It does, they are called rebellions and insurgencies in todays society.

And besides, who enforces the rules, when there are no rules and anybody can do what they want?

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/272188680175616000/354116705225670657/Screen_Shot_2017-08-30_at_21.36.48.png

From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, I imagine there'd be revolts in an anarcho-communist society

As I said what people want isn't some esoteric concept

There will always be revolts in any society, unless it is made up of mindless drones who do not question anything.

people want community and self-determination.

I mean yes, but regressive social movements are rarely successful

or relevent

I would welcome a revolution in an anarchist thats seeks to further its ideals

post-left anarchism does just that

regressions to fascism, capitalism, Marxist-Leninism aren't likely though

But people **WILL** want organization and leadership.

because people don't like being murdered and dominated

organization and leadership doesn't necessitate authority

But what is a leader who does not give orders?

they can give orders too

but they wouldn't have any coercive authority

Would people have to democratically vote on every decision he makes?

no

in many settings people would accept that the leader has more experience and knowledge than them

leadersip is self justifying

if people question a leader than I assume there's something wrong with him

Coercion, while unpleasent, is necessary if there are needs for it.

Of course, an anarchist society wouldn't tolerate crime either

in fact it'd likely use capital punishment because people don't like operating prisons

But you said earlier, that the leadership could not use coercion.

So which is it?

in day-to-day life, people can voluntarily follow a leader

a leader doesn't need a whip to influence people and if they do, they aren't a good leader

crime is a differet issue

people have a right to self-defense

But in an anarchist world where there is no morals or authority, crime can be just about anything.

defending oneself isn't imposing ones authority on another

It would be more up to how people define crime.

crime is the same things we see it as today

people are innately opposed to murder and rape and stealing

we don't need authoritarians to point out the obvious

moreover many crimes impose authoritarian conditions on individuals and go against anarchist principles

But, when society falls apart, and there is no governing force or morals, I would have to imagine that slavery, prostitution, cartels, and more would become common place, because there is no central authority that is against them, organizations could make laws that would make such things legal.