Anarchism is a discrete socio-political philosophy whose adherents propose that governments (and by logical extension, all institutionalized hierarchies of domination -- like those based on gender, race, sexuality, physical ability, you know the list...) are not only pernicious, but destructive of community; that human beings, left to our own devices, are perfectly capable of creating and maintaining positive relationships based on voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and solidarity.
Anarchists are those who profess this philosophy. The social conditions of that philosophy need not exist in order to profess one's belief or support for that philosophy.
You seem to be inferring that anarchists can only exist in a social environment without the state and government, whereas I would argue that a condition of non-state existence (anarchy) does not require any anarchists at all.
For 99% of human history, there was no state, no institutionalized mechanism of class domination. In the absence of government, people act in their own interests in direct, unmediated relationships with each other in order take care of their individual and collective needs. If we dispassionately examine examples of self-organization outside a representational framework (especially during revolutionary moments like the Paris Commune of 1871, Barcelona 1936, or semi-revolutionary places like the barrios of Argentina, the jungles of Chiapas, and Tienanmen or Tahrir Square), we will see that such self-organization takes place regardless of the presence -- or absence -- of anarchists. Yet anarchists easily recognize many of their ideas and philosophy being implemented. How would you explain that?
In response to your initial question, I have a question for you: what does "living the life of an anarchist" look like? If your assumption that this is only possible "under anarchism" then nobody knows what it looks like, and your question is meaningless. If, on the other hand, "living the life of an anarchist" means something akin to striving to create the conditions for the self-organization of all those who yearn for autonomy, voluntary cooperation, and mutual aid, then certainly there are plenty of anarchists; those who dissent from the status quo, agitate against capitalism and the state, organize projects that foster anarchist values, and otherwise engage in as many non-hierarchical relationships as possible are certainly anarchists. What else would you call them?