What are the best ML arguments against “great men” or a tightly organized elite being the drivers of history, who allegedly drive “the masses”? I am struggling to see how so many revolutions would have succeeded merely by waiting for the masses to rise up by themselves? I am still trying to learn and can’t understand why ML condemns elite theory, or am I not getting something? Sorry still a bit new and trying to learn, thank you in advance!
Plekhanov deals with this topic and many closely related issues is his On the Role of the Individual in History (1898) essay. I would recommend you read this in its entirety first.
This is not the ML dialectical materialist view. If you’re interested in exploring the relationship of masses and elites, which you’ve probably observed only in the reactionary West, I would recommend this essay from Roderic Day: Masses, Elites, and Rebels. When you read past revolutionaries like Lenin praising the proletariat for being revolutionary and holding the correct ideas, that’s not them sucking up to them, it’s a real description of a revolutionary proletariat in a revolutionary time lead by a communist party. Also, this short text by Stalin covers a very brief overview of the dialectical nature of these relationships.
Maybe you would also be interested in Gramsci’s writings about intellectuals and political parties from his Prison Notebooks, or dialectical materialist philosophy in general.
Some recommendations: there are more good essays on the topic on Red Sails, In Defense of Materialism - Plekhanov, The Dialectics of Nature - Engels, The Dialectical Biologist - Lewins and Levontin, Materialism and Empirio-criticism - Lenin
Thank you for clearing this up, and for the recommendations!