The contradiction will be only resolved on a personal or regional level for anarchist and MLs under the pressure of practice in a project dominated by the other approach, but not in a project wide scale. How you chose to engage with it and its organs, what stance you keep while the project is under danger and siege, how you chose to try and influence it to act towards your ideal in the level you participate in, do you even chose to participate in it and the structures that arose even though they arent what your ideology planed or would do in a similar situation ?

Do you think being an anarchist presupposes organizing against and undermining ,often violently, any non anarchist structure that would come out of a non anarchist revolution. If you think that being an Anarchist after a non anarchist revolution or project gets going means that you will either have to organize against the new state and structures on principle no matter what they are or to fully abandon anarchism to particpate in them and supporting them then too bad for anarchists. Same thing with MLs in a similar situation. Will it be the dichotomy of either trying to infiltrate turn every structure into a Demcentralist one and organize against the very structures of the anarchist/anarchist leaning project or completely abandon their beliefs in order to not get thrown into horizontaly organized labor camps? Too bad for you.

If you present all that as a given then yeah you will face consequences and be supressed in one way or another. The solution shouldnt be from the DotP and party in one case or the Anarchist federation of communes or whatever on the other case to change their structure and approach just so that anarchists/MLs can participate in it while feeling like they are still acting productively based on their ideology. Such changes should only be and can only be implemented and developed if they actualy help to defend and develop the project towards communism and if on practice they work better. If Anarchists are a sizable minority of politicaly active people after a non anarchist revolution or under a non anarchist state then yes, it is to the best interests of the project as far as success of the project goes to incorporate their practices and solutions into "middle of the road stuff" just in order for the project to run smoothly, but

A. Historicaly this has never been even remotely the case. Anarchism, despite what people like Chomsky would say, never had strong popular backing or support in revolutionary societies before and after ,other than regionaly, and was suppressed when both they took concrete actions against existing structure after the revolution and when "meeting them in the middle" would mean change in policies determinal to the project at large taht would have put it at risk economicaly or geopoliticaly. In other cases like with regional anarchist popular movements in smaller parts of China or Korea pre or during revolution that didnt actively clashed with the project, they werent suppressed in even a remote similar degree and there was regional incorporations of both practices and philosophies of the communist party and state and the anarchist tradition ,even if it was to varying degrees of success and longlivety.

B. This "compromise" would still be what i described in the initial comment. A "middle ground" that would fall inside the communist tradition but outside and as break from anarchism . It wouldnt be non hierarchical or non statist. And if you think that still the majority of anarchists will operate against that on principle, act and organize against it or turn it into their ideal structure then again too bad for a lot of people. And again same with the other way around