You're claiming the following is not sectarian:
This was how Marx and Engels conceived of their “stateless” end goal — a massive bureaucracy that would govern every cog in every machine all across the communist world. A government by any reasonable definition and therefor completely and absolutely incompatible with anarchy.
How this new “administration of things” government would manage to be uniquely liberatory is anyone’s guess, as neither Marx nor Engels chose to elaborate in much detail on what they presented as their final solution to oppressive power relations beyond what I’ve described in this essay. As usual, the Marxist inability to grapple with oppressive hierarchical constructs that reach beyond the narrow boss/worker relationship shows that they’re not even on the same playing field as anarchists, who refuse to simply patch up the leaks in the system with used chewing gum and call it a day.
This absurd concept of an end-goal naturally led future Marxists like Lenin and Stalin to commit all manner of atrocities in the name of progressing to the mythic final stage of Marxism whereupon the bureaucrats somehow create world peace by governing the things people use and need to survive, rather than by governing the people themselves.
If it doesn’t make sense to you, you’re a lot more astute than the learned Marxist historians who try to affix themselves to anarchist discourse. They’ve fully embraced and internalized this supposed end goal and decided it’s not only a logical train of thought, but is the ideal anarchists ought to also strive for.
Exactly! If you're going to write essays disagreeing with a thing, you gotta read (and understand) the thing you're disagreeing with!