Militancy and Leadership

When it comes to communist or socialist leadership, it’s a grave error to think militancy and leadership are in themselves separate entities. Militancy and leadership should be intertwined, and go hand and hand with each other, to work in accordance to one another. We have seen by examples of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Che, Castro, Tambo and other Marxist-Leninist leaders, that combine militancy and leadership. Unless these two are combined, change is ineffective. But when we talk about militancy and leadership, we do not simply mean leadership of a guerrilla group hiding in the woods ready to strike with guns blazing. We also mean knowing when to apply that militancy and how to use it effectively in leadership positions. Even something as basic as organizing a mass strike that is daring enough to keep a business from producing profits, forcing them to surrender to the demands of the striking masses takes a militant leader to take charge; someone who won't betray or sacrifice the interest of the people for self-interest. Militancy must be applied scientifically and strategically.

There is no point where leadership starts and militancy ends. The two must never separate. If militancy is replaced with pacifism or liberalism, pacifism and liberalism will take leadership from a revolutionary road to a revisionist road leading the struggle in the wrong direction. This leads to the next question, what secures militancy within leadership? Two things; 1) Marxist-Leninist theory, which is Dialectical and Historical Materialism. And 2) The building of a working-class leader.

From the J. Peter's book, The Communist Party Manual on Organization we quote the following:

Chapter IV: Party Membership and Cadres.

Subsection: What Kind of Forces Do We Need Most Now?

“We need proletarian forces who grow up from the masses, who are popular leaders of their fellow workers in a shop, union, block, town, or farm community, forces who are in close contact with the masses and reflect the feelings of the proletariat, who can best bring into life the correct fighting slogans of the Party. We need forces, first of all, from the native-born workers, from among the Negro proletariat, from among the women workers. The basic forces of the Party should come from the big factories. These members should be drawn into leadership, preparing them in the process of Party work for the actual carrying out of Party tasks, training them politically also.”

Subsection: Who are The Professional Revolutionists?

“A professional revolutionist is a highly developed comrade, trained in revolutionary theory and practice, tested in struggles, who gives his whole life to the fight for the interests of his own class. A professional revolutionist is ready to go whenever and wherever the Party sends him. Today he may be working in a mine, organizing the Party, the trade unions, leading struggles; tomorrow, if the Party so decides, he may be in a steel mill; the day after tomorrow, he may be a leader and organizer of the unemployed. Naturally, these professional revolutionists are supported by the Party organization if their assignment doesn't send them work in shops or mines. From these comrades the Party demands everything. They accept Party assignments – the matter of family associations and other personal problems are considered, but not decisive. If the class struggle demands it, he will leave his family for months, even years. The professional revolutionist cannot be demoralized; he is steeled, stable. Nothing can shake him. Our task is to make every Party member a professional revolutionist in this sense.”

Conclusion:

A working-class leader must be, as clearly described by the J. Peter's book, a natural born leader from among the working class and/or working-class bodies (unions and the like) and must be, in the political aspect of things, a professional revolutionist who will not only do what they know is needed of them for their class, but will do so with their leadership skills, and their effective practice of communist theory.