[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Collective action and willingness to coerce will not go away because of anarchy; they are guaranteed under all systems as long as humans are willing to engage in them, which appears to be always.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're saying a stateless society is not practically possible or rather that any occurrence of anarchy would very soon after dissolve into a state. nothing wrong with that view but that doesnt take away from points about what society is like while we still define that society as anarchic.

[ QUOTE ]
The real difference is that under 'statism' they are institutionalized, so people use bargaining and the possibility of force; these things can be done/expressed without actual violence, contra anarchy, where actual violence will be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

For one, i would say people have more bargaining power when things aren't institutionally fixed. Also bargaining is more subjective than you make seem and very dependent on the structure of the institution. The majority have bargaining power under democracy, the head of state has all the bargaining power under dictatorship, etc. Anarchists aren't satisfied until bargaining comes down to the individual.

Aside, if i take your assumption and intended definition that institutions allow for more bargaining, this doesn't mean institutions are the only threat of violence. Because of this, I dont get what you mean by "actual violence". Someone can murder you today, state or no state. He can trample on you regardless to what the state says. "Actual violence" outside of government exists regardless and theres no reason state officials can't act outside of the bargained terms. The question would be whether government agencies of protection against this violence are more efficient than private agencies.