cucumovirus

I don’t think that Bakunin is representative of most anarchist’s beliefs these days. Many of them would definitely be willing to push for reforms in bourgeoisie states to amass more worker power as a secondary tactic, a distinctly more Marx opinion than Bakunin.

I don't know about Bakunin's status among anarchists today but it's not that important. This whole point is irrelevant, the important point is the underlying philosophy and world-view which is still the same.

The individual and the mass have the exact same interests, the same character, as masses are made entirely of individuals.

Not all the individuals in a mass have the same needs and interests. Classes exist but even within classes there are contradictions. The mass is thoroughly heterogeneous. Individuals make up the mass but they don't exist as abstract entities outside of the mass. It's a dialectical relationship - individuals exist only as parts of the mass. Some vague abstract freedom of the individual is not compatible with the material liberation of the masses. We evolved as social creatures and continue to exist as such, we can't just yell about "individual freedom" while completely ignoring the material conditions we exist in. To quote Marx: '“Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture...'

anarchists insisting that appreciation for and the liberation of the masses is essential to the liberation of the individual

Anarchism as an ideology cannot achieve the long-term liberation of the masses. Historically through practice we know that Marxism is the path towards this.

it would imply that liberation of the mass hurts individuals… something that is blatantly untrue

I don't see how this is implied anywhere here. The opposite of this, however, is true. The whole premise of liberalism is some vague idealistic freedom of the individual which in reality includes the freedom to enslave and exploit others.

I am convinced that Anarchism’s true flaws lie in contradictions with itself, flaws that would reveal an entirely different philosophy (possibly Marxism, true) if analyzed and reconciled.

You're basically saying if anarchism was correct, it would be Marxism which is true but a meaningless statement. Anarchists are more than welcome to learn and become Marxists but this doesn't save the ideology of anarchism form being incorrect.

And, finally, the post we’re literally talking on shows a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism.

It's just a meme which does expose some of the flaws and contradictions in anarchism but it's by no means a theoretical analysis of it. Marxist analyses of anarchism have been done (I linked some of them in my previous comment) and all reach the same conclusion. The ideology of anarchism is not salvageable because it is fundamentally flawed.

How is it some kind of own that an anarchist doesn’t have a solid plan for space travel? Why is it presumed that everyone should want to have a solid plan for space travel? Why is our desire for space travel seen as automatically more valid than a desire to just exist without oppression?

Space travel here is just a bit of an exaggerated example but it really can be substituted by any sufficiently complex industry or endeavor which is necessary for the continuation of society. We cannot go backwards, we have reached a certain industrial, scientific and technological complexity which we keep advancing and which is necessary to feed, house, and educate all the people on Earth and is necessary for our daily lives to continue functioning properly. After capitalism, these things will still need to happen and this will require further organization and societal structures or institutions which when communist build them, anarchist call out as bad. Not to mention the protection of such a society from counterrevolution or outside imperialist forces.

Arguing that anarchists couldn’t achieve space travel doesn’t dismiss or debunk their beliefs

Saying that anarchist couldn't achieve space travel follows directly from a debunk of their beliefs because in order to actually achieve space travel you need to first have a successful revolution and then a successful society which can fulfill all the basic needs of its people and then deal with all the technological and scientific work necessary for space travel which the anarchist ideology does not provide a basis for. If anarchists actually create a materially plausible plan for any of this, it basically just sound like a Marxist type socialism and not anarchism.

I don't think there is that much widespread misunderstanding of anarchism among Marxists. The differences aren't just in the tactics to achieve communism but are fundamental philosophical differences that are present at the very root of each movement. Anarchism is fundamentally an individualistic and idealistic ideology that is incompatible with dialectical materialist Marxism.

I love SLAMMER. This one with the bees attacking a cop is my favorite.

I would also add a book that helped me quite a bit with understanding diamat along side the things already mentioned, although I don't know how valuable the examples are if you're not familiar with some biology.

The Dialectical Biologist by Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin

Specifically the last chapter "Conclusion: Dialectics" is great because they go through the various aspects of dialectics with various biological (and some other) examples. A critical reading of this chapter with me analyzing the examples given and also trying to come up with my own really helped me.

Some essays like this one were also quite useful: https://redsails.org/what-is-dialectics/