Maybe Chomsky's full context would alter your opinion (http://pentaside.org/article/chomsky-govt-in-the-future.html):
"Classical liberalism asserts as its major idea an opposition to all
but the most restricted and minimal forms of state intervention in
personal or social life. Well this conclusion is quite familiar,
however the reasoning that leads to it is less familiar and, I
think, a good deal more important than the conclusion itself."
...
"Though he expresses a classical liberal doctrine, Humboldt is no
primitive individualist, in the style of for example Rousseau. So
Rousseau extols the savage who lives within himself, but Humboldt's
vision is entirely different. He sums up his remarks as follows, he
says "the whole tenor of the ideas and arguments unfolded in this
essay might fairly be reduced to this: that while they would break
all fetters in human society, they would attempt to find as many
new social bonds as possible. The isolated man is no more able to
develop than the one who is fettered." and he in fact looks
forwards to a community of free association, without coercion by
the state or other authoritarian institutions, in which free men
can create and inquire, achieve the highest development of their
powers. In fact, far ahead of his time, he presents an anarchist
vision that is appropriate, perhaps, to the next stage of
industrial society. We can perhaps look forward to a day, when
these various strands will be brought together within the framework
of libertarian socialism, a social form that barely exists today,
though its elements can perhaps be perceived, for example in the
guarantee of individual rights, that has achieved so far its
fullest realization (though still tragically flawed in the western
democracies), or in the Israeli kibbutzim, or in the experiments
with workers' councils in Yugoslavia, or in the effort to awaken
popular consciousness and to create a new involvement in the social
process, which is a fundamental element in the third world
revolutions, coexisting uneasily with indefensible authoritarian
practice."
So he's rejecting the well-known conclusions of classical liberalism, but extending classical liberalism's lesser-known reasoning. (At least Humboldt's form of it.)
As for anarchists in general being conventional hyper-individualists... I agree many are. (There isn't exactly a big barrier to entry if you decide to call yourself an anarchist one day.) But if you do a search for "anarchist forum", the first hit is anarchistblackcat.org, which is a very sane, excellently-run forum full of anarchist-communists. There are anarchists, and then there are anarchists.
All the best, Tj