Why is a stateless condition needed for anarchy?
Not an anarchist, but not far *from* it, either, so here goes:
The (bourgeois) nation-state serves a *class* function, namely that of 'refereeing' among the various sections of competitive capital, as over patents or other kinds of private 'turf', all the way up to the *international* level, including historical world *wars* over the same.
Suffice it to say these bourgeois nation-states do *not* serve the interests of the working class, indeed they're *antagonistic* to the working class, as evidenced in various ongoing refugee crises, the-wealthy-aren't-killed-by-cops, etc.
The world's working class, once fully in collective control of society's entire social-production, would have no (objective or empirical) *need* for any such international patchwork of various countries, since all coordination could be done on a massively level, proportionate 'co-administration' basis, as I call it, by the workers themselves.
Once all socially-necessary social production is *covered* / fulfilled by the world's collective society, then what else *is* there to-do, really, socially-logistically -- ? (Certainly the existence and upkeep of *nations*, and all other arbitrary, geographic-based 'polities' could be displaced altogether.)
Social Production Worldview
A society which has officials and leaders who believe in might makes right are anarchic just as much. The formality of the State, if anything, is an advantage since it's a confession to how people won't do what's expected of them.
If officials and leaders didn't confess, then the truth of anarchy would lurk instead.
It sounds like you subscribe to the 'social pact' kind of thinking about politicians / political representatives.
The *problem* with this politics, though, is that it's *cross-class* -- any given geographic population does *not* have material interests in common based on localism / geography. Within any given population there are *workers*, and there are those who *don't have to* work, and can live more or less as they like.
Oscar Wilde 1891
The Soul of Man under Socialism
The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely anyone at all escapes.
Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of others, to stand ‘under the shelter of the wall,’ as Plato puts it, and so to realise the perfection of what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the incomparable and lasting gain of the whole world. These, however, are exceptions.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/
I bring this up because of the pragmatic nature of law enforcement, investigation, and representation in which officials don't do their jobs because the notion of principled duty these days is treated as naive. We live in a world where officials want proof of usefulness before taking action, yet people are abused in the course of living their own useful lives, often before usefulness is achieved. Abuse is motivated by this pursuit of sabotage on purpose to prevent competition.
People need to realize anarchy can still exist even with an official authority around.
You sound very *defensive* here, exactly like a statist.
In order to defend statism you have to be clear about *whose interests* the given nation-state / bureaucracy is representing.
For comparison, I could validly say that the objective of the capitalist economic system is 'To increase shareholder value', and the *political* complement of that would be the upholding of the 'official authority around'.
In other words these things aren't just drifting-through-space -- there are *clear* interests at-work, for both the *economic* system, and also for the *political* / statist system, complementarily.
That said, sure, anyone can appreciate relatively good civil-society, or equality-under-the-law / civil rights, but then there are built-in *limits* to that paradigm, as with labor strikes, picket lines, use of scabs, bankruptcy, private property, finance, cops, etc., which are more 'controversial', shall-we-say.
 Worldview Diagram