a mostly-rhetorical question to ponder

Does the very existence of nation-states require the oppression of minorities, women, and the poor?

This is a dangerous question, because it calls into question the doctrine of many religions (namely, that those in charge are favored by God) along with the fundamental tenet of post-Renaissance political theory (namely, that legitimate authority to govern is given by consent of the governed).

But it's hard to avoid the question, when looking at just how universal an issue institutional and ideological racism is, and keeping in mind the words of Incite! regarding the state and its law enforcement agencies as a major source of violence against women of color (and just this morning ginmar made a post with an example close to her circle of friends). It's also in my mind seeing the utter panic beginning to spread among American white supremacists as they contemplate the prospect of someone "not like them" becoming president of the US (h/t redslime for the video) (and the violence and threats which are starting to brew as a result).

At first i thought it was just empires that operated this way -- playing off one minority against another, the way Stalin did so well (just look at the legacy of this approach still in use today). Is there any way to demonstrate that nation-states are not just little empires in this regard?

Related question: why has every historical example of a spontaneous egalitarian revolution (like, for example, anarchist Catalonia (h/t sammaelhain) or the Paris Commune) been undermined by the bourgeoisie?

I know there are a number of presumptions in the way that i'm framing these questions, and they, like the questions themselves, are fair game...