called "democratic centralism". I'm sure you're familiar with it Jack, but for those who aren't, in a nutshell, it means that the members of the vanguard party engage in THOROUGH debate over principles for as long as it takes to decide an issue by a majority vote. THEN after the issue is decided, the members support the position that was debated on and passed by a majority vote. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE ISSUE IS NECESSARILY OVER. It can always be brought up again at the next meeting. The minority opposition ALWAYS has the freedom and resources necessary to bring it to the table again. At least that's the way it is SUPPOSED to work. This means that the vanguard is NOT a rubber stamp for a single leader, but is the true representative of the working class. The ideas bubble up from the bottom and the vanguard helps to implement them.
In bureaucratic centralism (of a Stalinist model), the bureaucracy decides FOR the party and debate and disagreement can be cut off and even punished. IOW, bureaucratic centralism is a top down model. Democratic centralism is bottom up. The "democratic" part shares a lot with anarchists. But both are needed. Without the dicipline of the "centralism" nothing will get done, not the least of which would be defending a revolution from a capitalist counterattack. The democratic part would confine positions to those agreed upon by the majority of the working class and COULD BE CHANGED AT ANY TIME THE MAJORITY CHANGED IT'S MIND.
I also see where this part could work even better today than in the past because of the ease of communication in today's wired in world.