Hassan made some correct comments regarding socialism and was attacked by a critic.  In the following conversation I am replying to the critic.
 

 Hassan Nasir correctly wrote,
        “Marxism does not hold the position that the state will begin to immediately whither away after the overthrow of a capitalist society.”
 

His critic said:
        Agreed.  But the state should START to wither away after the socialist revolution instead of getting strong.

My reply,
        Where did you get that idea?  Please cite your source from the classics.  There is nothing that I know of that says the state can't get stronger and stronger after the revolution as it continues its on-going war against counterrevolution.  Only when socialist revolutions have occurred in all nations and there is no serious opposition by internal capitalist elements or any possibility of undermining by foreign capitalist elements can the state start to whither away under socialism.
         That might not occur for scores of years or even a century or more after the revolution.  Marxist tenets are not found in some kind of political cookbook.
 

Hassan Nasir correctly wrote,
        “The state does not 'whither away' during the transition from socialism to communism owing to the growing strength of non-state actors within society becoming stronger with respect to the state.”
 

His critic said:
    The non-state actors are supposed to loose strength after socialist revolution. A revolution resulting in even stronger non-state actors can be named anything but a socialist revolution.
 

My reply to the critic,
        The non-state internal actors normally do loose strength after the revolution but the external ones could very well grow in strength which warrants strengthening the state.  In fact, what gives you the idea that the non-state actors can't grow in strength even under socialism for a period of time.  Witness the NEP.
 

The critic says,
        External threat to revert the revolution can however be considered as a probable justification for a stronger state. Yet the socialist state should not grow stronger than the opponent bourgeois states which face the same threat of socialist revolution. But ironically, the Soviet state grew more coercive than its bourgeois counterparts.

My reply,
        "the Soviet state grew more coercive than its bourgeois counterparts"?  Are you serious?  Do you want me to list all the horribly suppressive fascist dictators the capitalists were bankrolling around the world.  Franco, Salazar, Pinochet, Somoza, Trujillo, Diem, Thieu, Sygmund Rhee, Chiang Kai-Shek, Marcos, Fujimori, Mobutu, The Shah, and on and on.  It
reads like a Who's Who in the World of Political gangsters.  The US bankrolled, trained, installed, and fostered them all.
        Secondly, when it comes to comparing bourgeois dictatorships with proletarian dictatorships you are omitting an extremely important fact, one which the capitalists would not dare to mention.  Simply put:  There is all the difference in the world between killing a man who is strangling your baby and killing a man because he is trying to prevent you from strangling his baby.  Do I have to spell out the message of this analogy.
        There is a huge difference between killing a man because he is trying to maintain a dictatorship of 5% over 95% and killing a man because he is trying to maintain a dictatorship of 95% over 5%.  If you can't see those differences you have been terribly indoctrinated my friend.
 

The critic says:
        The only explanation of this phenomenon is Lack of Accountability in socialist governments.

My reply,
        They are the only ones that are accountable to the masses.  It's members arise from the masses and represent the masses.  A bourgeois dictatorship, on the other hand, is operated by fat cat representatives such as lawyers, financiers, magnates, etc. and only operates in the interest of 2% of the population; it could not care less what the other 98% want and only moves toward improvements when endangered or threatened.  It is called mass pressure.
 

Hassan wrote,
        “it is quite clear that liberty, according to liberalism, is the right to dispense of property without infringements by any authority “
 

To which the critic replied:
        You have very hastily reduced the concept of liberty to the property rights.
 

My reply to the critic,
        My friend the degree of liberty you have is directly proportional to the amount of property you own.  There is no such thing as a free poor man.  It is an oxymoron.  You need to go to my website and read what freedom is all about.
        The address is:
http://www.ameritech.net/users/klomckin/DeceptiveWordFreedom.html#THE%20WORD
        Since the masses only own property under socialism, they can only be free under socialism.  Under capitalism nearly all property is owned by 1 or 2% of the population and only they have freedom.  If you don't own the press or part of same, then you don't have freedom of the press.  And only under socialism do all members of the masses have part
ownership of the press.
 

 The critic continues:
        In addition to property rights, liberty includes a lot of other things.
 

My reply to the critic,
        Such as what?  Please provide specifics.  This I want to hear.
 

 The critic continues:
        If liberty is confined to property rights, all the people without property should be liberty-less.
 

My reply,
        Bingo! You got it.
 

The critic continues:
        But I see a lot of property-less people enjoying a variety of liberty.
 

My reply,
        Such as what?
 

The critic says:
        They make choices (sometimes irrational) regarding their jobs, family, lifestyle etc.  I admit their liberty is limited by their economic conditions.
 

My reply,
        Limited??  You mean directly proportional to, don't you.  Again, you need to read the article I referred to above.
 

The critic says:
        But they enjoy more liberty than an engineer in USSR who is posted in Siberia without his consent.
 

My reply,
        You are talking about wartime conditions or conditions of acute internal threat when all responsible citizens of the entire socialist nation should consider themselves as soldiers in war and be willing to do what any soldier does during wartime.  That does not represent the normal state of affairs of a socialist society.  It is highly aberrant and, unfortunately, that was the state of affairs throughout nearly the entire history of the SU.  The capitalists never gave the SU a day of rest and when the fascists came to power in Germany, they actually went on the offensive to destroy socialism.  They even went so far as to invade it in June 1941 in a blatant act of unprovoked aggression.
        A responsible citizen assumes duty he does not particularly like but he does it for the cause.  Capitalists instituted the Draft, although they have been trying to get around it by buying their soldiers with fatter paychecks.  In effect, the entire United States military, for example, is composed of nothing but mercenaries whose price was met.
 

Hassan wrote,
        “Thus, nationalization of land or factories is by definition an infringement of the liberal conception of “liberty”.
 

The critic replies to him:
        I do not agree. The liberty of exploitation is not included in the liberal concept of liberty. Exploitation violates
liberty of other people.
 

My reply to the critic,
        Now how can you have liberty of property and not have liberty of exploitation?  You are not even thinking through what you are saying my friend.  If I own a factory [which you would allow], then I am free to hire others to work in it.  So how do you intend to prevent me from exploiting those I hire?  Are you going to say I can't make a profit which is the essence of exploitation.  If so, you are denying me liberty.  I did not force people to work for me.  They did it on their
own.  What you are uttering is nonsense.  In effect, you are saying people should be allowed to make profits without exploiting which is like saying you have found a square circle.
 

The critic says:
        My concept of liberty is that I must be trusted that I can make good decisions for myself. Nobody has a mandate to make choices to me.
 

My reply
        That is a nonsense comment.  Who are you?  How much property do you own?  How much wealth do you have?  You answer those questions and I will tell you how much freedom you have.  If you have little or no wealth, then virtually all the decisions that matter and effect your life are being made for you and many people have a "mandate to make choices" to you.
 

I wrote in my previous mail that “majority of people is already living a better life than that promised by communism”.

My reply,
        More nonsense for the pile.  Have you seen the living conditions of the overwhelming majority of mankind living under capitalism and private ownership of the Means of Production, Distribution, and Exchange.  You must be jesting.  Ten percent of the capitalist world lives the good life because the other 90% lives like animals and is stolen blind. That's your idea of a better life.  Get real!  It is called imperialism.  The Roman Empire wallowed in wealth, too, as long as you looked at Rome and the sounding vicinity.  But go out in the provinces scattered around the Mediterranean world and see how the vast majority of those within the empire were living.  Horrendous is an understatement.  Most were slaves no less.
 

The critic says:
        I apologize for my mistake. Majority of People is living a miserable life under capitalism. Communism promises an ideal
humane life. I would surely like to live in a communist society.  My point of disagreement with communism is that it does not look practical to me. It looks to good to be practical.
 

My reply,
        It is highly practical when you have the right leaders bringing about its arrival and the capitalists are no longer around to prevent its materialization.  But the imperialists have spent trillions of dollars to prevent the advent, let alone the victory, of socialism on the world scene.  They are absolutely horrified at the idea of humanity seeing socialism operate unhindered, unthreatened, undeprived, and uninfluenced by bourgeois ideas.  It scares them to death and they will spare
absolutely no expense to make sure that does not happen.  No expense is too great.  They know the very existence of their system is at stake.
 

The critic says:
        If the soviet-type socialism is THE SOCIALISM I find it unconvincing. It does not attract me.
 

My reply,
        As I said earlier, a normal state of socialist society was never allowed by the capitalists because it would have presented an attraction to millions that simply could not be allowed to emerge.  The capitalists were always on the offensive and they had the money, numbers, strategic locations, and resources to conduct that continuing assault.  They
forced the socialist nations into a mode of operation greatly different from that which would have existed under normal, non-threatening conditions.
 

 The critic says:
        I cannot loose my right to disagree for a piece of bread.
 

My reply,
        This comment is too nebulous.  If you are saying free speech and disagreement with the government was not allowed to exist in the SU, tell that to Bukharin who spoke out for years and denounced virtually every program Stalin and his allies instituted.  Despite that, Bukharin was not only made the editor of Izvestia in 1934 but put on the panel to write the new 1936 Constitution.  He was shot two years later when it was discovered he was colluding with foreign powers to execute the very same traitorous program Gorbachov instituted that brought about the demise of the SU.
 

Hassan said:
        A technologically advanced communist society can produce the essentials of life in an even shorter time than that which is currently available to humans.
 

The critic replies:
        Technological advancement comes through competition. Companies compete in open market to sell their products.

My reply,
        No they don't.  You have been victimized by propaganda.  You are talking about the early progressive phase of capitalism which disappeared nearly a century ago.  Monopolies have dominated the scene ever since and they collude to fix prices, restrict competition, and buy up new more progressive technologies.  You need to go to the gas pump my friend.  Ever notice how all the gas prices are nearly the same, regardless of the company selling it.  Do you think that is accidental.  Does that look like competition to you?  The only time competition breaks out is when they have a gas war which is rare.
        How many new technologies are developed every year to make life easier but are kept from the masses because they jeopardize the wealth of the fat cats.  The technology exists to make a car go 600 miles on a tank of nothing but water.  So why isn't it employed you ask?  Very simple.  The oil companies have billions of dollars invested in drilling equipment,
oil lines, pipes, storage facilities, ships, refineries, and gas stations.  If engines were put in cars that enable the latter to run 600 miles on a gallon of gas, what do you think that would do to the value and use of all that property owned by the oil companies.  I can tell you what would happen.  It's value would go through the floor and they would be lucky if they could sell it for a penny for every dollar invested.  Their loss would be tremendous, devastating and the stockholders would
take a beating.  So what do you think the owners of these companies are going to do when they learn this technology is available.  They are going to spend a fortune to make sure that it not only never sees the light of day but make sure the masses are not even aware of its existence.
        Situations like this exist in every industry and every aspect of commerce and production.  So don't tell me that capitalism is a progressive force for mankind.  That has not been true for many scores of years.  That capitalism produces some new technologies and progress is clear but it is light years from what could occur in a sensible system and it only occurs when the dominant fat cats are assured of no significant losses.  It is gradual rather than exponential and is done at the expense of millions because meanwhile the vast bulk of humanity is living in disgusting conditions.
 

The critic says:
        To attract customers, companies are forced to improve their products or services.
 

My reply,
        I just addressed that.  I am glad you said "forced" because that shows just how reactionary capitalists are.  They don't take mankind forward unless they are "forced" to do so.
 
 

 The critic says:
        In a non-competitive economy, things come to stagnancy.
 

My reply,
        How wrong you are.  The SU was the first to conquer space and they did that in a race with the capitalists under adverse circumstances.  They had far less wealth than capitalist America when coming out of WWII.  The educational system of any socialist society is vastly superior to that of a capitalist state.  Cuba today is vivid proof of same.  Just
ask the United Nations which published a report to that effect.  And it did it despite a 40 year embargo.
        In any head to head competition between a capitalist and a socialist state, all other factors being equal, it is no contest as to which is superior.  Take away the ability of the United States, England, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, and the other fat bourgeois states to steal the resources of other nations and they would fall on their faces in no
time at all.  They are blood suckers living off the overwhelming majority of humanity and if that blood flow were severed they would wither up and collapse in mass chaos.
 
 

 The critic says:
        I cannot understand how communist society will advance technologically.  What would be the motivation for advancement?

My reply,
        People working for the good of humanity and having a cause outside themselves, people working in cooperation rather than in competion with others will always win over egotists, all other factors being equal.  You don't make your football team better by having its members compete with one another.  You make it stronger by having them cooperate with
one another.
        Moreover, in a socialist society you know that when you are working you are receiving the full benefits of what you are producing by benefitting yourself and society rather than working for a small clique of property owners.  You know you are not being exploited which greatly increases incentive.
 

Hassan wrote,
        “Even a decently planned socialist society can outperform the best capitalist society (let alone the
advantages that flow from the advanced stage of communism)”.
 

The critic replies to Hassan:
        East and West Germany were the same people, same culture, same history etc.  Why couldn’t East Germany
outperform West Germany?
 

My reply,
        That is easy to answer.  After WWII the SU was devastated and it was all it could do to rebuild itself while West Germany was inundated by American dollars which gave it a tremendous advantage in rebuilding.  Moreover, West Germany got money from imperialist American which got most of its money from the exploited masses of the underdeveloped
capitalist world.  In effect, West Germany got its wealth indirectly through exploitation while East Germany had to develop all its wealth from its own resources.
        West Germany is more endowed with natural resources than East Germany which also provided them with a tremendous advantage.  I could give other reasons but you get the picture.

        REMEMBER:  The Socialist nations got their wealth and built up their nations by using their own resources and equal trade.  Not one of them obtained its wealth by exploiting other nations and stealing millions blind through colonization and imperialism.  An excellent ratio to follow is that for every capitalist nation living in wealth there are 9 capitalist nations living in squalor and deprivation.  Capitalism is global not national and could not exist otherwise in any meaningful sense.

for the cause,

Klo