Thanks for describing some of your ideas. The "liberals" I was referring to are more like other working class normies, not thought leaders. My actual political strategy is to split the liberals, like the petty capitalists will have to be split by developing the conditions of struggle, along a material class basis, not with ideas.

Im not defending liberalism, I just think a lot of liberals are working class normies who aren't as theoretically developed as you are. I'd say you are anti theory from your comments but that doesn't seem to be the case either. You are contradictory, just like the rest of us, and in contradiction there is the possibility of change.

I follow your definition of ideology, it's a good working definition. Gramsci's theory of hegemony is worth reading if you haven't. But dont go off YouTube, nobody understands his actual theory. I can send you the essays im referring to, if interested. Only a working class normie, who learned critical thought by criticizing our own experiences could understand it. I'd like to say we have some things in common, I'm no academic and I'm too much of a contrarian to get along with party leaders. Im as self educated a person as youll ever encounter.

But i think there is advantages to being openly socialist, and I think that condemning theory and theorists is a far cry from being correct, especially when someone commits themself to being oppositional and judgemental at the earliest sign of possible disagreement. Intellectual elitism isnt a quality of the working class, its a quality of the bourgeois liberal. Mirroring elitism with "negative" elitism is playing by the same rules with different referees. But also people have to come to it on their own. You can't convince a liberal to be leftist, something has to change for them, so I think we might agree that there is little use in bending over backwards over them. But I think we can represent a positive alternative, well meaning liberals can be won to socialist principles. But they can also end up disaffected fascists or apolitical bullies. It really takes a party, not an individual; but the party is made of individuals, so there is a dynamic to navigate imo.

I've read The History of the German Revolution by Pierre Brouè, so I wasn't thinking about the spartatacist uprising like an event, more like a 10 year period, so thanks for clarifying. There are a lot of really great lessons from that time, although unfortunately, many cautionary tales. But one thing that I took from it is the necessity (inevitability?) to split the major moderate factions, like the split between the SPD and the USPD, and later, the KPD and the KAPD, into actual fighting forces for the working class. Unfortunately, it shows how crucial education and deep roots in the working class are to success. Maybe if the Spartacists had done more to prepare for the 1917 split then the working class wouldn't have been so disorganized in the following years. The Vorwards uprising was a result of police agitators taking control of a disorganized movement, Rosa clearly saw the problems with a putsch, and sure enough, the failed action led to the death of her and Liebknecht at the hands of fascist police. If they had survived, the left may have actually seized state power, and Luxemburg's sharp criticisms of Bolshevism may have lead to a dramatically different outcome in Russia as well -- not to mention suppress the rising fascist movement in Germany.

Two questions, you dont think reactionaries are wrong about liberals? What they hate about it are its progressive qualities, by and large they support private property. You reject private property, do you reject communism? And if so, then what?