I have been thinking about collectivism and statism and whether you can be one but not the other. I think you can and it could look something like this:
A non-statist collectivist might be a classical left-leaning anarchist (not an-cap, major distinction there), meaning someone who rejects state oppression but still believes in societal classes and ethnic/religious groups counting for more than the individual.
In other words the classic "Once the bourgois state is gone, we'll share everything with everyone and nobody is allowed to exploit anybody else", meaning a strict set of oppressive rules but somehow no one to enforce it.
An individualist statist could identify as, say, as a "classical liberal", what an-caps would call a "minarchist", so someone who genuinely believes that the state can be used to protect individual rights and liberty if its power is handled by "sensible people".
I belong to neither of those meta-groups, I think that the biggest motivator for humans isn't money per se but power, status, and dominance. Therefore, in order to facilitate peaceful co-existence, coercive tools like states and "legal violence" which people might use against one another should be limited as much as possible, leaving economic success and communal respect as the only paths to societal status, both of which have a positive effect on every life they touch rather than re-distributing good things from a pre-determined loser to a pre-determined winner.
What do you reckon?