A Narc-Iism

One thing I wonder about anarchism is the place, size, and variability of the autonomous commune. Where is the balance between the individuality and democracy of a small collectivist organization and its ability to be stabilized within a larger network of collectives? As I understand it more decentralized communes help to diffuse any centralization of power, however, isolated communities are vulnerable to regional instability, such as drought or natural disaster, subjecting it to the goodwill of neighboring communities. This would, in a way, subject it to the authority of neighboring prosperity, which could be called authority. I am pretty much convinced of anarchist ideology, however, I am still wrestling with implementation. The other main question I have is to the ability of an anarchist society to sustain itself within a varied society. It seems that, aside from a few instances (not to discount such cases), that anarchist/libertarian-socialists/etc. societies are often highly unstable (this not itself to discount their importance). This having been said, the likelihood of an entire, instantaneous, worldwide shift to some kind of anarchist society being unlikely, how would a shift to such a society take place? I understand that great strides have often been made with autonomous communes popping up in various societies. How, however, are these societies not unlike the Paris commune in their ultimate ephemeral nature when it comes to the society at large? Isn't a decentralized, autonomous entity ultimately vulnerable to any predatory, antagonistic outside entities?

Murray Rothbard on War

Libertarianism - "A System" Anarchist Mutualism - "An Ethic?"

I've been struggling recently with two, seemingly contradictory, idealogical impulses. One is a libertarian impulse to let people freely organize and exchange goods and services as they will with minimal government intervention. The other is the impulse toward mutual benefit through collective organization and the benefits of sharing mutual risks and benefits respectively. It occurred to me that these could be considered as not as mutually exclusive as a might have once thought. If you viewed libertarianism as a system in which people operate, and mutualism as an ethic by which people operate, than they are not necessarily exclusive.