Because ML relies on a vanguard party and a centralised leadership.
You’re right side to side is a better analogy, but bottom-up is generally how grass roots movements are described so I found it the better layman term.
That’s a misconception on what a vanguard party is. But in truth it’s a misconception some (usually young and misinformed) MLs also make.
A “vanguard party” is a post hoc definition. You can’t have a “vanguard party” in the now. The “vanguard party” is just the group of people ahead ideologically during a revolution, and who guide and lead the people. And it’s only something you can actually say after the revolution is over, when the dust settled.
No group should self define as a vanguard, or should even try to be one. That makes very little sense.
When the revolution happens, some people and some groups will naturally emerge as leaders (as in leading the way, not sowing orders). And it won’t be the people who called themselves “the vanguard” even before a revolution even started.
You can see that in history, no revolutionary group in any successful revolution called themselves the vanguard party. Specially not during the revolution. Not the Chinese Communists, not the Bolsheviks, not the Cuban revolutionaries, not Ho Chi Minh etc etc.
That’s what the original definition of what a vanguard party was. A post hoc descriptor of the “most advanced” group in a revolution, given after the revolution is over.
Also, never heard any communist or ML say or think that “centralized leadership” was a requirement for anything. You’re probably be mixing up “democratic centralism” with centralized leadership.
And democratic centralism is just how all organizations work really. If there’s a discussion, that is followed by a vote, and a decision is made, all organization members should abide by the decision. Regardless if they voted for or against it. That’s just the basics on how an organization can even be, well, organized.
How is Marxism Leninism “top-down”? And anarchism is not “bottom-up” either. It’s idk, “side to side”. There is no “up” in anarchism.
Because ML relies on a vanguard party and a centralised leadership.
You’re right side to side is a better analogy, but bottom-up is generally how grass roots movements are described so I found it the better layman term.
That’s a misconception on what a vanguard party is. But in truth it’s a misconception some (usually young and misinformed) MLs also make.
A “vanguard party” is a post hoc definition. You can’t have a “vanguard party” in the now. The “vanguard party” is just the group of people ahead ideologically during a revolution, and who guide and lead the people. And it’s only something you can actually say after the revolution is over, when the dust settled.
No group should self define as a vanguard, or should even try to be one. That makes very little sense.
When the revolution happens, some people and some groups will naturally emerge as leaders (as in leading the way, not sowing orders). And it won’t be the people who called themselves “the vanguard” even before a revolution even started.
You can see that in history, no revolutionary group in any successful revolution called themselves the vanguard party. Specially not during the revolution. Not the Chinese Communists, not the Bolsheviks, not the Cuban revolutionaries, not Ho Chi Minh etc etc.
That’s what the original definition of what a vanguard party was. A post hoc descriptor of the “most advanced” group in a revolution, given after the revolution is over.
Also, never heard any communist or ML say or think that “centralized leadership” was a requirement for anything. You’re probably be mixing up “democratic centralism” with centralized leadership.
And democratic centralism is just how all organizations work really. If there’s a discussion, that is followed by a vote, and a decision is made, all organization members should abide by the decision. Regardless if they voted for or against it. That’s just the basics on how an organization can even be, well, organized.