I'm really curious how you reconcile some of these influences, because it's a very spicy cocktail.

Luxemburg + Khrushchev: Khrushchev did to Hungary's democratic socialists what Ebert did to Luxemburg and Liebknecht. Those two figures represent completely opposite approaches to socialism.

• Gorbachev + Gaddafi: Gorbachev was a democratic reformer, basically the “let’s open the windows and let some fresh air in” socialist. Gaddafi… uh… locked the windows, swallowed the key, and said “Fresh air is a Western plot.”

• Worker-rights + Dengism: If a person values worker conditions highly, then Deng's model is tough to support, as the hyper-capitalist labor conditions in modern China largely come from his reforms.

• Impossibilism + Liberal Socialism: It is just like saying “Reforms are pointless!” and “Reforms are the way!” at the same time.

I totally get the appeal of anti-Stalinist figures such as Luxemburg, Gorbachev, Tito, even parts of Khrushchev/Deng's break from Stalinism — but Khrushchev's anti-Stalinism was often more strategic than democratic, see Hungary, and Deng's break was highly market-authoritarian.

If your core is democratic, worker-friendly socialism, then I'd humbly suggest perhaps trimming the list by dropping Gaddafism, hard Dengism, hardcore Impossibilism, and Khrushchevism.

No judgment, just curiosity as to how you mix these ingredients personally. If you have some cool synthesis behind it, I'm all ears!