I have approached the question of anarchy a while back in terms of international relations, which is like a huge example of what total anarchy would look like on a larger scale. You can read here if you are interested:

https://steemit.com/anarchy/@dr-frankenstein/pvzv8i

Some people who define themself as anarchist negate the reality that at some point, for security or food or ... a contract will need to be made between 2 people or more just to survive or benefit from skills because they cannot be looted.

You suggested the concept of autocrat which I find correct to some extent (individual level). You must be open to the idea of ​​having rules/agreements, as long as you have the liberty to personally agree on them if you want to (sovereignty). Total anarchy is not suitable for advancing beyond a certain point of human needs, which is why the idea of ​​having rules must be revisited by anarchists.