Disregarding any kind of beliefs, it won't work. Neuter 4/5 of the world, wait a 100 years and limit people to at most 2 child per pair would make a world stable enough for anarchist idealism. In our current state? Not a chance.
You (they, and their flawed beliefs) also have not considered that we are Human, not robots made aware with internal circuits designed for freedom ravings.

Anarchism is fatally flawed in current state. If our states became suddenly anarchic, then all of our industries, infrastructure will require massive renovation. In case of the U.S., you'd have several different nations with nuclear warheads in a deadlock cold war. They'd realize that being anarchic was a mistake, and would decide that either they blow each other up to decide who takes the land for themselves, or go back the way they were. Without considering nuclear warheads however, you could easily see that split factions will make some factions more powerful due to geographical differences. Some regions simply support more people, and some regions simply cannot support itself with its population. It's merely a speculation, but anarchism is outright ludicrous.

It wouldn't work. If there were higher power with enough power to deter states, then it would be something else, not an anarchist region. (Note, that Anarchy by definition is not a form of government, and thus cannot be a state in any form.)

Also, impossible. People cannot live free of any form of oppression. Oppression exists as a result of relationship: individual to individual, individual to society, individual to environment. In fact, if you exist, you are oppressed in some way. The ultimate end to the conclusion of anarchism would be the total annihilation of our being, and thus would truly free ourselves from all oppression. Which to me is ultra mega crazy super triple gazillion to the power of gazillion retarded. Thus, Anarchism is retarded.
In fact, the theory is so retarded that most aren't interested, why? Because of the values it places on individuality, and how it also emphasizes on scattering population into miniature groups. It doesn't work that way. The smaller your group is, the more interdependent individuals become in that group. That in itself is a contradiction- which most people find it in instant repulsive reactions. There is no need to deeply understand a political view that has no feasible roots to begin with.

Kept reading my thing, and I've learned, among others, about 3 new things:
- Anarchists advocates Federations. So I was wrong about them trying to stay as low-scale as possible at any cost. Federations would be used for greater problems and would organize the "economy".
- Anarchists do not believe "Zero oppression" exists. Just like in an extremely liberalist society, "Zero equity" wouldn't be possible.
- Anarchists do comply to certain rules. As soon as the system is established, they firstly abolish all the rules, call the very first public assembly, and everyone determines the morally acceptable rules people should comply to in order to properly live together. Basic stuff like "Don't kill" or "Don't steal" (and don't get me wrong there: possession and private property are two different things).

I think people believe anarchism wouldn't work because they just do not know that much about the real propositions they offer.

You haven't addressed me. You think you believe anarchism wouldn't work because about the propositions they offer is a incredulously flawed statement. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it actually works, economically, sociologically, politically, and militaristically. All that with the 'system you have in mind'. But in my mind, it already came out as 'impossible, ridiculous, ludicrous.' But still, the burden of proof is on you.

Easy one: makes searches on "eco-communes".

No. I have no time to search for references. I do not have the burden of proof, nor do I have any interest in searching and finding relevant articles. And that keyword will most unlikely encompass my sum of previous arguments and demands.
But let me restate my argument that there is an utmost and most crushing flaw in the very ideology involved. Do you not see?
And, from an empirical perspective, not a lot of anarchists try to outright explain their validity toward people who argue against Anarchism. If it is valid, you should clearly be able to explain why, how it will work, how feasible the transition will be, and how practical it will be. From that perspective, I can only come to a conclusion that anarchists are imbeciles with crazy hippie logic. Do you see?