Anarchy doesn't preclude working with others; only ruling others or letting them rule you.
Yet, I can't begin to count the number of times a statist has said something to the effect of "anarchy is anti-social" or "anarchists can't get along with others".
As if statism-- telling others to do as you say or you'll have your armed thugs kill them-- is in any way civilized!
A huge part of getting along with others is living up to your responsibility to not force yourself on them. Government is based on the polar opposite. Government is the height (or depth) of anti-social behavior.
Statists claim that anarchists would fail because they would rely on contracts with each other, and people are unreliable. That we can't get along with each other, much less with those who want to violate us through government and "laws".
What an odd claim.
I make mutually agreed upon contracts just about every day with no problems. I get along with people very nicely. Partly because I don't try to force them to live as I choose to live. It would be nice if they extended the same courtesy to me, but that's not the nature of those who behave in a government-like fashion; muggers, government employees, rapists, kidnappers, etc. I don't expect bad guys to act as anything other than what they are, even as I give them every opportunity to do so.
So, yeah, anarchy works just fine in my personal daily life. I see no need to archate against others, regardless of how they choose to act toward me.
But what if some people can't handle anarchy-- i.e., being self-responsible people?
Well, if someone isn't suited for anarchy-- if they can't deal with others voluntarily-- they'll either learn and grow up, or they'll turn back to statism where they feel "safe".