To me the problem is that people are considered as individuals but still as "usefull subjects" for "the cause" in this conception, as in some anarcho-syndicalist theories. The question in this conception is again and again : who will recruit who ? And for what purpose ?
The idea of a counter-society (in this conception) sounds very "leninist inspired" to me (the "state in the state" or "double state strategy").
I don't reject, as some individualists or other anarchists, the idea of a counter-society (or multiple counter-societies) that would fight and destroy the state-capitalist society from the inside. But the problem with this idea, that we should "recruit", is that it recreates a model of society that sum up the question of social revolution or insurrection in the will to built "intentional communities". On the other hand, this dichotomy between those who "recruit" and those who are being "recruited" sounds very "militant" to me. And many valuable critics have been made of the militant mentality.
Also, I don't think that create such things are necessarily enterely bad, but that's not a "revolutionary thing" in it self either.
Of course, initiatives like social and autonomous self-managed spaces with anarchist or anti-authoritarian inclinations are great and must be a part revolutionnary projects (like self-organised medical centers, or collective food places, etc). At least, it's always uselful for people to meet at each other and find each other. But it's nothing if you don't link it to the necessity of expropriation and take over of property, and then the destruction of capitalism and the state. That is to say : the necessity to attack, to revolt and to struggle.
Because if some hint like "doing the job of the state" so as to "overwhelm the state" seems very seductive and usefull at first sight, it also seems that barely every projects like this, when they weren't dismentled by repressive forces, have been turned in para-legal social work (often linked to state subsidies, which is nothing but an other mean of controll) and other harmless alternatives.
Same thing should be said about many squat projects, collective spaces, or "small business anarchist projects".
Creating the opportunity for us, as for exploited or excluded people in general, to have more space and time, or ressources on autonomous perspectives is always valuable, but not either intrinsically revolutionnary.
To answer the question on a more general scale, we should be said that the problem with "welfare state" is not also "the state", but the idea of "welfare" that imply the state (and that the state imply), or a statist conception of social and/or collective welfare. Because it's also linked to the very religious idea of "providence" : who provides who, and for what ?
In a society where you are not exploiting anyone, I think that any social "needs" would be satisfied by an organisation simply based on collectivity (on the principle of free association of individuals) and mutual aid.
And then why should we conceive the need to fulfil "social needs" as implying wider social structures that would "take care" of people, especially if we don't want to recreate another kind of state, or "mini-states".
That is one of the reason why I can't read anything of Chomsky about this kind of topics without asking myself what exactly make this "eminent thinker" an anarchist.
To me this critic is deeply rooted in my conception of the anarchist ethic, that is the only true reason why we should reject the law. Not because humanbeings are "bad or good by nature", but, to speak like Spinoza, because we should recognize the free necessity for everyone to define what's good or wrong for us as a gift of nature, and not an affliction.
Or to say it on other words, I sincerely believe the idea that individual and collective freedom (that is to say anarchy) would necesseraly be synonym of disorder and "anti-social behavior", to be a very bourgeois and reactionnary idea.
I think that what is said in this text about squats should be extended to every kind of social anarchist or autonomous project :
I hope that would light your fire a little bit.