Well, I mean after all it's not like Marxist Leninists, especially in Russia were particularly known for targeting and slaughtering anarchists or something. Oh wait, they were and they did.

All theory no praxis. Talk about lack of self awareness / willful ignorance.

I know, that's a key theoretical difference between marxists and anarchists. However it is the definition that marxists actually use. And it is precisely what makes marxists want to work together together with Anarchists under many circumstances. So even if anarchists have a different one, they should still be aware of what marxists mean, when they talk about state for one simple reason: to not discard potential allies simply because of a misunderstand in terms. Because marxists believe in this definition, they see no fundamentals contradiction with Anarchists, no class antagonism, only differences in strategy.

Now there are good reasons to use this definition, because it's rooted in material facts, class analysis, productive forces and ultimately in how a society reproduces itself. It's a natural definition. The anarchists definition is vague, idealist and ahistorical.

Rigid, hierarchical authoritarian structures with monopoly of violence.

The only words that are not vague in this definition are "structures", "with" and "of".
What is rigid? How much plasticity is need? What is hierarchical? What about the unspoken, inofficial, undemocratic hierarchies that dominate every anarchist project? What is authoritarian? Isn't it authoritarian to defend against fascism? Aren't anarchists who defend their projects violently forcing their own will on those reactionaries who would love to crush them and exploit them? What's a monopoly of violence? Do the Zapatistas have a monopoly of violence in their territory? The "checks and balances" and "control instances" and all that bullshit of modern capitalists state are not enough to not speak of a monopoly of violence, right? What's violence? Do you include structural violence? The threat of violence?

The Marxist definition is clear, simple, historically applicable across the ages, based in material facts and leads to clear conclusions for how to conduct struggle and who to ally with. Like anarchists for example.

No, that's just a misunderstanding about the definition of a state. Anarchists often define it as a monopoly to violence in a territory. This definition has its flaws. Marxists define it differently as anything that can suppress a class.

Anarchism has real enemies. Marxists generally want to work together with Anarchists. Those enemies do not. Their interests are fundamentally opposed to anarchism and Marxism. They constitute a class, because they are defined by their control over exploitative production. Defending against them is suppressing their class interests. Many Marxists are open about an how this struggle is fought. Anarchists will have to fight it too and they will use their own strategies. Whatever those are, if they are effective, than they constitute a state in the eyes of marxists.

Every time I think communists can't get any fucking stupider, you guys really go the extra mile to prove me wrong

Almost all real life Anarchists are communists too. Did you just insult basically all anarchists that aren't terminally online?

Because I said most anarchists are communists?

nah, you're confused because you've obviously read more theory than you actually understood.

Critical Theory naturally predicts the outcome we historically observe of this bureaucracy becoming a new oppressive class

That's not what a class is and Critical Theory as a historical ideological project always functioned to defang dissenting voices and produce "compatible leftists". The Frankfurt school was funded by the CIA.

A Marxist-Leninist state voluntarily becoming stateless is as absurd as a capitalist state voluntarily becoming communist.

It's not absurd, it's just hard to imagine in the current historical moment where the strength of reactionary forces means, that it is far off, but necessary in the future.

Anarchism doesn't oppress class interests, it unmakes classes so that the people who used to constituted them have interests that align with others. Within an anarchist commune, there are no capitalists to oppress others

No, but they are right outside the commune loading up their cannons to crush it like the Paris commune. If the defence is successful, it will have forced their will violently on the attackers, who constitute a different class (capitalists). Yes, only on defence, yes that is a legitimate form of organized violence. That's the point.

And sure, people that volunteer a lot to defend others could become a class that can attempt oppression (whether as a junta, or just as demanding privileges for their noble task). But the same risk holds for any profession, and anarchy always works to subvert it.

Take that sentence and replace anarchy with Marxism. It doesn't always work. There were historical failures and mistakes, as has happened in almost every anarchist project.
For example the Spanish anarchists reversed their progress in woman's liberation to appeal to liberals. It didn't work. The kurdish anarchists sold out to the US empire and were betrayed by it again and again.
Marxists did wrong too. But because of Marxisms principled stance based on material class analysis, it's much less likely to dissolve, succumb to error or become a tool to reactionary forces.

Anarchocommunists do better material analysis of communist revolutions and states than Marxist-Leninists do. That's why they're anarchists. Your "bureaucrats are not a class" spiel means that your "material class analysis" has a massive blind spot for bureaucrats as a material force that begets tyranny.

Boy I wonder why a tyrannical communist state ran by the bureacratic elite would propagandize a branch of communism that excludes the bureaucratic elite from material analysis.

Oh well, if only we had a form of material analysis to process this behavior. Maybe some kind of... state-skeptical communism? Anarchomarxism? Communo-anarchism?

Oh well a girl can dream...

That’s the point.

No, your point was that anarchist militias necessarily engage in oppression and are a state, neither of which you have yet demonstrated.

Take that sentence and replace anarchy with Marxism.

Okay. "Marxism always seeks to subvert one profession gaining power over another, such as a state bureaucrat having power over a farmer". Oh wow, if you define Marxism as anarchocommunism then Marxism is good! I love destroying the state apparatus with my Marxist friends!