The State is a monopoly of force over a geographic area. There is
nothing abstract or anonymous about it. "Methodological individualism"
IS a point of agreement between us apparently so I will use that approach
to deal with your point. I realize that anarchism is a bit radical. But
the whole point is that the State IS a collection of individuals. This
collection of individuals is the ruling class. The question is not one of
organization but one of whether there exists a monopoly of force.
Anarchists merely seek VOLUNTARY forms of organization and there is
NOTHING wrong with that. The State has historically proven its
malevolence with war ,genocide, censorship and other atrocities that far
out weigh any alleged benefits to any individuals but to those who rule.
That is why Chomsky is an anarchist and why I am one. Like most
anarchists , Chomsky and I are for organization. We simply reject a
monopoly of force over a geographic area called the
State.
       Anarcho-syndicalists like Chomsky and myself are a persuasive and
pervasive presence in the anarchist movement and we argue for free
association of workers without the State. I have read all the statist
literature in Political Science. One more read-through is not going to
convince me to tolerate the the evils of statism. For anyone who wants to
understand anarchism from a naturalistic perspective I would suggest the
works of Petr A. Kropotkin, particularly MUTUAL AID: A Factor in
Evolution.

        I am sure Chomsky would have sympathy for any non-anarchist's
concern about social organization (as do I). But statists always try to
force us to choose a monopoly of force or chaos. That is not the only
choice. In fact, it could well be argued that statists are responsible
for most of the Chaos around us.

        The assertion that we need "Central" Organization is not correct.
Central organization lends itself almost exclusively to exploitation
because group selection models are implicitly used to justify a ruler or
ruling class. Methodological individualism , to which you seem to
ascribe, rejects group selection.

        Workers can organize voluntarily to take back what the State and
ruling class have usurped and prevent the re-establishment of any
monopoly of force or state. That is Chomsky's position and that of all
anarcho-syndicalists.

        I am not trying to say you should necessarily be persuaded by my
argument here. But I merely wanted to counter the age-old assertion that
people cannot survive without a monopoly of force, the State. There are
many non-coercive alternatives and they are all anarchist.

                        Regards,
                                Howard