>with straight up commune
Nothing stops you, actually, there is homesteading and stuff. Except that communes aren't effective and work without failing on a very small scale.
>the choice is "work or starve" which is not really a choice at all
Homestead, move out, work anywhere different, go to prison(free food, huh), etc. Are these not options for you?
>Work is forced labor. Being forced to do anything means it's against my self interest or, dare I say it, freedom.
<How can i be free in a world where survival requires a certain amount of labor without forcing other people to do it for me?
>Still I don't think "the revolution" is coming around the corner, but I do think it's practical to implement anarchies in small local scales at first.
Local anarchies exist everywhere the force and coercion are not involved, actually. Every time you go out with friends it works the same way as in "anarchy". It is not a leftist, or collectivist concept, as they picture it as a virtue and enforce it the same way different socialists enforce "kindness", "belief in god" or any other idea that "seems good". The revolution can only happen if there is support of people towards it, which is very unlikely, at least in the first world.
>anti-state, anti-money, pseudo-anarchist
They do not have any progress to benefit with using money, they are gatherers and cannot read. You can call ants the same this way. By the time they need a new supply of AKs brouzouf become necessary, and are used. There are also theocratic islamist states, but it is just as anti-money as christians were when they were in power. Same "greed is evil" argument and strong regulatory polices. You tell me how good they did.
Not really, with all these green polices it is highly unlikely for a "collapse" to happen. Post too long. Click here to view the full text.