Libertarian Socialism has not been proven to be "Real Libertarianism", if there is such a thing.
Yes it has, and yes there is. The word 'Libertarian' was coined in the late 1700s, first to connote a metaphysical philosophical position. It began to be used to connote a political tendency in the 1850's, specifically; Anarchism and Marxism, which had a very different character from Marxist-Leninism, and the authoritarian permutations that came later. In the 1950's, a group of Americans who were enamored of Ayn Rand, also von Mises, etc., began calling themselves 'Libertarians.' This definition is almost exclusively confined to North America, the rest of the world uses the original definition, which has been used for well over a century. That's the
literal definition.
I believe the genesis of the concept of socialism originated with Marx. Though I realize all socialists differ in one way or another, I assume they all want greater nationalization of resources and industries. As a "libertarian socialist," I imagine you have some grand theory of people collectivizing while simultaneously individualizing for the greater good of society. I'm not sure how that works.
Socialism has a number of meanings, it's both an economic system, which is usually employed more in the Marxist sense as one of the stages of history in the progression from feudalism to communism, being the final form. Then there's the philosophy, which has a number of different streams. Again; 'Libertarianism' is kind of broad and nonspecific, it encompasses both Anarchism and Marxism, with the exception of Leninism, etc. Speaking in the simplest terms; Marxism is more of an analytical system, Anarchism is more of an ethical and philosophical position. Anarchists have ideas about how the world works, but Anarchism doesn't purport to explain the world. What you're describing sounds more like Marxism. I'm an Anarchist.
A fairly simplistic definition would be that Anarchism seeks to create an egalitarian society of free individuals without the domination of monolithic institutions which are illegitimate and harmful. That includes Nation-States, corporations, religious institutions, etc. (Anarchism, like Marxism, is also Atheistic, taking a scientific, materialist view of the universe.) Anarchism is more a set of principles, like I said, it's more of a process than a finite goal. However, there are models of what one might, for lack of a better term, call more or less 'fully realized' Anarchist societies, I would say the best of these is Parpolity/Parecon, developed by Prof. Michael Albert, and Prof. Stephen Shalom.
Participatory politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Participatory economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, I don't think it makes sense to make overly complex and intricate models. We can only anticipate the needs of future generations to a limited extent, and tactics are, to an extent, shaped by the facts on the ground, which differ wildly from place to place, and are prone to changing. What we should do, what we can do, is identify institutions of exploitation and oppression, and dismantle them, and/or replace them with more democratic institutions.
