There is an ideological entrapment (intertwined with a corresponding theoretical entrapment) which rests on a mistaken assumption about historical development.
I begin with my objection to this view which I consider to be wrong and arbitrary:
What does not exist as a social form/situation and in some broad historical moment appears/is created, is not defined only as a result of the specific contexts and conditions* that gave birth to it, and furthermore it is not necessary that it once disappear due to the very fact that it once did not exist and then it was/appeared/created.
__
Let's see more specifically what this wrong view is and how I try to combat it with some arguments (initial argument draft):
Those who analyze the historical appearance of these social forms often see them only in relation to this specific historical-generative context of their emergence and consolidation, and if this specific context is considered by them to be transitory (a thought that may be correct) they are making a fundamental mistake to identify the transitoriness of this special framework with the as perceived transience of the forms that emerged through that context.
Champions of the fundamental errors in the reading of historical development and in this general field that we are now mentioning are again the Marxists and the anarchists.
Let's take a look at their logic:
Because: (1) once there was no state and because the state was formed through the process of creating class society (correct reasoning), therefore: (2) along with the historical destruction and transcendence of class society there will be an immediate or slower transcendence of the state.
This is an arbitrary reasoning that is not based on empirical observations and experimental confirmations, but on the metaphysical utopian choice of one of the 2 alternative versions that exist as -implied- possibilities.
It may be shown in the future that there were no two possible versions necessarily equivalent, but today we have no evidence to prove that one of the two possibilities understood by us today - that there is or is not a state in classless society - is the necessary prevailing in the future.
What applies to the concept/status of the state also applies to the concept/status of the nation.
* When we talk about the specific historical context for the emergence of general social forms such as the state, we are referring more to the specific context that explains their emergence as general forms and not to the more specific or historically peculiar conditions that make this emergence possible.