no, sorry. that's not what i meant.
"state" in english can mean a condition, or an institution (or combination of institutions). like, i am in a state of confusion, vs. i am against the state. hence why people can say, " a state of anarchy", ie the *condition* of anarchy, not the institution of anarchy (anarchy and institutions being antithetical, although probably not completely mutually exclusive).
i am not saying you're anything, including an @cap, just using them as an example.
and i understood what you meant by "inbred minority" (and don't think you're expressing "too much emotion"). my point is that you could call the state something similar. depending on how broadly one defines either word. so it doesn't clarify much. neither does "monarchy/stable classes".
put another way, what do you gain from defining state the way you do? what is it that you are emphasizing by using the word that way? what do you lose with that definition? when people choose to use words differently from the people they're trying to communicate with, it's helpful to have clarity about why the word choice is important.
my sense is that understanding the state as a series of interlocking parts/institutions, some of which can exist on their own, but all of which are stronger together, is important for a coherent, interesting anarchist thought/practice. so, the state is helped by the minority part, and the stability part, and the jargon part, and the flexibility/democratic part, and the capitalist part, etc.
i am less concerned, in practice, with what someone calls it, or whether someone thinks it will always be there, and more concerned with whether the person understands how pervasive it is, and all the different ways it works in our lives that must be.... well, smashed, for lack of a better word.
