Anarcho-Doomerism is nonsensical and a nonstarter
I recently received the following message on my tumblr, this is in response to a sly joke I made on another post that I will try to link here in the future (tumblr search is notoriously bad).
"Since everything is getting worse, maybe you should get into anarcho doomerism. It's a mood booster because you're right about it never getting better" - Anonymous
That response was mainly as a joke, sort of. The idea that in the consumer market everything is becoming more expensive *and *that the megacorps are making less quality products are just the natural end-goal of late-stage capitalism (do people still call it that?).
I am above all a positive longtermist (not in the effective altruist way, mind you), nihilistic at times, pessimistic sure in the short-term, but forever hopeful for the longterm end of humanity to do the right thing, become better, and that life will become monumentally easier for everyone through the use and development of innovative new technologies that help usher in and bring better social attitudes and equality in all forms.
Anarcho-anything (especially 'doomerists') are not positivist, nor are they equality bringers. The only outcome in those societies is fragmentation of beliefs and standards (and a rapid increase in* "them versus us", "Our blessed homeland versus their barbarous wastes"*) which will bring insurmountable amounts of human rights violations, and long-term static developments of scientific, technological, and social change for the masses. Anarchism is beneficial in small sects, but not for all. It is not scientific in nature, and against the sharing of knowledge and development. While I understand the momentary appeal of a "land without rulers" it just logistically doesn't make much sense.
I realize this response is more than what you were likely intending, but I am not in any way, shape, or form a doomer. Humanity for the past hundred years has gotten insanely better, insanely more complex, and insanely more equal and knowledgeable. We have hard times, we create problems, but we solve them, and we innovate. A hundred years ago nearly no one had electricity, children died en masse, mothers died in childbirth, most couldn't read, and disease was rampant and far more deadly. We are living in the greatest epoch of humanity, we surely have our own problems, but those will be solved, eventually, and new, better, problems will arise.
Doomerism is the default for any living being as something, everything, will go wrong. Death is always possibly right around the corner, long term damage is always inevitable (trust me, I would know that more now than ever), and "The End" is always in our fore. Hell, it's at the end of every movie made prior to 1973 practically.
The end is nigh, I will be one of those standing on the corner proclaiming the end times, because it will happen, eventually, in some way, for some group of people, for some ideals, for some cultural tradition. The end is always coming and going.
But, anarchism is nonsensical on a vast ungangly scale, and anyone who prepends "anarcho" before any other statement is already trying to play a game of acceptance because "Anarchy rules!". I get the punk sentiment, I love the concept of chaos theory especially when applied to human governance and drama. But, and I'll repeat myself from up above: anarchism is against scientific progress, and long tail ends with a feudalist society where we have kings ordained with the divine right of god. Anarchism is one step closer towards developing mass cult worship, increased reliance on "The Church" (ie, megacorps) , and destroys the fundamental ideas of creating regulations that protect the people through collective action, wisdom, and safety.
Anarchism is not collectivism, it's individualism (american-style), and the creation of capitalism without regulations.
Doomerism is natural evolutionary paranoia, while anarchism is nonsensical for a modern society with billions of people, those with disabilities, those requiring safety, and those who depend on technological and scientific innovation. Anarcho-* is useful on a small scale, not on anything requiring collective wisdom or guidance, which is, society.
I'm not saying that anarchist communities can't flourish, there are many small-scale example that have fundamentally been wildly successful, but they will, and will only, ever work in the small, and never in the large.