>Funny though, how when Anarchists are asked to describe the ideal society
in detail, it always looks like a state.  A very minimalist and
decentralized state, but a state nonetheless, whether you're talking
Council Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, or Bookchin's "Libertarian
Municipalism."

I'm all for a decentralized state, absolutly no concentration of power.  All
individuals within this state hold the same power.

>Given that any form of social organization is de facto government, why
not junk the archaic label "anarchism" altogether?

Anarchy means(I said it already) "No Rulers" in Greek.  And so, if this
social organization is a de facto government, it is a government that cannot
affect those outside the government and all those instead the government
play an equal role.  Also, the members can leave and join other
"governments" whenever they feel like it.

That is Anarchy.  Direct democracy with social planning.

Milutin

--
Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes
Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal