You could call it that. But most anarchists are not opposed to the existence of structures of government, but rather the existence of the nation-state.
> I'd like a society that can plausibly exist in the world as it is now, thanks.
Okay, now you're being much more specific.
> This would work on a small scale in the presence of massive social pressure to conform. All anarchy seems to be predicated on the existence of massive peer pressure to conform to their social norms, and we all know where not being able to question peer pressure leads.
I'm not sure; where does it lead? ;) But really, we already have massive social pressure to conform, that's how societies work. Anarchism doesn't get rid of that. Anarchism isn't utopianism, or at least not only utopianism.
> This is incoherent because it tries to force a distinction where none exists. The very existence of cottage industries and family farms puts the lie to the concept.
What do you mean? Distinctions never exist a priori, they're always conceptual tools for the sake of delimiting between situations.
> In other words: My family farm is empowering until I hire on my first field hand to help bring in a big harvest, at which point I become an evil capitalist oppressor.
Not quite; according to most anarchists you're still kosher, unless the renumeration you give that field hand is worth significantly less than the surplus value you obtained via his cooperation. Moreover, most anarchists object to an entire society being based on that model, not simply the existence of it.
Again, I'm not saying these are all 100% coherent or viable political options, I'm just trying to articulate my understanding of an anarchist position.