I think a big issue here is that you’re operating under the assumption that humanity as a whole is incredibly selfish, uncaring, and unable to operate cooperatively without a centralized force that is able to adequately threaten people to cooperate against their natural instincts. If that is your base assumption, then you will have to conclude that Anarchism isn’t viable because it doesn’t have enough threats or sticks to keep people from reverting to some base-level of antagonism, laziness, or self interest.

No, man, I'm assuming that humanity as a whole operates as it has since the beginning of recorded history - with limited resources, including limited time, energy, motivation, and perspective. Unless your proposal for anarchism is radically transhumanist, you aren't going to get rid of that issue. This isn't a question about "What if people don't care about each other???"; this entire scenario presumes that the polities in question are functioning along anarchist lines. The question that is being brought here is, "Do you really expect people to value those they don't know over those they personally know and care about, themselves included?"

And if your answer is 'yes', I invite you to talk to some parents sometime.

Where on the other end, due to the evidence I’ve seen of how humans organized in egalitarian societies as the norm until around 8000 years ago (from compelling evidence put forward in David Graeber’s and David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything), as well as the success of the Anarchist Society in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil war, I believe that humans would demonstrate their true nature is cooperation and egalitarianism if finally provided a society that does not actively incentivize our worst traits like our current one does.

Other than my own extreme issues with The Dawn of Everything, which would lead to a much broader discussion...

Anarchist Catalonia is a prime example of what I mean in multiple ways.

First off, it was not shy about enforcement. In the least.

Second, it was commonly observed that regionalism of the sort described was a problem that caused severe issues for them.

Third, many of its structures were oriented around war necessity; I don't know if you would find the same willingness of people to submit to seizure and arbitrary justice if literal warfare was not a stone's throw away.

Most people in the US are barely able to afford basic food, housing, and transportation.

... have you ever actually lived in the USA?

They are working harder now than they did in the 1970’s without any meaningful wage growth since that period, despite their actual productive capacity increasing tremendously since that time.

That's true. Wages have been largely stagnant, in terms of buying power and relative income distribution, since the 1970s. But in the 1970s, most people weren't barely able to afford subsistence-level living. In the 1970s, most people struggled because, as in the modern day, they want more. And as I said, they are not incorrect in wanting this, and it is good that they want this, but it is an issue you have to think about when considering a complete reorganization of society.

You really think most would choose to continue struggling with bills, or to be two paychecks away from homelessness vs. a society where all of your basic material concerns are guaranteed as a human right?

That's not even vaguely relevant to the question I proposed. The issue of whether they prefer a socialist system or a capitalist one is not relevant. The issue being disputed is the idea that provision for one's basic needs is enough to stop one from desiring more, with you saying, and I quote:

People are desperate to stop working an hour early because our current society gives them virtually no free time to enjoy life, to rest properly, or to not worry about needing to make ends meat just to survive and not become homeless. Most of their waking hours they are exploited with the majority of their effort going to the benefit of a few undeserving folk.

And you realize those people can choose to do whatever they want with the those 9 months of free time? They can still choose to become doctors, or engineers, or scientists, or to create the things that give meaning to their lives? They just won’t have the threat of homelessness weighing above their heads if they don’t instead choose to work for someone else to make them richer.

A-fucking-gain, I'm not at all disputing whether people prefer a socialist system to a capitalist one, assuming they weren't pig-brained morons. That's not the issue being disputed here. The issue being disputed here is the notion that people will no longer want more, more comfort, more success, more free time as in the core example used that you responded to, in an anarchist system.

All the more reason to question the utility of capitalism, if only a minority are able to achieve the fruits of all the time spent doing things we’d rather not be doing, if every hour is so to be considered.

I'm not a fucking capitalist. I largely tend towards democratic socialism. My issue being raised here is fundamentally one of conflict resolution, not economic orientation.

If you truly believe that, then our entire worldviews are completely incompatible. I don’t mean this as an insult, but from my perspective your judgements on why people work so hard are quite detached from reality.

Man, I've fucking lived on flour and water for days at a time. My area of specialization is an era when people worked more hours for fewer material gains and in much more endangered scenarios.

People work more because they want more, because it's normalized to want more. Housing crisis aside, people by and large spend their money on things that are not strictly needed, but nonetheless, they desire - and should be entitled to. At no point do I dispute they're being exploited - my point is only that it is not their needs being unfulfilled which drive most people; it is a desire for more than their basic needs, which would not go away if they stopped being exploited.