I think the roadmap to the anarchist view is simple enough in theory - break up large companies, redistribute large piles of wealth, establish laws enforcing size limits, and, following that, scale government back and delegate decision-making to the affected individuals wherever practical. Ignoring the practical questions of how one breaks up, say, Amazon, the state has the guns, so if the state says Bezos loses his yacht, it is so.

The practical side is substantially harder - the anarchist-communal version of the world requires a citizenry committed to their community, phobic to bigness, and willing to assert that something that is not in the interest of the commons is not allowed to happen. Again, this ignores the practical question - balances of innovation vs unknown potential costs, etc - but the bigger practical concern is building an actual durable social contract that people will uphold and enforce over time, even when that means giving up personal glory.

This was basically the state of most societal groups in the pre-modern era - by and large, most people's day-to-day existence was within local community groups that had a lot of say over what they allowed within their sphere of influence - but the modern world creates the ability to concentrate power in ways which are harder for a smaller group of individuals to combat. A teenager with an AK-47 would've mowed through a squadron of Roman soldiers like they weren't there, and the mechanization of industry allows for more rapid consolidation of wealth than prior means, which renders the whole affair much harder to keep in hand.

I also don't know much about anarchist philosophy; would love some insight here if anyone can speak to that.

But if the US (same applies to other countries) became an anarchy today, then entities like Goldman Sachs and Constellis (formerly Blackwater) are going to fare much better than most. So a naive "burn it all down" anarchy doesn't seem an answer.

UPDATE: I remembered Noam Chomsky is sometimes called an anarcho-syndicalist but never looked up what meant. Turns out that is exactly the kind of "anarchism" that answers my question. (New concept to me, so not sure in what sense this might be called anarchism. No central government?)

Anarchism is a spectrum so there's considerable disagreement over how the desirable state of affairs looks like, exactly. All anarchists would agree that you want to get rid of any kind of hierarchical power arrangements where possible, but the vast majority would also agree that it is not always possible, and so the realistic goal is the one where they are minimized. But that invites the question of what such a viable minimum state of organization might be, and different people have different answers to that.

I'd say that the most well-developed concrete platform in this sense is Murray Bookchin's "libertarian municipalism", although that is arguably too organized to be properly referred to as anarchism (Bookchin himself, although he used to be an anarchist, dropped the label eventually). But, even so, it's much closer to an anarchist utopia than any state-centric model. And it actually has some practical successes on the ground in Rojava, although the jury is still out on whether it can hold long term.