Sorry if there is already a thread about this. I know it's the idea that what the Bolsheviks did in Russia doesn't apply to today, but is there any more to this theory and who are it's main proponents? Also, are there any who justify and support this theory around here. I don't think anyone wants to copy exactly what the Bolsheviks did, but I think that there organizational structures were basically correct (such as a mass party, using state power to suppress the bourgeoisie, etc. etc.)
If we think of same thing theory of decadence of capitalism is theory which stands behind ICC. It's not thier "invention" (it was developed by Luxemburg, Bilan etc.), but I think that they are only organisation which stand behind it. Here you have their pamphlet on decadence: http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/decadence Also, I've posted few articles related to that topic: Here you can find articles of ICC on decadence: http://en.internationalism.org/series/779 http://en.internationalism.org/booktree/3448 and this is ICT's critique: http://www.leftcom.org/en/basics/decadence To answer on OP, I don't think that decadence is so much about what Bolsheviks did. It's more like a theory which explains why capitalism will collaps sooner or later (because of crisis etc.) and why does communists need to organise for revolution to create communism etc. etc. Also, theory of decadence explains how capitalist crisis may resoult with another imperialist war...
I think one of the things that Brosa refers to which does have to do with the (implications of the) theory of decadence in terms of the Bolsheviks' tactics is on party organisation. However, in this sense Brosa, the Bolsheviks weren't a mass party; they were a 'professional', militant, cadre party. It was the Mensheviks who pursued the 'mass party' line (and more so, the SPD and the Labour Party for instance). Lenin argued that the mass party was not capable of acting as a revolutionary vanguard; later developments I suppose of this idea would go along the lines that the mass party was the correct tactic in the period of capitalism's advance, when it was still possible for the woring class to fight for meaningful and lasting reforms, and use parliament to argue for the interests of the workers. In the period of capitalism's decadence, the mass party is no longer a fitting vehicle for the militant minorities of the working class - now the task is no longer to win reforms from capitalism while developing our forces and organisation, now ios the time to destroy capitalism and the state. In this period of history what is needed is a militant revolutionary party not a 'broad church' including both reformists and revolutionaries. One of the things I think that seperates the Communist Left from the likes of the Impossiblists of the SPGB (who I have a lot of time for in many other respects) is that Left Communists don't see that a socialist consciousness (as in, a vision of where we want to go and how we can get there) needs to be generalised in the working class before the revolution itself; the revolution will begin in (many) small ways and workers in struggle will learn and develop ways of struggling that in and of themselves will be revolutionary. I don't think out task is to 'make socialists' as such (though 'making socalists' isn't a bad thing per se). So there's no real need for a 'mass party' to 'educate' the working class because the working class is perfectly capable of learning as it goes along - in the struggle. The workers' councils are the 'mass' organs of the working class. The revolutionary organisation is a different organ, composed of revolutionary militants. Most workers are not revolutionaries and will become so only in the revolution. Anyway; not totally sure that was all to the point, but I hope it was.
Agree with Blake's Baby: what was new about Bolshevism was that it signified the emergence of a new conception of the party appropriate to the conditions of capitalist decadence. This is why the KAPD in Germany identified so strongly with it in their early years.
However, in this sense Brosa, the Bolsheviks weren't a mass party; they were a 'professional', militant, cadre party. This isn't true. By the early 1910's (I think 1913 exactly) the Bolsheviks became a mass party. As user ComradeOm says, by 1917 the vanguard party was basically a myth and the Bolsheviks were mad up of the most revolutionary soviets, trade unions, etc. Lenin argued that the mass party was not capable of acting as a revolutionary vanguard; later developments I suppose of this idea would go along the lines that the mass party was the correct tactic in the period of capitalism's advance, when it was still possible for the woring class to fight for meaningful and lasting reforms, and use parliament to argue for the interests of the workers The party isn't just a tool for reforms and working within parliament. In fact, I along with many Leninists would argue against this point. I also agree that a mass party cannot act as a revolutionary vanguard in times of low class consciousness among the working class. It should only contain a minority of the party in this context. Once a wider class conscious is achieved, the party will probably naturally evolve into a mass party. I take a strict Bordigist approach on this issue. In the period of capitalism's decadence, the mass party is no longer a fitting vehicle for the militant minorities of the working class - now the task is no longer to win reforms from capitalism while developing our forces and organisation, now ios the time to destroy capitalism and the state. In this period of history what is needed is a militant revolutionary party not a 'broad church' including both reformists and revolutionaries. I would agree with this, except I do not agree with crushing the state right away. I agree with crushing the bourgeoisie and their state, but establishing a proletariat state. One of the things I think that seperates the Communist Left from the likes of the Impossiblists of the SPGB (who I have a lot of time for in many other respects) is that Left Communists don't see that a socialist consciousness (as in, a vision of where we want to go and how we can get there) needs to be generalised in the working class before the revolution itself; the revolution will begin in (many) small ways and workers in struggle will learn and develop ways of struggling that in and of themselves will be revolutionary. I don't think out task is to 'make socialists' as such (though 'making socalists' isn't a bad thing per se). So there's no real need for a 'mass party' to 'educate' the working class because the working class is perfectly capable of learning as it goes along - in the struggle. I do not agree. Without a organization like the party which has a broad and forward seeking outlook the working class will be stuck in workerist and immediatist struggles instead of struggles for a new society. The workers' councils are the 'mass' organs of the working class. The revolutionary organisation is a different organ, composed of revolutionary militants. Most workers are not revolutionaries and will become so only in the revolution. I would agree with this, and this makes the vanguard party all the more important.
