Let me correct something

Socialist political theory that I follow is totally against the concept of some humans having power over others. This is why adherents of original socialism (i.e., that which was formulated by Marx and Engels before others hijacked the term for their own very different ideologies) are against the concept of the state. What I am suggesting in my above post is what citizens should insist the state be used for for as long as it continues to exist. For as long as our present economic system remains in place, the state is going to continue to exist, and as such, we should see to it that its influence in our personal lives is very limited, except to enforce civil rights and prevent people from committing acts of demonstrable harm to each other.

It is not my long-term goal to reform the state but to eliminate the concept in favor of a system where power was evenly disbursed amongst all people in society, and in which order did not have to be achieved by force of arms by some regulating authority with special power above and beyond that of the average person. What I am talking about in these threads where you have gotten on my case about this is what the I, as a proponent of civil liberties, believe the state should and should not do within the context of a capitalist society that purports to be based upon civil liberties, constitutional democracy, and freedom to (as opposed to "freedom from"). As long as capitalism continues to exist, so will poverty, and therefore so will crime and war, and consequently, for as long as the current system continues to exist (and not a minute longer), whether we like it or not (and I most certainly do not like it), we have to rely on the state to preserve order and enforce civil rights. Of course, for as long as the current system continues to exist, we should do our best to curtail the state's involvement in our personal lives as much as possible (save for the two reasons I mentioned above) as short-term goals. In the meantime, my long-term goals will continue to be fighting for a classless, moneyless, and therefore stateless society, but when I am discussing youth liberation, I will oftentimes do it as how it would or could exist within the context of the present system. Needless to say, I fully agree with the essence of what you say. Youth liberation would exist naturally in a classless and stateless society, because there would be no way to impose parental control over young people, but it's very likely that youth liberation will be achieved long before the world switches to a global classless and stateless society, hence my descriptions of how youth liberation would work if it was achieved today or in the near future, with capitalism intact. Hence, if youth liberation were achieved within the context of the present system (as it likely will be), then like it or not we will need to have the state enforce their right to emancipation, just as civil libertarians expect the law to enforce all of our rights. It's true that the state works against us much more often than it works for us, but we need to try and limit the state's power over our personal lives and work for us as much as is possible while the current system continues to exist. The socialist theory that I follow most certainly does not accept the state as an eternal entity, but for as long as it continues to exist, we have to do our best to make it work for us.

The type of "socialist" political theory you are decrying is Leninist theory of state ownership and control of the industries, which is not what I personally support.