The main reason for this should be searched for in the logic of the relationship between the vanguard party and the working class itself. The working class has a heterogeneous structure in many dimensions in every country. This fact, which is also related to the law of unequal development of capitalism, defines the ideological, political and cultural characteristics of the working class. There are differences which lead to important social consequences between i.e. educated workers and unskilled workers, between industrial workers and services’ workers, between workers in the metal sector and workers in the IT sector. The working class does not represent the average of this richness. The vanguard party acts by putting the working class itself or its historical interests to the centre above all the internal differences within the working class. Therefore, the vanguard party intervenes in social life in a monistic, non pluralist, manner. Its politics runs from the whole to the parts and localism is not permitted.
The centralised character takes its essence from this and it cannot not be reduced to the internal functioning of the party (discipline, solidness etc.). This is one of the factors that rendered the Bolsheviks more advantageous in 1917. As it is the case in all revolutionary uprisings, in Russia of 1917 working class masses were mobilised, they participated in new and novel organisational practices and took innumerable initiatives. This mobilisation of the working class created a revolutionary energy that could only be benefited by a centralised and consistent policy. Both Mensheviks and other smaller anarchist groups lost influence trying to go after this mobility, they fell away from understanding the real meaning of the quest of the working class.
Some of the reasons that the Mensheviks, one of the strongest components of the Bolsheviks within the working class movement, were not able to take initiative in various times in 1917 when they had a strong hand, were the continuous uncertainty about how to intervene in the given objectivity, the fact that they took into account each of the different tendencies in the working class and that its leadership got directly influenced by this fragmentation. They also were trapped into solutions within the capitalist system which in the last analysis were indeed reactionary.
It is not possible to argue that the Bolsheviks were not influenced by this variety in any way. It is well known that important differences of opinion emerged at critical turning points of 1917 inside the central committee of the party, between the central committee and the military organisation, between the central committee and the representatives of the soviets, between the central committee and Petrograd organisation. These differences of opinion that put the party in a difficult situation at times and brought it at the verge of destruction, were documented.
However, the Bolshevik tradition did not experience any confusion of mind thanks to its strong leadership and personal authority of Lenin and even though there was some hesitation, it was able to carry the working class to power by doing the right intervention at the most crucial moment.
The “technical” perfectness of the act of 6-7 November, which was symbolised by the takeover of the Winter Palace, but which was in fact a move towards eliminating the dual power in favour of the working class, generally leads to the misconception that the superiority of the Bolsheviks comes from organisational acts. However, the Bolsheviks used to put the consistent understanding of politics and the perspective of gaining the political power to the centre of every tactic initiative. Their organisational and operational capacity was a result of this perspective.
To explain the importance of the unity of the working class party, the authority of its leadership and its consistency, it is enough to take a look to the picture of Russia in 1917. Many cases show that in the revolutionary struggle there are no absolute “right”s or “wrong”s. Defining a decision or an attitude as “wrong” or “right” might not be possible, even a posteriori. What is important at this point is consistency; how consecutive decisions feed each other and the existence of a solid revolutionary strategy.
The guarantee for this is the strength of the leadership and its continuity. A revolutionary party cannot change strategy at every turning point, cannot renew its leadership every now and then and cannot succeed with a leadership that does not have authority over the party.
The most tragic evidence demonstrating the vitality of this feature of the Leninist party, came out just two years after the October Revolution in Germany which was considered the most significant centre of the international labour movement. The confusion experienced in the founding congress of KPD among the Spartacists, who had decided to break off from social democracy and to establish a communist party while the German working class was uprising in many locations, is very instructive. The most important and well-known leaders of the movement, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht could not convince the delegates in the discussions regarding the position that should be taken in the coming elections, so the leadership had to stand behind a decision that they did not share and the party rolled into a big tragedy in which the following few months it lost its two precious leaders.
This is an example of the formal democracy being fetishised.
Another fact that we have learned from the German example regarding the theory of the vanguard party is the limits of the spontaneous actions of the working class.
Although they were always on the revolutionary side of the German labour movement, the most significant weakness of Luxemburg and Liebknecht was their sceptical approach towards the idea of the “vanguard party” and their overemphasis on the autogenous actions of the working class, especially as far as the mass strikes were concerned.
In the article written by Rosa Luxemburg in 1918, it is obviously seen how right and wrong are intertwined and how the role of the vanguard party is underestimated:
“The Spartacus League will never take over governmental power except in response to the clear, unambiguous will of the great majority of the proletarian mass of all of Germany, never except by the proletariat’s conscious affirmation of the views, aims, and methods of struggle of the Spartacus League.
The proletarian revolution can reach full clarity and maturity only by stages, step by step, on the Golgotha-path of its own bitter experiences in struggle, through defeats and victories.
The victory of the Spartacus League comes not at the beginning, but at the end of the Revolution: it is identical with the victory of the great million-strong masses of the socialist proletariat.” 
This quoted passage not only gives idea about the role of the weaknesses of the “subjective factors” in the failure of the German revolution, but also demonstrates the advantages of the understanding of organisation that the Bolsheviks possessed during the October Revolution.
Rosa Luxemburg talks about great majority; but she evidently forgets that the quantitative magnitudes cannot be calculated in revolutions, that the balances change every single hour, that all the revolutions in history have been achieved by a dynamic mass support that enables the takeover of power not by 51 percent majority and that her comrade Karl Liebknecht did not have any evidence that the great majority was supporting the decision when he was announcing the Soviet rule in Germany in front of Reichstag in the same period!
The October Revolution was achieved because the will of millions of workers was in this direction, not because the “great majority”, which we don’t have a criteria for measuring, wished so.
It is sad that an uncompromising revolutionary like Rosa Luxemburg, who hated capitalism to death, moves so far away from the perspective of taking the political power, takes a dim view of the idea of the vanguard party and further attempts to undermine the fact that the takeover of power is the start of a socialist revolution.
While comparing Russia of 1917 and Germany of 1919, we don’t depart from the view that the revolution would triumph in Germany if there wasn’t the emptiness of the vanguard party. It is hard to conjecture that. However, it is certain that the Russian Revolution would not end up with a proletarian rule in the absence of the Leninist party.
So, we reach to the final point that we wish to underline. October Revolution is more than a simple break off from social democracy. The meaning of continuing with the name of “communist party” in the international arena after the revolution is to clarify the raison d’etre of working class parties. Communist parties will obviously face various duties; they will struggle for daily demands but also against war, against fascism or racism, for liberties and for peace. However, these do not rule out the main mission of communist parties: Communist Party is a party seeking socialist revolution. It has to tie all types of undertakings to this end.
This is exactly what Lenin’s party indicated in 1917;
This is the reason why our path is the path of the October Revolution, our path is the path of the Bolshevik party.