anarchy fucking blows!

now lets take NYC and divide it to Kommuns*, every Kommun take care of its own matters , like food , homage , you see and theres no money people are getting food for FREE according to how much they need.

That's one of the most regressive ideas I've ever heard of. People move about all the time. Under such a system we'll revert back to uneducated, uncommunicative clans. Lets take football games, for example: Whenever a championship event takes place in a particular area there is a rapid influx of people. Sometimes, the population is temporarily doubled. Companies which have people all over the country see this as an opportunity for profit and growth, and build more appartments, hotels, what have you. Under a Communist system, what motive would "Kommuns" have for providing for such an drastic increase in the population?

if there are people need of homage , there will be builders that know how to build and will do it to help the others

But jobs are determined by what people want and need. In the aforementioned situation, there is going to be a sudden (but temporary) demand for builders. That means, the only way to build enough homes would be to get more builders... but the only way to get more builders would be by raising the prices for construction to pay for higher wages... But if everyone is paid the same why would people want to be builders? Sure, builders at that moment might be vital, but why bother doing a more difficult job for someone you've never met? But under Communism, there is no money, therefore no prices or wages. Prices determine and solve the availability of resources (both raw, and labour). If you abolish prices, how will you be able to get enough resources to accommodate a rapid influx of people?

give out what you can, take what you need , if he will sit at home all day we wont have a choice not to help him yet again will be judged by the Kommun

That opens the doors to racism and discrimination. There are many people who would have their reasons to not work a particular job and/or at a particular time. For example, say there was a massive building project on a saturday. Many Jewish people would not work on that day because saturday's a day of rest, but if there is anti-semitism in the Kommun then anti-semites will have the power to not give Jewish people any food because they aren't working.

The Communist system is too regressive too utopian to ever come into practice.

Anarchism the religious people would have to put theyre religion abit aside in order for the Kommun to grow better , and be a better place to live in

That's why I support a free society: Where I determine how I live based on my choices, not other people determining how I live based on their opinions. Living in a "Kommun" would lead to absolute tyranny.

they allways struggle to live better , and the people that know how to build will go building

But that's Capitalist doctrine. People who want to live better will become builders because builders are paid more, because there is more of a demand for builders. People who can build will build, people who can cook but want to build will learn. Under your system, they are paid the same and people who want to live better won't become builders because it won't benefit them, only immigrants, so the number of builders will stay the same and there won't be enough builders to construct more homes.

Utopia is the path of the Right wing Anarcho-Capitalists

I agree. We need a state to protect private property. Anarcho Capitalism will deteriorate into chaos.

Anarcho-Communism is the best way

Anarcho Communism is too primitive to be applied on a large scale. Sure, small groups could live as Communes (IE the Kibbutz in your country), but if applied to on a massive scale will lead to production levels dropping and therefore the poor getting poorer.

Utopian you say , than please someone explain me why did spain live like that before WW2?

I assume you mean the Second Spanish Republic, which was before WW2. The leaders of the left wing regime started the Spanish Civil war by creating such a backlash of conservative opposition. They took away the rights of Catholics, murdered priests and destroyed churches, so when the Spanish people elected Conservative figures the elections were shut down by the socialists.

Also, the reds used a capitalist system to get more resources for the war.

That would be tyranny because no one is going to forcefully make him work , but if he doesnt work for no reason , helping the Kommun for no reason would that be fair ?

But that's just it. Under Capitalism people can save resources by working hard, and be able to live later with out working, having done their part. If someone doesn't work for a while due to their religion, but the Kommun don't accept, then he's forced to change his personal life to conform to mainstream society. Liberal Capitalism appreciates innovation and liberates minorities, under a system dictated by the "Kommun" the minority can be enslaved to the majority, and are forced to conform.

the supplies would be divided to every family/man according to theyre needs , if a man wont work he would get food homage water and other things mandatory for a living

No, you're ignoring the main point. Under you system, if you need to build 2 apartment buildings to accommodate the visitors, but you only have enough builders for apartment building, how are you going to get more builders? Under capitalism, you offer higher pay, so more people will want to be builders.

if hes lazy they will simply kick him out , it always worked like that

Again, we've already developed from such a backward system. When we were tribal, we lived like that because it was small-scale. As the population grew the system had to change.

from what ive read of your comments , ive learnt that you are an Uber rightish person

I'm a centrist. I believe in a social welfare net, private control of the means of production and tolerance of all different cultures. From what I understand of your system, you'd seek to reverse all progress. I'd call you an extreme right-wing reactionary, because you want to go back to the days before people traveled.

theres no point in arguing any further

That's because you've come across a problem your ideal society can't fix, hence you've resorted to the childish tactic of saying You're a <noun>, therefore I won't argue with you (because I can't)

ive explained all i could

Yes, you have. I understand your ideology, but you haven't explained to me how people will fix a large-scale problem without financial incentive.

therefore im not capable of arguing when it comes to deeper questions

But it's not a deep question, it's a simple economic issue that plagues every country. If a country needs more builders, they offer a higher price for construction so builders are paid more, and more people will want to become builders because that means that they will have more money and a better life.
Under Communism, everyone's paid the same so if the Kommun need more builders, nothing can be done because less people will want to be builders because they won't be paid more.

im not right wing at any cost , only because being Right wing is being coopertive to the state

Actually, right wing is opposition to change, left wing is support of it. Far left is revolution, far right is reaction (going back to the days where...). Before we had a large population, we lived in tribes or communes that didn't have money, or private property, and people didn't travel. But we developed. To want to go back to a system where we don't have money or a state will be going back to the days we progressed from: a reactionary idea and therefore, right wing.

listen im only 14 , i cant fully understand the ideology and argue with very deep questions , im considered a newbie in the anarchist organization

Well you're smart for a 14-year-old, I'll give you that.