I suspect that if an anarchistan would be created within a lifetime it would 'revert' to some other well known political framework, either a democracy or a dictatorship.
If there was an anarchistan in recent history it was a probably Somalia and even there you now find a regular government.
A more appropriate example of "anarchistan" would probably be Catalonia during the civil war in the 1930s. It has been written and discussed by Orwell, Bookchin and many others. Your point is well taken though, at the end it did function as part of a "regular" democratic government before being crushed in the civil war both by Soviet backed communists and Franco.
Well, I suspect that David Graeber, who quietly self-proclaimed himself as one of the leaders of Occupy Wall Street, was one of those people designed to make 'anarchistan' a distant reality. He would take the energy invested in him and then faceplant before the finish line. By say, proposing that the left wing should be voted for.
He was in support of Corbyn etc - this is to say he was happy to work within the system. You might say that this is a pragmatic view - but really he represented a hard left view.
Anarchism is, by definition, no-leaders. Self-determination. Neither communism nor a libertarian position. So I think in practise he was in contradiction of the beliefs he purported to hold.
Libertarianism was conceived by the anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque, who first used the term to call Proudhon, the father of anarchism a mere 'moderate anarchist, liberal but not libertarian'.
For about a century libertarianism was exclusive a far left ideology including mostly anarchists and libertarian Marxists.
