Anarcho-Socialism/Communism is possible under certain conditions

""In order for this society to work, everyone in it would have to voluntarily give their possessions to others. Some people are generous, but most people would not want to do this. If a person didn't want to work, then what would happen to them? Would someone punish them? If so, who? Wouldn't that person be higher up than the person being punished? " Remember now, that this is a communal society with full direct democracy, as all citizens have equal voting rights, as long as they are in the privileged group. Also remember that this privileged style society would be the only rational way for an ancom commune to function. So, remembering that ancom is a society where "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is the founding statement, so if someone was unwilling to work, which means that he will not contribute his ability, and had no physical disabilities, which would be considered a need, he would not mathematically fit into the equation, because he has neither ability nor need. So, he would simply not fulfill any needs until an ability is produced. The commune as a whole would have already put laws into place so that not just one individual punishes him, but the commune, and the laws apply to everyone. ""Even supposing that all of the socialists, communists, and anarchists combined (Even though some people are Anarcho-Capitalist) they would not be able to fight off the governments, combined with all of the other citizens who would be against Anarchy, Communism, or both. " This argument is irrelevant, because we are not debating on how an anarchist society would start, but rather, could it be sustainable, or at least possible for a prolonged period of time, under certain conditions. "The other problem is that Communism and Socialism, in every real world application, has devolved into an autocratic regime. Stephane Courtois, author of "The Black Book of Communism" considers Communism and Nazism slightly different totalitarian systems. He claims that Communist regimes have killed "approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million victims of Nazis". [1] Courtois claims that Nazi Germany's methods of mass extermination were adopted from Soviet methods. This claim is backed by his citing of Nazi state official Rudolf H"ss who organized the infamous death camp in Auschwitz-" This argument is based on the traditional, flawed, left-to-right design, with anarchists on the furthest possible left, progressing right, to communists, socialists, social democrats, liberals, centrists, conservatives, nationalism, fascism, national socialism, and lastly monarchism. What this scale fails to achieve is that politics are divided into an economic scale, and a social scale. On the economic scale we have communism at the far-left, and pure capitalism at the far-right. Neither of these implies a moral position. One lacks currency, while one supports it fully. The social scale is the "up-down" scale, where anarchism is on the bottom, near libertarianism, and at the top is totalitarianism, near statism. Now, both communism and capitalism can be twisted and manipulated when combined with totalitarianism, such as Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union. "The other problem is that Communism and Socialism, in every real world application, has devolved into an autocratic regime. " This is not true. Again, when combined with totalitarianism, communism and socialism become twisted and take away more rights than not. However, when combined with anarchism, socialism and communism is a very good thing. It's just communes helping their citizens. It would work best without currency entirely. Also, there are at least 2 examples of an ancom society that functions well: The Free Territory/ies of Ukraine, and certain parts of Spain during the Spanish Revolution. "Socialism doesn"t work because it does not reflect human nature. This unnatural state of existence, by the way, is what makes socialism an ideology " it doesn"t reflect what"s real; it only reflects what"s imagined. Volumes have been written about what can be described in one sentence: The imagined benefits of socialism always require government coercion to force changes in human behavior. That effort has never worked in the history of mankind. If socialism"s benefits were real, little government coercion would be necessary to achieve them. Ordered liberty, or freedom, requires some government coercion. The difference between freedom and socialism is that government coercion in a free society conforms to human nature. The same is not true with socialism. Society is an imperfect thing, because we as humans are imperfect beings. Anarcho-Socialism/Communism will never work. " As I stated earlier in this debate, "The social basis for Anarcho-Socialism is one that tries to satisfy both the need for inequality, and the want of relative equality. " Socialism is just the human expression of common decency. However, ancoms realize that some hierarchies are necessary. Socialism does not require government coercion. The Free territory/ies and Spain prove this. Socialism and communism, combined with some necessary hierarchies, anarchism, and the freedom of association/open borders, are the essence of human nature. Humans tend to self-segregate, which is why for some seemingly odd reason we want both equality and hierarchy. So what I stated above actually conforms to human nature, good and bad, moreso than any form of capitalism, "anarcho"capitalism, or any other kind of system, because it benefits 100% of the people involved if they will just do their fair share. Thank you for giving me a challenging debate so far. Back to you, con!