It's true: "given war conditions," it's hard to imagine any other kind of organization.
The problem is that this is exactly the same (basically correct) argument that the Bolsheviks used for their "democratic" centralism: Tsarist repression, civil war, imperialist invasion, economic collapse.
So what's the basis for the anarchists to criticize the Bolsheviks?
One could argue that Lenin's book THE STATE AND REVOLUTION indicated anarchist predilections (not to mention a certain amount of utopianism). That means that by the above argument, _his_ "highly centralized party-type apparatus" was just as justified as the FAI's. The end justifies the means (at least in this argument).
It seems that the anarchists are applying a double standard when criticizing the Bolsheviks on these issues. Just as the Bolsheviks apply a double standard to the anarchists on some issues (like on the issue of utopianism). There's a certain amount of sectarianism on both sides of this divide.
Now, I'm not opposed to have some kind of socialist political party that acts as a "vanguard" and might be forced to have a top-down organization, given government repression and the like. (However, I wouldn't call it "democratic centralist" because that abuses the word democratic.)
The question is: does the "vanguard" party simply try to empower itself, substituting itself for the working class and other oppressed groups in power? or does it try to help the oppressed organize themselves? The same questions should be asked of parliamentary parties.
and does the party leadership simply try to create careers for themselves, substituting themselves for the rank-and-file of the party? or do they try to create more potential leaders from the among the rank and file, so eventually the organization could all potentially be leaders? again the same questions should be asked of the leadership of a parliamentary party.
for socialism from below,
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html