After this year’s rise and fall of a communist situation; Lewis writes a column about what happened, what has come out of it and whether Communism has been the core threat at all.

Earlier this year I remember the opening article discussing the threat of communism. It seemed to be, to be started with the creation of Katyusha. Katyusha’s creation seemed to rekindle the love of Communism by micro nationalists. I remember only last year saying “where did all the communists go?” and I’ve looked at some of the most successful states and seen that up until these days they have either fallen ill due to inactivity or are creeping along, much like Col is.

Katyusha though brought communism back on the scene, I personally looked forward to it as my own micronation was communist at one point and I have an affection for it. The starting of Katyusha seemed to fill in the gap and it has become a success as the other communist nations were not successful.

So where did this cold war come from? Well, it started for me on MCS. The anti-communist league was discussed probably for a funny idea and probably for the mere simulation of right wing nations who didn’t like the idea. The Council of Free States was formed between some of the larger nations and some smaller ones. It was made to simulate NATO, but it turned out to look more to me like the “coalition of the willing” who “freed” Iraq (I use quotation marks as it is arguable whether they did or not).

The interesting thing about the whole situation which grew out of this is that no major conflict really came about, nowhere on MCS can you really find a massive conflict which saw the communists and Capitalists fighting for their belief. I think that Horshaw was an anti-climax, and the Hamland situation which to me seemed like several people really wanting a fight and using a scapegoat to get one.

On the Hamland point; with hindsight I believe the government made the right decision with the support from the parliament. The expulsion was taken harshly, but was intended to be taken like that. The whole “for our safety and yours” wasn’t probably the strongest defense, but it was relitavley true, but I can say that there was an element of it which showed our anger at the League of Free nations. It was punishment in a peaceful way, I think that jumping to guns is annoying, and those who are smart can pull benefit out of conflict, it increased the ties of Hamland with her allies and also brought out a feeling that nations should be respected no matter what way they are run (which was the aim). It was taken quite far and almost came to the point of conflict, and was considered, but I think diplomatically it was a success and I think that most nations who were against Hamland have resumed diplomacy. Half of them didn’t really speak to us in the first place, so I don’t feel any loss.

I want to know though what really came out of this. I think the CoFS has turned into something which is almost being absorbed by Babkha. Tellia is merely being more allied with New Brittania and instead of a tight alliance, it’s merely formed new blocs or strengthened those which were already there.

No real Communist nation has been thwarted, in fact, a lot of the Communist nations have either been absorbed by Katyusha and the CoFS may even have been a catalyst. Col grows more inactive as I can’t log on for one, but it hasn’t been posted in for quite a while. The Communist bloc has grown more, and I don’t think it will be contained by the CoFS.

Ocia has tried to play a larger part in this than it actually seems they have. They have been aggressive to both sides, and freindly to those in the neutrality pact. As a member state I feel worried about Ocia’s involvement. They may start some conflict, and helping allies is a part of the treaty, so if Ocia pulls the neutrality pact into a war, then what’s going to happen to the idea of neutrality? I think they are run differently to our country, and that should be respected, but Id like them to remember that what ever they get branded as, the rest of the pact get it for supporting them.

So what has been the cause of this? It’s not about communist revolution, it’s not about uniting ideologies, it’s about the normal micronational and political struggle. It’s about who has the most power. Ever nation, politician and state wants more power, that’s their job. As we see this struggle begin to involve alliances, major powers start their own so they don’t get drowned out. It’s happening in the real world with things like the EU, South American Union, African union etc. The supernationalism is the result. I think that as these states get more power, they may spark something with ideology as an excuse, but it’ll all be about power.

Hamland’s place in this, I think as we develop our economic system and as we develop our culture at the rate as we have at the moment, we will be becoming one of the best simulated micronations out there, all we need is more interest. Hamland is looking to be considered a power, but we don’t want a massive bloc, we want our power to be recongnised though a good simulation, culture and economy. Hamland is naturally peaceful, and so it will be interesting if the government gets it’s goal of being a power by January. A pacifist major power? Should be interesting.