I'm not sure of the purpose of your comment.

"In effect they stayed out of the workers state and created an independent peasants state. Their class interests were independent peasant holdings defended from the return of the landlords on the one hand, and from the forced requisitions of the workers state."

A reason they stayed out of a workers state may have been because a worker's state in a Marxist sense does not imply autonomy or democratic freedom for all, nor does it cover (as you imply above) the various forms and interests of ALL workers. They would have known that 'a workers state', as all anarchists would agree, is nothing more than a change of who's at the top under the psuedonym of socialism. In this case, the 'workers state' was in fact, real workers soviets co-opted and controlled by the 'Party'. You are confusing party power with popular power. The logic of the anarchist case is simple. In any system of hierarchical and centralised power (for example, in a state or governmental structure) then those at the top are in charge (i.e. are in positions of power). It is not "the people," nor "the proletariat," nor "the masses," it is those who make up the government who have and exercise real power. It's clear why Makhno's militia's and the automous regions of Ukraine decided to stay clear.

Also, to say that the Ukraine was simply an 'independent state' re-enforces the mis-understanding of the concept of both the state itself, and the nature of autonomous collectives and federated workers councils.

You also fail to mention the fact that Makhno's forces helped repel the counter-revolution, only to be supressed and killed by the forces under Lenin and Trotsky. An example of 'the worker's state' in action (ie centralised individuals pretending to advocate the 'will of the masses'). This is the nature of a political entity — workers or otherwise — as it cannot tollerate anything that subverts the party line.

Again, it comes back to a simple fact: representation implies heirarchy, heirachy implies power, power implies division — division, which is the direct opposite to social and economic equality, and of socialism itself.

Cheers,

Jared D