of years regardless of how you feel about gender.

Ok, so that is why you invoked Darwin, i.e. nothing to do with gender ergo my comments stand as presented.

Ok, I'm good with that and my thanks goes out to Dawrins mother { Xx } and  the father { Xy } who seeded her with his 'y'.

'y' me asked Darwin? Mother replies go ask your father.

..." Perhaps the most interesting study I’ve come across on this topic is one examining the offspring of the 2009 Forbes 400 Richest Americans list.
In this study of billionaires (Bill Gates is at the top), men who inherited their money (heirs) were more likely to have sons than both self-made billionaires and the general population.

Heiresses were more likely to have female children than heirs, self-made billionaires and the general population. There were too few female self-made billionaires (just three) to be included.

Harking back to evolutionary theory where higher parental resources lead to more male births, the author suggested that wealth without stress led to sons. He theorised that self-made billionaires were under more stress than heirs, plus due to the years required for empire building, they may have children prior to achieving their wealth.

..So, scheduling sex to coincide with ovulation may not give you the little Mary-Jane or Thomas you were looking for.

...Moving to a war zone or starting your day with Special K [ woman] might tip the scales towards Thomas, but if the war zone is stressful or you add too much high-calcium milk [ woman ] to that cereal, you’re sending the odds back towards Mary-Jane."....

What would a "HIVE MIND" achieve in the long term.

I would suggest that the power of the individual is an essential universal tool.

Unless we eventually become a perfect cloned species, of course.

Where did Marx say that hive mind collectivism is the result of Marxism?

In the Communist Manifesto. Marx did not use the term "hive-mind collectivism," [that is Intel's moniker] but that is what he and Engels describe in that document. It is decidedly anti-individualism.

In what way?

I am not going to spill out a dissertation on the Communist Manifesto. If you have not read it, read it. That's the best research - your own. I'll give you one paragraph, but you must take it from there:

"To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion."

Sounds convincing, but Marx was never a capitalist - he never ran a lemonade stand - so both his proposition, and conclusion, are wrong. No, capital is not a collective product. He may have known better, but was lying to convince, because he was an academic - people who claim expertise, but who also never ran a lemonade stand. Capital exists as a potential supply that is the by-product, not the sole purpose of private enterprise. The purpose of private enterprise is to sustain and increase enterprise [and wealth]. Marx partially begins right, that many members [individuals] of society may engage in the production of capital, i.e. the creation of wealth, but then he blows it to hell by saying "nay, in the last resort, only by... all members of society, can it [capital, or wealth [that is what he s truly talking about] be set in motion." No, no, no, and no, worlds without end! It takes the ambition of one individual to decide to produce and sell, and another individual to decide to buy what is being produced and sold. You multiply those individual transactions to create wealth, individual wealth, and it may be shared, but it is not the ownership of the collection of "all members of society." Both buyer and seller, multiplied by as many individuals who wish to participate, benefit. Those who do not participate [there are many of these types] should not likewise benefit to the same degree. Who, after all, builds our infrastructure, for example? If you say Government, you're already in the weeds. Government lets out the contracts, but private enterprise does the building and you and I pay for it. We have access to it when complete, but that does not make of us a collective, either, because we can choose to not make use of it, too.

Sometimes, even designers, who entrepreneurs hire to flesh out an idea into "practical" design, goof up. I put that in quotes, because I spent a career in manufacturing troubleshooting. Most designers think production process is the problem with product failure. Yes, that is one fault, but another is design failure. Designers are famous for never assembling or using their design as they describe it to be used. I had a number of occasions when designers would ask me, a troubleshooter, what their designed product weighed. "You don't know?" I'd ask. "No," was always the reply. I knew, because I had weighed it. They did not. "There's the scale, and there's your product. You weigh it. For the first time." I would try to assemble a product [as a customer would receive and assemble it]. I concluded the designer[s] never did it themselves. Absurd. But, that's Marx, too. I do run a lemonade stand [figuratively], so I know how this shyte works.

Not sure you're answering my question. Claiming that capital is a "social power" isn't a statement of anti-individualism or hive-mind collectivism. Marx, to my knowledge, didn't oppose individuals having their own identities or personal goals. He did advocate for a relatively collectivist society, but from an economic standpoint everything left of ancapistan is, to a degree, in opposition to the total power of the individual or group of individuals. After all, we pay taxes.

Re-read my post #25: To wit, Marx said, and I quoted [from Communist Manifesto] "...nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it [capital] be set in motion." Words mean things. All means all, not some, not "relatively." ALL. Is it that hard to understand Marx? Take him at his word. He's really very simplistic. More a simpleton, but, that's just my view.

In this quote, is Marx not referring to capitalism... a system he opposes?

Re: your #28

Yes, Marx is describing capitalism, which he opposes. But, as I have quoted, and remarked afterward, Marx does not understand how capitalism works. He assumes he does, but, as I noted, he never ran a lemonade stand. Of course, that reference is very simplistic, but at the core, running a lemonade stand differs little in principle from running Apple, or any other enterprise.

What makes my lemonade stand better than Karl's? He makes lemonade from a processed lemon flavor, plus water and sugar. Mine is from fresh lemons, filtered water, infused by lemon zest, and sugar. Plus, I add some fresh lime. My lemonade just tastes better, by innovation, because I am ambitious. Karl thinks all there is to capitalism is production and sales. Pay the workers [the proletariate] their percentage, and he [the bourgeois], reaps the rest in profit. Karl ignores that he must innovate a better-tasting lemonade, hire R&D, marketing, purchasing, material handling strategy, production [the workers], inventory, shipping, customer service. Karl ignores that all of those necessities of the enterprise, other than labor, are expensed out of the bourgeois' profit. This is all very clearly explained by its lack of acknowledgement in The Communist Manifesto. Marx doesn't get it, so describes capitalism entirely incorrectly. Karl thinks, with his too-simple description of capitalism, that he can just absorb ownership of all private enterprises, and his problem of capitalism is solved, repackages this concept and calls it socialism/communism, and starts on his merry way. And this is why soc/com never succeeds for more than a couple of generations. As Margaret Thatcher [former PM of Great Britain] once said, when you run out of other people's money, your system collapses because you don't know how to produce wealth, you just know how to spend it.

In short...Marx was a hypocrite....Plain and simple.....The servants made the lemonade.