Objectively false, they write about socialism in Critique of the Gotha program and Capital
Don't forged they were scientific socialists, which means that they would not predict what course socialism would made.
What do you think higher-stage socialism is if not a prediction?
Lenin, lived the lowest phase of socialism, the nep period. He did not live the collectivisation.
NEP was a policy, and Lenin never considered it socialist
It is a requariment maybe for the highest phase of socialism. Not for the lowest. Socialism is naturally divided by many phases as capitalism.
Socialism's different phases exclusively deal with social relations. lower stage and higher stage socialism are the same mode of production and as such neither have commodity production.
No one claimed that china is in the highest stage. Learn some economics.
China isn’t in any stage of socialism
He never said that commodity production could not exist in lowest phase of socialism. He essentially said that commodity production WILL exist in socialism, as we mean socialism today.
No, this is just objectively false
From Marx:
Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning. What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another. Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form
Alos, preety much it does not matter too much what marx said on the issue, socialism is something he did not live to see, therefore he would not make a scientific analysis on the issue.
What do you think Marx’s predictions of higher-stage socialism and it’s social relations were based on if not scientific analysis of socialism?
Bourgeoisie economists can identifie if a system is their own.
Apparently they can’t
Also, not all economists are bourgeoisie economists. Many are socialists. The ones residing in china and cuba for
Those are bourgeois as well