Secondly, no, I also don't expect everyone to be empathetic or altruistic, nor is it even necessary. No one is arguing for a social utopia; it is only the structural means of organization that needs changing. For example, people who are empathetic and cooperative will likely struggle to succeed under our current system, which is designed for greedy and competitive behavior, whereas people who are greedy and competitive will have an advantage, and thus incentivizes that behavior; similarly, under an alternative system which is designed for empathetic and cooperative behavior, people who are empathetic and cooperative will have an advantage, and thus incentivizes that behavior, whereas people who are greedy and competitive will likely suffer to succeed at their goal of being superior over others. People's attitudes and behaviors are not only influenced by the system they exist within, but are largely subjected to it. After all, even if you believe some people are naturally greedy and others are naturally empathetic, then why on earth would we want to design our entire society's system to cater to those with negative characteristics, instead of positive ones? It simply doesn't make sense to argue that it is silly to design systems for good qualities, while you simultaneously argue in defense of the exact same thing but for bad qualities. People don't all need to be good and empathetic, we just need a system that is structurally built to organize and provide that way.

Lastly, you seem to misunderstand both Anarcho-Socialism (which I assume is what you're actually referring to instead of "anarcho-marxism", since marxism is merely one form of socialist ideology, and I'm not sure that "anarcho-marxism" is even a thing) as well as the socio-political situation within the early American colonies. Anarcho-Socialism, and anarchist ideology as an umbrella term in general, is not inherently "anti-government", but simply "anti-hierarchy". It is just a small clarification I wanted to add, since you claimed that Anarcho-Socialism meant "there is no government", which is not necessarily true, just a non-hierarchical government. More importantly, the system in the early American colonies was not quite Anarcho-Socialism. Politically, they were still just theocratic republics, as they even originally elected "governors", using the Mayflower Compact as an early blueprint for what would eventually evolve into modern "representative democracies", which are far from any Anarcho-Socialist-style governments. Economically, they absolutely still utilized private property, it just wasn't used like how modern "private property" is; as a colony with limited resources, their property was privatized on a national level, as opposed to an individual one. In fact, it was the colonists that introduced the very idea of private land/property ownership to many Native tribes at the time. Speaking of, many Native societies had systems that were infinitely closer to an Anarcho-Socialist structure, and yet their civilizations thrived for centuries until being wiped out by colonists. Also, the reason the colonists suffered was due to their limited resources and knowledge to survive in the new environment, not at all their collectivist structure of distribution; if the colonies had the same level of resources, but had adopted a privatized/individualist system of organization, they undoubtedly would have fared far worse, if at all, because that's quite literally the opposite of how colonies thrive. Literally any historical source attributes the harsh winter and lack of resources as the reason(s) for the colonies' shortcomings, not "Anarcho-Socialism". You will literally never find any historical source that attributes "Anarcho-Socialism" to be the reason for any society's downfall, because it has never happened...