Well, this is a dead thread but I thought I'd help out anyway.
What Russia did in the 20th century was called a workers dictatorship, and was meant to be a transition into communism, which is defined as a stateless and classless society. So, calling what Russia did 'communism' is a bit like calling what the fascists did 'capitalism', and then saying that because it didn't work, therefore capitalism doesn't work. Anarchists have generally stood against workers dictatorships because they seem to be an ineffective way of achieving communism, but they do want communism.
Soviet rule was at best state-capitalism, with the government creating market quotas, trading with other countries, annexing other countries for their resources, and ultimately still doing everything capitalist countries do, but with more state-intervention.
Not really, left anarchists and communists are after the same goal through different means. Kropotkin and Marx went back and forth, often disagreed, but only on matters pertaining to authority. Ultimately they both wanted a stateless classless and moneyless society.
There is an element of jealousy/envy, I think. Many here want to be a Data Scientist, and many here want to work at Google (well, Deepmind), and seeing them make progress faster than they ever could (working on a big team with access to google-level resources) is really upsetting. The most upsetting thing is the idea that their names will probably be cemented into history, even if in a small way, and in the future people might discover them in textbooks or whatever. For a lot of people this makes the envy even worse.
So the natural desire is downplay the discovery, because this does two things: one it makes you appear smarter than them, and two it might just prevent them from actually achieving something great, which would take away your envy.
I can get where these people are coming from, but it's so silly to say "look at these idiots, they didn't even consider that their research has limitations!" and think it makes you look like you're genuinely concerned about the limits of the research and not just an envious person picking away at small mistakes because you can't do the hard work.
What Russia did in the 20th century was called a workers dictatorship, and was meant to be a transition into communism, which is defined as a stateless and classless society. So, calling what Russia did 'communism' is a bit like calling what the fascists did 'capitalism', and then saying that because it didn't work, therefore capitalism doesn't work. Anarchists have generally stood against workers dictatorships because they seem to be an ineffective way of achieving communism, but they do want communism.
Soviet rule was at best state-capitalism, with the government creating market quotas, trading with other countries, annexing other countries for their resources, and ultimately still doing everything capitalist countries do, but with more state-intervention.