Dude, I only complained about Kronstadt because the Bolsheviks rejected worker's self-management and direct democracy on principle. In response to people complaining about the Bolsheviks not actually doing the main demands and even reversing the revolution, the Bolsheviks just stomped on them.
The SRs (not to be confused with Kerensky or reformist politicians. Which by the way is like judging the Bolsheviks by the actions of Mensheviks. The SRs were very loose.) were objectively what the people wanted. They wanted a confederal direct democracy with small yeoman farmers and workers managing their own means of production.
Violence and terror is fine if its democratized. Not if its done by a centralized entity or by vocal minority mobs like antifa. (Anarchists are pretty guilty of the latter often.)
FAI is garbage because they care more about muh anarchism than actually letting workers and farmers control their own lives.
Also, I'm not an anarchist. Just because I hate Leninists doesn't mean anarchists are perfect either. The Kronstadt sailors weren't even anarchists either. They were mostly radical SRs who wanted a confederal direct democracy and free soviets.
The Bolsheviks from the start wanted a vanguard party to seize power and run the country. The idea that elected officers are impractical can be easily debunked by the performance of the Boers in the Boer Wars or even by the military performance of the Cossacks. Considering that the Soviets have a population advantage, especially if they didn't alienate the peasantry, I don't see how it'd change things for the worse. Hell, the 20th century proved, if anything, that decentralized military decision-making is better. The armies that gave the most initiative to their officers and NCOs were often the most successful tactically.
Same cane be said for the apparatchiks. If the goal is worker's control, then why install factory managers who are unaccountable? For 'muh efficiency'? No one can prove that the worker-managed enterprise is less efficient, and arguing that basically robs a worker's revolution of all justification.
Bolshevism, at its best, is dogmatic with the idea of 'historical progress' like their Menshevik counterparts. (This part of Marxism is basically Whig theory but communist.) At worst, its just a flimsy justification to establish a party oligarchy.
The anarchists, however, deserve plenty of critique as well. They bitch and moan about muh progroms. They ignore the socially conservative attitudes about the very workers and peasants that they claim to support. Makhno literally shot a Green army ally of his in the back just for muh Jews. Ukrainian nationalists, who were actually socialists who were sympathetic to the idea of worker's self-management and free soviets, were turned down because of their nationalism. The Makhnovites ignored the fact that their movement was popular because the peasantry saw them as the second coming of the Zaporozhian host.
If anarchists weren't such ideological retards, the Bolsheviks would have been overthrown. I mean, look at how people treat the SR cause. At best, modern people only consider the SRINOs like Kerensky who was more like a Kadet or Menshevik than a SR and proceed to write them as succdems. At worst, they're completely ignored despite being the most popular force in Russia. All because no modern form of ideological autism/label fits them.
Bolshevism was just a bunch of ideologue retards who basically took an angry army of ex-soldiers and unleashed them on the peasantry of Russia when THEY had their own revolution in the countryside, taking the land from the large landowners and redistributing among themselves. All without any anarchist or Marxist ideologues telling them to do so for the most part. (Even Makhno simply rode off that wave.)