Imagine the same society, but everywhere there is hierarchy, you replace bosses by a collective assembly, which takes biggest decisions and mandates people for small, specified missions of oversight/management, and you get one option. From there, you can get another one if we want to do it without money : get rid of banks anf stuff, and organize local communities into regional federations, with multiple associations getting the information of what people need, and handling the collection and distribution of what is produced to everyone, and you get another one. Like people said, it can take many forms, both because there is a lot of different anarchist movments and because each one is not written in stone and is meant to evolve according to people needs.

For cops/judges, most anarchist advocate for reparative systems instead of repressive ones. There does not really need to be laws, though you could still have it, because it just tries to solve problems with everyone agreeing on a reparation specific to each situation. People in Chiapas are trying to implement that if i'm not mistaken.

For armies, anarchist did have armies in the past, you could have one or multiple existing in autonomy, or have a system where common people are trained to join an army of needed, like swiss people.

The problem of people trying to rebuild power is of course a big one, but if we managed to get rid of a fully developped power in place since centuries, there's no reason to think we can't get rid of an emerging one.

The questions you ask are very common, it's not dumb. It's just asked from the perspective we've been told so much and so early that it's deeply rooted in us, that violence and coercion are necessary for a working society, so it's hard to imagine anything outside of this.