[WS:] I suppose. When I talk about the state I have in mind agencies like Social Security, Medicare, US Geological Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Institute of Health, National Transportation Safety Board, the court system, or Bureau of Economic Analyses that in socialism could morph into a Central Planning Board and the like. All these agencies provide public goods and services that are essential for a modern society. This is why government is indispensable in a modern society
I do not think of the congress, the senate, or the political parties as "government" but rather as private parties that are supposed to mediate the interaction between public at large and the government. They are, in a way, like a tax accountant - a private intermediary between the citizen and the government tax agency. They are not necessary for the government in the sense that government can produce its essential public services and citizens receive these services without this intermediation.
It does not mean, of course, that these intermediaries do not perform useful functions that enhance the production and distribution of public goods and services - they can. But they also can also be serious hindrance to that product and distribution - as George Washington warned in his farewell address http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp.
So when I talk about a socialist state - I mean a state where government performs its public service production and distribution function with the minimal and neutral political intermediation - by which I mean level of political intermedition that is necessary for the efficient production of public goods (as for example described in theoretical works of Oskar Lange) and that does not systematically prefer one groups of citizens over other groups. But in that state, people would still have to work, they will still get compensated for their work (but not for their social status, though), and they will still receive sanctions when they break the law. Because in such as state people will still be getting into pissing contests, screwing each other over, abusing their spouses and children, avoid personal responsibility, etc. - as they would invariably do under ANY social condition.
I can also envision steps leading to such a state, for example, nationalize all but personal property, disband the Senate, create Central Economic Planning Board whose responsibilities and powers will be similar to those outlined by Oskar Lange in "On the Economic Theory of Socialism", ban all private political contributions, or expand the statutory social security system to guarantee a minimum living standard to every single citizen, to name a few.
And one final comment. It is my impression that most Americans have a rather unsophisticated and simplistic conception of government and state - one rooted in gutter populism and anti-intellectualism that favor suffocating Gemuetlichkeit of a small town petite bourgeois society of mom-and-pop shops and provincial insularity of handshakes, winks, and nods over national and international institutions. That may explain the popularity of neoliberal and anarchist fantasies that seek to replace "big government" and "big corporations" with small cozy groups or communes flavored to their own personal preferences. -- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."