On the Color of the Clouds

By JV Deacon
Communism versus Marxism

In the 13 April 2009 issue of Time Magazine, there is an article written by Bill Powell
titled “Korea after Kim” on pages 40 and 41. I found it to be a very interesting article about how
things may remain the same for North Korea after Kim Jong Il. What I found to be of most
interest were the four photographs of Kim Jong Il inspecting a pool that had been built for a
university in Pyongyang. I believe that the author’s intent of using these photographs with his
article were to illustrate how feeble and old Kim Jong Il looked following the 68 year old’s
recovery from a stroke. I found myself looking at the photos for some time, especially the fourth
one on page 41. I don’t think that I see what the author wanted me to see. Instead, I saw
something far more ominous.
Kim is shown being followed around by a small entourage of men in suits and several
military officers as he is looking at the pool. The individuals in suits are looking around with a
look of blankness. They are quite unreadable; without passion. However, the military officers are
showing a far different attitude. They remind me of hostesses of a geisha house looking after a
small child. It is as if they are trying their hardest to please a small, totally spoiled brat. It is a
chilling look into what Stalin’s inner circle must have been like. It is a far cry from a society that
is based on equality, honesty, freedom. It is a scene of fear as opposed to respect. It is a culture
based deeply in the cult of me—the me part being Kim Jong Il.
I have read many criticisms of communism. Most are steeped in ignorance and
propaganda. Actually, for the most part, it is propaganda. Who can blame them? Communism is
the scariest thing to hit the earth since an asteroid sixty-five million years ago. Not even Fascism
or totalitarian regimes have created such a fervor. It is an insidious ideology to many and they
would be willing to die, kicking and screaming all of the way, to prevent it from happening to
them. Our government has helped murderous dictators such as Pinochet and Mobutu Sese Seko
come to power over individuals who were freely elected by their country because of their leftist
leanings. Vietnam was supposed to have had free elections, but when the western powers
realized that Ho Chi Minh would more than likely have won, it was thought to be far better to let
the small coastal country become a nightmarish killing field. It was also a major impetus in
granting universal suffrage to all citizens of legal age and to start supporting and listening to
unions. I think that it is no coincidence that women were finally granted the vote and the heavy
fisted handling of unions was eased up considerably after the 1917 October Revolution which
created the Soviet Union.
What exactly is communism? Why is it the scourge of every decent human being on the
earth? What is so repugnant about it that it is far better to support mass murderers, buffoons,
kleptocrats, plutocrats, egomaniacs, and dictators such as Pinochet, Mobutu, bin Laden, Amin,
Pahlavi, Samoza, Duvalier, Marcos, Hussein, Diem, Batista, Noriega, The Taliban, Franco, and
yes, even Hitler and so many others throughout the years? (Yes, every one of them were
supported, aided, or placed in power by western powers.) You can figure out who fits in what
category or categories. It is interesting to me that in a lot of the cases of a person being
overthrown; unable to control demonstrators or student agitators are listed as some of the
primary causes. Very rarely is it listed that the agitators and demonstrations arose because of a
government that was selling its nation and the rights of their citizens to the highest bidder, that
the governments were unwilling to listen to their people, or worse in that the government would
oppress and kill many to stay in power—sounds a lot like Stalinist Soviet Union. I remember
talking to a friend and I asked him what would happen if he was to spread a story about our top
bosses; especially if the story was true? His reply was that he probably wouldn’t have a job much
longer. I asked him what is the difference between that and living under Stalin’s regime. He said
not much except that he would still be okay and could get another job. I countered that he was
right until he opened his mouth again. The overall conclusion was that he would have to learn to
keep his mouth shut and just follow the herd if he wanted to become prosperous just like one of
Stalin’s yes men—so much for freedom of speech and individual rights.
One of the major problems with it is that there is so little known about it. Hell, even Marx
had no idea what it was. Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, and numerous other writings
give scant clues as to what it is. Most of Marx’s and Engel’s writings are a catalog of what pisses
them off about the existing situation of the time. The only true definition of what they called
communism is if you take their complaints and think of possible alternatives which they don’t
really share with the reader. (That’s one thing I have always found interesting about people is
that they are so willing to criticize but have very few solutions. Let’s face it; it is far easier to
point out problems than it is to create or find solutions. Even our grandson who is only two
months shy of becoming two years old complains or throws fits.) This grey area of understanding
what communism is allows much room for speculation and propaganda.
Ask anyone on the street what communism is and they will tell you. Chances are you will
hear all types of answers and descriptions. If you take a big enough survey they will be even
further apart on the spectrum of ideologies. However, most will gravitate around the idea of a
totalitarian police state where individuals have very limited freedoms if they have them at all.
Basically, the description of the individuals running the whole show would make them seem like
out of touch despots that are floating in a sea of sycophants. Stalin was surrounded by yes-men
and eliminated anyone who disagreed with him. Anyone who was a threat to or was as popular as
Stalin were eliminated just ask Trotsky or Zhukov. If you disagree with the party’s decision,
there are consequences. You have freedom of speech only if you’re dumb enough to try it.
Everything was for the state. You had to be blindly patriotic and nationalistic. You could expect
to be shunned and thought little of if you said anything against the state, questioned the actions
of your leaders, or showed an attitude that was less than patriotic. You work your life away for
the organization with few of the rewards going to you and most going to the higher ups.
Actually, this sounds like a lot of the businesses I have worked for. This sounds a lot like
the tyrants or dictators that the United States has helped to install. This sounds like the United
States under McCarthyism and the Red Scare. This is what Nazi Germany was like. This is the
United States with Bush’s War on Terror—just ask the Dixie Chicks; although they weren’t
officially attacked by the government they were singled out and censured by the mass hysteria
created by 9/11 and the extreme patriotic nationalism whipped up by leaders; on the other hand it
did make a lot of opportunity for several musicians to cash in on a national tragedy such as Alan
Jackson and Toby Keith—interesting that neither one ever put their comfort or butts on the line
for this country they feel so strongly about; unlike Pat Tillman who reportedly turned down a
multimillion dollar contract and all of the comforts of it to fight for it. This is actually most of the
world’s history up to 4 March 1789—for those that are unfamiliar with that date, it is the date
that the U.S. Constitution was put into effect. This is actually Marxism, nationalism, feudalism,
socialism, capitalism at their finest—not communism. There is a marked difference.
 Marx believed that in order for a society to reach the communist utopia it had to go
through a transition stage of socialism. Socialism was believed to be only effective in reaching
the prize at the end by having a strong central government. In order to have this, there could be
no competition. Everyone had to be willing to follow the party. Unfortunately, with all of the
committees and sub committees that socialists believe must be in place—essentially easy desk
jobs for their buddies and family—all you end up with is a huge slow to move bureaucracy.
Hedrick Smith described such a system in action in his book, The Russians. He wrote of how
quotas would come down from the committees and the workers would go through a feverish
pitch at the end of a month to meet them. This would result in a few products at the beginning of
a month being made of useable quality and many made at the end of the month that were
basically thrown together. He wrote of national pride in having the biggest of anything. The
Soviets created the world’s largest truck factory to produce some of the largest trucks to carry
basically nothing on roads that did not exist or could not handle such loads if they did exist. It
was a world of committees looking for headlines and spotlights to help propel the committee’s
leader up the ladder, but not the well being of their nation.
I personally believe that Marx was wrong in his assertion that communism was an
economical-political animal. Through my research, I have found it to be more of a social-
economical animal. It is unfortunate that Marx and Engels did become known as the foremost
authority on communism. It is even more unfortunate that they published their books in a time
when the majority of the world was locked in the same old thing and lacked imagination. It was a
time when nationalism—a gift from the Napoleonic wars—was growing. Company owners were
able to cash in on the same sentiments towards their companies. It was a time when there truly
was a norm. Regrettably, most communist parties still follow their teachings. I think that this is
because with an economical-political stress there will be unbelievable benefits for the party
members when or if they do achieve gaining power. The strong adherence to Marxism and what
happened under a Marxist Regime in the Soviet Union as well as many other so called
communist nations has given those who oppose such a disturbing idea as communism plenty
from which to glean what they needed to create and spread their propaganda to keep their own
agendas alive.
They had much to use; especially from the Stalin Era. Giving credit where credit is due,
Stalin did take a nation of near illiterates and did transform it into a global superpower and he did
accomplish this in a relatively short time. However, Stalin was an egomaniac. He was incredibly
paranoid. His number one concern was Stalin and Stalin’s comfort. It was simple, either you
agreed with him or you disappeared and were replaced. It was best to be a yes man if you wanted
to survive. I could imagine that his daily life was filled with scenes like those of Kim Jong Il
inspecting the pool. I guess that is one way to deal with a problem, take the ones complaining
and make them disappear—not unlike a lot of the American businesses I had worked for.
Unfortunately, all that ever did was create a constant supply of slave laborers and more of a
bureaucracy. Stalin was surrounded by so many yes men that it is believed that he truly did lose
contact with the realities of the Soviet Union. It has been told to me that he even started to
believe his own propaganda films. This disconnection with the worker continued until the rule of
Chernenko. Gorbachev was the first leader to say that something was wrong which didn’t
include the rounding up the ones who were complaining and shipping them off to slave labor
camps or gulags.
Quick little side note: We grow through confrontation. That is not to say war. We grow
because we run into a problem, an obstacle to a goal and we are challenged to overcome the
hindrance to reach the aim. If everything was perfect, why would we ever grow? The Soviet
Union had over 290,000,000 inhabitants. That is over 290,000,000 ways of seeing and
understanding things. With the government refusing to listen to any criticism or idea outside of
the accepted party ideas—which during the Stalin era or Kim in North Korea the main idea was
how best to accommodate Stalin or Kim and their buddies and keep them in power—the whole
system lost the potential that could have help it from the insights of 290,000,000 and roughly
24,000,000 in North Korea. Sad thing is that many businesses are run this way too. They have all
of these employees who have intimate knowledge of their specific area of the job. Few are afraid
to speak up because of retaliation that could come in one of many different forms. I always
looked at it this way. If you are upset about something, it only upsets you because you care.
Employees and citizens are a wealth of insights and information and only the good managers and
leaders understand that and realize that if people are upset about something you are doing, they
either don’t understand the full picture or they have a legitimate concern. The good managers
and leaders will reach out and listen to them to see if there is a possibility of shedding light in
either direction instead of having someone branded as an agitator or trouble maker. Chances are
by taking the time to help them understand the full picture; it will help you as the leader to have
an even better understanding of it yourself. I became a whiz at algebra not because I studied it in
school but because I had the opportunity to help troubled kids learn it. Chances are if you listen
to the ideas and concerns; you may be able to spot previously unnoticed weaknesses in your idea
and be able to guide it around those or accommodate those areas before they cause problems. I
guess that is why the Chinese word for problem uses the same character as opportunity.
Communism is not and has not ever been a socialist or Marxist state. They are Marx’s
idea of the need for transformation into a communist state. He believed that there had to be a
growth period to achieve the goal. Unfortunately, given human nature, especially during the time
that the leaders of socialist states grew up, this transition has too much room for abuse. In fact,
all socialist regimes have fallen hard for the intoxicating affect of the idea of L’etat c’est moi and
have work harder to ensure that than the wellbeing of the people. I guess they need to round up
dissidents to show the people who are under control that they need their leaders and they aren’t
ready for the next phase. The problem is that they will never be ready for the next phase of the
transition as long as the leaders are enjoying their lives. As long as they are enjoying their lives
and are able to get away with more and more abuses of power they will never understand that
L’etat ne c’est pas moi, c’est les peuple.
So what is communism? Let’s just look at the origin of the word or the etymology.
Communism comes from the French word commun which comes from the Latin word communis
which simply means shared. It is the idea that we are all in this together, we have all created the
world that is. It is sharing in the hardships and the windfalls. It is a community. A community in
which each individual works for the prosperity of the community and as the community prospers
each individual enjoys the benefits. Imagine, a group of people helping their neighbors and the
neighbors helping them. The community as a whole helps its neighboring communities and they
in turn help theirs. Imagine a place where all social programs are carried out on the local level by
people who know you and understand what is happening instead of some bureaucracy where you
are just a statistic. A professor of economics once asked me, “If the poverty line is defined as
$12,000 as a bureaucracy would do to help it eliminate grey areas in its policies, what is the
difference between a person who earns $11,999 and someone who earns $12,001?” I told him
that I believed that there was hardly any difference at all. He told me that I was wrong, that the
first person mentioned had a far better chance of getting help than the second.
 Communism is not a political party. Just like capitalism, it is a social-economic
philosophy on how best to promote efficiency and harmony while living together. (I really
shouldn’t say social-economical. It is actually redundant. Considering that economics is the
queen of social sciences. I have been asked if economics was the study of money and markets.
The answer is no; economics is the study of wants and how they are fulfilled. Economists do
study money and markets as doctors study a thermometer. They are just gauges on what is
happening.) There is no capitalist party. With the election of a new party or rise of a new
political regime, there is nothing more than the switching of one group of self serving,
egomaniacal, parasites for another. There is no reason why a person cannot start a private
enterprise in a communistic system. There is absolutely no reason why a community cannot look
after each other in a free market system. You can do what you want with the condition that you
know that there are others in your community. No matter how complex their job is, they are a
member of your community. They add to it and they feed off of it. How is a garbage man’s job
any less important than a doctor’s—go to Naples, New York, or any major city during a garbage
strike; I think that you will learn to appreciate the garbage man as much as you do the doctor
when you are sick. However, when everything is fine, they are in the back of the mind. The only
difference is the doctor can charge you a bill that could cost you your house; very few people
have gone to the poor house paying their garbage bill.
Imagine a society where everyone shares in their prosperity. A society where the owner
of the business truly understands that yes, the business may have been my idea but with the help
and insights of my employees it has grown and made my life easier than if I would have had to
have done it all by myself, so they deserve to share in the fruits of their labor in helping me to
reach my goal. Imagine a society where you are truly not alone. Imagine a society where the
emphasis is placed on the individual—no matter how you look at it; a society is only as strong as
its weakest members. The main difference between communism and capitalism is that in
capitalism the emphasis is set on me whereas communism is the understanding that there are
others and they are all key in this being a wonderful place. (The same professor explained to me
that the Wild West was a situation of pure capitalism. If you did not like your competition, you
shot them or they shot you. To me, another analogy would be that an old lady is carrying her
groceries down the street. Suddenly she trips or her bag breaks. Her groceries go all over. In a
pure capitalist mindset, she is on her own and chances are some may help themselves to what she
dropped. However, if people stop and help her to her feet and gather up her groceries, you have
just witnessed a communist mindset.
What is so horrible about sharing? nothing, the problem lies in the fact that Marx was
wrong about his understanding of economic history. He believed that society began with the
slave state in which owners were free to pursue their interests because the labor was done by
slaves. This was followed by the Feudal state in which the owners were free to follow their
interests because the labor was carried out by vassals, serfs, and peasants. This was followed by
capitalism in which the owners of capital were able to follow their interests because the labor
was being done by the employees. Socialism would follow this in which the state would control
the factors of production which would allow the party members to follow their interests because
the labor was being done by the workers. The only true difference I see in his history is what the
parties called themselves. In all cases you have one group living and prospering at the expense of
the people actually doing the work. In some cases the laborers are kept in line by brute force and
ignorance on the other extreme they are kept in line through patriotism and giving them bones to
feed off of such as social programs. There is a big difference between human societies of two
thousand years ago and today, today most are kept happy by being able to shop and kept in line
knowing that they are replaceable. (Everything is disposable, friendships, relationships, cars,
major appliances, employees. It has been drummed into our heads that anyone is replaceable.)
But looking at them closely, you will find that there is one group who is prospering beyond
imagination at the expense of the rest. In most case the ones who are prospering know what they
are doing is at the expense of others. Would you even think for a moment that Paris Hilton would
spend a month living with one of her dad’s employees like she did when she stayed with blue
collar families (but none of her dad’s employees) in the show, “The Simple Life?” That would be
a reality show.
That is the problem with communism. If people would just start to take care of each other
and think of one another—hey, isn’t that the main lesson in all the major religious text?—the
ones who are living the high life would not be able to continue to do so. There is far more money
to be made when everyone is primarily concerned with “what is in it for me?” By keeping us as
individuals out for ourselves, it is far easier to intimidate, manipulate, and subjugate us. That is
one of the benefits of conspiracy theories, racism, et cetera; it keeps us separate, keeps us
wondering who we can trust and gives them a stronger ability to have influence over us. The
primary goal of the influence is that we continue to work so they can continue feeding their egos,
pockets, and lifestyle. By keeping us separated, they can manipulate our fears and concerns and
there is much to be profited from dividing and conquering. Communism promotes working
together and unity—that is not to say that you can’t disagree with others in your community and
voice your opinion. It would actually be great for all if you do as I explained earlier—that would
take a great deal of personal growth for many and it would be wonderful if they did face up to
the challenge. If communities worked together and looked out for each other, there would be
little need for and little opportunity for those who are living at the working classes expense.
That is why communism is such a nasty, horrible idea. If communities started taking care
of there members and each other, sharing in good times as well as hardships, there would be little
need for huge organizations and the rich and powerful who are rich and powerful because
everyone has been trained to worry about themselves and trust no one. If people looked out for
each other there would be little need for big government or big charities which have big rewards
for those on top. Did you ever truly wonder why it was so important to get aid to the rich and
powerful at the beginning of the recent financial crisis? It is because that is what is all about and
has been for centuries—staying on top so they can continue to thrive at the expense of most.
They will take care of themselves and each other, because everyone stumbles and none of them
want to end up down here with us. They help each other because it is nice to know that if they
stumble they can count on others. My understanding of the free market is that if a company is
inefficient and starts to collapse, it is better to let it do so, so that others can make more efficient
use of the resources the company was tying up.
Cute Story: In Pennsylvania, Harley Davidson announced that it was moving to another
state. The State government went nuts in trying to create a package deal to keep the factory here.
Harley was playing hardball and refused to give in until the pot was sweetened even more. I
wrote my state representative and suggested that why don’t you take that pot and help the soon to
be displace employees create, start, and run a new business. They had a lot of experience and
skills. With the right help, I believed that they could have started their own plant; a plant that
would stay in Pennsylvania and not sell them out to the highest bidder. Long story short, I did
not even receive a card thanking me for writing. Instead, the pot was sweetened enough and
Harley stayed.
 Unfortunately, with the individuals I mentioned before—Noriega, Pinochet and so on, the
groups on top could still make gobs of money and there was no threat that they might have to
share with the ones who helped them to create their vast empires. Communism is horrible. It is
terrible to share. It is far better to make a huge donation to some huge charity with huge salaries
for those on top who are already members of your class—possibly even family—and enjoy all of
the media exposure to feed your already inflated ego. But that is what it is all about. It is about
what’s in it for me, not the community or nation. I guess that is why so much business is shipped
overseas to lower bidders; especially, China. So much work is shipped to China that the U.S.
Government had even contracted having parts of our military uniforms to be made there. Hey,
wait a minute. Isn’t China a Socialist State? I guess with a labor force earning just subsistence
incomes, there is a huge profit margin for those contracting to them.
Communism is a dream. For thousands of years, it has only been one system of one group
coming to power through the fears of the majority and living a comfortable life at the expense of
the rest. Maybe this is the best that man is capable of. Maybe the challenge is too great for most
to face. The personal growth that would be involved in realizing that everyone in the community
makes it possible for all the others to enjoy their lives—the doctor and the garbage man—would
be amazing. It isn’t a political movement. It is just neighbors in a community realizing that life
would be easier, more enriched, have so much more opportunity for personal growth by taking
an active interest in their community and neighbors.
Think about it. We are not well armed physically. Almost everything can out run and
overpower us with relative ease. Sure, we have an amazing mind, however, I think that if you
were on the savannah alone, with nothing but your brain and a world class education, the lion
would win ten out of ten times. Our ancestors survived by working together. Creative and
inventive minds were able to create because there were others took care of the shelter, food,
protection, clothes, et cetera. In other words, we worked together. It’s easy, help and look out for
one another. If you’re waiting for a politician to fix everything, I have to go along with Ric
O’Barry’s sentiment that you will be waiting a long time. Marx’s thoughts were of an
evolutionary flow and the results were violent uprisings followed by mass conditioning. I always
thought that it is something that is deep within all of us. I know that it is; the proof is the fact that
we are not all living as hermits. Even true hermits had help to get started. The richest and most
successful person in the world had help from others prior to the moment they started to think of
themselves first. I know that if we all challenge ourselves, we can make this a far better world for
all not just a select few. I just hope that for our sakes that someday we will have the guts to
challenge ourselves to share.
In closing, I find it interesting that there are all of these public messages about paying it
forward, helping one another, community spirit, building strong communities and I do believe
that they mean it as long as we don’t become a strong enough community that we find out that
we do not need them and aren’t as dependent on the government and big business. It would only
erode their influence and power. They just want us to have enough spirit so that they don’t have
to work hard and collect donations.