FAQ
There are many questions that may arise regarding the editorial team due to the originality of some theses presented in the articles. Most of these questions can be answered quite clearly.
Are you foreign agents? No. We are agents of progressive values.
If not Putin, then who? The Parliament.
Russia is a peripheral country, so it cannot be like Scandinavia! It is possible to raise the standard of living to Scandinavian levels. All developed countries were once what is called the “periphery”. We do not approve of the world-systems analysis often used to justify claims of “periphery”. However, even classical proponents of this approach, like Fernand Braudel, acknowledged that the initial “center of the capitalist world-system” was Venice, which later lost its status. England and Flanders, once considered the “periphery”, later became “centers”. In reality, it is much simpler — they simply developed their industries. Afterward, dozens of countries industrialized, and this process did not impoverish others. Therefore, Russia can also develop and become wealthy without making other countries poorer.
Are you Marxists/Communists/Socialists? No, we are social democrats. Most of those who label themselves Marxists, Communists, or Socialists cannot coherently explain what these ideologies entail, including their economic programs and value systems. For some who call themselves socialists, we might indeed seem socialist, while for others, we are not. Unlike the aforementioned terms, the meaning of social democracy is quite clear, and we have explored this in a dedicated article.
Are your USA any better? The USA is not “ours”. The United States is not an ideal or best model for social democrats. According to the Human Development Index and many other indicators of living standards, the U.S. does not lead. So, stop calling it “our USA”. However, the standard of living in the U.S. is significantly higher than in dictatorships or many democracies. Therefore, American society is far from the worst.
Do you advocate revolution? We primarily advocate a revolution in consciousness, especially among the national intelligentsia, liberating it from conservative ideology and demanding clarity in identifying demagoguery. Once this shift occurs, a transfer of power can happen quickly, peacefully, and legitimately, which would be the best outcome. However, in cases of egregious violations of democratic procedures by the authorities, literal demands for revolution might become justified.
Do you support a market economy? In our article on planned economies, we explained why every economy is inherently mixed — every planned economy inevitably generates a shadow sector. The question is whether this market sector should remain legal or exist outside the law. We support a mixed economy with indicative planning for the public sector. We believe the most efficient sector is the one that, under equal conditions, ensures the greatest improvement in the welfare of itself and its workers, eventually outcompeting the rest.
What is your ultimate goal? Do you have a model of an ideal society? In our articles on advanced robotic democracies and the city of the future, we outlined a general model. However, we oppose vague and ambiguous models like “communism”, where everyone can avoid work while having everything they want. Unlike Marxists, we do not make predictions or claim the inevitability of transitioning to communism. We view historical development as a complex process with multiple vectors. Even Marxists should not argue with our perspective, as classical Marxism holds that communism cannot be decreed but must result from the development of productive forces. We advocate progress and the development of productive forces, meaning that Marxists should share common goals with us in this regard.
But in Sweden (or another social democracy), a migrant stole a bag/someone didn’t get paid/the system isn’t perfect. See? That means social democracy is bad! Failures often try to find a specific incident in Europe or the US, and based on that — or a handful of other isolated cases (which may well be fabrications of Russian propaganda, notorious for its disinformation) — conclude that things are bad there too or that there’s no freedom. This gives them an excuse to remain failures, doing nothing while convincing themselves that “nowhere is good”. The truth is, we should look at the overall metrics of quality of life, not individual cases. That’s why various rankings and indices exist, such as the Human Development Index or the Prosperity Index. By these measures, Russia significantly lags behind most European countries.
Democracy or a high standard of living is impossible under capitalism! “Capitalism” is a demagogic label used by various radicals to brand all countries they dislike, equating Norway with Somalia, the US with Congo, developed states with backward ones, democracy with dictatorship, and so on. They use this label for demagoguery; we do not. We categorize countries based on measurable scientific criteria — like the Democracy Index. These metrics clearly show that the highest levels of democracy are often found in countries with strong social-democratic parties. Similarly, the highest standards of living are in developed democracies. On the other hand, countries whose state policy focused on fighting “capitalism” have consistently ended up trailing in key indicators of quality of life and democracy.
My ideology is left-libertarian communism/proper communism/egalitarian left anarchism/the Venus Project — things will be great under it! No matter what new name you come up with for a new project, the problem is, first, that it hasn’t been implemented anywhere, making it an experiment. Wouldn’t it be better to achieve a decent standard of living first and then run experiments? Second, many components of these experiments have already been tested in practice and failed — like direct democracy or planned economies, as we’ve discussed in related articles. Meanwhile, social democracy has been tested and has more often led to success.
Social democrats can’t lift third-world countries! That’s incorrect. For example, social democrats governed former British colonies like Australia and New Zealand for a long time. These two countries transformed from distant, sparsely populated colonies into world leaders in the Human Development Index. We also see Finland — a country that was once an economically underdeveloped province of Russia — rise to the top. In our article about Lula, we discussed how he significantly reduced poverty in Brazil. If Brazil experiences several decades of social-democratic dominance, it has a strong chance for successful development. Similarly, Uruguay, which has traditionally had a strong social-democratic movement, is now one of the most successful countries in Latin America.
Social democrats lost the elections in country X — social democracy is decaying! We’ve heard this many times, especially in the late 1930s, when social democrats lost seats in almost every European government. Yet later, there was a triumphant comeback and numerous victories that disproved the notion of linear historical decline. The same was said recently — in the late 2010s — only for the Progressive Wave of 2021 to follow.
Sometimes, the “decline” of social democrats is argued using the decrease in their voter base. However, this is manipulative since it doesn’t account for the rise of new parties. In Germany, for example, the decline in voter numbers isn’t exclusive to social democrats; the same trend is observed with the CDU/CSU. Similarly, in Spain, we see the same phenomenon:
The reason for this is the emergence and growth of new parties, some of which (such as the Greens) are friendly to social democrats. Thus, the idea of “social democracy’s decline” is just another trick of conservative and communist propaganda, much like the narrative of the “decaying West.” If the popularity of social democrats decreases, it will eventually rise again (of course, taking into account the emergence of new political parties and the “specialization” of political forces) — such cycles are normal in democratic societies.
However, the issue here is not just the flawed evidence but the absurdity of the argument itself. Often, such claims are made to suggest that social democrats should no longer be supported. But even if social-democratic parties were indeed losing popularity, what rationale would there be for withdrawing support? Should decisions be based merely on following the crowd? Ignoring truly important factors like the adequacy of a political program and a development model would be the most foolish choice any voter or citizen could make.
Are you against civic nationalism? Within the social-democratic movement, there are internationalists, which, with a great deal of effort, could be interpreted as akin to having nationalists, since internationalism essentially acknowledges all nationalisms. However, it would still be incorrect to equate “internationalism” with “nationalism”, as internationalism recognizes the interests of all national groups as equal, whereas nationalism necessarily implies prioritizing one nation over others. Without such prioritization, nationalism would effectively become internationalism. We do not support any form of “pulling the blanket over oneself” in interethnic relations.
What does this mean in practice? For example, imagine the following scenario: your country is sheltering political refugees — social democrats. You’re offered very lucrative concessions for your country in exchange for handing them over. If you’re a civic nationalist, you must act in your country’s interests. You have to choose: national interests or the interests of democracy. If you prioritize human rights, you’re already placing them above national interests, which disqualifies you from identifying as a nationalist and indicates a preference for other values and a different self-identification. If you choose national interests, you’re a nationalist. If you choose the interests of democrats, you’re a democrat. We choose the interests of democracy, human rights, and progressive values. Even for significant benefits to our country, we will not betray the principles of humanism and progressive values. These, in turn, generally align more closely with the interests of the broader population than “national interests”, which can be used to justify blatant violations of rights, human dignity, and democratic principles.
The left makes films where the Queen of England is black, pushing their “agenda” and distorting history! So, directors are allowed to depict flying dragons, Satan in the form of Liz Hurley, human centipedes, and zombie people, but they can’t show a Black Queen of England? This is a double standard from right-wing populists — either ban all artistic fiction in films, or accept the kind of fiction that offends your delicate racist sensibilities. The real question is whether a film claims historical accuracy. In the specific series that offended the sensitive right-wingers so much — Anne Boleyn — each episode literally began with the phrase, “Based on truth… and lies”1. This means it made no pretense of historical accuracy. The fact that conservatives were so outraged by artistic fiction only highlights their racist tendencies or a complete inability to think critically and verify what populists tell them.
I see only a change of facades behind the changing faces and parties in power, while the policies and economy remain the same! This argument is often used to criticize democracy (and advocate for authoritarian political forces). However, it is actually a great advantage that democratic countries avoid experimenting with political and economic systems that lead to poverty, collapse, and bloodshed. This doesn’t mean, however, that the political and economic structures of democratic countries remain static — this is false. These countries adjust taxes, choose different policies for government subsidies, implement electoral reforms, redistribute powers among various branches of government, and so on. Thus, the “facade change” argument is a populist trick used to justify granting a political force total control over power and/or property.
Why doesn’t the editor-in-chief reveal their identity? First, it is for safety reasons — any opposition figure in authoritarian Russia faces threats to their life and freedom. As the case of Alexei Navalny shows, taking such risks offers little practical benefit. The editor-in-chief of Logic of Progress prefers to avoid being prematurely deprived of the ability to write and doesn’t want to be pressured or bribed. It’s in the readers’ best interest for the editor-in-chief to write what they truly think, not what they are “encouraged” to write. This issue is exacerbated by the current scarcity of social-democratic resources. If members of the editorial team were removed, there would be no one left to promote social democracy.
Second, “Avel Rodionov” is a collective pseudonym. If one of the authors writing under this name were to be targeted — say, with an assassination attempt — another would take their place, and the “unit would not notice the loss of a soldier”. This makes it difficult for potential adversaries to neutralize “Avel Rodionov”, as a new “head” would always emerge.
Third, since “Logic of Progress” holds some authority among Russian social democrats, this could create challenges for the democratic nature of the movement. For example, if a social-democratic party were formed and the editor-in-chief participated, they might be elected to leadership based solely on reputation rather than organizational skills. This could harm the movement.
The sum of these factors explains why Avel Rodionov’s identity is not being disclosed for now. However, this could change in the future—such as when social-democratic leaders emerge who would benefit from competition, or when the movement reaches a stage where the absence of Rodionov would not hinder further development.
Many of your questions can be answered by reading our articles on the topics that interest you. If any question remains unclear, feel free to reach out via our contact information, and we’ll do our best to respond. The most popular questions will be included on this page.