As I’m reading this I am beginning to think that LIbSocs, as he calls them, are the biggest fools out there. Here’s just an example, “For example, many (though by no means all) LibSocs in this century have tended to downplay or apologize for the despotism and genocide practiced by Marxist regimes,9 while on the other side many (though again, by no means all) LibCaps have readily served as willing intellectual foot-soldiers in the corporatist-imperialist programs of Reaganism and Thatcherism.”
To equate Thatcherism and Reaganism, while perhaps somewhat egregious, with Marxist Regimes is really comparing apples to oranges in an extreme sense. Last time I checked Reaganism and Thatcherism did not end up in the deaths of millions.
Then he says, “LibSocs see capitalist property relations as forms of domination, and thus as antagonistic to freedom.” While later saying that LibCaps tend to only criticize the authoritarian versions of socialism while having already admitted that LibSocs hold a position, even the so-called anarchist strain, that cannot be reconciled with freedom at all. He also says that LibSocs oppose free trade, laissez faire, and “finance capitalism”. So, really, what are they for exactly?