my lib friend condemns existing socialist states because of their state repression of counter-revolutionaries:
he complains about the lack of civil liberties. when I pressed him on whether the emancipation of the poor is more important, he said that he refuses to compromise on giving everyone full civil liberties and due process.
I personally think civil liberties are good, but are a secondary concern to emancipating the poor. and due process can be implemented in time, I'm not against it. Finally, fascists do not deserve civil liberties and I fully condone repression against them.
As mentioned in this thread, point out that civil liberties don't really exist in the US either. The police slaughter a thousand people a year here and face no repercussions. Police can brutalize protestors simply by declaring an assembly unlawful. Journalists get thrown in jail here if they leak from the government inappropriately. The US has a pre-trial detention (what an Orwellian term) system larger than most socialist/socialist-ish states carceral systems. The US prison system is worse than what's existed in any socialist state prior.
I don't think it's wrong to refuse to compromise on full civil liberties and due process, and those are points where existing socialist states can and should be criticized. Abolishing civil liberties is not a precondition for emancipating the poor. It's absolutely wrong, however, to pretend the US has anything resembling civil liberties.