Quote from: LastBattle on March 29, 2013, 01:48:16 PM

Irrelevant points. Libertarianism has meant the "right" version in most of the world, and even generally in Europe, for the past thirty or so years.

That is true only for the US - and that doesn't change that the modern US interpretation of "libertarian" is a mystification of the original term. I would just like people understanding that.

Quote from: LastBattle on March 29, 2013, 01:48:16 PM

Meanwhile, socialists stole the words "liberal" and "progressive" from us a long time ago, but you don't see anyone posting "Liberal my ass!" threads.

That gives me the chance to deepen my exposition.

What I exposed on the OP are FACTS. More facts:

- anarchism and modern liberalism have a common origin: the pre-capitalist liberalism of the XVI Century (from Russeau to Humboldt)
- in the XIX century modern liberalism (free market capitalism) and anarchism were born, sharing a common origin (pre-capitalist liberalism) but splitting because a totally opposite conception of capitalism. For modern liberalists capitalism is: the natural way; for anarchists capitalism is: the non-natural way.

The US libertarians and the "original" libertarians have only one thing in common: they are both anti-state. But for original anarchists anti-capitalism is as important as anti-state. Otherwise, they would just be ultra-liberals, wouldn't they?

You should know that Anarchism is a left movement because Anarchism founders participated in the First International (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen's_Association), and they actively cooperated with communists until Bakunin realized that Trotsky's and Lenin's intentions were totalitarian. In fact, in Bakunin's own words, "the red burocracy is going to be the biggest lie in this century", as he saw Lenin's view as state-based capitalism, where workers were told what to do by super-structures outside their direct control (like modern businesses and enterprises, by the way).