Anarchism will never produce communism because it is simply liberalism with a socialist face. Like liberals, anarchists see 'illegitimate' authority as the enemy, not capitalism. Their only reason for being anti-capitalist is because they see it as being a long con created by 'illegitimate authorities' rather than a natural outgrowth of history which, like most great human inventions, outlived its usefulness long ago and must be replaced by a more efficient and equitable system. Anarchist efficiently are against 'systems' as such. As many an anarchist will constantly remind you, this isn't the same thing as being pro-chaos. However, it is an endorsement of the liberal concept of autonomy. Anarchists see all 'mutual aid' as only being voluntary associations of individuals. They forget that their conception of mutual aid, in contradiction to the man who coined the term, is rooted in the liberal democratic concept of laissez faire capitalism itself. Anarchism is thus simply a purely social and anti-economic laissez faire capitalism. It adovactes to end the State not to rebuild society in the interest of the worker but to abolish completely the idea of economy in favor of a society where freedom within the limitations of others tolerance is the ultimate satisfaction.
Therefore, anarchism does not escape liberalism. This is why identity politics have such a potent influence in the vast majority of modern anarchist organizations (this is not to discount that many maoist and marxist-leninist orgs have also given into idpol, but it is disproportionately the anarchist movement which does so).
It is why the anarchist has such a fetish for property destruction and the romanticization of poverty and working class culture. Like the liberal, the anarchist seeks only to strike back, to "resist", not to abolish and replace. Their idealistic and utopian dream of the abolition of the State is akin to the liberals equally utopian vision of the abolition of all bigotry and ignorance. These things are systems and as such can only be negated through systematic and organized action. The anarchist, like the liberal, wants only to beat back their challengers for personal pleasure and comfort. An anarchist smashing a bank window has more in common with a liberal congress passing healthcare reform than it does a true radical seizing and overthrowing the State in an armed uprising.
Even the 'succesful' revolutions like the Zapatista, Rojava, Spanish, Ukrainian etc ultimately contradict themselves through the creation of their own form of State. This is because a State is a necessary force to monopolize power by one class over another. It is impossible to pursue class warfare without the formulation of a State. This reflects the liberalism present in anarchism. Because they are social laissez-faire capitalists, they must maintain a State to maintain the gains of the SLF camp over the economic laissez faire capitalist.
There is also the issue wherein prominent anarchist or libertarian movements ultimately fold into liberal apologism and left wing anti-communism. It is quite hillarious that anarchists constantly claim that are anti-chaos because they believe in authority if it proves to be legitimate, yet constantly rail against the legitimate authority of the USSR, Cuban, Maoist Chinese, Vietnamese, and so on governments. How could the authority of these countries, at least originally, not be legitimate? They looked towards their libertarian counterparts in the international and saw only subverted and destroyed revolutions springing from their ideology. Yes the usual anarchist quip here is that these places all were subverted and destroyed. It's difficult, of course, to try and transform society into a new communist formulation without a massive international working class movement, even Marx said so. But consider that the communist countries achieved far more for a far greater amount of time than literally ANY anarchist 'revolution'.
(1/2)
