Yes, serious anarchists frequently mention Jo Freeman's "The Tyranny of Structurelessness." http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html
By "serious" anarchists, I mean like the AnarchistBlackCat forum. http://www.anarchistblackcat.org/search.php?search_id=active_topics
Someone on that forum made an interesting claim:
"What I never understand about 'the anarchist left' is that, while
this is obvious to anyone with any experience of such structures,
as one arm of the communist movement we favour prefigurative mass
organisation, but many of those who ascribe to some our precepts
end up pushing very rigidly hierarchical structures that most
Trot, and even Stalinist groups would consider derisory in terms
of their lack of accountability, lack of cohesion, lack of
collective discipline, lack of member control and so on. I despair
of it. For all that you can slag social democrats like the SSP or
CWI, at least they elect their executive. "Our" leadership is
self-selecting, cliquey, and authoritarian, and our groups are
full of unrealistic liberals who object to the least amount of
accountability."
> bill bartlett is fond of taking this line when it comes to work and the
> question of how we can have a society where some people will lay around on
> beach chairs reading, while others will scrub toilets, grow crops, sweep
> streets, lawyer (*grin*) and teach.
>
> well, they probably won't be inclined to lounge around on beach chairs
> reading b/c societal norms -- enforced by others -- will make it clear that
> people who don't contribute to society's needs are to be shunned as social
> outcasts.
Yes, Ursula Le Guin's influential novel "The Dispossessed" discussed a fictional anarchist society where utterly lazy slackers were shunned. IIRC maybe even physically roughed up.
It may not have been the best possible anarchist society; and a lot of hard work was needed. Maybe we could do better. But they did away with many absurd hierarchies.
Tayssir