Problems with Anarchists Defining "The State"

I've been around a bit. Had my stint as an "anarcho-capitalist" and subsequent betrayal of that ideal (what was years seems like a stint now).  Hey, we evolve. After listening to, gathering perspective knowledge from and hanging around whole other types of anti-statists on the web, including dirty commies, syndicalists, and free market socialists for a bit, here I am re-thinking about what it means to oppose "the state". It must be linked necessarily to whatever "the state" is. 

  I often see people act like, and I don't mean to create a straw-man argument.. but it sounds to me like they are taking something that reminds them of the government or something the government does, which is disliked, and then supposing that defines 'the state' and any behavior supposed by them to be similar is called 'statist' ". I don't think that would bring a complete look however on how to define "the state" as a historical institution or "stateless" societies vs. societies with a "state".

If you encounter some anarcho-communists they might have you convinced that private property protection is the state (rather than a historical outgrowth or something). If you talk to many anarcho-capitalists they will likely try to convince you that direct democracy is a state (rather than being described as face to face decision making) or that any act of vague "aggression" (actually conveniently predefined) is acting as the state.  I can't help but feel that both their approaches scream out loud "greedy reductionism" toward defining "the state". I think it may be one reason they scream past each-other over the others supposed "statism" .  

First before we define what "greedy" reductionism is, let's start with the term "reductionism" (I'm simply using wikipedia). That is "a philosophical position that holds that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents"  

But "Greedy reductionism" was a term coined by Daniel Dennett who said that one of B. F. Skinner s claims was "greedy reductionist" or "trying to explain all the design (and design power) in a single stroke"

To further understand what Dennett meant be greedy reductionism we should note the context:

 "In his earlier book Consciousness Explained, Dennett argued that, without denying that human consciousness exists, we can understand it as coming about from the coordinated activity of many components in the brain that are themselves unconscious. In response, critics accused him of 'explaining away' consciousness.This is perhaps what motivated Dennett to make the greedy/good distinction in his follow-up book, to freely admit that reductionism can go overboard while pointing out that not all reductionism goes this far" 

I can't help but feel that saying "violating property" ( how "aggression" is pre-defined by anarcho-capitalists) or "using democracy rather than the market"  makes you "the state" or to say if someone "defends an area for exclusive use" (private property enforcement) they are automatically being "the state" is reducing "the state" down and singling out a component from a more complex system.

I believe a solution may be for me to not read from people who are primarily philosophers and ideologues on what they think "the state" is. After all, some influential philosophers, before they could have known better, made the mistake of thinking "the state" came about and is maintained through mutual agreement, a "social contract" that says you agree whether this agreement is willingly or unwillingly. Silly isn't it? It's like saying someone consents to sex whether willingly or unwillingly lol. Rather than using a legitimate evidential historical look they philosophized (not much else a running mind could do I suppose). So why should I trust, insert anarchist ___, on the state who likely also makes logical mistakes from philosophizing as an ideologue rather than a historical analyst, but in reverse, in opposition to "the state"?

I philosophize. That's my area. But I will seek out sources closer to the field of anthropology for example rather than to philosophy or ideology on "the state" since I have been dissatisfied with my encounters so far.