It may be that the anarchists you're familiar with aren't the ones typical of the movement. I was in Seattle during the WTO riots, when the black-clad fellers from Eugene lit dumpsters on fire and shoved them downhill toward the police, the other protesters, and us civilians. If you're of a historical turn of mind you might be aware that in the decades leading up to World War I, anarchists murdered no fewer than five heads of state including an American President: Czar Alexander II of Russia, President Carnot of France, King Umberto of Italy, Empress Elisabeth of Austro-Hungary, and William McKinley of the United States. Five acting heads of state. That's actually pretty impressive if you're into that sort of thing.
IIRC a lot of the “anarchists” during the WTO riots were later determined to be government agent provocateurs.
I don’t think the historical anarchists from a century ago really have any contemporary equivalents.
There may be anarchists on the street...but the money and power is somewhere else...
Lenin advocated limiting party membership to a smaller core of active members, as opposed to “card carriers” who might only be active in party branches from time to time or not at all. This active base would develop the cadre, a core of “professional revolutionaries”, consisting of loyal communists who would spend most of their time organising the party toward a mass revolutionary party capable of leading a workers’ revolution against the Tsarist autocracy.
One final difference between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks was simply how ferocious and tenacious the party was willing to be in order to achieve its goals.
A few “leaders” on the streets...the rest are useful idiots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsheviks
The Bolsheviks were willing to use unlimited violence to take power...and to RULE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution