@ekklesiagora - Hello again. First off, you clearly have done a lot of research on what other people have spoken about regarding anarchy. However, the claims made by yourself, either via citation or your interpretation of said citations, do not appear remotely logical.

I have serious issues with the arguments you present & much of what you are saying here. A lot of it does not appear to be internally consistent. For instance, you stated:

When I was an anarchist, I was advocating what I called anarchist social democracy. My basic contention was that it would be theoretically possible to establish a voluntary post-capitalism social democracy—i.e. a libertarian social democratic system in which wage-slavery (capitalism) has been abolished and in which everyone is guaranteed free access to food, shelter, healthcare, education, etc.

1. How can you have a social democracy that is anarchistic? Democracy implies rule of the majority, which means someone is ruling over someone else, ergo it is not anarchy (no rulers). You still have a form of archator, albeit a group.
   I would say that you were not advocating for anarchy at all if you were advocating a democratic system of governance was necessary.
2. Capitalism is not wage slavery. I read this claim you made in another article, debunked it there, and will do so here too. Capitalism is voluntary exchange & nothing more. No one forces you to work for a specific person, but LIFE forces EVERYONE to work. We can either work in the market, or be forced to perform a task by the state. Take your pick, but you can't have both & call it anarchy.
3. Some one has to grow the food, build the shelter, provide healthcare, education, etc. People have to determine the value of said services and goods. How do you determine if the labour used is valuable, and how do you incentivise good services without the concept of wages or capitalism?
4. You cannot have "free" anything, unless someone is willing to provide that good or service for no added benefit for themselves. At some stage, someone has to pay for the production of these goods and services. Humanity on average is not altruistic, and in extremis, they will abandon altruism altogether.

This would involve combining three different elements of anarchist thought, borrowed from different anarchist schools of thought: (1) democratic confederalism, the organization of society on a directly democratic basis, through assembly democracy, at the level of the commune/municipality, and the confederation of communes/municipalities into a larger system of governance for the macro-scale, (2) communal-ownership or municipal-ownership of land, and (3) allowing a market for the distribution of goods and services. All of these ideas are actually rooted in classical anarchism.

1. There already is a system of direct democracy. Its called free market capitalism. You are responsible for what you support by buying goods, and the more you are willing to spend on a company, the more you support them. Creating another system of direct democracy on top of that is redundant.
2. The system of governance you proposed sounds almost identical to a lot of the existing governments we have today, just founded on local governments, which have a federal layer to deal with the larger scales of society. So, how is that at all different from the county/state/federal solution we have today in the USA?
3. Land ownership is a negative right of every individual alive. It is not beholden to a group with no agency, nor can a group know how best to use the property for the betterment of those who work it. Government policies on land usage today are a prime use case for this problem. Also, if the group owns the land, how did they get that negative right without the individuals that comprise the group having it to begin with? This is the biggest issue with all communistic & socialistic theories on anarchism - the idea that a group of individuals magically has more rights than each individual within the group.
4. if land is owned by the group, how can there be a market distribution of food grown on said land? Who sets the value? The individual or the group? If its the group, then congrats, you never were advocating for anarchy, but statism.
5. How does such a system make sure that the labour for the group is performed and to a standard the group feels provides them the needs they have (let alone the wants they desire).

It seems, then, that an anarchist commune or even an anarchist confederation, assuming that it exercises communal-ownership of land, could effectively use ground-rent as a way to raise money to fund public services and welfare. You could, therefore, have an anarchistic social democracy with security, universal healthcare, and universal basic income all funded by ground-rent charged for private use of communally-owned land.

1. So its okay for the group to charge property taxes to everyone? remind me again, how is that anarchistic?
2. Those services you mentioned cost labour and resources to provide. What if someone's need for one service is less than another? Is it fair for both to pay for the same product, if one is less likely to use it? Again, doesn't sound like anarchy at all, rather a socialist utopian ideal that will never work.

I agree, you are not an anarchist. I seriously doubt you ever really were one either. From what you describe, they are all well intentioned concepts with no implementation strategy that can logically work without a state to mandate these things, or without everyone in the society having similar interpretations of reality.

I personally find anarchism, the concept of life without rulers, highly logical, and viable if implemented logically. The implementation solutions you, and the many "classical anarchists" that you quote, have advocated for cannot work without someone, or a group of someones, in charge. As soon as you have that YOU HAVE A STATE.