I'm not qualified to answer your question directly, but I'd like to clarify something regarding the way anarchism is framed in the video. I think it's worth pointing out that anarchism (in the sense of the modern movement identifying as such, which emerged alongside Marxism on the tail end of the industrial revolution) has been overwhelmingly focused on transforming the social order of advanced industrial societies rather than fleeing from civilization. There are some exceptions to this, but they've always been basically on the margins of a political philosophy that sought to abolish the capitalist system and the state believed to enable capital in favor of a highly organized, self-governed society based on cooperation and mutual aid, where the means of production are run directly (under common or cooperative ownership) by workers and communities. I only say this for context, not as any indictment of the work of James C. Scott or John Green.

I think a good introduction to contemporary anarchism (and libertarian socialism in general) is Noam Chomsky's notable 1970 lecture "Government in the Future" (recording and transcript). If additional sources are needed to substantiate something I said, let me know.

So I haven't watched the John Green video, but it's clear that none of the other respondents have read the book. This was clearly based off the work of James C. Scott, widely respected anthropologist and political scientist, especially his book The Art of Not Being Governed. It's a sweet book, and left me mostly convinced. The one contentious part (and I don't know if Green gets into this) is whether the hill people had writing and then later lost it--Scott readily admit that's the part that has the least evidence, but it is within the realm of possibility. I thoroughly recommend the book, and anyone who is not going to read the book, I thoroughly recommend this one hour lecture Scott gave at Cornell, which summarizes all the main parts of the book. one hour lecture at Cornell which people who haven't read the book should at least watch before commenting. If you're hungry for more ideas from James C. Scott (and I always am, he's one of my three big academic models, along with Charles Tilly and Rogers Brubaker), check out his little piece for the Cato institute The Trouble with the View from Above, which is a sort of introduction to his book before that one, called Seeing Like a State. He's a dude well worth reading in full, though.

Contra the other guy above, one of Scott's big ideas is "every day resistance", which is mainly escape and avoidance of the state, rather than what we think about as open resistance. Scott is well aware that he means something different than is typically meant, but has used this every day resistance idea since his early book The Moral Economy of the Peasant. It has been widely emulated and built on (Europeanists, he obviously gets his term "moral economy" from E. P. Thompson and is equally dope). In his next book Weapons of the Weak, from 1985, he makes an argument that most resistance by peasants and slaves and the like comes in the form ‘foot-dragging, evasion, false compliance, pilfering, feigned ignorance, slander and sabotage’. We're not going to see resistance in the form of organized proto Marxist revolution or anything like that, or anything that requires such wide spread organization, he argues. Instead, we should look for what the peasants could actually do, these "weapons of the weak".