Paganism and capitalism

There are from what I have read, a variety of justifications of the capitalist "way of life," in the sense, at least, of extreme inequalities of wealth, that one may trace to a type of paganism in which feelings of superiority due to social class or social standing have a prominent place.

The question that I am trying to address here is whether that sense of superiority belongs properly to paganism or is not compatible with it.

I would like to introduce a concept, which I just thought of, thank you very much, of the "broken pagan." As far as I can tell, before a person may make use of the services of another person, equal by birth, as we all are, the latteer person must have been "broken" by circumstances or by intended effort on the part of someone else. Otherwise, what is the cause for one to work for another?

One model for such subjugation is the family in which seniority prevails, in other words, where elders act as rulers.

That seems to be, even today, the implicit template of economic inequality: the life of the elder gives knowledge and wisdom which the younger (= less "qualified") would do well to learn from. The wealthy have more money because they are wiser in the ways of making money.

However, in all historical pagan societies in which inequality of wealth has prevailed, there has been need of a state with which to protect and justify this inequality, and following upon that, a state "religion." It is within these known states, which have often become empires, such as the Roman, the Persian, Egyptian, Assyrian, Hittite and Chinese, that we may place the "broken pagan."

The neo-paganists of modern day America and Europe may question the possible existence of one "broken pagan," without also the breaking of the breaker. In other words, those who damage another person are either already not whole themselves are become so by disciplining and constricting the lives of others, cf. Scrooge.

I wonder whether it is even possible to reconcile "hospitality" with the breaking of another human being, "hospitality" being yet another formulation of the necessity of inequality. In "hospitable" potlatch societies, wealth does not remain concentrated because the degree of hospitality must be so great that the wealth is shared. Now that sharing probably harkens back to a time when there was no concentration of wealth whatsoever.

The question here, (in the moment!) is what is freedom? Is it a way to make stability? Or is it pain?

I believe that change lets belief make love the test. Is there love at the margins and at the center of the system of production, in the practice of the spirituality? Or is cruelty the major source and type of emotion?

Love and cruelty, as poets may know, often intertwine. Is it possible to make a distinction between the neo-paganism of today and the state religions of the past? Is the Will of the Goddess something to live? Or is it painful and unfortunate?

I do not believe that anything of projective, i.e., desexualized, disembodied, intellectualized, despiritualized, pain or cruelty can be the basis of any paganism as known. Capitalism in the person of people I have known, has caused me pain. I would like to utter for myself that the one understanding that I make of shame is that it is a way to die. It does not make anyone hopeful.

I have reached the limit of this essay.

Comments are welcome.