The tension between individualist and communalist anarchisms is synthesized by the often paradoxical (but to me, far more elegant) mutualist anarchisms. I believe the source of that conflict is identified in the words of the most influential being in my life, a Taoist Jew who said: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the reign of God." That particular Taoist Jew came to live for us, knowing we would kill him for it, so that He might show us The Way. He taught us how to die unto ourselves and be reborn of water and of the Spirit to best enjoy our lives.
As a result of taking on the perspective He prescribed, you can live for others instead of insisting upon your right to live only for yourself. Trying to practice that perspective, you can see that the life best lived is the opposite of the often solipsistic "anarcho"-capitalist perspective. We must shift our thinking about property from "what's mine is mine" to "it's on me to use this wealth for the greatest benefit to my neighbor." I think this has vast and deep implications for our individual and communal responsibilities that we must reflect upon in our own forms of property; how the State currently protects them for us; and how we can adjust our socioeconomic praxis to reform our communities more justly.
I personally think the most anarchic revolution that society could pursue is for communities to simply nullify their existing unjust, usurious, monopolistic forms of State-enforced property. As that Taoist Jew explained, it's typically really hard to convince rich, powerful people that giving up their oppressive privileges is a good idea. That said, it also often seems equally hard to convince collectivists that allowing individual responsibility over property for personal gain is a practical way to incent the supply of the demands of a freed market. Personally, it seems unjust to prevent any consensual relationships that form for the sake of producing mutual wealth.