The article is not that excellent. The author seems to be christian, thus, a lot of socialist religious ones where name droped in it, the article.
First, Marx himself was not a marxist, actually he hated them: >The bad about Marxism is the Marxist!< Second, one has not to be part of a group to have partition or to support one.
Oho, Libertarian arguements are just anarchist. The only power they believe in is the money they can accumulate. Actually libertarian ideology is anarcho-capitalism, which is capitalism without any states because everything is a corporation, which is just fascism as Mussolini stated once.
So what? It is irrelevant whether somebody thinks Marx is overrated and tell that the free market and free trade as the ideology libertarianism is should be the best ... O God! xD
You are so off base. Firstly, I'm an atheist and a Darwinist. Secondly, I'm interested in revisionist marxism, Fabian socialism, civic republicanism, and libertarian socialism. Libertarianism, classically speaking, is/was communist anarchism and collectivism/mutualism. The term "libertarian" was coined by Joseph Dejacque to describe communist anarchism. So, libertarian socialism refers to the ideas of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Bookchin, et al. American libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is entirely different. Classical libertarianism is a left-wing ideology. My own ideas are influenced mostly by Philip Pettit, Eduard Bernstein, Fabian Essays in Socialism, David Graeber, Noam Chomsky, Murray Bookchin, Henry George, and Thomas Paine. I align closely with the ideas of Scott Santens and Martin Farley, the basic income advocates.
For the record, I'm not saying Marx is bad, just that he's overrated and has eclipsed more interesting figures like Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bernstein, Blanqui, Shaw, et al. Also, the Lange-Lerner model of socialism is more interesting. Marxism and Marxists have dominated socialist thought and tended to eclipse other more interesting ideas. And, if you had read my other works, you'd know that I am definitely not a right-wing "free-market libertarian." I actually fall closer to being a social democrat, but much farther to the left.
Also, btw, I mentioned right-libertarians (Rothbard & Menger) specifically to criticize their economism, not to endorse their ideas. And I criticizes Marx for sounding too much like a right-libertarian in certain parts of his economic analysis.
First, thanks you answered.
Why is your name ekklesiagora? Church from Mountain or Gora (Poland)?
Marx has not founded Marxism to be clear. Marxist are really dogmatic and not open to new ideas, that's right, but Marx mentioned this anyway. I do think that Marx has not eclipsed Proudhon or Proudhons ideas, he actually refered to them.
Sorry if I insulted you.
Ekklesiagora is "ekklesia" plus "agora". This name was chosen because I was really into Murray Bookchin and partially because I was into Proudhon. In ancient Athens, the "ekklesia" referred to the democratic assembly, where the people made decisions through direct democracy, and the "agora" referred to place where the democratic assemblies were held. At the same time, agora holds a dual meaning, as it also means "marketplace" or "market". It's the place where people assembled to do decision-making but also for trade. I was into mutualism, and still am into markets, so agora held that secondary meaning. Basically, ekklesiagora was chosen because I advocate participatory assembly democracy and a market system. However, while I advocate markets, my thought is influenced by Proudhon, Keynes, and Hyman Minsky, so I basically think that markets need to be regulated and that corporations and banks need to be regarded as public or partially public institutions or else regulated in a way that is functionally isomorphic to partial public ownership.
You should check out this post where I talk about Marxism in more detail: https://steemit.com/socialism/@ekklesiagora/the-history-and-future-of-social-democracy