Boo-Boo theory

I'm almost there, fam. I'm almost on board with ol' Murray, but I don't get how the local organizations are supposed to effectively overcome the power of the state without becoming a state themselves.
Help me out here.

Don't get too hung up on state/not-a-state. This is nearly always just a semantic issue where the person claiming that whatever setup they are pitching won't be a state because they've defined 'state' in particular way that specifically excludes their proposal. Anarchist fashion statements regarding terminology are less important than the specifics of the proposal.

That's how I usually see it, and why I fly socialist flag. But I am reading Boochie, and trying to understand him on his own terms.

communalism isn't anarchism,Bookchin specifically distanced himself from anarchism

Dual Power combined with confederation. Insubstantial answer? Welp, ignore what is and isn't a state for a moment and merely consider the structure. Municipalities, usually divided up into smaller neighborhoods with their own neighborhood assemblies, essentially run the show. These municipalities, sharing the same goal and structure, confederate to create an entity of sufficient power to challenge the state. When the state comes into violent conflict, either the state's power will be so eroded that it collapses within the municipalities area (Paris Commune) and the soldiers join the side of the municipalities, or you engage them in military conflict through grassroots militias. Every man and women should be trained on how to use a gun, and be able to participate in the militia when called upon. It's part of the process of creating an empowered citizenry, which also includes suitable social education to make well informed decisions. Assemblies should not just be forums of decision making, but of growth and empowerment both mentally and physically. Does that answer your question?

Pretty much, I guess. So how are the munis distinct from soviets, council communism, and all the other local entities that have succumb to the power of a state?

I haven't read him yet beyond a handful of essays online (books are incoming from the UK) so I'll take your word for it. Pretty much everything I've read about him describes him as such though.

Well, Communalism recognizes the difference between statecraft and politics and vehemently opposes the former, working only with the latter and rejecting state power over the municipalities. The failure of council communism, soviets etc is that they did not see the distinction between state craft and politics and how they're essentially in direct opposition to each other. To put it in simpler terms, by rejecting parliamentary participation and keeping the movement firmly at the grass roots level, never desiring to take over the state like the communists nor to instantly abolish it like the anarchists, but to erode the states power and create institutions on the grass roots level until the state is forced into conflict at which point the state collapses entirely.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the main reason the CNT failed is because anarchists are afraid of power, and when the revolutionary moment was upon them to completely destroy the state after eroding it's power through it's syndicalist organizations, they instead backed away from power and left the republic intact. Communalists are not afraid of power, but seek to use it to empower the people.

Very interesting, I think this is clearer to me now. Still need to mull it over before I decide whether I agree or not. Thanks.