If you mean the Statesian, pro-capitalist kind, it’s mostly a silly ideology pushed by small business owners and other highly individualist classes that are nonetheless pushed towards the working classes by competing against ever-growing monopolies. The left wing version, I disagree with as you can’t dismantle the state without removing the basis of the state, class, and you can’t remove class without collectivizing production and distribution. Small, local cells loosely organized in a decentralist fashion would still result in class struggle and thus a form of state to hold one class over the others.

The first “definition” doesn’t fit the group you’re trying to define. If you’re talking about American (using the Us as shorthand)…they are by no means restricted to small business owners, that’s but a small (albeit with outsized power) enclave in the “coalition”. Their policy ideologically empirically opposes the working class. There’s no lefti wing version of the word, or rather, the proper definition is leftist. What you’re describing seems to be an ideological axe you have to grind with Marxism, or socialism something. Actual libertarianism is simply a school of thought - a collection of philosophies - that prioritize individual liberty (freedom). Generally these philosophies aren’t related to American libertarianism/freedom…it’s more of a freedom *from rather than a freedom to* thing…to oversimplify: leftist (real) libertarians believe power structures shouldn’t impede the (not obstructive and lawful) activists of the people - it’s very conscious of power differentials, while American libertarians believe in an absolute right to individual freedom that may or may not conflict with other peoples’ freedoms - after that point of tension it comes down to functional power (thus it’s antithetical to the proper definition).

First off, you’re a bit confused here. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, my critiques are from that framework. As for the libertarian movement in the States, I was referring to who makes up the basis of that movement. The wealthiest capitalists are usually not libertarians, they enjoy strong state control and regulations that they can fix in their favor. The basis of libertarianism is in the small business owners, the petite bourgeoisie, who see little of the systems benefits while trying to retain their privledged positions over others. I’m well-aware of what you define as “actual” libertarians, and my critique of them is from a Marxist point of view. I’m not an anarchist, while I enjoy working with anarchists and share a common enemy, our strategies and analysis end up in fundamentally different areas. The reason I broke them up as I did was because OP was vague enough that they could be asking for either, so I answered both.

You’re just not accurately describing American libertarianism…it does, indeed, have wealthy people behind it, because American libertarians also loves a strong state that can fix regulations in their favour. Peter Thiel and some of the Koch’s are “libertarians”, ffs. I think what’s happening here is you’re describing the Dave Smith party/partisan type libertarians, and not the movement at large. The niche that runs a presidential candidate and puts small business owners on stage at the convention is a “boutique” brand of libertarianism, and doesn’t represent the much larger group of people who, for example, Donald Trump shows up and tries to woo: yeah, he got bood in the building…but he was talking to all the libertarians who were threatening to abandon his coalition. I mean…I stand by what I said…your definitions weren’t accurate…but knowing that you’re a Marxist now means this is likely just an “academic” issue. Your leftist definition was confusing without that context. I don’t care for anarchists, really…even tho I occasionally caucus with them. I used to hate them as much as right libertarians - horse shoe theory and all - but I’ve softened because it’s time to coalesce…strategy almost doesn’t matter any more…we need action. I’m am super thankful they haven’t been polluting “our” protests to the degree they used to.