Anti-Traditional

Hi A-T; lots there to post about, I'll try to outline some answers...

I'm not sure about the Trots, as their function is still supporting one side or other in capitalism's wars (see Trots v Stalinists over Libya). I know individual Trots who I think are good people, but I think they have to break from the logic of Trotskyism to be of utility to the working class.

Post's to long, I'm going to have to break it up.

The fact that pretty much every party joined the counter revolution against the Bolsheviks (with the exception exception of the left SRs), meant that the Bolsheviks had to impose a ban on all other parties. After the civil war the industry was destroyed, which meant lines formed for commodities. Lines require an accountant and a policeman to oversee distribution and prevent riots, respectively- you can bet that the policeman and accountant had shoes.

This lead to the rise of the bureaucracy, well that and socialism in one country.

Hehe, I am aware of that. I plan on joining the CPGB, anyway. I'm pretty much kicked out anyway after calling it a 'pathetic trotskyite sect'.

But if you hold to a State Capitalist conception of the USSR i'd argue that it isn't the group for you

I don't think that the 'Marxist Leninists' of this forum are Anti communist, but I would say that the leaders of the state capitalist countries were.

All that point to it as an example of socialism could be called anti communist, actually...

Yes, my group is Ortho trot...

I'm sorry comrade. What you just posted on the forum or on my page?

For your visitor message:
I wouldn't necessarily see the Stalinists and Ortho-trots as anti communist-but I definaty wouldn't agree with forming a party with them. Pan-leftism is...bad. I don't necessarily think that communists can be classified as 'left' because the political spectrum is relative to bourgeois society. I would agree with the unity of all classical and orthodox Marxists, but left communists don't agree with parliamentary participation, do they? I advocate a SPD type mass party.

By un-materialistic, I mean that it refers to the state as controlled by a minority rather than a class.

If I had to critique anarchism now, it would be for its un-materialistic definition of the state.

That's what I'm doing. I presume that you are a left comm?

I suppose. I'm still an immature bastard, and that was atrociously written.
I'm rather cross at myself for churning out such nonsense and doing so in such an unreadable way.

Sorry, haven't really got a clue. Good luck finding a critique though!