Militancy - What does it mean in practice?

[Black Dagger]

Sooooo there's gonna be a discussion coming up soon with my locals about 'militancy' - and as i havent given the subject much deep-thought i think a good place to start would be to have a discussion on here, if that is possible.

Soooooo,

How do you define militancy? What is it? Is it a concept that is only realised through actions or something more complex? 'Militant thoughts' or 'militant attitudes', as well as being something practical?

Should we always be militant? Are there times when militancy is unncessary or ineffective? When is militancy most effective?

Hmmm? :)

[BobKKKindle$]

The idea of militancy for me is defined partly by actions, but actions that we might describe as militant stem from a certain perception and analysis of relations between workers and private enterprise - a recognition that the interests between these two groups are in constant opposition and that direct, and often violent confrontation is necessary to gain improvements in the condition of the working class. This is in contrast to calling for negotiation through established mechanisms, a willingness to make concessions, and the belief that a compromise can be reached between workers and employers during periods of industrial conflict. These underlying attitudes can be expressed in many ways - from something as simple as the language used to describe certain oppositional groups, to the the character of practical action undertaken, especially when the interests of workers and the gains that workers have made in the past are under threat.

Militancy is obviously a clear precondition for a revolution, because revolution is by its very nature a process in which no compromise is possible - it is an action by which one class overthrows another, to quote Mao Zedong. But in terms of gains within the framework within the Capitalist system, especially through Unions, I think militancy can only be effective when one has the broad support of the working class, such that the Capitalist has to accept militant demands because a reserve army of labour from which they can draw non-militant workers does not exist.

If we apply Materialism though and treat Militancy as an ideology, then it follows that Militancy must arise from certain material conditions, even if such an ideology eventually goes on to shape and determine further action. Perhaps it is the case that Militancy arises when workers feel they cannot defend their position through normal mechanisms, or are so confident of their position that they feel confrontational demands will be accomodated.

[Tiparith]

In a modern logical timeline for any revolution militancy is involved in shaping and defining the middle and end sections. To me a group must first build up wide local support, then wide national and international support. Then after they are a large minority, as in well known and liked, a faction can braked off and begin an underground guerilla war against the goverment (strictly military and goverment targets, communications, etc. NO CIVILIANS, NO MATTER WHAT). Soon the goverment will be weak enough for your entire group to wage open war against the establishment and overthrow it.

Well I reconize this doesn't help you define militancy it is my example of how militancy should be deployed and utilized.

[SPK]

The term “direct action” used to mean going up against the forces of the state and the bosses: fighting the cops, trashing during demos, occupying buildings or offices, blocking roads, and so on. The meaning of that term has gotten watered down over the years to basically signify anything that directly empowers individuals or so-called alternative communities – the power of a government is not recognized or related to either positively (pressuring the state for assistance or concessions) or negatively (opposing the state). Well-worn examples include: riding a bike to avoid contributing to pollution and global warming; cooking vegan meals to prevent the deaths of animals; living off the grid in communes to overcome the alienation and atomization of everyday life under capitalism; and so on. I guess “militancy” is still used in the original sense of “direct action” – making as your central, political task a challenge to the capitalist state; not avoiding it or trying to build alternative structures outside of it. I wouldn’t want that meaning to be diluted.

At least in the usa right now, militancy is desperately needed. Workers and the oppressed can engage in all of positive, affirming projects they want (let’s sew a quilt!), but those aren’t going to stop the amerikan empire from massacring hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Nor are strictly educational or community organizing efforts, which some on the left still so insistently hold onto as the primary political task in the current period. The majority of people in the usa oppose the war – millions came out in opposition before the war had even started -- so how much more fucking educational, consciousness-raising, or ideological-struggle work is necessary? With that kind of a vast, potential base, which is much larger than most other movements during the twentieth century, militant action should be able to find a foothold. It is the next, necessary step in the antiwar struggles.

[fashbash]

'Militant' was a group to the far left of the Labour Party in the UK during Thatcher's regime. They were responsible for building hundreds of new council properties in Liverpool in the eighties, and the creation of thousands of jobs. Needless to say, Thatcher didn't like it. In fact, much of what Liverpool's Militant councillors did was technically illegal, but the legacy remains today! Militant are heroes, as much so as the likes of Ernesto Guevara, and they deserve our reverence and respect.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Millitant can mean anything, really. There's even pacific millitancy, which is more or less nonviolent warfare.

[lithium]

I reckon militancy can be defined in quite dynamic terms, depending on your situation; you can be militant yet peaceful, or militant and commanding a unit of comrades during an attack on an arms barracks.

For me, in my situation, militancy is not being afraid of what the so-called authorities say; not being afraid to go out and make your voice heard; bending the rules of the law and still being cheeky enough to get away with it :) If you make no apologies for your beliefs, actively promote those beliefs, try to organise demonstrations, take part in whatever left-wing meetings you can, educate and organise your fellow workers, and have no problem in standing up for what you believe in even when other people say stuff like "oh maybe you shouldn't do that - you might get in a bit of trouble..." then I'd say you're pretty militant.

But like I said, it depends on your situation.

[Sir_No_Sir]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:17 pm
I reckon militancy can be defined in quite dynamic terms, depending on your situation; you can be militant yet peaceful, or militant and commanding a unit of comrades during an attack on an arms barracks.

For me, in my situation, militancy is not being afraid of what the so-called authorities say; not being afraid to go out and make your voice heard; bending the rules of the law and still being cheeky enough to get away with it :) If you make no apologies for your beliefs, actively promote those beliefs, try to organise demonstrations, take part in whatever left-wing meetings you can, educate and organise your fellow workers, and have no problem in standing up for what you believe in even when other people say stuff like "oh maybe you shouldn't do that - you might get in a bit of trouble..." then I'd say you're pretty militant.

But like I said, it depends on your situation.
That's almost exactly my definition.

[Morag]

I've always self-defined militancy as a refusal to compromise on material issues, combined with direct action to change the immediate situation. It's a lack of concern for what TPTB say or feel, but an all-encompassing commitment to the movement. Oddly, I rather view militancy as being fairly non-sectarian; to be militant, I think you need to be willing to accept any gain as positive and any person able to make a gain as your comrade. I think to be militant you need to put the needs of the movement in front of the interests of your group; the dedication has to be to the working class first and foremost, before any ideological argument, if your truly militant.