Okay, so lets cover a few things.
First, reformism. I would define reformism as the belief that issues, problems, etc. can be corrected with good candidacy, with public initiatives/referrendums, amendments to the constitution, or by changing or reforming existing laws. This country is hundreds of years old. Reform isn't working to well, because for hundreds of years, the government (hereafter, The State) has been failing us miserably. The number one argument to reformism is the futility of it all. It's like having a cracked window. You can place a million bandaids over the cracks, and that can patch up the problems - but the glass is still broken. Bandaids aren't going to fix it. It takes a lot of time, and it still doesn't get to the root of the issue. A practical anarchist approach is to simply smash out the window and put a new one in. Sure, nobody likes the sound of crashing glass (except perhaps, radicals), however in the end, you've got something new, fresh, amazing. "I can see clearly now, the rain is gone." Replacing the glass like this can be accomplished without reformism - and if anything, approaching direct change from a reformist approach merely prolongs the suffering of millions. The New Deals after the depression were reformist patches to poverty and poor economy. It fixed things for a bit... but now look, less than a century later, things are really bad again - and this time, we're not going to get a New Deal. Instead, its all going to be disguised by The State, which has learned it's lesson; Under no circumstances should the people have reason to revolt.
The next thing we need to consider is misconceptions. Most people associate anarchy with chaos. I.E, no government, images of looters, murderers, gangs running the streets. (Perfect description of the cops, by the way.) This is simply not so. The reality is that anarchy is not a government, it is an ideology. Similarly, communism is a form of economy, not a government. A nation-state cannot "descend to anarchy", because anarchy is not a state, it is an ideology. Every time we have seen communism instituted, it has been as a government - or moreso, a guise of government. In reality, there's nothing in communist theory that includes language on communism as a government. That's why when we've seen it, it's really been an oligarchic fascist ploy meant to suppress people and misinform the public.
So what is anarchy, if not a state of government? Well, as an ideology, we must take it for what it's worth. Typical anarchist theory leans to the idea of total freedom - where there is no hierarchy, where people are free to do as their hearts desire, and that emphasis is placed on individual responsibly and cooperation with natural law to achieve a free and autonomous society devoid of power systems. Because capitalism employs power and greed as a standard motivator for societal success and stratification, Anarchy is often at odds with capitalism. It's not that anarchists hate capitalism just to hate it, but many anarchists have identified capitalist paradigm as the root cause of oppression and suffering. If the opposite of capitalism is communism, then perhaps the two mesh well. In true communism, there wouldn't be a party dictating or enforcing communism. There also, and this is important, would not be a nation-state that would be in charge of all communist services. Many have a faulty logic that socialism and communism both require big government. In reality, they wouldn't have a separation of State and The People. Marx touched on this frequently, as what he actively sought to end was the oppression and division of the bourgeois versus the proletariat, akin to The State versus The People. In successful communism, the state and bourgeois have been abolished, leaving the proletariat and People to govern themselves free of tyranny. This seems to get skipped over a lot.
And then, if anarchy is an ideology compatible with communism, then where does that leave government? Well, this is usually the mindfuck. What do you think a democracy is? The US is a democratic republic, which means we elect people to rule on our behalf, however we can clearly see that the 'democratic' prefix is just a facade. In truth, the politicians have all the power, or it is shared with the corporations, neither of which are democratic. A democracy means "rule by people". Rule by the people. That is a legitimate form of government. Occupy instituted direct democracy within itself - that's why all decisions are made in GA's, that's why all the working groups report to the GA's, and that's why the GA's are open to the public so anyone can have a voice (or at least, that is the goal). We're not professionals yet, but we are all learning. If anarchy is to focus on freedom from hierarchy and individual responsibility according to natural law, then democracy claims the very same things. If you want to append a theory of government to the ideology of anarchy, then do so with democracy. The economic system would be communist. People like to separate all these things, but the truth is that they are all facets that play into freedom. The freedom to choose for yourself, to trade freely with others, and to live life the way you want to live it.
The most common argument I hear is "if we were in anarchy, wouldn't we just kill each other freely or steal everything?". It's an illogical question. It assumes that people naturally want to kill each other or take everybody's things. To crime, we must concede to the logic of Emma Goldman's statement "Society gets the criminals it deserves." This is most visible if you look at the root to crime - iniquity and power. Both of which are married to capitalism. If everyone had everything they need, why would they steal? If everyone was equal, why feel compelled to kill your comrades? Most people don't walk around just waiting for anarchy to kill or steal, I'm not sure how anyone can come up with that conclusion. In practicing anarchist communes, globally, people aren't just killing each other or stealing. Stealing itself implies ownership, which is obsolete by communism where everything is shared. These aren't new ideas. Look at the First Nations, the aboriginals, communes, or any other indiginous tribes in the world, from past history to present, and we can compile hard proof that these systems work fine. Better, in fact. We call them "barbaric", but those aren't our words, those are the words of our masters. In reality, those systems worked better than capitalism ever will. Greed is not human nature - it is only capitalist paradigm. While children grow up in it, they will display it. However, in the villages of most FN tribes, wealth was determined by how much you gave, not by how much you hoarded. If that was the standard, then we and children would be running around giving happily rather than taking all for one's self.
Additionally, safety and peace can be accomplished without police or military presence, or the presence of a legal system, all of which are devised by the State to engage in behavior modification of The People. We practice alternatives without realizing it. Instead of having police cameras and sweeps in your neighborhood, most neighborhoods have "neighborhood watch", and while I do not condone the use of those systems to alienate outsiders or alternative lifestyle-ers, it is an example of community policing. For instance, if you and your neighbor talk it out so they watch your house while you're at work, and vice versa, then suddenly its going to be very difficult for anyone to burgle you while you're away. Vice versa. Imagine a whole block, whole neighborhood watching out for each other. No thieves. Let's say you work together to set up a safe area kids can play in. Accidents and pedophilia go down. Perhaps you hear a gunshot, and instead of dialing 911, the whole neighborhood closes exits and nabs the shooter? Instead of sending all these "bad people" to jail, there are better alternatives. In many societies (past and present, animal as well), trouble people are either rehabilitated by treating legitimate health issues (for instance, convicts in counseling can achieve more than life behind bars), or those individuals can be made to leave the community. If a wolf in a pack goes awry, the pack excommunicates them. We are humans, we should first make every attempt to help these people with their problems before just kicking them out, however, this encourages personal responsibility for one's actions by using the influence of the collective to create strong society without incarcerating, alienating, or damning anybody.
In a commune, there is great incentive to help the commune. You can't be "lazy". And when your worth is no longer sold as wage-hours, greater contributions can be made than the norm. For instance, for centuries in Ireland and Scotland, one could make a living as a storyteller - not by hourly wage of hard labor, but by providing a service (entertainment and news) to people, and in turn, they'd feed and house you. Even if a storyteller was blind, deaf, and crippled, they could still be a "value to society", because what they do contributes to the commune. In modern communes, rent can be shared among everybody, or perhaps one can trade time and services for other time and services. This accidentally happened in the Occupy encampments, because the encampments became communes - a livestreamer, for instance, could trade their journalism for a place to stay, food to eat, etc. A drummer could trade their music talent for the same. Even if all you had was money, you could still be in the commune. It was a unofficial barter economy, and an example of how communism works. This must have been another reason why the capitalist State was so quick to clamp down on the Occupy communes.
If there is anything that I would suggest you do, is that you approach new ideas with critical analysis. The State teaches us to have gut reactions to the words "anarchy", "communism", "democracy", "terrorist", etc. Sometimes, what we are taught to think and what it really is, are two totally different things. Perceptions play a huge part. While we consider the Taliban to be terrorists, we're the ones terrorizing the Afghan communities. We're the terrorists. So wait, terrorists fighting terrorists? Perhaps we must find a new way to interpret fellow man other than to buy in to wording and labels which clearly are based upon shallow perceptions. While we consider it a sacrifice to send men and women overseas to defend democracy, perhaps the people over there are rooting for the insurgents to kick the invading Americans out of their country once and for all! How much of what we know is mythology? Does the State describe Anarchists any differently than Christians describe Demons? Have you ever traded something without money, and then denounced communists? Does that make you a hypocrite? Aren't we all? This is the critical analysis that can free us from the capitalist paradigm - but only with great care and an open mind will we be able to break free of it.
Instead of fighting each other, why don't we just fight the tyrants? I understand that we may have our differences, but while we bicker over them, tyranny undeniably grows larger, and more subversive to freedom. We aren't free, but I want to be free. Do you? Then let's go. Meet me at the rally, and bring a cocktail. Nature knows the predator does not cede without a fight!