Poor Mojo's Almanac(k) Classics (2000-2011)
| HOME | FICTION | POETRY | SQUID | RANTS | archive | masthead |
Rant #335
(published June 21, 2007)
Abject Conjecture
by Adam Moorad
Socialism was a terrible idea wasn't it? In what world could a socio-economic doctrine created to help people ever flourish? Not here on this planet, I can assure you that.

Yes, those capitalists, with all of their capital, provided by their capitalism seem to have the most efficient form of an economic understanding don't they?

Well, hold on. I'm not trying to point the finger at anyone. Not yet anyways. Besides, introductions should always precede declarative statements and insinuations. Otherwise, I would just sound pompous.

So then, my name is Adam and I hate most everything.

I am not externally angry or violent and I hardly ever swear at others. It just so happens that I view everything as a daft and shadowy imitation of the original, respectable product. I see this on television, on billboards, in stores, and in people. I see it everywhere.

I recently came to the conclusion that originals don't come around that often anymore. I've talked to a few people who say that originality no longer exists. I tend to agree with them.

So dear reader, we live in the age of dead originals where we only have enough sense of them to know they once were around and, probably will never come back. I suppose the only thing original about any of us will be our death. Oh happy times.

Alright then, back to our discussion on the socialists and the capitalists!

The Capitalists are sharp ones are they not? They have made people very, very rich. They have made themselves quite rich as well.

In 1776, Adam Smith, the Scottish political economist, wrote a book called The Wealth of Nations and in such he poured the cement of capitalism's foundation that, even centuries later, would continue to be built upon by cheap laboring migrant workers throughout the western world.

In his book, Smith employs quite a clever metaphor in the form of the now infamous Invisible Hand. He uses such to speak so on behalf of working men everywhere. He states:

(A man) intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. [IV.ii.6-9]

Yes, every man is out working for his own good and it's ok because he should be. Yes, "Everyone has a chance, with us," the capitalists say. Yes, "Everyone can get their fair share of these spoils," they say. The only catch is that the industry of "intending your own security" only helps you out if you can be of any actual value to the external (real) Industry itself.

If you're blind, you better figure out how to see. If you're deaf, you better figure out how to hear. If you're lame, you better figure out how the heck to walk because, if you're no use to industry, Adam Smith's Invisible Hand will come down and swat you like a fly. Do you understand?

When this economic practice came into. . . um. . . practice, people, being much more resolute and original back then than they are today, picked up the slack and capitalized on this capitalism business.

It worked good I think, well, until the industrial revolution anyways. When the industrial revolution came to town, with all of its steam-powered equipment and such, the machinery took over because bosses in factories everywhere figured out that a machine, like a slave I suppose, doesn't require a wage.

The Industrial Revolution proved that it didn't matter if you were a born cripple who managed to spring from your basket one day in fear on the Invisible Hand and sprint to the coal mine with your pail and hard hat, you still lost your job if a machine could do it instead.

Imagine you are a boss. If you don't have people in your employ, you don't have pay them for working for you. So you profit. You are able to profit from firing your textile weavers and giving their jobs to machines. You get richer and they get poorer. Oh happy times.

The United States of America adopted capitalism because it was and must be one of the most democratic of socio-economic proposals out there.

Around this time in history, anything coming into contrast with capitalistic endeavor was treated with utter disregard and our leaders, even to this day, preach fire and brimstone against anything unallied with the Invisible Hand.

Accordingly, the United States of America has, throughout the centuries, used capitalism to build itself into a wealthy and prosperous Empire that has dwarfed Rome 10 times over. America has become so bloody wealthy that most believe that if God was not Adam Smith himself he was, at least, a capitalist.

American has worked at its capitalism. It has advanced its capitalism. It has gone to war for its capitalism. It has killed for it too. Oh happy times.


Almost 100 years after Smith's Wealth of Nations was written, another text with similar intentions arrived.

A German-born Jew named Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848 which ultimately gave the world another socio-economic strategy to contend with. True story.

The Manifesto gave birth to a socialist philosophy which was concerned primarily with protecting people from the Invisible Hand's heavy thumb in with things like redistributing wealth and ensuring job security. You know, your basic taking care of everyone so everyone came have a real chance at staving off starvation. Sounds good right?

If you were a farmer and new grain cutting machine or something hit the market and grew in popularity, you wouldn't have to worry about losing your gig because you would get drive the machine. People wouldn't have to worry about making themselves useful to the Industry because the Industry would make use of them.

When Marx's ideas gravitated over the Atlantic, the haves got real pissed off when the have-nots got wind of such egalitarian notions.

They would say things like, "Socialism equals Communism and Communism equals sin and sin requires repentance and no repentance equals Hell. Fire and brimstone."

It should of actually be perceived as "Socialism equals less Capitalism and less Capitalism equals less profit and less profit equals more equality" and more equality equal absolute balls to Capitalists.

So as it would happen, the Marxists and their socialism were subsequently excommunicated from the Church of the United States. Oh happy times.


Ok. I'll be the first to admit that socialism and communism have their pitfalls just as capitalism does. I am not discriminating against one or the other. As I told you earlier, I hate most everything, socio-political philosophy included. I think politics is bollocked-up as bad an economics is and when the two things meet they do nothing but rape one another of their respectability and utility. Sadly, you can't one without the other it seems.

I do think that socialism and communism have been given a bad wrap, given the fact that so many of history's infamous dictators have used it as a cover for their own debauched and a demented desires.

Only a few years ago scholars, mathematicians, philosophers, and any respectable sort of intellect from various and contrasting background and beliefs gathered for a summit to discuss and decide things that probably hold no interest or usefulness for anyone other than who was there.

Anyways, at this specific assemblage of brains, this diverse group did the math. They connected all of the dots and stacked them against on another's. What divisive conclusion did they come to? Well, they came to the conclusion that the Communist Manifesto was, single-handedly responsible for the most bloodshed that can be directly attributed to a single piece of literature anywhere in any language. True story.

The thing is that none of the aforementioned evil that was unleashed is Marx's fault. He didn't preach ethnic cleansing or genocide. He didn't dream up the idea of the Holocaust. Marx was Jewish for crying out loud!

He was just a guy who wanted to give hungry people the chance to get food. That's all. So he dreams up this idea, pulls out the quill, and writes it down. There is nothing about giving gay children AK-47's or dropping nuclear warheads on American puppy-dogs in Marx's literature.

He does, and perhaps did, get a lot of flack for describing religion, specifically Christianity, as "the opium of the people." But let's face it: People do; not all people, but many. Right now, I can count 20 people who are drug-using drunks who curse and fornicate only to show-up Sunday morning to sing from their hymnal just to feel better. True story.

Now let's look at the history books for a moment. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848. Would you like to know what the American Capitalists were doing at that time? Well, I'll tell you.

In 1848, the United States of America was entrenched in the Mexican-American War in which the US was essentially invading the country of Mexico (i.e. Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, California, Nevada) just like Hitler invaded Poland. America saw something it wanted to have and it took it away from the people it actually belonged to. True story.

If you don't believe me, let me ask you a question. Do the names of cities like San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Las Vegas, and Santa Fe sound like cities named by and after men of Anglo origins. Do they? No.

Oh happy days.

Also in 1848, the United States of America had a slave population of 4 million and for twenty years after 1848, slavery would still be a perfectly legal practice in a world cradled by the Invisible Hand.

In addition to that sad fact, the 1840s saw the United State's government complete the goals laid out by the Indian Removal Act which was signed into law the American President, Andrew Jackson. This allowed the American military to forcibly and legally remove several Indian Nations, most notably the Cherokee, for their original homes in the American south to some dirthole in Oklahoma. Oh yes, the Indians all had to walk too. Most of them died on the way. Jackson was reelected in a landslide. True story.

Oh happy days.

So let's think hypothetically for a moment. If Jesus Christ decided to make His return back in 1848, who do you think he would visit? Oh course he would stop at any moment's notice to preach and heal and help where He felt called, but who do you think would be able to share His beliefs and views with: Adam Smith or Karl Marx? Either or. I don't think He would care much for the Mexico-invading, Indian-removing, slave-owning American capitalist would it? No. They would crucify Him like the Romans, 10 times over.

Oh happy days.

Share on Facebook
Tweet about this Piece

see other pieces by this author

Poor Mojo's Tip Jar:

The Next Rant piece (from Issue #336):

by Zachary Biehler

The Last few Rant pieces (from Issues #334 thru #330):

Feel the Burn
by Sylvia J. Adams

How To Save The World
by Rhonda Parrish

Nate Crumpley
by G. David Schwartz

The Misunderstood Life of St. Barnaby Stylites
by C.B. Hinojosa

Tradition and Progress Are Often in Conflict: A Twenty-Minute Practice Essay Suggested by the College Board Writing Service
by Noah Berlatsky

Rant Archives

Contact Us

Copyright (c) 2000, 2004, David Erik Nelson, Fritz Swanson, Morgan Johnson

More Copyright Info