Questions are welcomed! (although it might take me a while to respond, heh...) At least I know someone is reading these things... :)

Well there are several ways an anarchist might respond to your question, and I won't pretend to know all of them. Here's my answer though:

My opinion is that, if anarchism were ever to become established in some sense or another, there would probably be no consistent, cohesive system that would include all people. Rather, you'd probably see a lot of different communities, each practicing anarchism in their own way--much like what happened behind Republican lines in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) but even more varied, as anarchist ideas have evolved substantially in the last 70 years. There would probably be regional federations, but they would be bottom-up, not top-down; they would respond to the needs of communities without becoming a governing body, on an as-needed basis if you will. So in a sense there would be no large system (like the modern State) that a single fascist (or small group of fascists) could take over.

If one particular community decided that it preferred strict, fascist-style hierarchy, then I suppose they might be allowed to continue--although why, when free societies exist nearby, someone low down the fascist ladder would stay in such a community is beyond me. But any attempt to exert authority over an overtly anarchist community would undoubtedly be met with much resistance, not just from the local population but from neighbours concerned that the authoritative system could spread.

Let's face it--an anarchist society will require anarchists. That's actually one of the fundamental difference between anarchism (in all of its forms) and hierarchical political systems. I can go into any society, and, with enough force and patience, establish any sort of power structure I want. It may not be ideal at first, but it will function in some way or another. But an anarchist society will only function if the people accept its fundamental ideas. Such is the reason that anarchists espouse the belief that we cannot liberate others--everyone must be self-liberated. Only then will we truly know freedom and be committed to it.

So, in my opinion, until we get to the stage in which the majority is at least tolerant of anarchistic ideas, we aren't going to make any large leaps to a much freer society. It has happened in different places and times for varying durations, and some would say in a (perhaps unconscious) way for much of human history. But that's the subject of a future post. :)

Strong personalities will probably always be a concern in any human society--they are certainly not eliminated in a representational democracy such as ours--in fact I'd say they have more opportunity to grab real power. That's actually why anarchism is committed to the flattening of all power structures: there will always be power-hungry individuals (although it is an inherent assumption in anarchism that they will be a minority), so rather than construct a hierarchical structure which a smart, greedy person could co-opt, anarchists prefer that power be spread to all individuals. A leaderless community is harder to take over than one with a ruler, assuming that there is still communication and solidarity in the community--i.e. not a bunch of isolated groups.