I admit I have no empirical evidence for my stance, but here is my reasoning: in order to compete, competing parties must spend resources on things other then direct progression towards their goal, thus reducing efficiency; while in cooperation, cooperating parties can spend all resources on direct progression towards their goal, thus acheiving maximum efficiency. Therefore, it is more efficient and effective to cooperate rather then compete. Regardless, here is an interesting read, as well as here. Note that neither represent my ideals or wishes, simply here as more food for thought. Also worthy of note: both of these were reactionary, meaning they arose in response to some opressive action or other. I do not think that's how anarchy will come about.