How are you even going to enforce collective ownership if there are no rulers?
Discussion
the collective. an example would be like in a beehive. the hive is a colony. all of the are free, none of them are prisoners. It is anarchy, and it is communism. each bee is doing as it feels called day to day, moment to moment. Ultimately, each bees actions contribute to the whole, and every bee equally reaps the reward from the success of their colony. now, say a bee started attacking other bees within the colony, or causing harm in some way, immediately the colony takes action. those in the most immediate vicinity, take action. each bee knows when they observe actions that are harmful to the hive. this is efficient, and leaves no "well it is legal, and/or I will capitalize and be able to hoard" loopholes. it is the see something that needs done? is it within your capability to do it? then do it. we are all one global species, birthed of the earth. we can all thrive.
What if the collective enforces its will in a way that people do not consent to? Not everything that the collective deems to be harmful may actually be harmful. What I'm taking away from anarcho-communism is that it just seems like mob rule.
The people are the collective. Everything is decided based on consensus/ direct democracy. Everyone has a voice, and everyone has a voice of equal value. Any one person from the collective could "hard block" an idea and stop it from happening. This system values the concern of all individuals and their unique perspectives. It is based upon the principle of equality and mutual respect. Things like polluted air, waterways, and soil would not have ever come about in such a system. The individual is free to do as they please, as long as it is of no harm. The efficiency of this system, and the degree to which the quality of production would increase, is unbelievable.
should have proof read that and cleared up the typos/ made it read a little better. hopefully that paints a bit of a picture anyways.