Aren’t all of those countries are in early development of capital lol it’s not a coincidence that all tankies are ignorant and don’t know the most basic Marxism 101.
MLs state that socialism was constructed in the USSR from 1933-1956 when Kruschev started privatising State owned assets and pressed further MLs would state this was still the era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and that this would be a lower level of Socialism .
"The historic conditions of its existence are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and commodities. It [capitalism] can spring into life only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets in the market with the free laborer selling his labor power."
Marx - (Capital, Vol. I, International ed., p. 170.)
It is this communist society, which has just emerged into the light of day out of the womb of capitalism and which is in every respect stamped with the birthmarks of the old society, that Marx terms the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society.
The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it.
The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs).
-Lenin, State And Revolution, Chapter 5 Section 3
"In themselves money and commodities are no more capital than are the means of production and of subsistence. They want transforming into capital. But this transformation can only take place under certain circumstances that center in this, viz., that two very different kinds of commodity-possessors must come face to face and into contact; on the one hand, the owners of money, means of production, means of subsistence, who are eager to increase the sums of values they possess, by buying other people's labor power; on the other hand, free laborers, the sellers of their own labor power and therefore the sellers of labor.... With this polarization of the market for commodities, the fundamental conditions of capitalist production are given. The capitalist system presupposes the complete separation of the laborers from all property in the means by which they can realize their labor. As soon as capitalist production is once on its own legs, it not only maintains this separation, but reproduces it on a continually extending scale."
Marx (Capital, p. 714.)
the separation of the direct producer from the means of production, i.e., his expropriation, [signified] the transition from simple commodity production to capitalist production (and [constituted] the necessary condition for this transition).... The home market... spreads with the extension of commodity production from products to labor power, and only in proportion as the latter is transformed into a commodity does capitalism embrace the entire production of the country, developing mainly on account of means of production...."
Lenin - (Collected Works, Vol. 3, pp. 68-69.)
In order to demonstrate that a given society was capitalist, in the scientific sense of the term, it would be necessary to show not merely that articles of consumption were commodities (which was true but proves little), but also and principally that commodity exchange, based on expropriation of the direct producers, embraced and governed the means of production and labor power. If the direct producers, the workers, are not divorced from the means of production, and if consequently neither these means nor labor power function as commodities, then no survivals of "bourgeois right," nor any amount of other inequities and injustices, can allow of such a society being properly termed capitalist.
Given that there was no exploitation of man by man, industries were owned by the states and labourers in the USSR could not sell their labour power in a free market (their right to employment was enshrined in the constitution) to "owners of production" given that the centres of production were either collectively or state owned and there was no class that could make money of profiteering given that profits went back into production or investment I'd be interested in how you can tell me Capitalism, and not socialism, was the USSRs mode of production during this time period.
MLs state that socialism was constructed in the USSR from 1933-1956 when Kruschev started privatising State owned assets and pressed further MLs would state this was still the era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and that this would be a lower level of Socialism .
Marx - (Capital, Vol. I, International ed., p. 170.)
-Lenin, State And Revolution, Chapter 5 Section 3
Marx (Capital, p. 714.)
Lenin - (Collected Works, Vol. 3, pp. 68-69.)
In order to demonstrate that a given society was capitalist, in the scientific sense of the term, it would be necessary to show not merely that articles of consumption were commodities (which was true but proves little), but also and principally that commodity exchange, based on expropriation of the direct producers, embraced and governed the means of production and labor power. If the direct producers, the workers, are not divorced from the means of production, and if consequently neither these means nor labor power function as commodities, then no survivals of "bourgeois right," nor any amount of other inequities and injustices, can allow of such a society being properly termed capitalist.
Given that there was no exploitation of man by man, industries were owned by the states and labourers in the USSR could not sell their labour power in a free market (their right to employment was enshrined in the constitution) to "owners of production" given that the centres of production were either collectively or state owned and there was no class that could make money of profiteering given that profits went back into production or investment I'd be interested in how you can tell me Capitalism, and not socialism, was the USSRs mode of production during this time period.