Just some quick critiques from a
good-faith Marxist.

Defining modes of production based on distribution and ownership is VERY tricky because you have to consider that even some countries with no LEGAL private property and heavily PLANNED economies can still function as capitalist economies (like the U.S.S.R, which preserved wage-labor, commodity production, and did much more to prove their capitalist tendencies). State Capitalism as a theory, unless you have solid critiques of it, completely through the common definition of capitalism OUT THE WINDOW. Private property has existed for a long time, feudal lords owned land to themselves and I am sure you're aware of that. Law is something entirely super-structural and necessarily rises from the establishment of the economic base. So then we have out conclusion here, capitalist private property must fundamentally differ from feudal property, and what a fine conclusion that is. The answer is in class relations! Capitalism is defined by the relationship between producers and their labor-power. A serf was essentially owned and a peasant worked in an unsocialized manner (since the bourgeois-democratic revolution had yet to socialize production) and THAT is where we get our defining trait!

Another thing about this essay that rubs me the wrong way is the definition of socialism. Yes, you're right to believe that it is a de-commodified system, but your definition is quite strange considering you are an Anarchist. That definition, the transition to communism from capitalism, is the definition provided by Vladimir Lenin in "State and Revolution," and is pretty much just how socialism was conceptualized by the Russian Social Democratic parties at the time. Marx used socialism interchangeably with communism only when he was not referring to specific labor movements. So what is socialism, then? Socialism, first of all, is a POST-CAPITALIST mode of production. And for simplicity sake (and it also being VERY early in the morning :P) I am not going to quote much. However, it is important to state that a Post-Capitalist mode of production needs to be classless. Without class, you can't really have the state because the state is a tool for class oppression (you can have content though, just not form) and since you can't have class you can't have money either (because without commodity production you don't have money, and commodity production implies class relations). Socialism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society (and this all requires the MOP to be socialized in ownership) where alienation ceases to exist and the producer has full use of their product! Yes, socialism can be used to define the lower phase of communism, however then it couldn't be transitioning to communism because LPC is COMMUNIST.

One last word, everything else wrong with the essay (which though my criticism, I actually enjoyed) can be implied in my other arguments and yes I did argue on a lot of presuppositions. However, I want to repeat the fact that the U.S.S.R, and other Marxist-Leninist states, weren't just falsified states because of big mean government. No, its because they never abolished class relations. Anyways, if you want further discussion I can give you my Discord. Hope to hear from you!

Praxis Makes Perfect!