If we are going to go forward with this, we will have to agree

Agree completely.

separating the capitalist from liberal ideology

I do not believe in separating the two, I dont believe they are separable. Even beyond that, I tend to de-emphasize economics, for better or worse. I dont think that is an imperative for our movements, but a matter of personal style and experience.

However I think in your analysis you are separating capitalism, the economic base, from liberalism, the ideological superstructure. It reads to me you want to discredit the ideology, which is great, but this isnt possible without affecting the economic base. Unions defeat liberal illusions and create the basis for worker ideology by organizing on economic and verifiable material gains, never has a worker organization been successful by condemning liberalism as its primary strategy in and of itself.

The reason elites and alienated workers adhere to liberalism is because it validates lived experiences, or personally benefits an individual. So the real difference between the two kinds of liberals is economic, not ideological. Its kind of like there is two liberalisms, liberalism for capitalists is freedom achieved through private ownership, or more acutely, power through mass exploitation. All liberal values of equality, human rights, progress, etc., are secondary to the private property question, I think you'll agree. But to the workers, who benefit materially from peace, unity, solidarity, liberalism is the rights and equality stuff. The dual character hides the private property issue from workers, which is how it subjugates us ideologically. But the basis for the ideology is material, not just ideas.

I dont really see the difference between being openly cold toward leftist definitions like communist and socialist; and being vocally anti liberal toward workers. If you go down to the protest or the picket line and ask a union member their political alignment, they might tell you they are liberal, or (in the USA) a democrat. But there are many conservative republicans who will also fight for better work conditions. This shows that worker politics are material, not ideal; and that political difference between workers is local rather than universal. But if you tell that liberal union member that liberalism is like a fucked up evil ideology, they won't understand it any more than if you say that they should be communist or socialist. I dont see the distinction except as a matter of perspective.

In order to teach worker-liberals a theory of change we have to convince them first that change is possible. And to do that there needs to be democratic organization of the masses, effective campaigning for change, and to win changes. Once people experience this, it strikes at the falsity of liberal ideology, but attacking the ideology itself is too abstract, too philosophical, as an approach all on its own. I think it is just as alienating and esoteric as terms like "communist" or "bourgeoisie".

The most important pieces imo are theory of change, and the organization to carry that change out, verifiably. Capitalism is essentially an organizing of the ruling class against the workers, and workers organized against the ruling class has a distinct character that is worthy of a name.

However I concede that I often use commie talk when it might not be effective, or directed at the wrong audiences. So I intentionally I find work where people challenge me for it. It can be a pain, but it keeps us honest.

Also I talk to and work with normie workers all the time and not all of your characterizations are supported by my experiences. Different people of different ages, in different places, at different times can all effect how theyll react to certain messaging. Determinations of what workers will and will not accept must come from evidence and democracy; and the way to determine this is by talking with workers, studying reactions, The last person who told me not to use terms like "socialism" also told me people in her neighborhood lived in $700k+ houses. She couldn't understand that other workers are actually turned off by being too moderate, and want radical change. Both things are true, but this adds complexity to the work. Her observations were grounded in fact, but she wanted to universalize her local conditions, because her experience taught her incorrectly that her experiences were universal. Specificity is essential to concreteness, and concreteness is essential to develop conditions for change.

I think we make an error if we dont consider the left as workers too. Sectarianism is historic and structural; and capitalism creates socialists. The progressive ideals espoused by liberalism find their practical expression in socialism. Like you said, almost all of us grew up in a liberal milieu, and many socialists start out as progressive liberals. Personally I became a socialist once I realized capitalism could never deliver the progressive values of liberalism, which I believed in as strongly then as I do now.

I might be over emphasizing parts of your arguments so that it appears to me that your focus on ideology is slightly too idealist to be practical. So please correct my miscalibrations. But I enjoy this conversation and deeply appreciate the great detail you've gone into describing your positions.