okay, returning sorta but to clarify I'm primarily writing off-site at the moment and doing research into a few topics, particularly the origins and purpose of the state

something notable lenin pointed out is clarifying that engels' discussion in anti-duhring points out that the marxist philosophers and the anarchist and social democrat philosophers (both) perceive the fall of the state entirely differently. engels stated and lenin clarified:

bourgeois state → violent revolution → workers' state → withering into nothing more than an organization that distributes commodites once class antagonisms are done away with (as the state serves as a mediator to force the oppression of one class over another, ex. bourgeois state over proletariat or proletarian state over bourgeoisie, to prevent class warfare)

the anarchist movement (bakunin and kropotkin) and the social democrat movement (bernstein, bizarrely also bakunin, and kautsky) interpreted the fall of the state as a full abolition, with a minor distinction that the anarchists presented bourgeois state → violent revolution → free association in a stateless, alegal society

the social democrats, precursors to the modern democratic socialist movement, contrarily presented the ludicrous concept of bourgeois state → electoralism in the bourgeois democracy → somehow transitioning into a proletarian state → state abolished. notably the modern democratic socialist movement has slightly altered that first stage to market socialism (or just capitalism with social protections)

that demsoc idea specifically advocating for personal benefits under whatever the current country needs to be without abolishing the systems of imperialism they benefit from