You're right, it doesn't. But progressivism today doesn't acknowledge that. It would be nice if they did.
That's not what I said though. Western society wasn't stateless from roughly 1700-1900. It had progressed away from centralized ownership of society's wealth, however. Hence...
Progressive (at least in the usual context of the term) ideology does want to call back to the time prior to decentralized property ownership. And has succeeded in doing so. Now we don't have one tyrant on the throne, we have millions of tyrants empowering a select ruling class, but the effect is the same.
I guess I would ask you, who are the millions of tyrants; who is this ruling class; and how has property been centralized rather than redistributed (which, is the opposite of centralization)?
The millions of tyrants are the people that support the federal government's actions. The ruling class is the federal government, and you could say the state protected industries that pull their strings as well.
As for the last point, first of all, property can't be redistributed by force legitimately, so if the government did in fact redistribute property, they either stole it first, or owned it to begin with. Second of all, how has the redistribution been going? How is wealth inequality looking these days? They do what the kings used to do to keep themselves alive. Give the peasants enough to keep them from getting hostile. They keep the rest for themselves and their buddies.
How would you keep the super rich from leveraging their money against the plebs if there was no government? I am just curious how that would work.