I agree. The Paul Ehrlich 'Population Bomb' view of humanity is an absurd nonsense. It always was but the recent, rapid decline in global birth rate just underlines it. I think there is a danger in trying to understand anarchism in terms of any existing Statist ideology. Not least of all because it can end up spiraling towards semantics.
I also agree that different models of anarcho-communities could well coexist in peace. I don't reject Proudhon's concept of property but believe he was railing against the state's violent enforcement of class structure built upon the ownership, and distribution, of property. In post-revolutionary France, enthused by the emergence of radical socialism, his view was a reflection of the era and made a strong political statement.
Like you, I am reluctant to 'self identify' as being part of any group. The 'labeling' of people seems to me to serve the agenda of supreme Statist and globalists. It promotes the process of 'divide and rule' to keep us all at each other’s throats, while the state (however you define it) gets on with the business of farming us.
So for me it doesn’t matter which ‘model’ of anarcho-community you work to create. I personally favour voluntarist collectives based upon Samuel Konkin’s theory of the libertarian Agora. Not because these would be perfect, free market counter economics are potentially no less corruptible than global capitalist collectivism, but because I believe anarcho-communities based upon contractual exchange are most likely to work in reality.
What matters most is that we move away from statism, ignore the ‘government’ wherever possible and build autonomous communities based upon ‘order without power.’