What you just said isn't at odds with what I said. The state is a system that resolves class contradictions through class oppression, in socialism that state resolves them in favor of the proletariat. It isn't a distinct class. The "special bodies of armed men" Lenin speaks of, ie the millitant organizations, are there to protect from invaders and to keep the bourgeoisie, as long as it still exists, in check.

As the economy grows and develops, the class contradictions must be resolved. The job of the state in socialism is to keep the proletariat in power, and gradually sublimate private property until it's fully centralized, globally, at which point there is no bourgeosie nor proletariat. Administration doesn't cease to exist, but millitant policing and armies that retain state power have no reason to exist when there's no class conflict to be reconciled.

Bukharin explains the difference between the Marxist and anarchist position here, though do be warned, it's highly sectarian (as this matter inevitably becomes, as it's the core argument between Marxists and anarchists):

Communist society is stateless. But if true - and most certainly it is - what really is the difference between anarchists and Marxist communists? Does this difference no longer exist, at least on the question of the future society and the "ultimate goal"?

Of course it exists, but is altogether different. It can be briefly defined as the difference between large centralized production and small decentralized production.

We communists on the other hand believe that the future society must not only rid us of the exploitation of man by man, but also allow man more independence from nature by reducing "necessary working time" and maximizing socialized productive forces and the productivity of socialized labor. That is why our ideal is large-scale centralized, organized and planned production, tending towards the organization of the entire world economy. Anarchists, on the other hand, prefer a wholly different type of organization: their ideal is small communes - unsuited to large-scale production by the very nature of their structure - which conclude "agreements" between themselves and are connected in a network of voluntary contractual relationships. Clearly such a production scheme is reactionary from an economic standpoint. It will not and cannot give space to the development of productive forces; from an economic standpoint, it is more like the communes of the Middle Ages than the society that will replace capitalism. This scheme is not only reactionary but utopian par excellence. Future society will not be born of "nothing", will not be delivered from the sky by a stork. It grows within the old world and the relationships created by the giant machinery of financial capital. It is clear that the future development of productive forces (any future society is only viable and possible if it develops the productive forces of the already outdated society) can only be achieved by continuing the tendency towards the centralization of the production process, and the improved organization of the "direction of things" replacing the former "direction of men".

But anarchists will reply that the essence of the state is precisely centralization; "By maintaining centralization of production, you will thus maintain the state apparatus, its power, violence", and "authoritarian relations".

This fallacious argument is based on a purely childish and unscientific notion of the state. As with capital, the state is not "a thing", but a relationship between individuals - between classes to be more precise. It is a relationship of class, domination and oppression - that's the essence of the state. Otherwise the state does not exist. To consider centralization as the characteristic and main feature of the state is like considering capital as a means of production. The means of production becomes capital only when monopolized by one class and used for the wage exploitation of another, i.e. when these means of production express the social relations of class oppression and class economic exploitation. On the other hand, they are a good thing in themselves - the instrument of man's struggle against nature. That is why they will not disappear in future society and will have a deserved a place there.

So, in essence, the Marxist conception of communism is founded on centralization and organization, while the anarchist conception is based on decentralization and the elimination of any and all hierarchy. I am sympathetic to the anarchist position in that I used to be one, but over time have come to become a Marxist-Leninist. As a consequence, I find a lot of conflict between Marxists and anarchists is largely due to differences in analysis of what the state even consists of, and righting those misconceptions of the other helps productive dialogue on the left.