NorwegianCommunist

But because of the war, USSR had to spend a lot of the surplus on weapon, protection and other military spendings.
So we can say that it was developing socialism?

I would say that Stalin managed to make the USSR "partly" socialist.
Since pretty much all factories, bussinesses, workplaces etc (except kulakks' farms etc) were state owned. Not controlled by the workers themself, but not far away.

Do you agree or dissagree?
(Thanks for answaring, it really helps me =))

well, you see, the working people mostly voted for the secretary. But he did not really decide so much about it, the communist party decided where to invest the actual capital into. The workers therefore did not control their own production=no socialism.

But the USSR really had a difficult time and evolved into this capitalism through its material surrounding conditions: Fascism/Imperialism threat forcing it to use large amounts of surplus for military etc. Really though, i think the USSR could have tried to achieve real workers control, socialism, in workers voting for their supervisors instead of the party. I see absolutely no need for the state to control the economy. The DoP's workers' state should be forced to bargain with the workers who would become their own board of directors replacing shareholders (capital) with employees (labor).

'Did workers control the MoP?'
"Yes, collectively through the workers' state."

I would elaborate on this, because it is not very intricate. It was basically the local democratic soviets in which ALL workers decided about what needed to be done to produce and they voted for the secretary of that soviet, but the Communist Party (in which the most "conscious" workers, the members, voted for the leadership) decided about trade and where to invest the surplus capital of the workers. This is NOT socialism, as Marx writes about the microeconomy: "they [the workers] themselves appropriate this surplus either of the product or labor".

Yes, it's works by Stalin.

You can download them in easy-to-read PDF format as well: http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/Index.html

Hoxha wasn't a "dictator" and one person cannot unilaterally change relations to the means of production.

State-capitalism doesn't have to do with state ownership, it has to do with relations to the means of production and the character of the state.

Albania, as with the USSR of the 1920's-40's, was a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, building socialism.

Yes, collectively through the workers' state.

After the 1950's that would be correct, but not before that. The economy did not operate like a capitalist economy before the 50's, and there were periods of fairly democratic initiatives (ironically, the largest being during the Great Purges, as noted by J. Arch Getty, Robert Thurston and others.)

Glad to see you became a Marxist-Leninist.