Communism

I'll give you that much: Communists don't have a leader cult, it was wrong to imply it. They have the concept of "democratic centralism" which slowly but steadily shifts its emphasis from the first to the second bit.

Thanks for the acknowledment.

First of all, centralization is core to Marxism, without it there can be no economic democracy. Second of all, without the results of democratic decisions being binding, a centralized system cannot function.

Also "the ends that justify all means" was an exaggeration to emphasize the difference that anarchists focus on using only power structures they want to see in the liberated society while communists think they can get to a horizontal power structure via a vertical one. Anarchists say power structures reproduce themselves and that's why it's important to have the right one from the start. Communists lack any meaningful analysis of power structures but dismiss them as the superstructure that will follow the material base eventually.

Communists don't want a horizontal power structure. Hierarchy isn't the problem, class is. Communists absolutely have meaningful analysis of power structures, I can recommend reading on it if you want but don't insinuate that it doesn't exist.

So the "strong leader" is by no means core of communist ideology but merely a byproduct. Happy now?

No, because "strong leader" isn't a byproduct of Communism. What is typically seen as "strong leader" type government is a combination of slander, careful exaggeration of facts, and the unfortunate necessity of underdeveloped productive forces. As productive forces advance into large syndicates through Capitalism, so too can they be siezed and democratized, without that there cannot be true economic democracy.

Yes, that concept is used in anarchism, too. How does that fit to what you said before? Anarchists want it overnight (not literally but still) and communists suggest the same mechanism? What is the difference between the anarchist dual power that you dismiss as "not literally [but still] over night" and the Marxist one?

Marxists don't believe private property can be abolished without markets coalescing into monopolist syndicates that can be socialized, and as such the state remains an instrument of class suppression. Marxists also advocate for centralization, and are fine with hierarchy.

For me it's the already mentioned lack of analysis of power structure. Communists want an "over night" revolution, put the right people in charge and they will sort things out. Anarchists will and have argued that (1.) power corrupts and (2.) positions of power attract the wrong people. I do believe Lenin that he came into power with good intentions but the power blinded him and he put "the cause" over everything else (like the workers in Kronstadt and let's not get into Makhnov). For Stalin, well, see (2.).

No, Communists advocate for democratization. The Vanguard isn't some unaccountable beast. The Anarchist position that "power corrupts" and "attracts the wrong people" is answered by implementation of bottom-up structures like the Mass Line and accountability measures like Recall Elections.

Anarchists on the other hand say we need to build and work with horizontal power structures from the start and put a lot of emphasis not only on the critiques of existing hierarchies, but also into how hierarchies come into existence. There are "skill shares" for example to avoid "knowledge hierarchies" by teaching what you know to others and avoiding to be "the one and only expert". Still, some people are better in things than others and will have a "natural authority" that never should succeed their expertise.

I'm aware of what Anarchists believe and want, the issue Communists take with that is that Marxists don't see inherent problems with hierarchy, nor do they believe Anarchism can actually be implemented in the context of a global Capitalist system.