The fuck is even their problem?

This

marxists point out to the market as the foundation of the current econopolitical system called capitalism
anarchists, at least the serious ones, point to the influence of the nation-state as the "final boss" after the "final boss" that is capitalism - that is there is no such thing as globalism, only imperialism under guise of free trade

any serious dialectician has to recognise and contend with the primary antagonism of the state and the capital in order to destroy both - as it is obvious that they are one

Marx believed in revolution to usher a new era, but he didn't believe that the conditions of human existence (read: mode of production) would immediately change or could be abolished over night.

I mean, just look at feudalism and capitalism. It took, what, like 350 years before capitalism could get off the ground despite feudalism being in decline? We may have technocratic state socialism for 150 years before contradictions are entirely resolved. If we were to establish anarchism, it would hardly be socialist, it would be closer to a libertarian social democracy. That doesn't make anarchism inherently incoherent, but to think you'd get directly to communism with anarchism is just utopian. Marx simply believed that a state is more likely to get shit done. Anarchism is inherently decentralized, and as long as the law of value operates, it will very likely just degenerate back into capitalism. State socialism proven the ability to produce independently from the law of value.

I think the capitalist state is its own entity in history. It has nothing to do with a socialist state (although a socialist state could display "capitalistic" tendencies and a capitalist state could display "socialistic" tendencies), and I think to see the state and capitalism as this unbreakable bond is overly simplistic. Engels and Marx were nothing but nuanced though. Statehood can be identified previous to capitalism. What anarchists in the 19th century were fighting against was the bourgeois-monarchistic monster that was the early constitional nation-state. It is very telling that many younger anarchist theorists are massively backpedaling from that, like Bookchin, who are basically a-ok with some sort of bottom-up statism.

so far i have yet to see a socialist state, only states controlled by professed socialists. if ownership of mop is reclaimed by government but the structure of the state remains hierarchical top-down, revolution regresses into state capitalism. if the dissolution of state is aimed at without tackling capitalist mode of production the result is loss of democracy and rebirth of fascism

Very funny.
Socialist states don't have much of a dichotomy between state, society and government. It's called collectivization. It creates a cooperative economy where the surplus is allocated for social needs, not according to profitability. Only in capitalism the economy is "private", and is an antagonism to the public entities. You also can't force anarchism on people. When people prefer to elect a leader there is not much you can do about it. Once the contradictions are resolved, the state will wither away automatically.
Why? Hierarchies are a reality as long as there is scarcity. Revolutions always establish a hierarchy, in the case of a socialist revolution, a hierarchy of the proletariat over capitalists. And by capitalist I don't just mean bourgeoisie (they are just 1%) but everybody who organically wants to establish capitalist relations. A farmer wanting to hire day laborers will have to be stopped. Sorry for him, he might not even be a bad guy, but you need to go through with it.

There was a big feud between an antisemetic Slav and a caustic German in the 19th century and we're still butthurt about that. Here's a decent write up of an encounter between anarchists and leftcoms at a bookfair some years back : leftcom.org/en/articles/2013-11-09/marxism-and-anarchism though it should be noted that for whatever reason anarchists tend to get along with leftcoms better than MLs.

All anarchists should read and try to understand Marx. There is literally no contradiction between being an anarchist and studying Marx.

A few thousand egalitarian primitive societies might disagree with you

Primitive societies pretty much had post-scarcity. Once the Neolithic Revolution caused populations to explode, land and resources became scarce, creating hierarchy.

Are you a communalist? I remember that Bookchin himself argued that hierarchies did exist before the Neolithic Revolution, and that Marx was wrong about that and based his view on outdated anthropology.

I'm talking about primitive tribes that exist today. And no I'm not a communalist although I sympathize with the movement