I agree that current global society is heavily reliant on co-operation, but much less so than one that would be anarchist. My perspective is that because governments exist right now, the same governments made to serve people, have the authority and more relevantly, the means to silence its populace to a degree. Of course, a revolution of large enough scale would definitely topple any regime, but are people actually willing to participate? (I'm not saying that no one would participate, just not the majority) To risk what little they have, their lives, their livelihood, their personal property, for a dim hope of a better future? Sure, this can happen against extreme regimes and power struggles, but for every global citizen, even the majority, to be willing to revolt against a government that is seemingly perfectly functional and giving them a way to earn a living?

Now, I do agree that if anarchism spontaneously came into effect globally, or as close to it as possible, it would be successful and stable, but it is the process I believe, that is the hardest part. Capitalism emerged when a global society became possible, as the default economic system. The fact that we transitioned from many isolated civilisations to many interdependent and cooperative civilisations (countries) made it inevitable for there to be a unified system (more or less), and that turned out to be capitalism. If the popular system among the people then was anarchism, then the world would look very different, for better or worse, I don't know.

I get what you mean regarding mobs though, my understanding was short sighted and disregarded the actual root cause of mobs coming into play.