what is the "militant minority"?

even bonanno talks about it, as vanguard, or active minority, etc.

it could mean more broadly the active part of the class. sometimes it is substitute language for saying the political or revolutionary organization.

i think it is abstract on purpose to be used as a more theoretical tool.

i don't know the history of the term.

i've come to really appreciate separating and distinguishing between the concepts of vanguard and class consciousness.

ie. vanguard being the most militant, active sector of the class struggle involved in bringing out capital's internal contradictions .... this being completely different from those who are class conscious (committed to anti-state communism).

imo the problem is that bolshevik vanguardism blurs the two, and you end up with 'revolutionaries' using it to justify recuperating class militancy into the Labour party, setting up 'revolutionary' social democratic governments etc., because they believe themselves to be a greater expression of class will than the 'unfocused' (often more antagonistic) struggles of the class.

all organised communists of whatever tendency enter the class with some view toward influencing it, and i don't believe there is anything wrong with this - i think that might be what 'militant minority' is referring to. where there is a problem, is the arrogant patronising assumption that consciousness automatically outstrips actual practical activity in the struggle between labour and capital.

(in my view this is a key self-justification for the machiavellian element of bolshevism - that can certainly be traced back within the history of marxism - that permits the sabotaging of a struggle, if it is necessary to ensuring that their ideas and influence 'win').

EDIT: thats not to say that there isn't a key difference between a class furthering its own interests (ie. moving to abolish the other class), and labour negotiating a greater sale price, but often more actual antagonistic struggle that practically achieves more toward the former occurs due to the motivation of the latter, whilst the people interested in the former (at this stage in the class struggle) have a comparatively shallow impact.

Really fast.

The term, here in the US, is usally used in a negative way.

The term "militant minority", in the US, has usually been associated with the strategy
of "boring from within" the trade unions as advocated by Wm. Z. Foster. That said, in France, "militant minorities" of syndicalists help to move the CGT union towards a position of revolutionary unionism, away from reformist unionism.

Those in the semi-platformist anarchist-communist tradition see "militant minorities"
"in the tradition of social insertion championed by the FARJ (Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro, or the Anarchist Federation of Rio de Janeiro), the ZACF seeks to work within existing movements in order to fight for the "leadership of anarchist ideas" and the implementation of anarchist principles within such movements" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabalaza_Anarchist_Communist_Front]

Within the marxist-leninist movement, building the "militant minority" within the trade unions
have been organized in a way that is reflective of their politics. So, one could argue, within
their context and politics, it can be vanguardist.

Personally, although the term carries with it alot of baggage, it can be reflective of
cerain realities for small numbers of militant/revolutinoary workers who work inside
mass, non-revolutionary organizations. The difference is how libertarian minorities organize
as opposed to marxitst-leninists.

EDIT: In the book "Black Flame" by M. Schmidt & L. Vander Walt there's a whole chapter dedicated to "militant minorities".

Clear enough, comrade?

I believe that the concept of an active minority (minorite agissante) first developed among syndicalists and anarcho-syndicalists within the pre-WW1 CGT. Jeremy Jennings talks abput this in his book Syndicalism in France where he says about the anarchist Emile Pouget : " Universal suffrage', Pouget argued, 'gives power to unconscious and inactive individuals (or better to their representatives) and suffocates the minority who carry the future within themselves'. [127] Applied to the syndicats this 'democratic system' would mean that control would be in the hands of an 'inert' mass which 'enjoys economic slavery'. The conscious minority, Pouget believed, were alone 'called upon to decide and to act' and were furthermore under an 'inexorable obligation' to do so 'without taking into account the refractory mass'. The 'zeros humains' who constituted the 'amorphous and numerous mass' could have little complaint with this arrangement. The majority would benefit from the actions of the minority whilst the minority would suffer the hardships of 'the battle'. Moreover, Pouget assumed that the conscious minority would always act in the interests of the majority. Syndicalist activity, no matter how small the militant minority, never pursued an 'individual and particularist aim'. [128] For the revolutionaries, therefore, little could be expected of the majority and of an electoral system which gave them power. Exhausted by work and in the grip of ignorance the majority would enjoy only moments of lucidity and this thanks to the endeavours of the revolutionary minority. The task ahead was thus one of creating a minority strong enough to overthrow the class which owned and controlled the capitalist system. 'Minorite contre minorite' was the watchword."
and on Griffuelhes: "Griffuelhes, for example, was of the opinion that the revolution would not be accepted by everyone and therefore that it would be the work of a minority 'which our incessant efforts at propaganda and action tend to enlarge'. "
Sorel developed this theory in his works although it originated among Parisian workers.

I haven't read Jennings book, but in Pataud & Pouget's book, they describe the unions as "an active minority" until the point they throw open their ranks during revolutionary expropriations (and so transform from organisations for class combat to organisations for the administration of things). Which seems to be an expectation that the workers who actively organise for the overthrow of capitalism are likely to be a numerical minority, up until revolutionary strikes, insurrections and expropriations are in full swing.

Isn't that historically the case? Has a majority of the class ever formally organised itself into a revolutionary organisation/union prior to a revolutionary attempt? (Even the 30s CNT only included a majority of workers during the revolution, and even then narrowly, and only in Catalunya). Like, it didn't really strike me as a big concept reading Pouget, just a banality mainly aimed at Engles' smear (repeated by Luxemburg) that the syndicalists thought they'd recruit every single worker then set a date for revolution Thursday week.

Hmm, from my reading of Pouget and Monatte they seem to be talking about minorities within the CGT itself.
I'm not saying I necessarily have a problem with "active minorities" although I would prefer it to be as large as possible, and indeed revolutionaries should work towards this coming about. Please , I hope you're not being defensive about this whole question, as it should be discussed in a level headed way. Had enough of defensive attitudes and being accused of being a troll on certain other threads!!

In terms of 'are minorities vanguardist?' in general, I think a huge number of workplace disputes (at least up until the 70s/80s) began with a small number of workers walking off and pulling others with them. When you look at the 30s sit-down strikes, the conga-lines marching round factories in Italy's hot autumn, strikes on the British railways, that's generally the pattern. Sometimes you get a mass meeting and a show of hands, but even then, some minority (reps, militants...) probably went round calling everyone out to the meeting. If you want to call those who happen to take the lead in a given struggle the vanguard, fair enough, but I don't think it has anything to do with the theory of the vanguard party (which like Harrison says, assumes those with certain ideas or who've read the right books are necessarily leading the class struggle, which is delusional nonsense).

Battlescarred; not being defensive! I'll dig out the quotes I'm thinking of. And I agree that there's no problem with 'active minorities' per se, but the bigger the better.

Edit: "Their first care was to attach themselves to the mass who were not yet members of any Trade Unions;* for the societies were few that included not the whole, but even a majority, of the members of a trade." (p.66).

"the active minority appealed to the non-unionists (...) [because unions] had been in the past, an organisation for fighting; but they would find their place there, now that it was to be transformed into a social organism." (p.67).

(quote abridged cos I'm typing, and the tense is weird as the book is told in retrospective, novelised form to avoid the censors - original here for context)

* 'Syndicat'

I wasn't trying to say you are making that assumption, just that 'vanguard' means "a. The foremost or leading position in a trend or movement. b. Those occupying a foremost position." So, the first to down tools are, by definition, a vanguard. I probably wouldn't describe them as such, because it invites confusion, but this has nothing to do with being 'vanguardist' (i.e. the theory and practice of the vanguard party espoused by Lenin et al).

What do you mean by 'entitled to leadership'? Expecting to get their way due to militant cred or seniority? Yeah, could certainly happen. I don't know if that necessarily correlates any more to being 'an active minority' than it does to ego, seniority and other things. I mean, someone could be part of an active minority opposed to militant action, or a militant majority, and exhibit the same characteristics.

I mean, the problem with vanguardism isn't that vanguardists take the initiative ('leadership')*, it's that it asserts that the vanguard party is by definition the vanguard of the class and therefore considers its interests identical to those of the working class, which therefore gets subordinated to the 'superior' wisdom of the party. a party can substitute itself for the class by seizing state power, but a minority of workplace militants can't substitute themselves for the wider workforce by striking in their stead, so I think the dynamics are different. I'm sure there are ways a minority could act in a vanguardist way in a workplace struggle (I dunno, resorting to violence to compensate for declining strike participation or something), but i don't think it necessarily follows from being outnumbered on a particular issue.

* In fact, it's normally the opposite, opportunistically taking up what the party thinks to be the most popular slogans, from 'all power to the soviets!' to 'we are the 99%!'.

just to further confuse things, i remember reading Devrim post something about a trend in Turkey for Stalinist dominated unions to declare 'strikes' at large factories, which amounted to a handful of workers plus external party members beating anyone who tried to enter the factory. Maybe if he sees this post he could elaborate.

I guess you could call "millitant minorities" the vangaurd of the proletarian if you want to piss off some SWP folks.

Also, anyone quote Emma Goldman yet? I would but I'm lazy.