>I don't call the USSR state-capitalist "just because it had money." It had money, wage-labor, commodity production, profit, a class system, etc.
The Ruble was unlike labour vouchers in that it could change hands from person to person, but different from normal money in that means of production couldn't be acquired with it. The Ruble was between labour vouchers and money, and closer to labour vouchers IMHO. If you define wage labor as people not individually producing directly what they consume, then yes, it had wage labor (though the life of such a laborer was distinct from elsewhere in the world since there was no threat of unemployment). If you mean something else with that, specify what you mean. I don't know what you mean by class system in the context of the USSR, some notion that some people had more prestige and income than others (though that doesn't make one a capitalist)? I flat-out disagree that they had profit and I don't care how many thought they had and to what degree book keeping made use of the word
profit. They had surplus. Surplus doesn't equal profit. How much of the surplus went into non-essential consumption and how much into building productive capacity was an administrative decision, as such I don't see how you can call that profit without turning into a pretzel. I suspect it's just intellectual laziness on your part, taking mere word usage at face value.