I liked this Quote

[Livetrueordie]

"It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck. Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now it's more like a vulture. It used to be strong enough to go and suck anybody's blood whether they were strong or not. But now it has become more cowardly, like the vulture, and it can only suck the blood of the helpless. As the nations of the world free themselves, the capitalism has less victims, less to suck, and it becomes weaker and weaker. It's only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely." Malcolm X

[Colombia]

Interesting quote but where did you get it from?

The only thing about it though is that capitalism is still living strong so it has been years before being a vulture.

[Ele'ill]

eventually, it will collapse, as all societies do. And everything has a general time frame of when it will happen. If it will happen prematurely is up to the masses.

[Mad Scottsman]

I realize this may be an unpopular observation, but, generally, capitalism, before it becomes capitalism, is merely the free exchange of goods and services. What we call modern capitalism is based on the original freedom of human exchange. It's a very natural system. It's only as it progressed that it became monopolistic and self protective, and the tools of production become collected into fewer people's control.

I don't know how genuine Malcolm X was being with his critique of capitalism. He did not try and emmulate workers particularly, and strove to be around the elite.

He talked the talk, but on many levels, he did not walk the walk. This is probably because he was a religious man, and that, in and of itself, usually precludes one from Marxism.

[Ele'ill]

What does marxism have to do with this post?

[alex d kid]

Everybody is talking about the collapse of capitalism(I'm not so sure it ever will, since I only believe in the things I see with my own eyes). Is that really what you fear? Does it really matter? My opinion is that with 1.3 billion people of the world living in extreme poverty, we shouldn't wait for the capitalism to collapse, we should act know before the damges are even bigger.

[Mad Scottsman]

Mari3L : I saw this post as an open invitation to read the quote and discuss what comes into mind. That's what came into mind for me, that's all. It didn't seem that this post had a "correct" response as much as it did a general one.

[Fidelbrand]

The vulture's hunt has not been debilitated.
Lenin's claim of its imperialist tendencies have just started.

"Hey, it's your country liberal-democratic, oh no? Join us or we will bomb your ass and bring you democracy"

[Livetrueordie]

Malcolm X didn't really like communist. He was a smart man though

He was Muslim

[Livetrueordie]

Heres some other
When asked if he would accept outer help from the Communists:

"Let me tell you a little story. It's like being in a wolf's den. The wolf sees someone on the outside who is interested in freeing me from the den. The wolf doesn't like that person on the outside. But I don't care who opens the door and lets me out."

-"Then your answer is yes?"

"No, I'm talking about a wolf."
-------------------------------------------------

"I think that an objective analysis of events that are taking place on this earth today points towards some type of ultimate showdown. You can call it political showdown, or even a showdown between the economic systems that exist on this earth which almost boil down along racial lines. I do believe that there will be a clash between East and West. I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those that do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation."

--------------------------------------------
"A new world order is in the making, and it is up to us to prepare ourselves that we may take our rightful place in it."

Malcolm X

[redstar2000]

I'm inclined to think that the impact of Malcolm X was not so much in the content of what he said...but the very fact that an African-American man said what he said out loud and in public.

It was something that hadn't happened, really, since the days of the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass. Before Malcolm, there were a few "Negro leaders" who certainly tried, with all sincerity, to appeal to the "better nature" of the white majority.

And sometimes those appeals "worked"...at least a little.

But Malcolm was really something new on the scene...he didn't beg! There was none of that Shucks, boss, how about a little something extra for us black folks attitude about him.

He projected respect for his people...and ended up winning a great deal of respect for himself and his people.

There might be a lesson in there for revolutionaries; we use lots of rhetoric about the working class...but do we really respect the working class?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bolshevik butcher]

I've always been unsure about malcolm X, some hail him as a hero, others see him as a racist, what's the truth?

[Ele'ill]

I wouldn't call him a hero.
That is my opinion.

[Livetrueordie]

Like i said before he was smart but not always ethical. He wasn't exactly nomalist when he claimed the white man as the enemy, but he fought for social equality, he just thought the black people were owed something for 400 years of rascism and opression in the americas.

[Hodgeh]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 20 2005, 07:52 PM
I've always been unsure about malcolm X, some hail him as a hero, others see him as a racist, what's the truth?
Matter of personal opinion. Myself, I don't have one on Malcolm X. I'm inclined to agree with redstar on his points, though.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 06:49 PM
I'm inclined to think that the impact of Malcolm X was not so much in the content of what he said...but the very fact that an African-American man said what he said out loud and in public.

It was something that hadn't happened, really, since the days of the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass. Before Malcolm, there were a few "Negro leaders" who certainly tried, with all sincerity, to appeal to the "better nature" of the white majority.

And sometimes those appeals "worked"...at least a little.

But Malcolm was really something new on the scene...he didn't beg! There was none of that Shucks, boss, how about a little something extra for us black folks attitude about him.

He projected respect for his people...and ended up winning a great deal of respect for himself and his people.

There might be a lesson in there for revolutionaries; we use lots of rhetoric about the working class...but do we really respect the working class?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Wow that is completly wrong.

I suggest you all read the Auto-biography of Malcom X what better way to learn about the man and his beliefs than to read his book?

He's a hero.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Malcolm X is quite underrated in my view. I believe he was in the same league with Martin Luther King, but he gets only a fraction of the attention. King's message has been easily manipulated by the ruling class, who have blunted his non-violent, civil disobedience message into one of mere passivity. Malcolm X cannot be similarly coopted, with his overtly militant attitude, so he is ignored whenever possible.

I am not as well versed in Malcolm's work as I would like, but I would say he dramatically grew as a person and thinker over his activist years. The same can be said of King, who had devastating critiques of U.S. involvement, comparing the miseries of the African-American and the Vietnamese. He spoke of racism and imperialism as interconnected twins, and thus for one to fall the other must also fall. Not surprisingly, the center-to-right-wing supporters of King have forgotten all about his late work.

Malcolm X entered the spotlight as a black nationalist. The black nationalist movement had admirable qualities in the way of militant anti-racism, but also reactionary tendencies. Malcolm, in his time with the Nation of Islam, carried all of the strengths and baggage of black nationalism.

Like King, Malcolm's late views have also been mostly forgotten. Malcolm abandoned black nationalism, and began to adopt solidarity for allies of other ethnicities. Actually, King and Malcolm in the mid-to-late '60s converged on a very similar belief system... more militant than early King, more inclusive than early Malcolm.

I believe the view they were converging on was a very dangerous one for the ruling class. Before, King was a wimp and Malcolm something of a demagogue. Both could be pretty easily dismissed by many discontented workers. This, I believe, is also why their early work is all that survives in mainstream discussion. The deep flaws of these cultural icons are put on display for anyone who could potentially step out of line as they had.

King and Malcolm, in their early mistakes, were allowed national access for over a decade. When their view became sophisticated and incisive (in the mid '60s), both were assasinated within a half decade. Their late work has been marginalized, the equivalent of assasination in a "free" society. The rulers knew then, and know now, that if people were exposed to their eloquence toward the end of the '60s, many would listen. Then the rulers would have problems.

[enigma2517]

I agree and disagree with some points.


I'm inclined to think that the impact of Malcolm X was not so much in the content of what he said...but the very fact that an African-American man said what he said out loud and in public.


He projected respect for his people...and ended up winning a great deal of respect for himself and his people.

Undeniably true. By joining the movement, blacks felt that they were seeking not only supericial rights granted by the government, but true autonomy. Supposedly, a lot of them cleaned up their act. They fought off drug addiction and obession with material objects. Quite a radical change in society for that time.

Initially though, it is sad to mention that Malcolm X was both a racist and a (fundementalist?) Muslim. Either one is not too particularly appealing, infact even reactionary in certain ways. Any real objective thinker would recognize that "race is not the enemy, class is" (Thank you Immortal Technique).

Of course, it is also noteworthy that he came to his senses in the later part of the movement and took off in a different direction.

Another man who remains slightly more obsecured in the Civil Rights Movement was Stokely Carmichael. This man advocated black power, ethnic autonomy, without all the "baggage". Plus, the Black Panthers were just so cool ;)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxist in Nebraska
Actually, King and Malcolm in the mid-to-late '60s converged on a very similar belief system... more militant than early King, more inclusive than early Malcolm.

I believe the view they were converging on was a very dangerous one for the ruling class...

King and Malcolm, in their early mistakes, were allowed national access for over a decade. When their view became sophisticated and incisive (in the mid '60s), both were assasinated within a half decade. Their late work has been marginalized, the equivalent of assasination in a "free" society. The rulers knew then, and know now, that if people were exposed to their eloquence toward the end of the '60s, many would listen. Then the rulers would have problems.

I think you put that very well...and I completely agree.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Paradox]

Initially though, it is sad to mention that Malcolm X was both a racist and a (fundementalist?) Muslim.

Racist? You mean early on when he was saying "White devils"? You do know that he later admitted that that was wrong, right? After going to Mecca and praying alongside White Muslims. When he came back, he admitted that it was wrong what he had been saying before, about the "White devils." Or are your claims of racism based on something else?


I believe he was in the same league with Martin Luther King, but he gets only a fraction of the attention. King's message has been easily manipulated by the ruling class, who have blunted his non-violent, civil disobedience message into one of mere passivity.

I know King didn't actually come out and say it, but wasn't he just about as radical in his thinking as Malcolm X? I had heard that he had been, but that he had not said anything publicly, that he kept those thoughts from the public because he didn't want to lose support from the Whites. There's a book titled I May Not Get There With You, that supposedly gives people an idea of how the real MLK thought. I haven't read it though. Have any of you?

[Jesus Christ!]

I like that quote and I didn't realize that Malcom X was against capitalism I thought he was just all about Black power and civil rights.

[Hampton]

I would like to think that King became more radical towards the end of his life, although I'm not sure if I would say he was on the same level of Malcolm. Things like the Poor People's Campaign and the Poor People's March which he wanted to do would have been huge steps towards reconstructing the economic structure of the country.

"True compassion," King declared, "is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."

He also announced that the Poor People's Campaign will culminate in a March on Washington demanding a $12 billion Economic Bill of Rights guaranteeing employment to the able-bodied, incomes to those unable to work, and an end to housing discrimination.

The most telling is probally the speech that has been labeled "Beyond Vietnam". He states that "the shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions."

We knows what could have been if he not been killed on April 4, 1968.

Also the book you mentined is notable for Tyson's mention of King in orgies and other sexual situations. Pretty much sleeze.

[CommieBastard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 06:49 PM
There might be a lesson in there for revolutionaries; we use lots of rhetoric about the working class...but do we really respect the working class?
Respect is reserved for that over which we have no dominion.
A vanguardist does not respect those they seek to lead.
Those who humble themselves before those would seek to gain control of them, do not gain respect.
No matter how much vitriole may be directed at those that the system cannot control, it still begrudgingly shows respect to these apparent equals within this World.

The only real society is one in which there is no dominion, anything else is just an entity with human appendages.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 08:27 AM
Malcolm X didn't really like communist. He was a smart man though

He was Muslim
He isn't a "communist", he is a leftist, a progressive and a revolutionary.

He means to tear down all that has created inequality, he chose to center on something easy to see, color. Something that is visibly dividing us as people. It is a much easier way to do it.

Most of what he had to say was leftist and progressive. It wasn't pro after revolution, he wasn't a builder of society he was the wrecking ball and the warning whistle.

He did not like capitalism, that doesn't mean he has to be pro- anything for after its collapse. He isn't worried about what we would do if capitalism fell apart, he was centered on taking it apart. It is a, "cross that bridge when we get there."

He is in the "The New Left Reader" pg 207 "I don't mean bananas" along with Huey Newton.

If everything had gone swingingly I don't think that Malcom X would have been the builder of the next phase of the revolution. He had a job, a task and he did it, I would think that after a power fall that construction personalities "acceptable" to people like Malcom, Huey B Newton, MLK Jr. The Chicago 7, The Weather Underground..ect..ect

Castro didn't hold a communist revolution, he held a revolution and then it became a communist/socialist revolution. He wanted Batistas out and anything better in, but didn't focus on the anything better in till the overthrow of the Batistas.

Here is a quote from "I don't mean Bananas" by Malcom X


Several persons have asked me recently, since I've been back, "What is your program?" I , purposely, to this day have not in any way mentioned what our program is, because there will come a time when we will unveil it so that everybody will understand it. Policies change, and programs change, according to time. But the objective never changes. You might change your method of achieving the objective, but the objective never changes. Our objective is complete freedom, complete justice, complete equality, by any means necessary. That never changes.

[Livetrueordie]

i did not say he was communist...

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:14 PM
i did not say he was communist...
I never said you did. I was clarifing his position. And I don't think he ever really disliked communism or socialism. Likewise at the time, with the way things were with USSR, I doubt he would have jeopardized his position by coming straight out with support for communism. But he did support it through other ways of saying it.

I quote from the same as before.


Among Asian countries, wether they are communist, socialist-- you don't find any capitalist countries over there too much nowadays, Almost every one of the countries that has gotten independe has devised some kind of socialist system, and this is no accident. This is another reason why I say that you and I here in America--who are looking for a job, who are looking for better housing, looking for a better education-- before you start trying to be incorporated, or integrated, or disintegrated, into this capitalistic system, you should look over there (asia) and find out what are the people who have gotten their freedom adopting to provide themselves with better housing and better education and better food and better clothing.

None of them are adopting the capitalstic system becayse they realize they can't. You can't operate a capitalistic system unless you are vulturistic....

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:46 PM
"It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck. Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now it's more like a vulture. It used to be strong enough to go and suck anybody's blood whether they were strong or not. But now it has become more cowardly, like the vulture, and it can only suck the blood of the helpless. As the nations of the world free themselves, the capitalism has less victims, less to suck, and it becomes weaker and weaker. It's only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely." Malcolm X
BTW I am not sure if that quote is correct or built off of this one or what.

What I have is this from "I don't mean bananas"

You can't operate a capitalistic system unless you are vulturistic; you have to have someone else's blood to suck to be a capitalist. You show me a capitalist, I'll show you a bloodsucker. He cannot be anything but a blood sucker if he;s going to be a capitalist. He's got to get it from somehwere other than himself, and that's where he gets it--from somewhere or someone other than himself. So when we look at the African continent, when we look at the trouble that's going on between East and West, we find that the nations in Africa are developing socialistic systems to solve their problems.

Unless he used the same analogy more than once and all, but I am always worried that somebody is changing quotes from the dead.

[Hampton]

I'm pretty sure he used the idea more than once. he said it once in a speech he made on Dec 20, 1964:

"None of them are adopting the capitalist system because they realize they can't. you can't operate a capitalistic system unless you are vulturstic; you have to have someone else's blood to suck to be a capitalist. You show me a capitalist, I'll show you a bloodsucker. he cannot be anything but a bloodsucker if he's going to be a capitalist. He's got to get it from somewhere other than himself, and that's where he gets it-from somewhere or someone other than himself."

And also in a Januart 18th interview with the Young Socialist:

"It is impossible for capialism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck. Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now it's more like a vulture. It used to be stong enough to go and suck anybody's blood, whethere they were stong or not. But now it has become more cowardly, like the vulture, and it can only suck blood from the helpless. As the nations of the world free themselves, then capitalism has less victims, less to suck, and it becomes weaker and weaker. It's only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completly."

After the interview he made the remark, "This is the farthest I've ever gone. They will go wild over this."

Both taken from "The Last Year of Malcolm X: The Evolution of a Revolutionary".

[WritingToHaveNoFace]

I realize this may be an unpopular observation, but, generally, capitalism, before it becomes capitalism, is merely the free exchange of goods and services. What we call modern capitalism is based on the original freedom of human exchange. It's a very natural system. It's only as it progressed that it became monopolistic and self protective, and the tools of production become collected into fewer people's control.

Judging by this statement you are not a Marxist, and therefore you should not associate yourself with the collective "we" at this board. Marxists believe that before capitalism, feudalism was the dominant form of production and exchange. Marx saw capitalism as emerging between the 16th and 17th centuries.

[CommieBastard]

The 'collective we' at this board are not all Marxists.

However, I would agree with you, and other Marxists, on your point about the differece between capitalism and feudalism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Mad [email protected] 20 2005, 12:48 AM
I don't know how genuine Malcolm X was being with his critique of capitalism. He did not try and emmulate workers particularly, and strove to be around the elite.
He was a worker for much of his life. According to the Autobiography, after getting out of jail he swept up in a welding shop, and later worked in an auto plant. Later he became a full-time minister...never got specially rich off it though. He had to borrow money from his sister to make his trip to Mecca and Africa.

In his political approach, Malcolm X was definitely proletarian; for the "field Negroes" rather than the "house Negroes" as he put it. He identified with the Chinese and Cuban revolutions. The Nation of Islam's emphasis on black-owned businesses is not much emphasized in his speeches even when he belonged to it, and spoke as its representative..

In the last year of his life, he was moving in a more and more anticapitalist direction; the quote at the top of the thread is just the most explicit of a number of statements. It's from an interview with Young Socialist magazine. Livetrueordie posted another important statement, about the clash between the oppressor and the oppressed.

It's fairly widely known that in the last year of his life, Malcolm X broke with the anti-white racism, and abstention from the civil rights movement, preached and practiced by the Nation of Islam. What some fail to understand, however, is that he broke from this approach not in a liberal direction, but in a revolutionary direction. Similarly, his visit to Mecca is well-publicized, but not his travels in Africa, where he met with anti-imperialist fighters, including Algerians whose revolution, initally, had an anti-capitalist dynamic.

Redstar wrote:

He projected respect for his people...and ended up winning a great deal of respect for himself and his people.

That's very true. He was once asked (in a Village Voice interview) if he was trying to wake people up to their oppression; he said "No, to their humanity, to their own worth."

It's a key point, I think. Most working people know very well that life under capitalism ain't exactly paradise. The harder question is, can we do better, or can we become capable of doing better. Or should we look to someone else, from some other class, to fix things for us.

The content of Malcom X's speeches is worth learning from as well, though. From the Congo to Vietnam, from the Democrats and Republicans to the right of self-defense.

The quote at the beginning of the thread is authentic. Here's more of that interview with Young Socialist magazine. (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/070.html)

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 08:47 PM
I'm pretty sure he used the idea more than once. he said it once in a speech he made on Dec 20, 1964:
Thank you very much Hampton, I probably should have done some footwork and looked it up myself to verify. I like that you footnoted the source!

I have been freaked out about misquotes and groups mis-quoting the dead improperly to fit their agenda. The whole fox misquoting FDR as being pro-privitizing social security has me on the edge. :)