"Goverment's powers originate from its people" - is a typical liberal social contract framing of what the government is, but I don't agree with such an understanding of the state. The particular problem is that it assumes the need to mediate conflicting interests a natural thing rather than something sociohistorically specific. Historically speaking the connection between states and class was less opaque, titles and such were bestowed upon people by the state and the state generally openly favoured upper classes. I would argue liberal states operate differently generally; they operate not by reproducing titles and a class directly, but instead by helping the production and circulation of capital. A state is fundamentally intertwined with class society even in its liberal mode. Communists oppose state building as sth counterproductive to abolishing capital; a DotP is meant to be a mere skeleton of a former state that is being dismantled. That being said, what happened in the soviet union was somewhat inevitable insofar as the Russian empire was undeveloped and isolated, which ultimately destroyed any momentum for any sort of *communist* social revolution and instead led to a kind of undeveloped capitalism which incorporated informal markets as a core part of its economic structure