Anarcho-communism, but as a guiding principle rather than a rigid blueprint. I.e. as long as it's freely associated, horizontal, internationalist, and anti-state, I'm down. We don't have to agree on the internal details.

Seeing all these sub labels just overwhelms me. What I want is simple. People being able to live in a way that works with nature rather than against nature such as exploitation or domination.

While I appreciate the values of what anarchism has to offer, I don't want to wear the label of anarchist. I'm too complex to be contained to a single idea.

They are mostly mandatory anarchy ingredients, apart primitivism and individualism which are reactionary theories.

Anarcho-syndicalism, with a healthy dose of pacifism. I hold no illusions though, the final general strike that will liberate us from capitalism will be violent, and we'll need to fight back. I'll find a role in the strike that doesn't directly require violence.

Individualist Anarchism seems like a contradiction.

Anarchosyndicalism to achieve anarchocommunism eventually

I would consider myself a green anarchist. Capitalism has stepped into A LOT of progess traps.

I don't know, I haven't been to Anarchist Hogwarts.

Anarcho-monarchist, I want to praise the emperor, but I don't want to pay taxes. /s

Categorizing anarchists is one of the most ironic things I've seen today.

The core of anarchism is the rejection of imposed structures and rigid definitions. By categorizing anarchists into boxes, you are replicating the very authoritarian logic that anarchism seeks to dismantle. Oh the irony.

I am an anarchist without adjectives.

I think that different "flavors" of anarchism really would prefigure distinct societal outcomes. I do think there are many potential ways to arrange a classless, stateless society and and they're all anarchism but some would indeed be more or less preferable for different people. So exploring these various theories and organizational concepts really does matter, not that one is necessarily better than another but because they make us ask questions previously unconsidered about what we really want, why we want it, and how we'd most prefer it operate should we achieve it.

For my part I really like communalism, and it's agenda libertarian municipalism. I like how Bookchin went into serious philosophical consideration concerning how to operate truly durable and honest social institutions, honest about how to practically operate communal deliberation and honest about the fact that social institution itself is inescapable, important, and perfectly compatible. I like how the whole thing is founded on the philosophy of social ecology, which hold us accountable to our responsibility for our surroundings. And I like how municipalism is a practical, step-by-step process to building dual power beginning at the hyper-local level in a way that prefigures communalist outcomes through education and face-to-face practice.

No gods. No masters.

Would appreciate a link to an article describing the differences between those.

So far, mine is somewhat generic "dgaf and let dgaf", I.e. do whatever you want as long as you don't force it upon others.

I'd love to know what's really different between -communism, -collectivism, -syndicalism and -mutualism because they all sit well with me (I'm assuming "communism" refers to the end state of society and not the bolshevik autoritarism)

Internally I feel closest to "nihilism".

But socially I usually roll with "anarchism" because it's easier, better understood. and slightly less crazy sounding. I'm sympathetic to any "legit" branch of anarchism.

Individualist I guess, specifically in the sense that the individual should be able to live outside of society unbothered. Not sure if that really counts though.