Anarchists have worked with MLs in the past and will again in the future, if we all facilitate it. Not all anarchists are adamant that the state must be abolished immediately otherwise we're mortal enemies. Obviously we'd prefer a revolution which does do that, but if that's not the revolution that's happening then I, along with plenty of others, will be perfectly ready to contribute to whatever is happening. Even if it's flawed, even if it's not exactly what I want.

The point at which it grows dangerous is when anarchists who gladly took part in the creation of something they saw as sub-optimal are left out of the discussion moving forward, disrespected and discarded. That's where the violence breaks out and no one wins that.

We resolve it by fostering actual unity, by treating each other as equals through ideological and strategic disagreements and forming the sorts of bonds which will withstand those disagreements. I don't think there's that much more difference between anarchists and MLs as general categories than between plenty of ML sub-categories, and likewise we have seen plenty of disagreement and sectarian violence among MLs. If you think you can unite MLs as a single force working in unison, then I don't see any reason you shouldn't also be able to unite MLs and anarchists.

The other approach I've heard people talk about before is simply not uniting at all. And not even trying. Let MLs organize together, let anarchists handle themselves. The two groups are allied with one another but distinctly separate. I can see the logic behind this, but I think that alliance would break apart all too easily.