collected flaws of each political system as of now

To understand what we intend to change from our current system, we must find where errors in them lie. There are two different fields we need to discuss, being the political power devision and the economic incentives.

capitalism: overproduction, waste, exploitation, investment only in profitability (not whether it would be useful), inherent interest by employers to keep conditions bad, money can produce money ("dynasties" of rich, but not hard working), the purchase and selling of same products makes money (a sector useless to the output of a country), poverty without security

communism: few motivations to provide quality

anarchism: no security from poverty, no incentive to develop

feudalism: no incentive to invent, no freedom to do what suits you best

parliaments: a party covers too many opinions (no way to like immigration and guns at the same time), popularity more important than merit (interest to keep people dumb), creates rivalries within a country, favors rich people, deadlock, many law changes

flaws of soviets (councils): seriously, I do not even know what a model soviet council is, so is anyone wanting to explain this system?

Where do you get no security from poverty and no incentive to delope from Anarchism ?

That would be for us to find out. 'Anarchism' is not onle single theory, but as I understood it (without any knowledge), Anarchism means you cannot be forced to belong to a government, meaning you have the freedom to reject identification with any group?

Here is what I thought:

Humans are dumb, noone wants to pay taxes, just like noone would pay into a social security. Since few would pay into it, once in crisis, noone is obligated to help.

Specialisation is only possible because some people care for food while others can move into producing industry or technology. Either you end up with a proto government, or you are unable to fully focus on abstract thinking.

Feel free to disagree

I do disagree . I think you have a misconception of Anarchism. I suggest you read Colin Ward specially his book Anarchy in Action. Anarchy does have a broad back this is true but the idea most folk have that equate Anarchism with chaos and individualism is a total misconcept , it actually is organisation and resolving problems and challanges through cooperation and organisation without uncountable authority.

This link might seem a bit long , about 1 hour long , but it is worth a listen.

https://youtu.be/tCoRl08Z0-U?si=_pbmRKxG4vXEPwb6

By reading Colin Ward we discover that anarchy is not – as it is commonly understood – simply about a lack of power or authority but is instead a highly complex theory of organisation. Colin Ward’s anarchism was neither utopian nor sectarian but practical and pragmatic, based on the here and now, the local and the everyday. Anarchy for him was not an ‘indefinitely remote’ goal but always already in existence, or to use one of his favourite phrases from the novelist Ignazio Silone, like ‘seeds beneath the snow’ which had only to be nurtured in order to grow

So in rules, how can anarchist society be described?

An Anarchist society would be described as one governed by consent and participation. Anarchism doesn't advocate for abolition of rules , instead for the opposite, rules that are not dictated but agreed .

So anarchism works similar to communist councils (soviets)?

How would the agreed rules push the workers to produce more?

Don't understand your question or comparison seems an obvious if agreed they are agreed to push for better efficient production so don't get where there is a contradiction.

Workers would want to produce more because it would be in their benefit. Where's the problem ?

Humans are stupid. I agree humans would produce some things even if noone told them so, but how should mathematicians and thinkers get paid / stay alive?