Libertarian socialists and Libertarian Capitalists have a few things in common. Libertarian Capitalists, for example, are divided among themselves between Anarchists, who want to get rid of government completely, and Minarchists, who don't see that as feasible or sound but who would hold the government to the necessary minimum agenda. The same is true of Libertarian Socialists, though among Libertarian Socialists Anarchists have gotten most of the attention. Moreover, Socialist and Capitalist Minarchists can probably come close to agreeing on the same minimum program, in an abstract sense. Minarchists want to hold the government to defense of the peace (including external defense) and maintenance of the basis of an economic system, while the economic system takes care of business. Of course, "maintenance of the basis of an economic system" will mean different things to the Socialist and the Capitalist. For the Minarchist Capitalist, it means that the government enforces property and contract, while routine business is based on markets and individual exchange. For the Libertarian Socialist Minarchist, it means maintenance of a system of workers' organizations, while inter-organizational agreements, individual decisions and (to some extent) markets take care of the routine business. Either way, government is to keep up the framework, and no more.
My argument is for Minarchism, at least for the coming few generations. No doubt the time will come when there will be no more need for government. Perhaps babies born today will live to see those days. I doubt that I will. The road to a really free society will be a long one. The sooner we set out, the sooner our descendants will arrive.
The Cooperative Commonwealth shares a good deal with Libertarian Socialism, and I would say that it is a form of minarchist (but not anarchist) Libertarian Socialism. Nothing against anarchy, there -- we're just not ready for it. Got a lot of growing up to do first.