You've misinterpreted most of what I said I'm afraid, and that hinges on you reading "collectivist anarchism" with "collective anarchism". In not one place did I use the word "collective". When you were actually talking on topic to respond to me, you say you think "collectivist anarchism" is a bit of an oxymoron.

I don't need to make a detailed argument for why anarchism is not the opposite of collectivism, it's well known that collectivist anarchism at the very least exists and has existed for nearly 200 years. Mikhail Bakunin an early and influential anarchist, founded "collectivist anarchism" in anarchist thought. Though you may disagree with it as an anarchist school of thought, you can't rewrite history. Anarchism thus cannot be the opposite of collectivism, as we have a long history of a real world synergy between the two ideas.

As a side note, anarchism is not "without rules", it is without hierarchical power structures. You may be thinking of "without rulers", which is more like it. Being a member of a group in no ways implies being ruled by the group. I think you have a very basic misunderstanding of what anarchists are actually like and the traditional of anarchist thought. I'd recommend some reading.

It's a pity we can only comment with this many threads, but perhaps it's to keep exchanges like this on the shorter side!

Sorry for misreading ruleRS, I found the way you wrote that confusing. So yes, without rulers, but most definitions would frame this in terms of hierarchy, so I'm not sure what bias I may be showing here.

I feel that I did address your points, but to clarify, it's absurd to be so suspicious of being in a group. From my perspective anarchism is not against grouping, but rather in fixed, top down power relationship, i.e. a hierarchy. A ruler cannot existed without the ruled, so whether or not you choose to term it that, the idea of hierarchy is applicable here. Anarchists group together all the time to get things done.

It's not really a minor distinction between "collectivist" and "collective", because they have different meaning. "ism"s are invariably more than their literal "in the manor of a group" meaning. Anarcho-collectivism, aka collective anarchism, has a very specific meaning, there's no point in going over it any further, it is well documented and I'll leave it at that.

In sum, I think you might have gotten the wrong end of the stick with it, but I think this shows your bias, as probably an ancap (anarcho-capitalist) and not interested in class struggle, etc. That's a pretty big can of worms though!

Enjoy the new year festivities! I hope you took our debate here in the spirit of friendly challenge I meant it as. ✌️