I think my biggest recommendation is David Graeber. Perhaps something like Towards an Anarchist Anthropology. In a similar way to Kropotkin, Graeber challenges a lot of narratives that form the basis of capitialism e.g. that all we did was barter before we had money, that it was the enlightenment that first introduced the world to freedom and equality etc.. Instead, he shows that there are many cultures in the past, and contemporary, that have significant anarchist tendencies (mutual aid, direct democracy, solidarity etc). I believe understanding this is key to expanding the anarchist tendencies in our own culture.
A book that made the idea of a lack of government believable and appealing to me is David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom. He presents a flushed out vision of a withered state and it is the anarcho-capitalist version of anarchy, the only version which I feel is realizable without force-based coercion.
The idea is to envision a society which is stable, but has no government and yet not perfect people. There can still be theft, violence, laziness, polarizing differences of opinion, etc. but the society thrives despite the absence of a government and nimbly handles these problems. He presents a vision of how it could work. It is not a prescription since it is impossible to prescribe an anarchic society as there is nothing to prescribe to. The criminal justice system becomes a bunch of competing rights organizations, similar to competing insurance companies. It allows for economic evolution of laws as everyone can choose what kind of system they want to be governed by and conflicts of competing legal systems get negotiated and arbitrated. One can choose not to be governed by any laws, but if that individual comes into conflict with others, then there is no one to defend them. They are not automatically cast out for not being part of anything.
Most other anarchic systems seem to assume unity of purpose, a good work ethic, a lack of criminality, and an inability to fundamentally dissent from what the larger group wants. They often get presented as more of a direct democratic government that everyone belongs to while Friedman's approach is literally a lack of any coercive government. There is no governing body that all must yield to, including the collective. The fundamental transactions between people are voluntary and coercion to produce societal needs is both unnecessary and rejected. I find it to be a believable society with the people we have.
The idea of an anarcho-capitalist society functioning peacefully is pure delusion and ignores basically everything from history and observations of reality. It most importantly ignores the concept of power. There would be no free exchange at all. It would be all coercion all the time, an actual hellworld.
