What rules will these communities follow? How will the resolve differences of opinion as to how the rules should be interpreted? If I specialize in making something nobody wants, will the community still be required to feed me even though I'm doing nothing to contribute? If I am willing to take a significant personal risk in the hope of bettering the community in some way, do I benefit more than someone else in the community who takes no risk at all?
The main thing to understand here is that a transition from a general critique of society and a push for a different, in this case fairer, saner direction to a demand for details about how this and that is to work, immediately changes the form of the debate into something quite different — one where qualitative realities take second place to illusory and debatable and largely ludicrous details.
Imagine, for example, an Italian banker of the fifteenth century suggested something like capitalism to a friend, and that friend assaulted him with a barrage of questions along the lines of yours? How will people manage when all the commons are owned by massively wealthy individuals and corporations? How will an utterly unimaginable web of institutions function across the world? And so on.
Of course, it’s easy to give examples in hindsight, but the point is that this fictitious banker’s instincts to push society in a certain way are based on qualities, desires, perceptions and so on that have nothing to do with the reality of life in fifty, a hundred, five hundred years. If you do not agree with those instincts — as I surely would not if I were his friends — then debating all these details is just silly.
But anyway, I’m going to have a quick stab at some answers, but please don’t come back with a locomotive series of questions ‘yes, but how…?’ ‘yes, but how…?’
What rules will these communities follow?
The same kinds of ‘rules’ that hunter-gatherer societies followed. Their own unselfish instincts. If their persist in wishing to abrogate power to themselves (for example) they will be ridiculed or excluded. That is enough to deal with most problems in ordinary human situations where people have a direct relationship with their fellows and do not or cannot rely on power-structures and money.
How will the resolve differences of opinion as to how the rules should be interpreted?
There will be no need, just as there is no need in a loving family to ‘resolve differences of opinion about rules’. In healthy families and societies most differences of opinion are resolved gently, indirectly and extremely effectively.
If I specialize in making something nobody wants
In a healthy society this is either impossible, or not a problem.
will the community still be required to feed me even though I'm doing nothing to contribute?
There are no ‘requirements’ to do anything in a healthy society. If people love you, they will feed you.
If I am willing to take a significant personal risk in the hope of bettering the community in some way, do I benefit more than someone else in the community who takes no risk at all?
No.
If you think this means you won’t take such a risk, you are mad. People who love each other take risks to help each other without desire for reward. Even prestige, in sane societies, does not accrue to great people — their fellows word assiduously to mock great achievements so that ego finds no purchase.