Collapse is definitely the correct word, but it's important to understand collapse as a process rather than an event.
The breakdown of a mass society, whether it leads to a perpetuation of old habits or not, is still collapse. Some things just die harder than others. Contraction implies that the same society will simply breakdown into smaller, more manageable chunks and perpetuate itself. Quick elaboration below:
Two problems here:
1) The world has changed. The arrogance of technocrats and politicians renders former methods of subsistence obsolete. Outside of smaller scale, "artisanal" and often "craft-esque" levels of subsistence, the global restructuring plans of the IMF (where their implementation was forced instead of opted for) ensured the globalization of industrial agriculture into the last places where it wasn't happening already. The reliance on industrial inputs is not to be overstated. And no where did people attempt to really adapt older methods for monocropping applications, they simply did away with the dated technology to borrow money to buy new, specifically created machines which require a massive difference in terms of approach and technique.
This means there is no scale back option. The division of labor and specialization is so specific and catered absolutely to unsustainable methods that it's not like a "turn back the clock" option exists nor are those tilled fields likely to be quickly turned around once the industrial fertilizers that act as artificial life preservers are no longer an option. I've seen grass-fed, management intensive graziers turn technologically demolished crop land into living soil. I've seen that take anywhere from 3 to 5 years. Without having massive organic inputs from grazing and flocking wild animals, that return is likely to remain slow.
In my personal experience, I've found that by planting native plants intent on bringing back pollinators that fairly nuked soil could get back to a relatively healthy state within a year or two. Though more sustainable methods of farming and gardening will typically incorporate fallow periods, they don't necessarily entail intentional rewilding with native plants. Some very hip or progressive plots, sure, but since the intent is to keep the soil healthy enough to take another round of agricultural beating, they're not dropping a lot of money on seeding diverse natives.
What I'm getting at here is that neither the technology nor the technique nor the soil is ready for some kind of immediate "draw down" from industrial technology, save the niches where such activity is already occurring.
Thanks to globalization, that's far more widespread than not. But a collapse (in terms of historical and anthropological discussion, collapse really just means significant simplification of a society due to internal or external pressures, in our case, that's a major process) doesn't mean everything goes back to zero, it won't be smooth, easy or universal. Pockets of people will try to down scale and for certain periods, they might be successful, but considering the collapse of this civilization is induced by peak energy and that has determined the principle means of all forms of production, distribution and communication, it's simply an uphill battle to reanimate something that's already been dead.
2) Climate instability means that the Holocene, the period of relative stability that made agriculture possible, is ending. That's a massive issue that seems to be continually overlooked. We're seeing examples of this already, in terms of; declines in arable land, increased desertification, lack of winter snow pack, decrease in reliable rain patterns, increases in torrential rain that leads to increased run off and decreased soil absorption, and even genetic changes in primary grain crops that lead to increased toxicity. Likely we'll continue to see new and emerging parasitic and bacterial emergences that target what crops are likely to make it.
Basically, agriculture is dependency upon reliable circumstances. Typically the system works because there are just enough cash crops to buffer a bumper crop on one end and a drought in another. Having watched grain and feed prices for the past seven years, there are absolutely 1:1 correlations between weather patterns and crop yields that rampantly infect availability and viability. The trend is towards instability. Heavier rains, longer droughts, significant late freezing; you can improve your methods in terms of gardening, you can increase the number and types of crops you are invested in, but we're still playing within a rough patch of the Holocene where there's still some degree of stability, but, by all means, that isn't a probability that I would bank on. To rely on that is to disregard the kind of resiliency that saw humans and our predecessors through massive climate shifts.
There are many other points on the matter as well, but those, to me, are the two most apparent and prevalent reasons as to why this is a collapse scenario, not a contraction. We still believe that we are in control and we most definitely are not. We took the wheel, but we're already headed towards the cliff.
Granted there are still societies that practice "more sustainable" variations of pastoralism or horticulture who will definitely fare better than the residuals of industrial agriculture, but many of them have highly complex societies but not civilizations. Having not tied themselves to this one, they hopefully will be spared its fate.
Nothing about AP critiques means that collapse happens only if everyone becomes nomadic, egalitarian societies again. The point is that if we're looking for direction, the one that worked is probably the most ideal and, in an evolutionary sense, the one most inclined to work again. Conveniently, the one that worked out best is the one our minds, bodies and wants are catered to: the life of the nomadic hunter-gatherer. The ultimate message is that civilization is the delusion of control, a delusion we're likely to be spared of within most of our lifetimes.