I do.

Left Anarchism is directly created by action, according to prefigurative politics. It is not something that can be changed top down, but instead come from bottom up actions.

From my understanding of anarchism, it essentially is like hierarchical institutions and governance being replaced by an egalitarian horizontal civil society.

If people are convinced to willingly associate with each other in this way, then they can set up mutual aid federations.

These federations are entirely voluntary and are regulated through local social trust. This social trust is built by prefigurative politics, and both feed into each other.

People who trust each other will be less likely to rob or commit crimes against each other. Anarchy forces accountability through its fundamental way of association. If you are a freeloader, with no good reason, you will eventually feel the need to contribute to mutual aid.

And people would have free speech and gun ownership.

There are historical examples of medium scale societies ran with lower coercion, and without binding commands from above. It could be seen in some parts of Europe (maybe Iceland, and definitely the Wendat tribe).

People are not compelled to be anarchist in an anarchist society. Instead, if you don't like how things are run, you can leave and set up your own community organized around different principles.

One of the major freedoms that people used to have before the era of nation states, was this ability to move freely and associate more fluidly.

To me, all of this sounds very free. There are multiple senses of the word "liberty", and this fits as a specific type of it to me. Unless you define liberty narrowly, I think this sounds sufficiently libertarian.

When asking capitalists about the point of welfare I ran into this:

workfare; - traditional, means-tested welfare provided to people who have no choice in their inability to work - skills-based, training, work/community service welfare incentives for people who are able to work but don’t

According to this, wouldn't a communist society expect to have workfare instead of welfare?

In a moneyless society that provides to the vulnerable isn't this workfare

The only question I have is what incentives would exist in communism for those who do not want to work?

Capitalists,

I remembered that the Scandinavian countries are capitalist,

But what exactly is the core reason for welfare but from a capitalist perspective in contrast to a socialist perspective of welfare?

As we all know, the USSR fell apart in 1991. Russia and its former colonies dumped their socialist economies, and in most cases the already weak economies have failed to prosper. In contrast, formerly socialist China has been successful in its economic transition to state capitalism. Why do you think this is true?

University professors are always socialists, as this is by the government’s design.

The government wants to make as many socialists as possible, because that is how it steals more taxes from the people and gets more power for itself. The more kids it can brainwash into socialism—and the more it can destroy masculinity in general—the more power the Karens and ultra-feminine men who work for the government get, which is what they want more than anything else.

The universities actively weed out students who are not socialists (meaning students who can think for themselves). The government can’t afford to have ethical people in positions of power in society, because then they wouldn’t be able to get away with all their lies and pathetic little evil deeds.

The government isn’t just cracking down, it’s building an army of socialists to fulfil its sinister self-serving agenda.