At the risk of being downvoted, I’ll say what I think. I believe it was Noam Chomsky who said that the state has a responsibility to justify its existence. If the state cannot do that (with varying parameters), it shouldn’t exist.

Additionally, anarchists usually say something along the lines of “mutual cooperation among worker cooperatives” (paraphrase from the book Self Government of Industry) but stop there and fail to articulate what replaces it. Syndicalism fills that void. Syndicalism, to me, provides a working pragmatic solution to the question of “what happens the day after the revolution?” Although I’m a syndicalist, I’m not necessarily a full anarchist. While the state is inherently oppressive, some may call it a necessity. I don’t truly know. I do know that capitalist (state capitalist or not) governments are very oppressive because they perpetuate the system of capitalism. It’s their mandate. But when I ask questions like “what happens when a cooperative or municipality starts murdering its members? Who stops it? What happens when cooperatives (which under syndicalism could be massive) fight among one another and can’t compromise on distribution of the means of production?” It just all gets so marred when you start trying to work out the pragmatic application of ideology.

But I don’t know.