It’s 2017 and much of our thinking is still regressive. Why is our society still stuck with fear of provision, the worry of privation, and the panic of destitution? The shame of greed is often deposited, in a sneaky way, from the rich to the middle-class, but people pursue family time, the peace of nature, and the recurring comfort of our hobbies, and those are spiritual awards and there’s no such thing as greedy spirituality.
As we know, people would be motivated to work harder for more tangible results. When the dream of making $250,000 per year becomes supplanted with the actual possibility of making $125,000 per year for more people is when folks tend to get interested.
There are always those who speak of communism and socialism like some monster we should be afraid of, but those are efforts of corporate American propaganda talking to us. When folks talk about failed episodes of communistic and socialistic states they really are doing more to talk about a certain failed form of revolution.
On the subject of greed, humanistic institutions have had much to say for centuries, if not millennia. And of what we have determined from those forays, one thing stands out: if one is greedy, it’s not just an issue they should take up with their priest or preacher, but with their fellow man as well.
A higher tax rate, which is even a badge of honor in some places, seems appropriate amidst stagnating worker’s wages and record corporate profits.
Caring for the poor, casually insane, and otherwise disaffected is based on the same impetus as caring for the sick and elderly and young. Caring doesn’t have to mean money, it can mean healthcare and language assistance. To care means to accept that prosperity is not the fruit of one man’s labor, but many.
Senator Bernie Sanders and a few other brave souls in our legislative bodies have seemed interested in bringing about change according to the ideas listed above, but where is the rest of America which by de facto casually, if not secretively, has already accepted many ideas that are socialistic in nature?
By Matthew C. Brock