This question is difficult to answer. It requires that there is one anarchism, that there is a goal to that anarchism, and that the problems facing that goal are both identifiable and ordered by the difficulty involved in overcoming them.
I do not believe there is one anarchism. There are many different ideologies under the term anarchism, and they are not all compatible with each other. There is also within each anarchist a series of tensions that redefine themselves, and relationships with other things that evolve and permutate. In all of these anarchys we find a wide range of goals and visions, and a huge variability in the understanding of success. In these anarchisms there also lies the possibility for failure, for dissonance, and for tendencies that do not define goals as things to reach, or to be faced by identifiable and ordered problems.
Often problems are identified as "the big problem" as a way to avoid how complicated the world is, and how likely we are to fail. If the biggest problem is location, we can all move to one place. If the biggest problem is sexism we can find ways to call each other out and standardize accountability. If the biggest problem is violence, we can police each other. etc, etc. I don't think we can be that righteous.
Perhaps one problem is our fear of the variability of anarchism, and the variability of its outcomes.
