From what I've seen on the Internet, a common failure mode of brokenism is to focus on the "tearing down" part and not the "building anew" part. Some brokenists seem to take for granted that if only the current system were torn down, a better system would arise in its place. But they're often vague about what, exactly, that better system would be or how it would work in practice.
For example, Brexit was fundamentally brokenist. The Brexiteers succeeded in tearing down the existing system of Britain-EU ties, but found that they couldn't actually build anything equally good or better to replace it.
Same with the "defund the police" movement. The premise of "defunding the police" was to cut funds from police departments, and use the funds for alternative methods of reducing crime & violence. But the movement was vague about what, exactly, those alternatives would be. And in practice, when cities did reduce funding for their police departments, the alternatives didn't seem to materialize.
So I'm deeply skeptical of the forms of brokenism that focus on tearing down the current system, rather than focusing on a specific alternative they want to build instead. (And when there is a genuinely better alternative, I think it's often possible to build that alternative _without_ first tearing down the current system, and then it replaces the current system naturally.)