Talk:ICA Responce on USLSSR

Stop, just stop

1) Unite under the red banner is what is meant, meaning we put aside our differences for a common goal.

2) I do not propose a new nation but an international union very much like the OAM, in short a forum for the left wing in the community.

3) We ourselves are patriotic and wouldn't sign our selves over to a "super state" of united socialist states

4) Learn to spell, "aspect from a communist?"

5) Well in the Socialism we preach in the USLSSR, a person is given by the state: A home of adequate size, all the food they need to live with, running water, electricity and gas. We provide this by taking a proportion of everyone’s wages (first we take all private property into the care of the state) and using this money we give everything a person needs to live. After we have taken the same percentage from every person’s wages, what is left over is for the earner to use as he/she wishes to buy normal consumer goods.

6) If capitalism runs the world then why could China (a communist state) recall its loans to the capitalist superpower (who invade others in the name of freedom and capitalism) and bankrupt them totally?

7) Lets take the example of charity, if we are so very greedy then why do we give our things/time away for free?

8) Where did I say I wanted to eliminate you? Please enlighten me.

9) Again see point number 2

10) Well I'd like to put the point to you. Where did the middle and upper classes (bourgeoisie) come from? Did they just materialise? No they came from the working classes, so do not tell me that the working class only take and do not aspire to greater things.

11) Give me one example of pure Marxism being implemented and failing. You cannot. It hasn't been done. Now you will be sitting at your desk, or in bed and be saying "look at the USSR" well I can simply say to you that they were not Marxists when they collapsed or at all, they used adapted systems. To compound my point even more we can certainly say at the collapse of the USSR they weren’t communist.

If I have missed anything out don’t hasten to tell me. President Whitmarsh 23:44, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! Anything worth wild that I have to say has already been perfectly stated by Herr Whitmarsh. Thank you sir! James Wilary of the People's reformed States Republic 02:51, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Please, refrain from this. Respect the opinions of the Communist nations and stop trying to put them in a bad light to further your own agenda. Communism has its flaws, and the Empire is by no means a socialist country, but do away with this nonsensical banter. HolySalanianEmpire 03:52, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that whenever a communist nation attacks capitalism, they are never attacked themselves, and that when a capitalist organisation attacks communism, everyone rips on them. This makes no sense.

Secundomia ^{(talk),(Contributions),(blog),(followed pages)} 17:30, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

One of the main problems I think lies in how each side does it. The Capitalists tend to seem to be more personal and insulting while the Communists tend to be more reserved and less rude.

James Wilary of the People's reformed States Republic 20:39, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I concur. If the USLSSR had been so inconsiderate in their article as the ICA, I would have condemned it also. HolySalanianEmpire 20:43, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Even as a socialist myself I can see the different ways in which we argue. The capitalists use ad hominem allot when they argue, but the left normaly (not always) use the capitalist system in arguements against capitalists. Vitcash 15:08, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. If you look at the past and certain people with their arguments, including Mr. Soergel and Mr. Lethler, attacks got very personal.

Secundomia ^{(talk),(Contributions),(blog),(followed pages)} 22:03, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Responce of the ICA

1. You must not be a good writer, because you failed to make it clear to me, the king of Wyvern and multiple others. You are basically saying the world, or at least a larger part of it, should be communist.

2. More unions? Those would be easily classified as a YAMO.

3. Then don’t use terms that make it seem you do want to form one state.

4. This is not relevant at all. I have my reasons.

5. Most micronations cannot accomplish that. If a homeless person were to apply for citizenship, you would have to give him a home and food. Now I don’t think you would.

6. Because China may call itself communist, but it is far from that. Ever wondered why your slave-produced products all have ‘made in China’ on them? That’s right

7. A true socialist or communist gives what he can and takes what he needs. Now look at your fancy house. Do you need it? Aren’t there homeless people in your area? I’d call you a very hypocritical socialist. Are you middle class and do your parents have reasonably well-paying jobs? That would, according to Wikipedia, make you a bourgeois. If not, and you have access to the internet at home, you must at least be a petit bourgeois.

8. ‘’Hasten the downfall of the bourgeoisie’’. If you are a true communist nation, which I sincerely doubt, you do not have a bourgeoisie. So, if you want to hasten the downfall of the bourgeoisie, you’d need to do that somewhere else. That is, in someone else’s (micro)nation.

9. You do not have to create two parts of your post for one statement.

10. If they strive to become better, that means taking opportunities to make themselves rich, they are the ideal capitalists.

11. Give me one example of pure Marxism actually being used. It cannot. I am not sitting at my desk and saying ‘USSR’ as I am not stupid. By the way, you use the PRC as an example. The PRC is even less communist than the USSR was. You basically undermined your own argument.

12. Mr. Parker I is right. Anymore arguments?

Brad1201 21:42, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Or you could just not be good at reading Rsmall1413 05:01, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Response to Bradley

Well, you cannot say that you did not warrant this:

1. Actually, he didn't say anything of the sort [that is, taking over the world]. Yes, reading may not be the most easy task in the world for you, for perfectly understandable reasons, but it doesn't help matters when you just jump to conclusions before getting a second opinion.

2. Given the ICA's status in the eyes of many micronationalists (and not just the left wing, some centrists and even rightists consider it to be YAMO), that argument is somewhat ironic.

3. He didn't. See my first point.

4. This one I will not hesitate to concede - given your dyslexia, I have no problem at all with any spelling or grammar errors you may make.

5. That doesn't mean to say that they couldn't try to help - it's within the means of most people to pay for someone to stay in a YMCA or similar.

6. China certainly has faults, I'm not going to deny that, but then I would much, much rather work in a Chinese factory than an African sweatshop, run, no less, by a capitalist multinational corporation. Also, I'd like to draw your attention to blood diamonds, mass deforestation (before you come back to me on that, see the Green Wall of China), demolition of homes and offices to make way for supershops and giant shopping centres, forced labour in African mines under appalling conditions at the behest of capitalist corporations, a small thing called 'debt bondage', and not forgetting the thousands of old people dying each year from hypothermia in their own homes, because it isn't profitable to keep their houses warm. Also, if my memory serves me right, you suggested that the West should invade Africa in order to "put things right" - and you even went as far as to say that the Slave Trade came about because the people perpetrating it were "clever".

7. Now that was something of a low blow. Yes, perhaps he does have a nice house and access to the Internet, but if he is using these resources to further the Socialist cause (for instance, using a large-ish house, he would be able to host meetings of the local Communist or Socialist Party branch, hold awareness-raising events, or even allow a homeless person to stay with them for a while), then that makes him what I and many, many others, including Marx himself, would consider a Socialist. If you have ever read any of Marx's works, then I'm sure that you will have come across the section where he states that "the idiom of change usually comes from the middle classes."

8. Just because one nation does not have a bourgeoisie does not mean that they do not exist elsewhere. America's corporate class is very good example of a force that, with some notable exceptions, uses predatory (and often legally questionable) business tactics to obtain monopolies over certain market areas for the purpose of personal gain for the shareholders, and also uses its PR machinery and vast monetary reserves to crush most of their opposition. Wal-Mart in particular has a policy of throwing fifty lawyers at anyone who opposes them, in order to use the law to intimidate them into silence.

9. Not a point, so I won't respond to it.

10. It's easy enough to say something like that while sitting in a comfortable house with money in the bank and a car in the drive. Opportunities are rife then, but for the man sat under a cardboard box out in the street, he often will have little to no chance of 'improving' himself without help. These people very often do strive to become better, so don't you dare even think of telling me that they are greedy leeches who have got what they deserve.

11. Oh, but pure communism does exist - in the form of autogestion, and, if you have ever visited a commune, then you'll see 'pure' communism in action there as well. It works very well, actually - as I know from personal experience.

12. He isn't right, actually. Usually, the statements posted by conservatives are much more aggressive, biting, and rude than the statements and counterstatements issued by the socialists. Of course, there are exceptions, but for the most part this is true.

--Demontux 07:50, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

King Quentin of Wyvern's response to the situation

This time, I will not stand by and watch a communist majority argue with a conservative minority. Even though I lean towards social democracy myself, I find this very disturbing to say the least. I believe some strange, strange forms of argumentation are being used here by both sides. But seeing that the majority of the participants in this discussion are on the socialist side, I will not go too far into the conservative errors. I will leave those to our beloved socialist friends to answer so that there remains some balance in this discussion.

I'd like to start off with Rsmall. Apparently, he finds it useful to add a simple line without taking time to respond properly. I say, either get into this discussion or stay out of it altogether. We do not need more one-liners, whatever side they are on. They are simply not useful in a proper discussion. About the contents of his simple line: indeed, Bradley is not a good reader. As we have said over ten times now, he is dyslexic. Furthermore, he is from the Netherlands. That's right - the Netherlands. We take time to learn other languages, but we might not speak, write and read them as good as our main language, which is Dutch.

Then there is our beloved Demontux. We'll start by analysing a part of the USLSSR statement that he does not believe says he wants to take over at least a part of the world, which is what Bradley said. By joining together we can help the advancement of micronational socialism and hasten the downfall of the bourgeoisie thereby giving the people control of their lands! As Bradley has said, a true socialist nation does not have a bourgeoisie. So they must mean other (micro)nations that do have a bourgeoisie of which they want the 'downfall'. Considering this, I do believe that the USLSSR is making the same mistake that the ICA did - trying to spread its ideology to other, perhaps non-willing micronations.

Statement number two of Demontux's response does not disprove or convince anyone. He is just insulting the ICA. Please use relevant argumentation or leave this part out altogether. Once again, we do not need more one-liners, whatever side they are on. In fact, insulting the other party and using a 'you are x, so we have the right to be x' argument, I believe are two errors in argumentation that, on an average Dutch high school, for example, will probably land you an insufficient grade. I cannot see how the status of the ICA is relevant. Please respond to the statement and not the person or organisation making it.

For this part, I would like to refer to my third paragraph. This language shows at least some kind of ideological imperialism. Apparently, they want the bourgeoisie to have a downfall. Although I think Bradley's idea of 'one state' is far-fetched, I believe the idea of a peaceful socialist micronation is mistakenly used on the USLSSR, should they act as they are saying, causing the downfall of the bourgeoisie in other nations. Both sides are wrong, I think, on this part. Bradley is stating a very peculiar conspiracy theory, but the socialist nations are naive to think that this language does not have any meaning.

The part about the People's Republic of China is one of the strangest things I've read. It does not matter if Africa is worse; the point is that the People's Republic of China only got the point of being powerful by letting go of purely state-owned means of production and a socialist economic system. Before that, it was a terrible place to live, much like Africa is now, only due to collectivisations and communist rule. Just look at the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this post and try to disprove that socialism in the case of the PRC did not work. Again, please stick to the point and do not try to talk us off the subject by comparing it to nations on the other side of the world and going for a personal attack towards anyone.

I don't see any of you inviting homeless people to their houses (in fact, I don't see a lot of you living near a place where there are homeless people). I don't see any socialist micronations actually helping the poor in their micronation, mostly because micronationalists don't tend to be poor. They tend to be middle class teenagers. Because of this, I believe socialist micronations are fun, but not much more than that. And I believe Marx would have preferred that you helped the workers and the poor rather than host futile meetings (seeing as socialism is not popular at all at the moment).

Just because one nation does not have a bourgeoisie does not mean that they do not exist elsewhere. - Exactly. I absolutely agree. Why? Because this is what Bradley and I have been saying all along. That is exactly the problem. They do not have bourgeoisie, yet they want to cause its downfall. Logically, they want to take their ideology beyond their own borders, which means spreading it elsewhere. And that is what I call ideological imperialism. I will not respond to number ten, as I agree with that. The government should create opportunities for people to develop themselves, get proper education and get a well-paying job.

Number eleven, however, I consider wrong. Pure Marxism also means that there has to be a social revolution, for example the October Revolution (which did not lead to the workers being in charge of their own means of production, though). The concept of autogestion, while very interesting, is not an example of pure Marxism. Bradley asked for pure Marxism, not pure 'communism'. Plus, pure Marxism means that the world, both in political and economic structure, has to change from capitalist (where the workers are being oppressed by the bourgeoisie) through socialist (state-owned) to communist (of which autogestion may be a limited example). A complete shift to communism, however, I have never seen. Marx meant an international movement that (Wikipedia puts this nicely) 'expropriates the capitalist classes around the world'. For this reason, I consider the question unanswered.

I cannot help but note that number twelve does not mean anything. It is not good that conservatives use more biting language, but that does not make it right for others to follow their example. In the Netherlands, we have saying for people who use other people's actions as an excuse. 'If they were to jump into a pond, would you follow them?' And I think this saying has a lot of value. The fact that others do it (yes, I agree that conservatives tend to be impolite in their statements) does not make it right for anyone else to do it. One must judge his own actions by their causes and consequences, and not by what others in his situation have done. So I find it no more than logical that socialists have to stick to the same rules.

Despite my language, which I myself find somewhat disrespectful, I must admit that I respect your understanding for Bradley's dyslexia. I have seen many micronationalists (of all ideologies) who did not seem to care and just used his spelling and grammar against him, which is not only an argumentation error but also a sign of coarseness and disrespect for Bradley as a person. Also, I am sorry if I did not understand your posts correctly. Point me to those mistakes and I will try to fix them.

Your progressive friend

QuentinWyvern 11:22, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Okay one thing I Rsmall is dislexic and i speak Russian, Spanish and English and i did not know that he was either from the netherlands or dislexic i was just saying that it was clear to me on what the USLSSR was saying. I have better things to do then write a huge reply to this small matter. I now will tell you I am suporting the communist side for I am in the UPUC communist party(aka the GIL workers Party). Now if you want to keep insulting me you can but i must go work on other more important matters then this micronations views on communism. The USLSSR is one of our close allies so i support them in this if that was not clear Rsmall1413 21:26, August 23, 2010 (UTC)