I've never seen anyone square the circle of how anarchy would work with earth's sporadic and unfair resource distribution.
Imagine one community is built on nothing but arable land and a neighbor is starving with access to iron mines. What material force prevents the latter from subjugating the former with superior weapons?
The arable community "gifts" food? Sounds an awful lot like a Danegeld, and that historically doesn't end well. Some day the harvest will be too little or the ask will be too much.
The arable community defends itself through sheer numbers? Good job, you fended them off, but those people starving in the hills still have better weapons and are still desperate enough to raid; you'll need a group of people to hyperspecialize in violence for defense. So now you're optimizing your society around feeding and arming the defender class... Over time the domestic power imbalance accumulates and one day you look up and realize you've invented feudalism.
You can extend this thought experiment to any set of resources. If you want your anarchist utopia to have electronics, how do the copper mines of Chile not generate disproportionate power for whoever occupies them? What non-hierarchical power equilibrium enforces stability around fossil fuels, rare earth minerals, fishing rights, solar/wind power production, water access, etc... Don't just tell me, show me on a map how it will work.
And when you can't do that, we can proceed to hunter-gatherer anarcho-primitivism. Then you can tell me what power equilibrium prevents the occupation of arable land for agriculture and the reseeding of sedentary civilization and violent hierarchy.