They straight up use the same old red scare arguments that the far right use against them lmao
Like holy shit have some self-awareness.
Motherfuckers saying eat the rich and then calling Mao a genocidal monster for eating the rich.
Can't make this shit up.
The entire point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is that the power lies in the hands of the proletariat (the overwhelming majority of people) via democratic mechanisms. Marxists do not desire for a benevolent king to rule and then one day abdicate the throne. There is furthermore no desire for anyone to recant power themselves, as the "withering away of the state" refers properly to the withering away of class distinctions as the proletariat, through its control of the state, destroys the bourgeoisie over time until there is no bourgeoisie and therefore no proletariat (nor any other classes) and therefore there is no living tool to mediate non-existent class antagonisms, i.e. no state. There is no abdicating anywhere in this process, only the minority who are oppressed by the state being pushed further and further out of existence as a class until they exist no more.
Bureaucracy is a real problem, but wringing one's hands about how it "grows itself" rather than investigating why it grows and how it can be combated is essentially a form of defeatism.
Be an anarchist, I don't care, but don't be one out of ignorance.
Where has a state ever withered away?
Completely? Never, that would be "communism" and it's essentially only achievable once the world order is socialist as, aside from issues of capitalist encirclement, if a country is one big co-op, that doesn't prevent them from having class relations with the global proletariat, and it turns out that co-op country is a petty-bourg country.
Partially? All the time. Other people have linked to you about land ownership in China and I'm sure you've heard about the seizing of private hospitals in Cuba and so on. It's a process that none of us are going to see the end of, though we see progress frequently (and if we didn't, that would indicate a serious problem).
When did Cuba seize those hospitals? Was it during the initial wave of transition, or significantly later? With China, the argument here is that there seems to be much backsliding in the proletariate's ownership of the means of production, and the reintroduction of landlords.
Edit: Also, I'm not sure how "China actually owns the land under the landlord's building and so the state is the real landlord" is functionally different that taxes, but maybe I'm missing something important.
The initial wave, but I probably don't need to inform you about the ridiculous degree of development in Cuba's medical system that is still ongoing and still oriented towards free services, public interest, and supporting the health of the third world at least throughout Latin America and Africa.
Like a lot of things about China's laws, this is kind of complicated and you're better off doing your own research rather than idly speculating or asking some asshole on the internet (me), and this is on top of property law already being a complicated subject in general but as an example:
Ownership of private property is at the mercy of public interest, so should a conflict arise between the two the owners can simply be told to kick rocks (though they are entitled to monetary compensation), which is a significantly stronger version of Eminent Domain compared to, say, America.
Furthermore:
The range of durations is from 70 years for a property of personal residence to 40 years for commercial use.