(Sorry for any possible English mistake, I thought about this and wanted to read someone's idea on or against it but I can't find if there is a movement like it and what it would be called)
Like, we probably all agree that we are against capitalism but in order to achieve socialism (or directly communism) you must first develop the proletarian class as it is what is going to start the revolution.
So is there something like anarcho-communism, where they are opposed to having a socialist state as a way to develop communism, but that still believes in the importance of a socialist state in a utilitarian way to develop it's own group of revolutionaries ?
An idea according to which a socialist state will never achieve communism (for whatever reason, like the small difference between classes under socialism before it turns into communism that might become reactionaries and roll back change even under a dictatorship of the proletariat or something else) but there is going to be one more revolution starting from the (relative) bottom in the socialist state.
Because from my basic understanding of ML for example, the transition between socialism and communism is supposed to be smooth. But maybe I'm wrong ? Feel free to correct me on anything.
I think the other comments are worth reading. I just wanted to make an addendum that I'm not sure that this is anything more than a definition technicality.
Of course, Marxists use the term "state" to define an entity which oppresses some group of people as a communist. We want to oppress the bourgeoisie.
But let's think for a moment about what a government is or what a state is. It is a group of people that either represents the people's interests or doesn't, but either way it is a group of people that create rules and laws and have an effect on other people in society.
So if we decided not to have a state or government or anything like that, but then revolutionists still understand that socialism is required as an intermediary step to communism. So they build a group, whatever they call it, which is in fact a group of people that creates laws and regulations and make sure that the capitalists don't get out of control, etc.
What would you call that? Is that a state? Is that a government? Is that just a group of people? Either way, it seems to create the same function that a state or government might do. Therefore, this to me seems like a technicality of definitions.
Let me know if this isn't how you're thinking about it. Maybe it's deeper than just a definition change, and maybe I miss-understood something.