I mean, I guess that definition makes sense, but I wouldn't use it. The kind of anarchy he describes is an aspect of tyranny and authoritarianism being unable to have totalitarian control, so they leave certain portions to be utterly out of control, but also unable to form any normal parallel society.

Authoritarians prefer subjective laws that can be enforced on everyone and anyone at any given notice. Segments of the society outside of the authoritarian system are not purely anarchistic, but are a place of perpetual chaos subjective to eternal authoritarian oppression.

This is just what the natural state of non-totalitarian tyranny looks like.