Communist rules about food can work without a central authority but land use laws can't in my view. Anarchy could come with everyone just agreeing they don't allow restaurants to throw food away and farmers agreeing they won't allow anyone to starve to death. No authority forces everyone to stay in line except the collective of everyone else, which isn't organized in a central way.
Discussion
The question is, how would this society enforce the "don't allow" part?
I can see this food scenario becoming more of a societal norm in some places (ie. Germans don't like littering but it's very common in poorer countries) and in other areas you'd probably sign an agreement. That's the rules without rulers part of anarchy and I agree that is something plausible, to have almost everyone handle their food responsibly *and* voluntarily. The important thing is avoiding control of the food supply and how it is used by some central authority, maybe some people would want to "throw away" food to make compost. Would they be punished and how would that go about? The free market would end up offering the best solutions.
Yeah, social norms basically become the closest thing to statute under anarchy. I don't think it would ever become a social norm to punish composters; more like if you get caught wasting food to pad profits as a restaurant, you get targeted with some theft and people are less keen on protecting you or eating at your restaurant, and if you keep doing it your reputation becomes inherently unprofitable in that community. When it comes to farmers it would just be that most farmers negotiate far too generously to let anyone starve to death and there's no tax man coming to say "your prices are undercutting Walmart so we're taking your farm if you don't cough up money for us"
The scenario you're describing with the restaurant is a free market scenario, where the restaurant stops wasting food not because a law made it so but because of profit motives. People look down upon certain actions and if they become aware of it, they vote with their money and go somewhere else. The restaurant either gets it or goes out of business.
I lot of farmers would probably have better yields as well if they would leave all the monocrop Fiat agriculture behind, sure it might be profitable in the short term, but long term you destroy your own soil and are therefore reducing yield in the long term. With time, many are forced to pay for expensive fertilizers and pesticides to grow and protect their weak crops. Now, these monocrop agricultural tendencies exist because of government intervention; wheat, corn and soy are heavily subsidized by the US government in the USA, for example. Farmers have a guaranteed price on this these crops and humans love certainty, so that's what a lot choose to grow. If the free market wasn't being manipulated by government intervention, then you probably wouldn't see a lot of people growing things that make them poorer over time.
Also, people are generally more generous the less they are stolen/taxed from. I can see charities working in an anarchic society, better than they work now, and people being taken care of if needed. So without a government to "take responsibility" for the poor and to steal from productive people, those with some money would probably be self-interested in helping out locally to take care of the homeless in their neighborhoods.
So basically, I don't see the need for the adjective of communism in anarchy. Left to their own devices, humans naturally cooperate and trade with one another, and those who respect property rights the most, develop civilization the most. Human action and property rights are the cornerstone of capitalism. It's not some greedy entrepreneur with a big hat, they become a problem (corporations) when they get in bed with the government and that has an actual name, fascism (which stems from socialist ideology). Unfortunately, people toss that word around so much that they don't even know what it means.
Posted this reply from snort.social and it doesn't seem to be showing up anywhere else -
nevent1qqsquf58sgm7hk6u0jedzpj8thczeqejwgtzvhxj430p52l8x5z2raszypmhdsedfvw3azlj4946h66r4kddu9tm6d3a3xu8ld37du292kygsqcyqqqqqqgcue9ah
Copying and pasting with an extra paragraph at the end I thought of later:
The key thing about it that makes it communist in my view is the adherence to the principles of fairness, equality, making sure everyone has what they need, etc.
The key thing about capitalism that makes it capitalist in my view is people being obsessed with money.
The two aren't opposite ends of a spectrum as people treat them - the opposite of communism is allowing slave owners and the opposite of capitalism is having no currency at all. You could abolish currency and allow slave owners and have very-not-communism and very-not-capitalism at the same time. You could also have the system I described but with "profit" not existing and it all just being a matter of people wanting or not wanting to share needed goods and labor. In the system I described, social norms include both a capitalist way of doing trade and a communist way of handling the trade of food.
I believe the main reason communism and capitalism get compared as counterparts because they have names and the actual counterparts to them don't really have names. There probably is a word for a society without currency, but I don't know what it is.
On that last part I added - looks like there isn't even a word, just a descriptive phrase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-monetary_economy