You cannot take the utopian dream of communism out of Marxism; the ultimate goal of communism provides meaning and context for the struggle. It's not enough to say, “I dislike this law, and I like that one” -- you need a philosophical understanding of the society as a whole 1/x

Communism is an idealistic dream, a great hope: a world without exploitation, where getting rich off the sweat of another’s labor would be seen as a horror, where the oppression of police and other state authorities does not exist,

because these are not needed to hold together a class system, for class itself is a distant memory; all are granted a decent life, finally making liberal truisms about equality and justice for all more than simply empty platitudes

To achieve big things, you need a big vision, and that is what communism is within Marxism
Why is this important, if you’re only going to call for the same policies that so many non-communists, and even anti-communists on the left call for:

universal health care, decent wages, housing, and education for all?

Look, conservatives (especially the libertarians among them) have their ideal vision: if only the government would stop tampering with the free market, capitalism would function perfectly.

And this informs their policies of deregulation and privatization, toward this fantastical ‘pure’ capitalism they envision

Liberals have a kind of split happening, between those who hew to the policies of conservatives, but wish for a wise elite to manage it all, and those of a more social democratic bent, who wish for a kinder, gentler capitalism,

through progressive taxes on income and wealth and generous social programs.
The question is, what does your ideal society look like? For liberals and social democrats, it’s a reformed capitalism like the Nordic model.

As Engels argues in "Principles of Communism", we can find common ground with these social democrats on a variety of issues, but we must keep in mind that they have a different destination. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Now, there is also the question of effectiveness. Anyone seeking any kind of change in society must respect the accomplishments of socialism as a political force and movement. Socialists have overturned feudal regimes of exploitation and freed countries from imperialism.

Socialists have then put their principles into action, raising millions out of poverty, rapidly industrializing, raising real per capita GDP, dramatically increasing life expectancy, health and well-being, abolishing homelessness and illiteracy and offering education to all,

all without the aid of slavery or imperialism.

Sadly, due to anti-communist propaganda, much of it produced by the US, the western consciousness believes socialism to be tantamount to starvation and poverty, when in fact the opposite is true.

The USSR and China, far from willfully starving its people, ended the problem of famine that had plagued their countries for centuries

Even the anti-communist propaganda is an acknowledgement from the bourgeoisie of the effectiveness of socialism and the compellingness of communism as an vision -- does the bourgeoisie spend its resources on a massive anti-anarchist propaganda?

Not really (though of course anarchists are always portrayed negatively anytime they appear in the media)

To continue with the question of effectiveness, it is very clear that capitalism is capable of being reformed, as the social welfare states have illustrated, beginning with Bismarck’s Germany, and continuing with most modern capitalist states,

who have a variety of programs for poverty reduction, housing assistance, minimum wages, unemployment compensation, and free education -- policies which socialists have demanded for 200 years

So are the reformers correct?
Just as it is clear that capitalism can be reformed, it is also clear that capitalism is

(1) very difficult to reform, requiring mass organization and mass action that has genuine revolutionary potential and frightens the bourgeoisie into granting concessions through the state, and

(2) even with the pressure of mass action, it is unlikely that the social democratic reforms of the 20th c. would’ve been successful without the threat of socialist revolution as represented by the USSR (and later, China).

No one can know how history might’ve played out had things been different, but it is clear that capitalism’s reforms occurred alongside the socialist revolution, and it’s doubtful that capitalism would have been reformed without the very real threat of socialism

As capitalism moved into the triumphant neoliberalism of the post-Soviet era, the attacks on the social democratic welfare state have intensified, undermining the funding for education, healthcare, and other social services for the poor, throughout the industrialized world

Incremental reforms will not even restore what has been lost. The best tactic is organized revolutionary movement with the aim of socialism and communism