>>2046>Do you think traditional familiar and clan bonds would help in creating an anarchist society?
If by "familiar and clan bonds" you mean a sort of culture of cooperation and mutual responsibility, then certainly.>Can one be rich through legal means?
Sure, but that's completely beside the point. What is "legal" solely depends on who controls the political power of the institutions that make up society itself. In the Philippines, I'm sure you've read President Rodrigo Duterte has openly incentivized his citizenry to murder whomever they perceive as drug addicts for the sake of saving local businesses. or something. Even if people get rich through such needless violence, is it ethical? Of course not; such coercive sensibilities will always spiral downward.>What is the best way of conflict resolution without resorting to coertion?
Within a social group, one person’s problem is everyone’s problem; when there is a dispute, strangers, friends, relatives, or other third parties must intercede to help the disputants find a mutually satisfying resolution. Quarrels between members of a social group is dangerous in that they threaten the supportive social net on which all depend. So to put it simply, cooperation; this could mean anything from talking it out over a cup of a coffee to performing pagan rituals for the sake of goodwill.>How to defend anarchist land from a centralized country?
Guerilla tactics; fourth generation warfare. You may wanna give the attached pdf a read. All of the newest anarchist schools of thought within the past twenty or so years have been attempting to refresh anarchism's resiliency on an international scale; this is because one of the biggest problems with anarchism is just that--every attempt had fallen short due to unforeseen consequences. From insurrectionary anarchism to libertarian socialism, there are a variety of solutions that remain mostly speculative.https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works#toc57>How can anything related to communism be anarchist?
Unlike communists who see merit in having an establishment for transitioning to a communist society, anarchists see no merit at all. When communists say "We need to smash capitalism!", anarchists see an asterisk next to "capitalism" that also cites "the State" (or establishment). They agree with the marxist criticism that capitalism is slavery, and such hierarchy is detriment to the evolution of our species; yet at the same time they also know that the single most benefactor of capitalism are established institutions--culminating in the State. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc etc. This comparison has marked anarchists with accusions of sectarianism, counter-revolution and plain ol' blood for almost a century.
If you agree with communist rhetoric, then chances are you'll see merit in anarcho-communism, which posits that the only way to achieve a communist society is through the abolition of the State. If you think that's too simple or utopian, then you may come across anarcho-syndicalism which is merely one of many extrapolations on anarcho-communism since its conception inbetween the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Anarcho-syndicalism put forth the idea that in order to transition towards a communist society, the abolition of the State requires that all workers must unionize into syndicates that are cooperatively owned and eventually take over the economic functions of society--thus ending capitalism and undermining the State at the same time. That's a brief summarization of classical anarchist schools of thought--many anarchists agree that we need to transition towards a communist society; HOW we do it is where we differ. For instance Anarchism (specifically communist and syndicalist mindsets) in Cuba was prevalent before the 26th of July Movement; hell, even their flag bears the same colors flown by Spanish anarchists during the interwar period. It was only after its revolutionary vanguard starting gaining more influence did the West consider intervening.
Before anarchism intersected with communism however, it was mostly an individualist philosophy to boot. One of OP's links outline the history of how the world's elites at the turn of the twentieth century thought there was a global anarchist conspiracy to depose them. Illegalism is probably the most remembered aspect of individualist anarchism from that period. Insurrectionary anarchism expands on egoist/individualist sensibilities and it applies to contemporary methods of organization (primarily communist/synidcalist ones). As far as I'm concerned, very few anarchists unironically identify themselves as "egoist" or "individualist" these days. It's all either whichever flavor of communism or "anarchism without adjectives.">Is taxation theft?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2HBdRCroks>Do laws against hate speech alienate the freedom of speech?
Laws against hate speech certainly /limit/ freedom of speech, however that doesn't mean hate speech itself should be encouraged in retrospect. Shutting people up and being capable of choosing not to listen are two very, very different things--this falls back on the integrity of social groups themselves; such vitriolic behavior puts the entire group at risk. It has nothing to do with what "rights" you have; diffusing disputes is paramount.