What i've read of contemporary writings concentrates on the city - its problems, its conflicts, its possibilities.
Primitivists and greens seem to exalt the Wild as some abstract, or seem as daytrippers adventuring out for some protest/action. (Yes, that probably is unfair, your reading may be broader than mine.)
Some of the old-men-with-beards celebrated a pastoral peasant utopia - but i strongly doubt any of them every got sheep shit on their boots.
So why the disconnect?
The cheap answer is that cities are more diverse, and the few radicals in the small towns flee for the communities offered in the cities. While there is some truth it that, it rings hollow to me.
Could it be that anarchism (as we know and call it) is a reaction to industrial civilisation? and that the stronger the imposition of arbitrary authority in people's lives, the stronger the reaction. (To abuse the metaphor, industrial civilisation is poison ivy, anarchism - as an disorganised philosophy - is the rash.) And that rural areas, distant from centers of power and authority, never feel the need to find Anarchism because they live every day with a tiny bit of anarchy in their lives (Self-help & Mutual Aid).
And is the shanty-town urban or rural? Geographically nearby, but as disconnected from the centers of power as any distant backwater.
There is no real answer to this of course, such is the beauty of rejecting dogma, but i'd appreciate your thoughts.