Help me comrades

OP prolly just likes soviet aesthetics. Why would someone want a transitional period to be permanently? It's a shit period of hard work and sacrifice to create a truly stable and advanced communist society that functions without the need of an authority to dictate what needs to be done, therefore full fist communism

Why would you want a transitional period to be permanently? It is the sole purpose of the revolutionary vanguard to lead the working class to communism. We should not repeat the mistakes of USSR but learn from it. Why should we disappoint the working class a second time? The more transitional period lasts, the more corrupted the state becomes. All we need is advancement, advancement in science, technology and industry. The people will do the rest after that.

Pick one and only one. Something tells me that you're lying about doing the reading and are just a young edgelord.

The capitalist class creates poverty, This illusion of choice is a spook

and damn this is a wholesome reply, thank you, my only question is:
How do we distribute resources if it's not the state controlling the means of production?

I'll read more lenin before taking my ideology seriously

Well OP, it's obvious that you identify more with Marx Len because of your nationalism and support of hierachies, or maybe even Maoism since your vehement support of the military by your description. And let us not forget that there's no one true "communism", just as there is no one true socialism; there will always be different ideologies and applications over history. I wouldn't really try and unironically align yourself with Nazbol though unless you're down with the whole ethno-nationalism set of ideals, which is far from leftist.

But apart from that, why are you in favor of militarization? I mean, I could argue with you about the state too but I will save that for another day. Militarization is one of the largest tools of capitalism and western imperialism to date, why support it? You realize almost every major war by the west in the last 60 years have been for little to no other reason other then profit? Multinational corporations and top capitalists create these wars, why support militarization? I mean, I understand if you're going to be nationalist why you'd want a military to defend your country, but are you inferring that you are using your military for defensive non-aggressive purposes, or are you leaning towards military interventionism? I think saying the military is the only thing that matters is a very broad statement, but I can't find too much of a reason for it unless it's only to defend the homeland.

As I said, advancement in science, technology and industry. With these things done in the transitional period, we basically secure the permanent growth, a permanent growth in the productive forces, the one that never stops and produces and advances further, therefore increasing the flow of material wealth. With this done - poverty is gone, stable life, you need to work when it's necessary for the community. There is no need for the state nor for the any kind of revolutionary vanguard because we all know what to do, therefore absolutely all land and its resources will be owned publicly and managed by the public via maybe some social institutions, soviets/councils, communes call them what you want. Basically like what ancoms want from the start, we just like to mess around gulags, do some cleaning n stuff.

During any civil war or revolution, the nation is at it's weakest. Any revolution in the modern age will probably be met with a lot of foreign and capitalist opposition. I seek military merely for defense

I'm an american so my scope is pretty limited, but it seems like the military is one of the most radicalizing and anti-capitalist institutions in our country, I dunno. I'm kinda stuck on this thought that the military is the physical manifestation of our nation's will. I think we will need to defend the fuck out of our vanguard/movement when revolution comes

Do you recommend any readings? I'm going to give the state and revolution another go, any other works to understand implementation of ML? I feel like there are a lot failed states that never transitioned or reached absolute power, maybe I need to read more about history or something. I'll google more literature on ML

First of all, you need some philosophy fam. You need to truly understand what dialectical materialism is and how can you use it in even your daily life.
After that, you can read what you want, because this book that i'm attaching you will teach how to think "dialectically". Cannot go back after that.
Don't forget to read the short biography of the author.
If you know most of these stuff, which I kinda doubt, no offense, you could just browse the contents and see what you want to know, but i'd recommend reading it from start to end.

Thank you comrade

Okay, well I can better sympathize with a military merely for defense, but to go as far as to say the US military is an anti-capitalist institution? I don't think you really have a great understanding of capitalism and corporate influence then, with all due respect. You realize under our current system, the only person who stands to gain anything via war is defense contractors right? The US government has no means of production when it comes to the military, it's all created and operated by private multinational defense contractors, ie: boeing, raytheon etc. These corporations have not only bought and payed all of our politicians for more funding personally for military equipment, but been the huge factor on why we get into wars in the first place. I think you need to do more research on the military industrial complex, that alongside the prison industrial complex are the top 3 most hegemonic entities in our current capitalist system. Now, again I can understand you supporting a military under a capitalist nation, especially if it's only for the means of defense, and isolation from capitalist imperialism; but to go as far to say that it's "the most radicalizing and anti-capitalist institutions in our country" really makes me plea to you to do more research.

you sound like a fascist, fuck off

Fuck the idpol of the right, I'm not fash.

I think that discrimination is a tool that the bourgeoisie use to divide the proletariat, and I'm not even imperialist.

nationalist
globalist capitalist
tyranny

you a Nazi my nigga

back to the corner leftcom

Thanks for confirming that you've read neither anarchist nor Marxist literature.
>We do not know what anyone means when they describe the proletariat as a social category. If they are implying that the working class as a social body have something between themselves, other than their experience of work then we utterly reject this. MD have a penchant for Champagne and Tarkovsky movies whereas our neighbours prefer White Lightening and WWF wrestling, our economic position, however, is identical. We refute all identity politics as ideology and we absolutely refuse to view the proletariat as a political/sociological constituency equivalent to ethnicity, gender or sexual preference. The proletariat has no existence independent of capitalism. - Monsieur Dupont, Nihilist Communism
The working class exists precisely because of value form's existence and valorization. It cannot exist outside of capitalism, and vice versa - capitalism cannot survive without its existence. It doesn't exist as anything other than this material relation.
You'd know that if you read books.
Also

Give me a fucking break. Kropotkin explicitly states this in the breadbook

"What does our baron do to enrich himself? He looks out for
peasants — for poor peasants!
If every peasant-farmer had a piece of land, free from rent
and taxes, if he had in addition the tools and the stock necessary
for farm labour, who would plough the lands of the baron?
Everyone would look after his own. But there are thousands
of destitute persons ruined by wars, or drought, or pestilence.
They have neither horse nor plough. (Iron was costly in the
Middle Ages, and a draughthorse still more so.)
"