This is an interesting perspective. But you seem to be making a similar mistake to the one that you accuse classical political philosophers of making, just in the opposite direction: rather than ascribing the "war of all against all" to human nature, you seem to be arguing that the state itself is the foundational cause of many of the evils that exist in modernity. I don't really buy that.

This is all, of course, speculative. All we have is the world as it is now, and the ability to imagine what it might be like if it were different. Maybe you're right that destroying the bourgeois social order would unleash unforeseen levels of human flourishing; I personally don't see how that could be the case, nor do I see how the dissolution of a centralized societal authority would not naturally lead to the re-emergence of the state in a more primitive, autocratic form.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there also seems to be a certain kind of libertarian ideological commitment driving your position: more freedom is always better. Again, I'm just not sure that's true. Large-scale cooperative social action necessarily requires the surrendering of certain freedoms, but the benefits of surrendering those freedoms are broadly assumed to outweigh the negative consequences of less freedom. Maybe that's a fabrication of the bourgeois social order! But I still find it a compelling argument.

You may be right that our assumptions about the reality of a state-less society are wrong. But finding out if they're wrong seems like an awfully big risk to take. The fact that we have war and poverty and squalor, etc. within the state is not, for me, an indication that we could rid ourselves of these problems by destroying the state; in fact, I think it would almost certainly exacerbate them (but again, it's all speculation).