Communism has to emerge out of pre-existing social conditions. There is no point fantasising about a revolution that’s going to abolish families, for example.
Western societies are not necessarily all socially liberal, but that is the predominant culture. For centuries now, people have become progressively more tolerant. A majority of the non-boomer population at least have a strong “live and let live” attitude towards religion, drug use, sexual preference, immigration, sex work, etc. And Boomers are more tolerant than their parents generation too.
Some Western communists seem to have a disturbing enthusiasm for enforcing what they see as a good or moral lifestyle on other people. Ignoring any theoretical pragmatic necessities, the aim of a communist society is to guarantee freedom from economic exploitation, rather than impose additional moralities. And anyway, it seems an obvious strategic failure to go against the current of the time, and associate communism with social conservatism. Most social conservatives are going to be inherently anti-communist because communism is a poor vehicle for realising the kind of society they want.
Obviously personal freedoms are a secondary concern to ending exploitation and imperialism. However, it may not seem that way to liberals. Associating communism with social conservatism makes it anathema to the liberal portion of society and no more attractive to the conservative side. It is a complete own goal.
For arguments sake, let’s say Marxist theory can be neutral in its implications for these kinds of social questions. The more we can all be on the same page as to how we answer them, the more effective we will be. I’m saying that even if a Western communist is socially conservative in their personal views, it makes strategic sense for them, and all of us, to endorse and pursue a socially liberal communism. Given these questions are secondary to our primary aims anyway, it shouldn’t be difficult to make the compromise.
I’m not really sure who you’re arguing against here