dot's comment and link are a good start and provocation. I would explore this site more thoroughly to find particular questions whose answers get at some of the practical questions you have. I'll include a couple links after this for more specifically anarcho-communist info, as many answers here do not come from that perspective, but I'd encourage you to read the rest of this answer first and consider it in relation to those links.
Anarchy is less an indifference to law than it is a state of being in which law either doesn't exist or is extemporaneous. Although not all anarchists would agree on this point, there is also a piece of anarchy which I value that emphasizes attack. I don't quite know how to word what I want to say here, but perhaps that as opposed to a stance of "meh, the state" it is more "smash the state," or maybe " at least get in a good sucker punch against the state before you escape."
The significance of this idea of attack is that it isn't just ignoring the existence of the state & law ("we are living in the margins") or in spite of it (anarchy is every time we do things of our own free will - without the force of laws or bosses), but that it is seeking to engage in conflict with the forces of authority and domination. Also these conflicts aren't always spectacular (cop-fighting, window smashing, etc.). Conflict and violence are not synonymous.
Anarchisms are ideologies based on a desire to create a permanent state of anarchy. I use the plural because there are many anarchisms. dot's link covers many of the various tendencies, and I won't belabor that here, but it is helpful to be familiar with the basic premises of them for inquiries like yours.
Some of them will claim they are the only true Anarchism, or the most pure Anarchism, or the Anarchism which is maintaining the orthodoxy of the lineage as set out by the Very Important White Guys. Some of them will claim they are not an -ism at all. Most anarchists I know have an anarchism. Those I respect the most recognize that their anarchism is little more than their own version of religious beliefs, and seek to identify, challenge and kill it where it might rear it's head.
As to the practicality of replacing our current state of affairs (industrial capitalist civilization - right there I'm showing some of my anarchisms), anarchy is both the most practical and impractical of options. Impractical because total victory is quite possibly impossible. The forces of destruction and domination have all the force and backing of the current state of affairs on their side, they have both technological and hierarchical advantages (at least in the short term). If you come to anarchism from the perspective of having the plan and program to eliminate all that, this is where your anarchism becomes an Anarchism.
It is the most practical of options because in the long view the current state of affairs is not only untenable but unsustainable. We (even we anarchists are participants, like it or not) are destroying everything we need to live, and law, the state, god, capitalism, etc. are all abstractions. They are ideas, and if we don't kill them they will die with us.
Oh, so here's the links for anarcho-communist stuff:
An anarchist FAQ attempts to answer all the things systematically. It covers far more that anarcho-communism, but it is very obviously written from an anarcho-communist perspective. I find it boring and, when dealing with tendencies I feel drawn to (green & post-left anarchy, among others) dishonest.
Colin Ward was a pretty prolific anarchist author of the post-war (sic) era that tended towards anarcho-communism. While I diverge from his analysis by football fields, I actually appreciate his work. Here is a link to some of his writing:
Petr Kropotkin was probably the Very Important White Guy most responsible for the development of anarcho-communism as a tendency. Like Ward, I disagree with him, but I can't bring myself to hate him.