>There is a difference between being forced to work at gun point, being forced to work due to basic necessities making labor power a commodity
Pic related. Nature is capitalist now because it forces you to hunt down game to eat.
>Like, you're dumb as fuck because even in Catalonia, the Anarchists did not force people to work, people voluntarily joined the collectives, communes and did work because things needed to be produced.
This is objectively not true, CNT-FAI had work quotas everybody needed to fulfil and had an armed police that made sure they did. Again, there is no such thing as "free lunch" - if you want to withdraw from the means of consumption, you need to contribute equivalencies, unless you are disabled, old, a child, sick or whatever.
>Commodity Production existed in the USSR in the form of wage labor as a commodity
Where were workers hired and fired?
>private property was not abolished
Where did a private entity own means of production?
>Firms operated on a profit motive.
Again, I'm tired of repeating myself, profit wasn't based on the extraction of surplus-value, and profits weren't invested into capital, it was just a cost-accounting method as the law of value, as Marx states, does persist in the sense that labor-values regulate production and distribution.
>and production was not based on consumption, but increasing geo-metric growth.
An industrial society is the precondition for increased consumption, this is again, a very basic point in Marxism, unless you are a primitivist.
Yup, relations between public enterprises in socialism do not constitute social exchange, as such, goods exchanged within the public sector do not appear to us as commodities in substance (like when a worker echanges a hammer for a gear within one enterprise, before their labor becomes social). I think Kim il-Sung wrote a good account on this in his collected works on page 388 - 394: