Are anarchists playing with semantics by saying we're anti-state?

I could be wrong but anarchists do not want a monopoly on organised violence, anarchists will oragnise violence to the extent necessary to defend against the state's attempts to establish / re-establish a monopoly on violence.

I agree with what you say that setting up a monopoly on violence to defend the class interests of a few is part, maybe most of the definition of a state. Obviously violence to defend the masses, and from them, rather than in their name, is not the same thing. I think the danger is the leninist idea of siezing control of the state machinery in the name of the people to defend the revolution and very rapidly turning that force against proletarian enemies of the bureaucracy rather than enemies of the revolution.

Marx didn't write that much about the state, but he did write this on the Paris Commune, excuse the long quote:

But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.

The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature – organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor – originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism. Still, its development remained clogged by all manner of medieval rubbish, seignorial rights, local privileges, municipal and guild monopolies, and provincial constitutions. The gigantic broom of the French Revolution of the 18th century swept away all these relics of bygone times, thus clearing simultaneously the social soil of its last hinderances to the superstructure of the modern state edifice raised under the First Empire, itself the offspring of the coalition wars of old semi-feudal Europe against modern France.

[...]
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.

Instead of continuing to be the agent of the Central Government, the police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workman’s wage. The vested interests and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves. Public functions ceased to be the private property of the tools of the Central Government. Not only municipal administration, but the whole initiative hitherto exercised by the state was laid into the hands of the Commune.

Having once got rid of the standing army and the police – the physical force elements of the old government – the Commune was anxious to break the spiritual force of repression, the “parson-power", by the disestablishment and disendowment of all churches as proprietary bodies. The priests were sent back to the recesses of private life, there to feed upon the alms of the faithful in imitation of their predecessors, the apostles.

The whole of the educational institutions were opened to the people gratuitously, and at the same time cleared of all interference of church and state. Thus, not only was education made accessible to all, but science itself freed from the fetters which class prejudice and governmental force had imposed upon it.

The judicial functionaries were to be divested of that sham independence which had but served to mask their abject subserviency to all succeeding governments to which, in turn, they had taken, and broken, the oaths of allegiance. Like the rest of public servants, magistrates and judges were to be elective, responsible, and revocable.

The Paris Commune was, of course, to serve as a model to all the great industrial centres of France. The communal regime once established in Paris and the secondary centres, the old centralized government would in the provinces, too, have to give way to the self-government of the producers.

In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents.

The unity of the nation was not to be broken, but, on the contrary, to be organized by Communal Constitution, and to become a reality by the destruction of the state power which claimed to be the embodiment of that unity independent of, and superior to, the nation itself, from which it was but a parasitic excresence.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm

Even though this is Marx, and not 'anarchists', you can clearly see non-semantic differences between the Commune and the state. Recallable delegates instead of representatives, militias and police under control of the commune and revocable at all times.

Now if you want to say 'aha! but the commune was a state!' then no-one can really stop you, but then you need find some other way to distinguish between representative democracy (or one party dictatorship) and federated direct democracy with recallable delegates.

A state is more than just violence – it also incorporates all of the lawmaking and law enforcing institutions in a territorial. More info in our introduction to the state: https://libcom.org/library/state-introduction

So to address your question, I think it's often best to look at historical examples. So in the Spanish anarchist revolution of 1936, there was a popular militia. Local areas were taken over by popular committees. Neither of these would fit any workable definition of a state. Even the popular militia, it was a body of organised violence, but it was not under the control of any small group – its officers were elected. And it didn't claim a monopoly of organised violence either.

To some extent there is a semantic issue, when it comes to the difference between anarchism and things like Trotskyism et cetera at a purely theoretical level. However when you look at concrete historical examples the differences become much clearer. Trotskyists for example may say they want to smash the state, like anarchists, however in practice they consistently use statist methods – supporting candidates for political parties, voting for political parties etc, participating in governments. And of course when they took power they not only took over the capitalist state in Russia, they strengthened many of its institutions, particularly the secret police.

The point of a communist revolution is to make exploiting labour impossible, not to make it 'illegal'. i.e. to exploit labour, you need a class of proletarians who are only able access the means of life via commodities, and therefore must work for a wage.

If you look at what has happened in mass uprisings, you get mass looting of shops and warehouses as well as people taking them over to distribute things fairly (stuff like running food distribution and mass canteens collectively so that everyone can get fed). To the extent that this is successful and can be defended, then people won't be compelled to work for wages, because the means of life are provided.

Where a revolutionary movement will run into issues is against bosses/the state trying to lock everyone out of essential infrastructure (factories, docks, farms, electricity grid/wind farms etc.), but not really 'giving people money to work' as such.

If people are still having to work for money, then there might be some kind of uprising, but you're not in a position to prohibit working for money because it's still a necessity for people. An example would be miners strikes where the miners stayed out, but their families kept working in other industries to keep some income coming in and strike funds were donated to by other proletarians who were also still at work.

To some extent it's tautological, but it's also a practical question of why people work for money - the condition of it is the commodity form and the inability to access food/shelter/heat etc. without purchasing those as commodities, not because it's legal or not.

Now the state and capital has obviously offered people loads of money/land in order to put down revolutions before, but again the form that takes is strikebreakers/street fascists/mercenaries like the Pinkertons or similar, not just someone going into work for a wage.

So by 1921, Kollontai was arguing that "not being able to prove you are working in a state-mandated industry", i.e. being a labour deserter was counter-revolutionary and should get you sent to forced labour camps:

https://libcom.org/library/alexandra-kollontai-prostitutes-forced-labour-camps-1921

At this point we're not talking about a revolutionary situation enforcing laws, but a counter-revolution where wage labour is enforced on the proletariat by the state. By 1918 Lenin was sending telegrams around the country telling people to take harsh action on soldiers who didn't want to fight at the front (under the command of former Tsarist officers in many cases) too - similar to treatment of draft dodgers or mutineers by straightforwardly capitalist countries.

If you're talking about stuff like "don't drive drunk at 70 mph past a kids playground" then there is a whole literature of restorative/transformative justice (Haven't read it, but something like https://libcom.org/library/anarchist-theory-criminal-justice might be a place to start) and how that might be administered.

Even in society now, speeding usually results in a fine (a bit silly if there's no money), or getting your license removed, rather than imprisonment. I can completely see a post-revolutionary situation where there is a regional car pool, someone goes on a drunken speeding rampage, and then they get banned from using the car pool, but "can I use that car? No, you're banned" doesn't require a state.

There are also examples in places like Chicago of groups organising restorative justice for people that don't want to go to the police but are victims of crime, this obviously does not have a 'monopoly on violence' or anything, it's an alternative to it.

But I think it's more important to interrogate why these discussions happen. People usually play this semantic game, often involving the Engels "revolution is authoritarian" quote as a rhetorical trick to then justify bonapartism, various existing 'anti-imperialist' states and all kinds of other things that aren't workers/neighbourhood councils and a militia. On the other hand there'll be people who do thing that workers/neighbourhood councils and a militia are a 'state' but won't then use that to justify bonapartism.

i think if you can replace the word with your definition of it, in anything you write or say, then your definition is at least internally constant, if you cant do that they its probably being used to obscure or manipulate