To the original point, I'd say no. As already noted, many (most) of those urging a collectivist model assume they'll be the beneficiaries of it. Academics assume education will be a priority (Pol Pot notwithstanding), poor assume it will be free cake and cookies, etc.
Hayek has a nice little chapter on that tendency, as I recall.
As to "Libertarian Socialism" - feh. One might as well deal in dehydrated water.
Words have meanings, and the meanings of those two words are contradictory. The level of state control required for a socialist system is so far removed from libertarian ideals as to make the term truly ridiculous.