Of course. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

When the most pressing conflicts are between anarchists and communists, the most important victories will already have been won

Once socialism has brought us world wide communism, sure UwU But honestly I don't think Anarchists and Communists could coexist in times where it would be important to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Or generally, in times where Communism hasn't yet been brought about. The Anarchists would simply disagree with our approach and fight against it, I assume. So I'd say they'd stand in our way big time.. Same with the Trotskyists.

I've considered myself an anarchist for most of my life. I organize with people who are too, but I also routinely go to meetings with explicitly Marxist organizations and do shit with them because I'm a centrist.

We historically aren’t usually the ones who fuck up that alliance. Typically(and this is really generalizing, not always true or in this order) the Left in general work together against the Fascists, the Reds then use their authority to try to keep the Revolution on the right path. Then the Anarchists come out either trying to revolt by themselves or they join a color revolution that the bourgeoisie create and they don’t think twice about it. It’s the duty of the Marxists to be open with their beliefs. We aren’t a final boss or anything who “betrays you at the last second, because we had devious plans that we were hiding from the start”, that’s weird af, we let Anarchists know that Big tent will work for a while, but at some point you need to start reading Theory to understand how and why authority is necessary.

Would anarchists be okay with an "authoritarian" dicatatorship of the proletariat? Or would MLs be pkay with an anarchist government ripe for exploitation by foreign powers? I'd say no, so it would be highly unlikely after the initial overthrow of capitalist power.

Joseph Stalin's "Anarchism or Socialism" is a pretty clear and concise piece on this question that always gets recommended as introductory Marxist-Leninist reading so I'm surprised it hasn't been recommended in this thread yet.

We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies.

only westerners come to anarchism and all other idiotic ideological deviations .

Yes. It's a temporary distinction at best.

I don't think they're compatible in the long-term. I think there's room to work together on shared goals (the end of capitalism or dunking on shitlibs here), but I don't think we have the same end goals.

From my understanding, the communism MLs refer to is an efficiently administered, high technology, advanced industrial society. My understanding of the end-goal of anarchists is not compatible with that society.

no, we can coexist and even collaborate before and during a revolution but after it, it needs to be decided if a socialist state will emerge or an anarchist society...there simply is no middle-ground between so called "anarchism" and a government so one has to go

History says no. But who knows what a reconstructed Europe and North America would look like? It would be a novel situation to say the least, so if capital were to be defeated maybe a society could be built by collaboration between the two.

Do you really realistically think that Marxist-Leninists can cooperate with the ones who view us as literal fascists?

Do you realistically believe that the ones who are against authority and centralization and sometimes even work will last long enough to coexist with Marxist-Leninists?

No. Mandatory reading by u/aimixin on why anarchism and socialism are fundamentally opposed.

2nd but also good one.

There are lots of people who are anarchists because they like the aesthetics, just as there are some people who just like the aesthetics of communism (PatSocs, for example). What a person self-desribes as only tells you so much. As I like to say, for any given definition of socialism that you can imagine, you can always find someone who agrees and thinks it's bad and someone who agrees and thinks it's good.

I'd also like to point out that Mao was an anarchist at one point, funny enough.

I think it really depends on the person and the context. Communists and anarchists co-exist right now but I'm guessing that's not what you mean.

Depends on what principles they have