You act as if capitalism will just disappear with anarchy. Eventually one of the 'ahierarchal communities' will acquire more resources then the next 'ahierarchal community' down the river. Then when they trade, they have the advantage of numbers. More influx of resources and wealth, means more reasons to expand production. The easiest, tried-and-true way of doing this is by hiring cheap labourers or workers. This is not inherent to capitalism, but to every human society since the Indus civilization. You could attempt a communal pool of resources, like Mesopotamia, but that still requires someone to properly divide the resources which requires authority of some sort, creating a hierarchy.

sigh

And why exactly not? Imagine how powerful gangs would be if they were not constantly harassed by local police or governmental representatives. Especially in a place like Canada where guns per capita are low, gangs would have an innate advantage.

You realise that anarchists/commies/socialist/whatever are (or will be) very well armed right? That's what happens after the revolution. The revolutionaries are the ones with the guns.

So yes, the revolutionaries will have a big advantage once class consciousness becomes a thing again. Once the cops and soldiers switch sides it's pretty much all over.

At that point, you are devolving society from tribes to nation state back to what is essentially pocket tribes. Which isn't anarchist, unless you consider the native American tribes anarchists.

Devolution? What? You're thinking about this too hard. It's simple: people form communes in cities and towns. Maybe a bunch of those communes decide to join together. It's got nothing to do with tribal identity or nationalism or anything like that.