I like this question a lot.
I think though that before we talk about a possible anarchist community, maybe we should ask, what is a community in the first place?
I have just been reading an exchange between Maurice Blanchot and Jean-Luc Nancy, where they address this question in a very interesting way. What is the meaning of this recurring desire in western politics for a community that has ostensibly been lost? We (people tied up in the political ideologies of the West) say that we want the return of a community, but at the same time we claim to perceive something known as the 'individual' -- a being that by definition cannot be divided.
However, these supposedly 'individual' beings are in fact lacerated by / relational with one another at all times, by virtue of their 'co-appearance' as finite beings. according to nancy, we are always, already, in community.
the political projects of 'community-building,' such as 20th c anarchism, the Bolshevik revolution in russia, german fascism, etc etc etc, all miss that fact; they all pretend to "make a work" of the deaths that they require. Nancy writes movingly of how death in the name of community to come may perhaps be justified, in relation to this or that form of oppression, yet “these deaths are not sublated: no dialectic, no salvation leads these deaths to any other immanence than that of … death (cessation, or decomposition, which forms only the parody or reverse of immanence)."
In place of this, Blanchot and Nancy discuss the possibility of an "un-working" or "désouevrement" of community. Nancy: “community necessarily takes place in what Blanchot has called ‘unworking,’ referring to that which, before or beyond the work, withdraws from the work, and which, no longer having to do either with production or with completion, encounters interruption, fragmentation, suspension… Community is not the work of singular beings, nor can it claim them as its works, just as communication is not a work or even an operation of singular beings, for community is simply their being -- their being suspended upon its limit. Communication is the unworking of work that is social, economic, technical, and institutional.”
Some examples of that type of community include, for Blanchot and Nancy, a literary community, friendship, and especially, the community of lovers.
The question for me then, is, to what extent do anarchist "scenes" or "milieus" resemble this type of community, and to what extent do they resemble the self-conscious type of intentional being-in-common that is constantly naming and describing and delimiting itself. like the supposed political community of a nation or a neighborhood or whatever. I think it is probably sometimes one and sometimes the other. it seems though that any time someone alludes to an "anarchist community" they are full of it. when they talk about their friends or their lovers or something like that, maybe they know what they are talking about.
(here are the two essays I am referring to. there's a lot more to them than the little bit that I've tried to describe. http://heidigustafson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Blanchot-Maurice-Unavowable-Community.pdf
and, in a very similar vein, there is this: https://terriblecommunity.jottit.com