There's this interesting paper called Against Prefiguration: An Anarchist Iconoclasm by Frankie Hines in the latest Anarchist Studies journal and I think it raises very important points but I think a lot of those problems go away if one espouses anarchy as scale-independent and is consequentialist, as @rechelon does, in their ethics.

Interesting points it raises includes:

1. Marxism/Marxism-Leninism is an outlier in the sense of being a non-prefigurative politics, whereas anarchism, liberalism, fascism are all prefigurative consistently and the emphasis on prefigurative politics in anarchist self-understanding is a result of trying to distinguish it from Marxism.

2. Anarchist prefiguration entails pacifism. Pacifism is wrong. Therefore, we must reject prefiguration. (The author doesn't say we should give up on means and ends as such, but rather using prefiguration as a central defining feature of anarchism)

My problem is also that this account seems to treat all actions as same types of actions. Like vanguardism and violence need not both be accepted or rejected because they are not similar types of things to prefigure about/against. For example, we oppose vanguardism because it is non-anarchic; we oppose violence only when it is done for unethical ends or when it is ineffective strategically/tactically. So the kind of worries that may motivate this article seem to me to be misplaced because they are based on a sense of equivocation.

Similarly, if anarchy and therefore anarchism is scale-independent, then questions of prefiguration or the relation between means and ends is a secondary aspect that we concern ourselves with, no matter how important. This means that we practice anarchism not simply because we want to create anarchy through our actions (which we do) but that's what anarchism implies. If scale-independence is prefiguration, then perhaps Hines is wrong to say that all political ideologies are prefigurative. But I think scale-independence and prefiguration are related but non-identical concepts.