It depends upon the context. Usually, when I hear the word anarchy it is spoken or writen of by somebody who doesn't have a terribly firm grasp on what the underlying meaning of the system entails. The common belief is Anarchy means an absence of government, which means an absence of law, which means that they could get away with crimes. In this case, when I hear such a word my assumption is that the speaker (or writer) is a bit thick.
Anarchy is not about the abscence of government or order, it is an idea that unnatural order is an evil that must be cast out. Government in it's usual form would be an example of unnatural order imposed upon the masses - there is no natural law commanding you not to steal or speed. But, of course these laws exist for a reason, or at least we like to believe they do. To a true anarchist, the idea is by casting down institutions of unnatural order one is free to replace this with a more naturalistic model. Somalia is often confused for an anarchic society, but in fact warlords and such simply act in the stead of a more organized government. Under the tradition of anarchy, there would be no final arbiter of right and wrong, just a collaboration of individuals engaged in endless discourse on the subject.
In this way, anarchy is indeed a utopian society, for ingrained in the idea is the belief that no one person will have the will or the ability to gain more than his true share of power. An individuals only real power in life is over his own course and actions - over others you only hold the power of death unless they willingly surrender more. Since it appears that in any situation where there is a way for someone to gain power someone will indeed take up the reigns, anarchy, like other utopian ideas, is doomed to fail. In spite of this, it remains an interesting subject to discuss from a philosophical standpoint, especially the ideas of personal and public rights and the pursuit and use of power.
