Reading Recommendations for a Fellow Anarchist

Calling me a "Compassionate Conservative" is not a challenge, it's name-calling. I don't see what I have in common with Conservatives. Conservatives are champions of all kinds of traditional authority,
I oppose both traditionalism and authority. I oppose the old order, I oppose corporatism, I oppose patriotism, I oppose nationalism, I oppose capitalism. So what do I have in common with Conservatives?

Me being called a Conservative is like me calling you a Stalinist - one has nothing to do with the other.

So I'm asking you now then, where can I find a specific definition of 'property' and a specific definition of 'possession'? It's true, I may be confused because I don't understand the terminology. In that case why can't someone just tell me what the accepted terminology here is?

Also I tried to ask people why communists want to deprive labor of its just reward. No answer for that either, I just got called a conservative...

This is a great example. First of all, I think we both agree that the commune has to be a voluntary thing. So it's perfectly possible to live outside the commune (in some different association or in isolation). So if I agree beforehand that when I join a commune all disputes therein will be resolved through negotiation and finally a democratic vote, then it is a perfectly valid community based on a contract which we all agreed to.
Individualists would not have anything against that.

What bothers me are the different ideas about people outside the commune - those who do not want to join it. Everyone so far has claimed that people can't own property and:

Which means that people outside the commune can't own the means of production - and how can they survive if they can't own their own means of production!? Must they starve? Clearly not. They should be allowed to own their personal means of production and engage in any peaceful commerce which they might need in order to acquire other goods which they can't produce themselves.
I don't think anyone would be opposed to that - correct?

I understand that's what you want. But the commune has to be voluntary, so you have to be prepared for some people (like myself) who do not want to be part of it and will not join up. I am asking about a normal practical matter here. My question was not extreme or crazy. I was simply saying that people outside the commune will exist and they should also have the ability to survive in some way, wouldn't you say?
It's a matter of choice. If a person has no choice (join the commune or die!) then we can't speak about anarchist in that kind of environment which seems even worse than today's market - in today's market I can at least choose who to work for, whereas if only "the commune" exists, I will have a choice of that one commune or certain death.

So my question remains the same: People outside the commune who made a choice not to join should be permitted to own their personal means of production so that they can survive and they should be permitted to engage in any trade they think is necessary to obtain additional goods which they can't personally produce. Is this problematic for the communists?

Well this is all quite simple really. I'd just have a plot of land, maybe start a farm or a garden. Hopefully there would be a community or little village of individualists of my sort there, so we could all chip in. One guy would run a store, another guy would make shoes, another guy would open a brewery, etc. We could have a market and trade things. That's what individualist anarchist communities would look like - kind of like the possible set-ups imagined by Warren and Proudhon. I think there would definitely be enough people who want to live this way so it would be fairly comfortable. I can imagine if bigger industries are needed plenty of people would be up for organizing that as well, on a cooperative basis. Some people could get together and open a mine, a refinery, or a factory.
There is no element of anarchist theory which forbids peaceful relations among independent individuals living separately and trading the fruit of their labor among each other. In fact, this is the very essence of anarchism, where all can decide for themselves what arrangements they want.

That test is pretty much impossible to take for anyone who is against the state as an entity because many of the questions are very biased. When I take it, in about 50 percent of the questions there should be an option "I don't care" or "none of my concern" which individualists should highlight for any questions which concern other people's affairs. So yes when I take it I get right and libertarian (Economic Left/Right: 4.38, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28). But I don't consider this to be reflective of my personal beliefs. Unless free markets (without the state) are to be considered right, in which case sure, I can be right.

I know right-libertarians and I agree with them on some things, but I'd much rather live in a community with small, local institutions and occupancy and use land property rules. This strategy would allow build-up of capital, but would prevent the capital (mainly land) from being monopolized. I think mutualist/voluntarist banking and currency solutions are not a problem because they're not monopolies and aren't exploitative.

Communism limits my personal freedom way too much. I also consider it unfair because it does not allow labor to claim its proper reward - instead it socializes all profits and losses (by supposedly "eliminating" them, which does not happen in reality) which makes all people reap the same rewards for different work. This is grossly unfair. If I produce more than others I deserve to be rewarded more.

Anarcho-communism is definitely not a pleonasm. Stirner was an anarchist, but he wasn't a communist. So were Proudhon, Warren, Tucker, Armand, and so on.

Well I'm sorry, but if I don't get any reward for labor, then I'm just not going to work. There's no point to it unless it happens that some kind of work is enjoyable to be (like writing or gardening). And I'm certainly not willing to let other people use the products my labor willy-nilly without offering anything in return. After all the whole point of critiquing capitalism was that it is a system which allows one group of people to profit from the work of others. So what's the difference between someone profiting off my work in a capitalist wage-job and someone profiting off my work by confiscating the produce of my labor in a commune? Mentally maybe you can think about this process differently, but functionally there is no difference. In both cases I produce and someone else consumes which constitutes exploitation.

I agree with that. Wage labor under current conditions is certainly exploitative, but that happens for the reason I wrote above - because the laborer is deprived of the full product of his/her labor. If the laborer has no right to the full product of labor then there is no possible critique which can be leveled against capitalism.

It is much more fair and natural to develop human relations (both social and economic) in a market setting where all participants have equal rights to exchange and sell their labor and its product (the product pretty much consists of labor anyway, so mentioning it is a redundancy). If I cannot claim reward for my labor, my labor becomes worthless to me because it does not entitle me to anything in particular.

As I said before, I'm not a capitalist, so I don't know why you are pointing me toward AnCaps. Contrary to your statement I have actually read the stuff that has been linked on here (like all the Anarchist FAQ answers). I am perfectly willing to challenge any beliefs that I hold which is why I am here asking questions.
For example the question of possessing the means of production (I guess that one has been answered - I can possess my own means of production, they don't need to be collectivized).
I am just asking things. Like why is communism fair? It seems unfair for others to consume the fruits of my labor.

If you don't want to talk to me that's fine. But you don't need to insinuate that I am a capitalist or a conservative (as others have done before) of some sort.

In my vocabulary capitalism is pretty much a pejorative. There is no way to defend capitalism without defending the state. But I know you are not a capitalist so I don't have to tell you that. Anyway, free trade is totally different that capitalism. Free trade is fully anarchistic. Au contraire, it is communism that seems to me to stifle anarchism.
As Benjamin Tucker wrote: "genuine Anarchism is consistent Manchesterism, and
Communistic or pseudo-Anarchism is inconsistent Manchesterism."

On what basis do you say that? How can voluntary free trade be "unfree"? That seems like some kind of paradox. Free trade is free by definition. You don't have to engage in it if you don't like it because it's free. Only people who want to trade establish trade relations. So how can it make you or anyone less free?

My problem has always been the fact I detest democracy. I'm extremely hostile toward any majoritarian methods of creating rules or making decisions. I'm even willing to sacrifice my standard of living for an opportunity to live in an independent community where no collective management is possible and everyone has ownership of capital (individually, not collectively).
But I'd definitely prefer any participatory or syndicalist methods to the disgusting exploitation that is happening right now. There are lesser evils of course. I fully support workers taking over corporate businesses and especially state-run enterprises.