@AaronMk  
This is a pretty good summary. Little nitpick though: Marx did not think that technology was in and of itself alienating. His critique of the alienating force of technology is specifically aimed at technology under capitalism: Where the workers do not own the machines they work on, they indeed become mere parts of them. Marx also wanted technology to be liberating, and thought this could only be achieved by abolishing capitalism. He was actually pretty close to Kropotkin in this point.

Aryanne is a fascist, not that a despot like you would know the difference.

@AaronMk  
Thanks, Aaron. I was going off the top off of my head, so I needed a more insightful look at this. Good read.

@OtherDrawfag
 
It is worth noting that in bringing up Proudhon that the Republican form if government was in his oppinion the optimal form of the expression if individual liberty within the larger society. It presents a collective framework where by votes from individual voters, it oppinion are put forth and considered or even tallied towards a end goal. Proudhon however required a collectivization of the industry and agriculture based in who works what; factory workers would operate the factory as a collective, a union, and set their own rules and take up their share of the profits. Like wise with farmers. On the surface this might resemble Marxism, but unlike Marxism Proudhon advocates for keeping the open market where goods can be bought or sold and all that; his model in action might be seen in W.L Gore and Associates
 
Of the Anarchist philosophers he’s hardly the most radical however and in modern times has become a sort of centrists libertarian figure in the grand scheme of total global philosophy, and not the broken American field. His contemporary Bakunin takes the idea further is mostly because unlike Proudhon he advocates more for the direct confrontation with The State for its annihilation and for the people to take control of their own resources. There’s nuance here that I’m not totally familiar with, but as far as I know Bakunin is known as being the most radical and the man who dueled verbally with Marx which resulted in the dissolution of the First International I think. As an interesting side note, in his edited anthology of Marx and Engels Robert C. Tucker credits the Paris Commune more to Proudhonian philosophy than Marx or Engels, though it coming in the youth of the modern left that probably means less than it would in less than a hundred years.
 
In post-Bakunin fields you have the likes of Kropotkin who I’m more familiar with. His thing is the total abolition of wages (as an hourly thing) and pointing out that with technological growth the amount of work a worker can do can only grow in proportion to his hours worked, and that in collectivizing the means of production and managing these assets as a community people can rightly decide what they need, and what they want. And with the productive capacity of man at the turn of the 19th century being so out of proportion to hours worked, a single person could concievably produce enough for the community on four hours or less, or if not that a team of volunteers, identifying what they want as a group of individuals opting to do that work for four hours and the notion of work being implicit as a rewarded activity get whatever they want. Like wise with their personal wants if they wish to publish books and write then they can get the materials they want by working in the print shop; he croons in this part of Conquest of Bread over the coming arrival of the typewriter. This is in contradiction to Marx’s belief on automation where he believed man becomes the slave of the machine and Kropotkin holds form the notion the machine is the tool of man whose use and development can only reduce the amount of necessary labor until it’s irrelevant and all can do whatever they want; which isn’t far off from the contemporary optimism since Nikola Tesla felt the same way, technology should be liberatory, not enslaving.
 
In addition to this rather Utopian economic view Kropotkin believed in mutual aid and cited examples throughout history and biology. Animals of the same species don’t often directly compete with one another and do infact assist one another socially; hell, even solitary mountain lions have recently been proved to be capable of sharing a meal with fighting over it.
 
Kropotkin’s ideology has been broadly excercised in history. During the Russian Civil War an ungoverened territory emerged in Southern Ukraine that practiced Kropotkin’s notions of Mutual Aid and Democratic ownership. It collapsed, but not in spite of itself but because Hotsky Thotsky Tritsky got fucking pissed at them because of some accusation involving a car, Anarchists don’t talk to Trotskiites because of that, but also the Kronstadt affair. Similarly in Asia a two-million strong Anarchist community was established in north-eastern China that fought the Japanese, it lasted several years until it’s leading military advisor was assassinated by maoists reportedly, which left it in defensive disarray and it fell apart because it was parked next to the two most aggressive groups in all of Asia; the Japanese Empire and Maoist/Stalinist China.
 
This isn’t to overlook the existence of the CNT-FAI organization in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. However, existing during the same time as Joseph Stalin didn’t do then much favors because Stalin badly wanted to speak for the left and Communist community, so the work of the KGB and pro-Stalin Communist groups active in the Spanish Republic - which Anarchist Catalonia was allied with - forced it’s eventual dissolution by isolating it from its own allies which ironically involved Trotskiites also, which Stalin wanted all dead too of course, gotta ice pick the Hotsky where ever he Trotskies. Interestingly despite the surface presentation that Anarchists should be uncontrollable and unwieldly, they managed to produce more in Catalonia than they did before, and I hear a range of numbers from 50% in industrial production once they recovered from all the industrial advisors leaving, to a straight doubling in agricultural production. In the case of farming, belonging to the village collective was entirely voluntary and I’ve read those who didn’t want to get involved were granted aldn of their own so they can farm and tend it themselves to live.
 
More recently Kropotkin-like communities have popped back up in Southern Mexico as part if the Nek-Zapatista movement which exploded into existence after NAFTA. Guarded by the EZLN - whose members agree to not be a part if local community politics during their service - they’ve more or less remained a force in Chiapas. They reject National Political theater, and the EZLN’s now retired commander Subcommandante Marcos took on the moniker of Candidate Zero and did a motorbike tour of Mexico to denounce the national leaders and political process and try to work up awareness on the otherwise broken system; he himself has never run. He is a hella articulate and chill dude too.
 
To try and close this quick there is also the Bookchin school of Anarchist thought as manifested in the Democratic Confederalism, active among the Syrian Kurds. Bookchin’s theories lean more to a collective ownership of the economy and resources to learn how to manage them scientifically and ecologically, in contrast to Anarcho-Ecologists/Prims he recognizes the necessity of both maintaining human health and conditions but also wants to dialectically compliment humanity’s needs with ecological health. Towards the end of his life he began embracing a more pro-government Outlook and fashioned himself a Libertarian, citing that while too much government is oppressive, a government answerable to its citizens with the power to also mitigate irresponsible or negative behavior is a good idea.

@Prometheushunter2  
Since you seem to be rather humble about this, I am going to chalk this issue up to be error of trying to fit ideologies within a simple spectrum. Both these methods and even the left-spectrum seem to really be superfluous in my opinion, and one would be better fit just telling people the philosophers they follow. Anyways onto the topic at hand. I’ll address this, “It sounds to me like the “anarchists” you’re referring to are a political group that calls itself anarchist rather than anarchists in general, since a complete democracy/mob rule wouldn’t be anarchy since anarchy traditionally means the abscence of government (a-an: not,without,lack of|archy/cracy : government, rule, power| I’m sure you know this but just in case).” In which I have to I will to tell you not to take the word at face value. I would rather that you go read someone like Proudhon or try to find others like him. The anarchist label covers a diverse group of political persuasions, but generally they stem from similar thinkers. “Mob rule” is a shorthand for what I would call anarchical decision making. It’s get much more complicated than that, as the writers would cover and go into detail. Concepts usually that are usually brought are “mutualism”, “coercion”, and “horizontal democracy”. The latter concept that explains anarchy quite well. Being that people collectively work together and come up with decisions with likely only the need to congregate, albeit not everyone has to. If this sounds odd and longwinded, then I don’t blame you. There’s flaws in thought here.

@Prometheushunter2  
And in the absence of a hierarchy and rules who has the dominion over others? The biggest/stongest mob… Or mob rule.
 
Anarchists who believe that without rules or regulations we would have world peace and that no conflicts would exists are the crazy/foolish type.  
Same as wannabe commumists who either believe that the mandatory authoritarian phase between non communism and communism can actually end.

@OtherDrawfag  
“But since are Republicans labeled as socialists”  
Damnit typo, it was supposed to go “since when”. Yes i know replublicans aren’t socialist, most people know(except some nut jobs).also just for the record I don’t know a large amount about politics/economics but I fair amount(I think).It sounds to me like the “anarchists” you’re referring to are a political group that calls itself anarchist rather than anarchists in general, since a complete democracy/mob rule wouldn’t be anarchy since anarchy traditionally means the abscence of government (a-an: not,without,lack of|archy/cracy : government, rule, power| I’m sure you know this but just in case).  
And no I don’t think republicans are socialist, although they and many American political parties would be “slightly” socialist as socialism is kind of a speectrum when you think about it: America is in between laissez faire and socialist in that it has indivuidual ownership and growth but economic freedom isn’t complete(no monopolies, limits on mergers,etc). When I said this was rather accurate I didn’t mean completely accurate, I meant in some ways: like how left wing mores more government and right wing means less, and how communism and anarchy(traditional definition) are basically the absolute extremes of there respective wings, the locations of the republican and Democratic Party seem about right too, although socialism seems like it would cover a much short part of the spectrum(and definitely wouldn’t make it part way into the right side). Seems to me like I just didn’t convey myself properly. Trying to convey my thoughts is like trying to fit a a circular peg through an extremely irregularly shaped hole half its size.

-Or, stock holders. Which is just the surface level. I am making broad strokes here because politics and economics are much more complex than you think.

@Prometheushunter2  
You don’t quite make sense yourself, and comes off like you don’t know what you are talking about. I suggest actually learning about the subjects you are speaking of instead of going off your head. No, Republicans are not socialist; don’t be silly; they moderately want more laissez faire and less government generally. No, economic equality is not communism. Try reading Marx or asking a communist. No, anarchists do not want economic equality. They want complete social equality and fully democracy without government structure (mob rule). They view capitalism as hierarchial because it is both bureaucratic and is subjected to the rule of a boss figure and managers.

@Background Pony #22D2  
Then why do they call themselves anarchists? Complete ecomonic equality is communism, which is the exact opposite of anarchy. Then again I’ve seen weirder(so.much.weirder)

@Prometheushunter2  
Anarchists want equality and view equality and liberty as the same thing and want to abolish all unjustified hierarchies, including economic hierarchy; anarchists are socialists.

@OtherDrawfag  
What? I don’t much about liberterians other than they want a more “laissez faire” economy so I’m gonna skip that. But since are Republicans labeled as socialists and anarchists as left-wingers. Anarchists just want anarchy, no government, it’s in the name so for them to be left wing wouldn’t make sense, unless there’s a piece of the puzzle I don’t have yet.

@Prometheushunter2  
You’re view on this is as two dimensional as the pictures on this site. Do you actually think this doesn’t contradict itself when monarchs are seen as less statist than the Libertarian “party”, the Republicans are labelled as socialists, and the fact that anarchists are anti-capitalist left wingers?

@Background Pony #DA09  

@Prometheushunter2
 

Traditionally “left” and “right” are defined like this  
Left: wanting larger government with more control, usually socialists, but fascists and communists fit into this  
Right: wanting less government with more freedom of the people, “true” democrats(not left wing activists who call themselves that as a misnomer), libertarians, and on the absolute extreme anarchists.  
This chart actually is rather accurate, as the neither the American right-wing or left-wing parties are truly on the “right-wing” side, republicans and other “right” parties just happen to be closer to the right than them. Or course different political systems can be graphed on many many more axes than just right to left. If you included all potiental spectrums you’d have some kind of multidimensional spectrum field

I’m conflicted.  
I believe the horseshoe is real but I also believe putting political views on a single axis is retarded.

@Background Pony #6005  
You have to think in four dimensions, Marty!  

Celestia and Luna should be closer to the right, but pretty accurate

This is heresy.

@patachu  

i can agree with this chart. any kind of authoritarianism, and most governments are forms of socialism.  
Monarchy isn’t that bad, it’s just about who is at the head to guarantee and represent the nation.