I've noticed people coming up with a variety of terms to describe their anarchy. I like this small alienation these people have, like Bob Dole saying "Bob Dole would like a glass of water". To describe your positions from your self and your self interest, this is an approach to writing, it does not erase ideology. The problem with ideology is the need to crystalize ideas into a form, creating a prism that shows all these many facets one could look at, but also serving as a prison for those elements that were once free radicals, floating in space. So I guess lets talk about ideology and sharing ideas, how identity plays into freezing even non-ideological perspectives. If one didn't notice, anarchists still serve as a type of political pole in society, describing how one relates to the state and its existence.

All other positions on how anarchists generally relate beyond this are varied, though it never seems to be considered that most people don't take on wholesale anarchist ideas in their life. Politicians that control the state, philosophers that control academia, economists that control the economy, all are influenced by anarchist ideas in some form or another, in turn allowing them to create their own personal reasons for supporting the state, for finding the compromise of being against authority towards considering benevolent uses of authority or limiting the abilities of authority (the positive and negative concepts of freedom, which in turn are the negative and positive behaviors of the state). Anarchists are not separated ideas from society, rather instead they are but one influence in society.

Is society an abstraction? No. It is a word describing what the author wants it to mean. Like all words, these games I see played related to society is just semantical games to enable one to position against society. The word, as I use it, relates to the interconnection of individuals. A hermit in a cabin in the middle of the wilderness that never leaves, but has his own small family that builds life in the wilderness with him, never interacting with others, is a colony of society, but this would be what leaving society looks like. Should the hermit ever establish a relationship with the town hundreds of miles from him to get supplies, he would be re-entering society and its interwoven ties. The webs of support that we refer to as a social safety is one form of relations we can have without society, the larger form of which may be referred to as community, but it is today that society is shown to not be an abstraction, but rather an all-pervasive relationship of the highest alienated complexity.

Our candy bars are slavery bars, yet neither you, nor the clerk that sold it, nor the manager that got it from the distributor, that got it from the manufacturer, are attributed any real relationship together. None would say they hold a relationship beyond the institutions that made them interact together. When there is, it isn't a customer to clerk, but a friend, even if its "the clerk at our local store is my buddy".