MLK -vs- Malcolm X ?

[LiberaCHE]

http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/feb_04/mlk-malcolmx.jpg



Who was more "revolutionary" of the two in your opinion ?


Your thoughts on either or both of them ?


Which one would you say was more "to the left"?


Do you feel that either of them exhibited aspects of Marxist thought ?


Should Marxists/Communists/Socialists/Anarchists use either or both as inspirational figures ?


etc etc etc

[LiberaCHE]

Malcolm X on Dr. King:

"He got the peace prize, we got the problem.... If I'm following a general, and he's leading me into a battle, and the enemy tends to give him rewards, or awards, I get suspicious of him. Especially if he gets a peace award before the war is over."

"I'll say nothing against him. At one time the whites in the United States called him a racialist, and extremist, and a Communist. Then the Black Muslims came along and the whites thanked the Lord for Martin Luther King."

"I want Dr. King to know that I didn't come to Selma to make his job difficult. I really did come thinking I could make it easier. If the white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King."



Dr. King on Malcolm X:

"You know, right before he was killed he came down to Selma and said some pretty passionate things against me, and that surprised me because after all it was my territory there. But afterwards he took my wife aside, and said he thought he could help me more by attacking me than praising me. He thought it would make it easier for me in the long run."

[Mala Tha Testa]

i don't know too much about either but i'll try to answer your questions...



Who was more "revolutionary" of the two in your opinion ?

Malcom X


Your thoughts on either or both of them ?


both were good people striving for an excellent cause



Which one would you say was more "to the left"?


Malcom X



Do you feel that either of them exhibited aspects of Marxist thought ?


i have no idea



Should Marxists/Communists/Socialists/Anarchists use either or both as inspirational figures ?
if said Marxists/Communists/Socialists/Anarchists want to they can.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Should Marxists/Communists/Socialists/Anarchists use either or both as inspirational figures ? Do we really have to do this shit? Using quote for supporting topic is okay, but using them to lead the masses, fuck that.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Neither. I know I'll get a lot of hate for saying this, but I don't care. MLK was a reformist. While he may have brought up many important points (and I'm not saying that the civil-rights movement was unimportant) but peace movements have always failed. MLK also failed to acknowledge a lot of the class-related issues of the time period and therefore the points which he made have countlessly been interpreted as nationalist, and used by black-nationalist movements. Obviously, MLK was no black-nationalist, but whatever way you put it, he was a reformist bourgeois-liberal. Change is not possible, in reality, in the absence of violent force.

As for Malcolm X, there wasn't a lot of success here. Again, the focus was wrong. Replacing class consciousness with any type of nationalistic crap will get you nothing more than a race riot, and perhaps a city full of predominately black, white or mexican neighborhoods. While I may not be black, I've lived in some of the most violent predominately black neighborhoods where the black lumpen and its nationalism exists to a very great extent. I come from a very poverty-stricken city and a very lumpen-dominated one by that. But relying on one race or the lumpen by any means is anti-working-class and will do nothing but divide entire cities on racial lines. While black working-class is oppressed, it is oppressed no more than the rest of the working-class. The black lumpenproletariat, pettybourgeoisie and bourgeoisie MUST NOT be granted any exclusive privilege over that of the white lumpenproletariat, pettybourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, nevertheless any other ethnic group making up any given society. Working-class is working-class, regardless of race. A truly revolutionary force must be of the utmost working-class background.

[Lector Malibu]

CN I actually thought you were a person of color.:) I'm gonna back alot of what CN said about the two. What I'll say is both men where dealing with a extremely difficult issue though.

That said;

MLK appeals to me not necessarily because I think he was better than Malcolm X but I respect the fact that he was more open to working with whites as well concerning the civil rights campaign. However, I preferred Malcolm X approach as well. Basically take away the black nationalistic view and replace it with a black and white by any means necessary army and you get exactly the approach that was (and still is in alot of ways ) needed. This is how Malcolm X failed in my eyes.

A united armed force would have changed things alot.

[turquino]

As for Malcolm X, there wasn't a lot of success here. Again, the focus was wrong. Replacing class consciousness with any type of nationalistic crap will get you nothing more than a race riot, and perhaps a city full of predominately black, white or mexican neighborhoods. While I may not be black, I've lived in some of the most violent predominately black neighborhoods where the black lumpen and its nationalism exists to a very great extent. I come from a very poverty-stricken city and a very lumpen-dominated one by that. But relying on one race or the lumpen by any means is anti-working-class and will do nothing but divide entire cities on racial lines. While black working-class is oppressed, it is oppressed no more than the rest of the working-class. The black lumpenproletariat, pettybourgeoisie and bourgeoisie MUST NOT be granted any exclusive privilege over that of the white lumpenproletariat, pettybourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, nevertheless any other ethnic group making up any given society. Working-class is working-class, regardless of race. A truly revolutionary force must be of the utmost working-class background.
In america, national consciousness typically is class consciousness. Whites have been granted privileges by the system based on their race, and that has distorted their class interests such that they are divergent from, or totally opposed to the interests of the nationally oppressed working class, and the larger international proletariat. And historically it has been poor and middle income whites who have been the fiercest defenders of their privileged positions. Under these conditions, the nationalism of oppressed peoples manifests itself as a class consciousness, and has typically been more internationalist and radical than all the white labor unions put together. Black Nationalism isn't a substitute for anti-capitalism, but it's definitely not "anti-working class".

[Yehuda Stern]

MLK was a total reformist and helped lead the black movement right into the democratic party, which, not surprisingly, turned out to be a dead end for it. I would not support him in any way. As for X, he was certainly a very inspirational figure, and I think he made some excellent speeches. I also think he was moving sharply to the left, and that this is the reason for why he was killed. But I still would not politically support his group, inasmuch as it was still a nationalist group, which took as a model the bourgeois liberation movements in Africa.

[Leo]

I also think he was moving sharply to the left, and that this is the reason for why he was killed.

Actually it is generally said that he was moving to mainstream Islam, and becoming more moderate.

[Random Precision]

Actually it is generally said that he was moving to mainstream Islam, and becoming more moderate.

In terms of religion yes. But politically he was very much headed left. During his days in the Nation of Islam the SWP supported his struggle (they even got the majority of his copyrights after he died). He was on the brink of abandoning Black Nationalism in favor of socialism:


Young Socialist: What is your opinion of the worldwide struggle now going on between capitalism and socialism?

Malcolm X: 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, 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 completely.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/070.html


[A]ll of the countries that are emerging today from under the shackles of colonialism are turning towards socialism. I don't think it's an accident. Most of the countries that were colonial powers were capitalist countries, and the last bulwark of capitalism today is America.

It's impossible for a white person to believe in capitalism and not believe in racism. You can't have capitalism without racism. And if you find one, and you happen to get that person into a conversation, and they have a philosophy that makes you sure they don't have this racism in their outlook, usually, they're socialists, or their political philosophy is socialism.

http://socialistworker.org/2006-1/576/576_06_BlackLiberation.shtml

[LiberaCHE]

@ Oxford

XSQ9soEawBA

[bcbm]

MLK also failed to acknowledge a lot of the class-related issues of the time period . . . but whatever way you put it, he was a reformist bourgeois-liberal.

You're fucking joking, right? MLK was just as big on labor and class issues and organizing as he was on civil rights issues. Many of his early marches, etc included demands relevant to all working people. He was also working on organizing the under classes of all colors, all across the country via the Poor People's Campaign when he was murdered. It's speculated this may have actually been the reason he was assassinated in the first place- they knew the level of organization he was capable of building. Imagine that going into the under-classes with the aim of taking on the Federal Government and capitalism? He had ties to the Communist Party as well.

And how the hell is the son of a pastor bourgeois?


All labor has dignity. You are reminding, not only Memphis, but you are reminding the nation that it is a crime for people to live in this rich nation and receive starvation wages. And I need not remind you that this is our plight as a people all over America.


...one era of our struggle came to a close and a new era came into being. Now our struggle is for genuine equality, which means economic equality. For now we know that it isn't enough to integrate lunch counters. What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn't earn enough money to buy a hamburger and a cup of coffee?

[LiberaCHE]

Although I do not favor "non-violent" resistance ...

I do have a great respect for the fact that MLK risked his entire reputation by calling out the U.$. as the "greatest purveyor of Violence" ... which earned him considerable backlash and probably helped lead to his assassination.



"Silence is Betrayal"
lrpqnZYAB6w

[LiberaCHE]

The radical life of Martin Luther King Jr

The Socialist, April 16, 2008


THIS YEAR marks the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr Martin Luther King, Jnr, who was assassinated on 4 April 1968 while supporting striking Memphis sanitation workers.

Will Soto, Socialist Alternative, USA

Unfortunately, the official commemorations of King often provide us with a 'safe' version of his life and legacy and the history of the civil rights movement. It is now commonplace to hear right-wing politicians quote King to justify attacks on affirmative action or welfare, or to see his image in marketing campaigns by huge corporations like Apple.

Like so many fighters for the oppressed, the ruling class fears and opposes them while they are alive, but following their death an attempt is made to render their legacy harmless through distorting their actual ideas. During his lifetime King inspired millions with his vision that fundamental change in US society was possible.

To J Edgar Hoover's FBI, which viciously harassed King and kept him under constant surveillance, he was the "most dangerous Negro in America." The US establishment especially feared his growing radicalisation in the last years of his life, when he spoke out sharply against the Vietnam war and began to question the capitalist system and even talk about "democratic socialism".

Mass struggle strategy

King's rise to prominence began with the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955-1956. The strategy of mass, nonviolent struggle against Jim Crow [post civil war racist laws], first pursued by King in Montgomery, was in contrast to the traditional strategy pushed by the more moderate leadership of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP).

The NAACP focused on a legalistic strategy of court cases, fearing mass direct action would alienate their political allies in the Democratic and Republican parties.

Beginning especially in 1960, with the wave of sit-ins challenging segregation at lunch counters across the South, civil rights activists waged a series of heroic struggles aimed at winning desegregation and voting rights for blacks.

Their tactics were often criticised by liberal leaders, who urged them to rely on the government to enact change. King took up these attacks in his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail. He wrote: "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

King played a major role in organising the mass struggle that shook Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963. Here, thousands marched to demand an end to segregation in defiance of court injunctions forbidding any protests. They faced down police dogs and fire hoses, enduring brutal beatings and numerous bombings and death threats. 2,500 ended up in jail at one point, including elementary school children as young as six, but their tremendous courage brought widespread sympathy.

Only the fear of the example of Birmingham spreading to other cities, as well as the growing mood of impatience swelling among black people in the North, convinced the Democratic administration of John F Kennedy that some federal civil rights legislation would have to be enacted.
This is in stark contrast to the widespread mythology crediting the Democratic Party for civil rights. Far from leading the struggle for civil rights, the Democratic Party under President Kennedy repeatedly ignored calls for federal intervention to protect civil rights activists.

While King retained hopes in Kennedy and sought to cultivate a working relationship with his administration, he also grew frustrated with its inaction.

The experience of the civil rights movement shows that the key to change is not relying on the capitalist political establishment but rather building mass movements from below.

Vietnam war

King also came into serious conflict with the establishment over the Vietnam war. By 1965 King had turned against the war. He increasingly saw the issues faced by black people as linked to US foreign policy.
The Democratic Party, who started the war and prosecuted it under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, exerted enormous pressure on him to remain a single-issue reformer and not to speak out against the war. Under this pressure, King hesitated to come out publicly.

The Democratic Party was (and is) a cynical party of big business, incapable of taking serious measures to eradicate racism since that would clash with the interests of US capitalism. The Vietnam war was completely against the interests of ordinary black people, who were doing a disproportionate amount of the fighting and dying in a war to maintain colonial oppression.

Black people were increasingly rebelling against the war. King and other civil rights leaders' silence was discrediting them in the black community.
King's genuine commitment to the plight of poor and working class black people eventually forced him to break with the logic of his previous position and come out sharply and publicly against the war in February 1967. Calling the US government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today", King became the most prominent American to demand withdrawal from Vietnam.

As soon as King stepped outside of "his issue" to draw the links between US imperialism overseas and the treatment of black people within the US, the corporate media got in line to trash him.

The Washington Post warned him that he had "diminished his usefulness to his cause, to his country, and to his people." Johnson referred to him as "that goddamned nigger preacher" and told King that his statements on the war "had the same effect on [him] as if he had discovered that King had raped his daughter".

Tackling poverty

In his last years, King increasingly turned his attention to problems of economic injustice and inequality. He saw that the victories won through the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had done little to "penetrate the lower depths of Negro deprivation" and that the gains of the movement were "limited mainly to the Negro middle class."

Especially important in this process were his experiences in Northern ghettoes where the problems of working class and poor black people could not be laid at the feet of official legal discrimination. These conditions had fuelled the riots in major cities during the mid-1960s and the growing militancy among a section of the black community.

In his search for a way to win real equality for African Americans, King began to draw the conclusion that a serious battle against poverty and oppression was necessary. Against separatist trends who wrote off all whites, King correctly argued for building a multiracial movement with poor and working class whites.

In 1968 King launched the Poor People's Campaign - a campaign of mass civil disobedience, including blocking traffic and staging sit-ins in Congress, to shut down Washington, DC.

King hoped that the strike by 1,300 Memphis sanitation workers would be the kickoff for the Poor People's Campaign. Tragically, he was gunned down before he could see the campaign through.

The state of the dream

Official Census figures state that in 2006 24.3% of US black people lived in poverty vis-à-vis 8.2% of whites.

The struggles of the Civil Rights era did lead to important reforms but they did not culminate in fundamental economic change. The continuation of capitalism means that black people will continue to face nightmarish conditions.

As King said in a speech exactly one year before his death, "Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo..." (When Silence Is Betrayal, April 4, 1967).

The real way to honour King's legacy is to devote ourselves to an all-out struggle to eradicate racism, poverty, war, and all forms of oppression. As King was beginning to see towards the end of his life, this means building a movement to abolish capitalism.

King also began to talk about the need for socialism.


In a speech delivered to his staff in 1966, he said:


"You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry... Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong... with capitalism... There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."




http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/4013

[RHIZOMES]

Malcolm X was better but neither were perfect as CN said. MX stopped being so black nationalist after his return from Mecca however.

[Yehuda Stern]

Actually it is generally said that he was moving to mainstream Islam, and becoming more moderate.

That you say it does not mean it is "generally said." Check out the quotes by Random Precision.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Id say Malcolm X was more revolutionary, simply because he supported revolution, rather than using non-violent means of protest like King did. but both had progressive ideals, religion aside. and both recognized that racism was a fundamental aspect of capitalism, and that racism could never cease to exist while capitalism still exists. so they're both pretty 'revolutionary' in their own right.

Also, while reading the first paragraph of LiberaChe's quote about King's 'radical life'. a very prominent misunderstanding comes to mind.

in the US, when you learn about the civil rights movement during "black history month", King is always regarded as a great success story. i really hate it when teachers ramble on and on about "how great King was, and how he freed black people from oppression."

this is really contrary to what really happened. i mean sure black people got more rights with the help of King, but they're not free from oppression, nor did racism against blacks cease to exist. furthermore, King advocated political reforms for the US, which were not implemented, he was seen as a very dangerous threat by the US government, and he was assassinated for fucks sake! and every asshole politician whos trying to sell his own rhetoric uses King's quotes as a tool to win people over. it just pisses me off, and it is demeaning to his legacy when right wingers quote him and talk about him.

[Hampton]

peace movements have always failed.

How did the Civil Rights Movement fail?


MLK also failed to acknowledge a lot of the class-related issues of the time period ...he was a reformist bourgeois-liberal

What was King's Poor People's Campaign that he started at the end of his life about? He was going to March on Washington with a "multiracial army of the poor" and stay there until an "economic bill of rights" was passed. Also please explain how he was a "bourgeois-liberal".


As for Malcolm X, there wasn't a lot of success here.

What does success have to do with anything? And who says he wasn't successful? He inspired millions and his ideas helped form the Black Panthers. The idea that Malcolm only cared about black people is again wrong. You can look at one point in his life and say that but you cannot say that after he returned from Mecca and broke from the NOI.


MLK was a total reformist and helped lead the black movement right into the democratic party, which, not surprisingly, turned out to be a dead end for it.

Wanting to end segregation and wanting the right the vote and trying to get equal rights for people is being a reformist? I mean should he just have advocated a total overthrow of the system or perhaps blacks moving somewhere else like Malcolm had when he was in the NOI. Was calling for a better distribution of wealth also reformist? Awesome. How did "the black movement" end up in the democratic party? Was it the entire movement or just one part of it?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I respect both men for their efforts. I don't really care who was more "revolutionary." Both saw answers in socialism and both fought for good causes (in the case of X, in the last throes of his life). If you ask me, when both campaigned for the People Movement, it was a guaranteed bullet. Imagine if an economic bill of rights was established. The declining wages and growing poverty experienced since the late 70s would likely have been no more.

[Yehuda Stern]

Wanting to end segregation and wanting the right the vote and trying to get equal rights for people is being a reformist? I mean should he just have advocated a total overthrow of the system or perhaps blacks moving somewhere else like Malcolm had when he was in the NOI. Was calling for a better distribution of wealth also reformist? Awesome. How did "the black movement" end up in the democratic party? Was it the entire movement or just one part of it?

I don't understand what you're so indignant about. Is calling for a better distribution of wealth reformist? Why yes, it's pretty much the textbook definition of reformism. Should he have called for an overthrow of the system? It's hard to believe that a person on this forum even asks that question seriously.

[Pogue]

Both were great men.

[Hampton]

It's hard to believe that him calling for the overthrow of capitalism would have gotten black people anything. Let's think if we were better off without the right to vote or if we were better off using seperate bathrooms and seperate parts of the ocean. Should they have waited? I mean we can evan compare King to say the Panters who did advocate for socialism. What happened to the Panthers? Pretty much the same thing that happened to King, most were killed or put in jail for 30-40 years where they died or still remain.

[bolshevik butcher]

"You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums ... we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong ... with capitalism ... There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."
Martin Luther King, November 1966

Perhaps its worth remembering this before MLK is written off entirely. Towards the end of his life he began to move in a leftward direction and to draw socialist conslusions. That's not to say we should uncritically endorese all he said or did, clearly he did suffer from a reformist and a pacifist outlook and this did hold the fight for civil rights and class consciousness among black people back and lagged behind the most conscious layers. But at the sametime MLK was not some sort of bullwork of reaction or in my view someone who led black people into the Democrats ultimatley given that actually towards the end of his life he broke with them on the decisive quetsions at the time such as the Vietnam War and the struggles of the working class in America.

Malcolm X similarly was murdered just as he was drawing socialist conclusions. It's crucial to note this. It's quite well established that the intelligence agencies used the reactionary forces inside the black movement, the Nation of Islam, to murder Malcolm X as by breaking with them and moving to the left. He was destroying their power base by agitating in favour of the unity the struggles of the black workers and youth in America with that of the wider working class and those oppressed by imperialism.

Malcolm X famously declared that there couldn't be capitalism without racism. Clearly the expirience of the movements surrounding both of these men had a profound effect on the most advanced layers of the civil righs/black power movement. In that their thoughts (those of X in partiuclar) and subsequent assasanations they influienced those that went onto be instrumental in the creation of the black panthers party that went onto embrace revolutionary socialist ideas.

[Yehuda Stern]

It's hard to believe that him calling for the overthrow of capitalism would have gotten black people anything. Let's think if we were better off without the right to vote or if we were better off using seperate bathrooms and seperate parts of the ocean. Should they have waited? I mean we can evan compare King to say the Panters who did advocate for socialism. What happened to the Panthers? Pretty much the same thing that happened to King, most were killed or put in jail for 30-40 years where they died or still remain.

That argument is ludicrous. No one is saying that the struggle for democratic reforms was wrong but that King derailed it by limiting it to such demands. And the Panthers, by the way, although far to the left of King, were never Marxists, and based themselves mainly on the lumpenproletariat.


Perhaps its worth remembering this before MLK is written off entirely.

Both men were moving to a socialist direction, but just like before, King was moving in a reformist direction and Malcom X in a revolutionary direction. That is the great difference between the two: King was at bottom a bourgeois reformist, while Malcolm X had the potential to go far to the left of the NOI.

[John Lenin]

In my view MLK was much more "leftist" than he let on.

He had several ties to communist groups and I believe that at the time he was killed, he was going to outright begin to speak in favor of a socialist model.

Those in power let him live until he began to speak in favor of a minimum salary law.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well I think Malcom X was far more radical than MLK. Malcom did advocate for the use of violence, if he would have lived long enough I believe he would have radicalized until the point of becoming a committed Marxist.

[professorchaos]

I prefer MLK to Malcolm, because I am against black nationalism/separatism and the use of violence, and it's pointless to pinpoint who was exactly more leftist, although Malcolm was more openly radical. The only reservation I have about Dr. King is his religiousness, although his is a more progressive, though not excusable, manifestation thereof.

"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

"I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."

"You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry...Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong...with capitalism...There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."

"Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary."

[AutomaticMan]

I prefer neither, and I think both people represented factions necessary for any movement to succeed. However, having just finished X's autobiography, he definitely matured a lot in his approach with age, and when he stopped calling individual whites devils and focused on the crimes of white people committed against people of colour, and their position in the hierarchy, white privilege etc, he became even more, for lack of a better word, revolutionary. But, even though he viewed himself as an activist, other than organising marches and speaking at them, he never actually did all that much.

[Red Phalanx]

King had ties to communists, something we had to deny at the time to protect the Civil Rights Movement. He privately admired Ho Chi Mihn a great deal and had begun to support him by speaking out against the imperialist war in Vietnam at the time he was murdered. He also had strong socialist beliefs and would have helped form and spearhead a great New Left coalition that would have fucked America up good had he lived.

Malcom X? He was stupid enough to believe in a wierdo cult like the Black Muslims were the future. Then he wimped out and sold out his comrades. Rot in hell, i say.

[oujiQualm]

Neither. I know I'll get a lot of hate for saying this, but I don't care. MLK was a reformist. While he may have brought up many important points (and I'm not saying that the civil-rights movement was unimportant) but peace movements have always failed. MLK also failed to acknowledge a lot of the class-related issues of the time period and therefore the points which he made have countlessly been interpreted as nationalist, and used by black-nationalist movements. Obviously, MLK was no black-nationalist, but whatever way you put it, he was a reformist bourgeois-liberal. Change is not possible, in reality, in the absence of violent force.

As for Malcolm X, there wasn't a lot of success here. Again, the focus was wrong. Replacing class consciousness with any type of nationalistic crap will get you nothing more than a race riot, and perhaps a city full of predominately black, white or mexican neighborhoods. While I may not be black, I've lived in some of the most violent predominately black neighborhoods where the black lumpen and its nationalism exists to a very great extent. I come from a very poverty-stricken city and a very lumpen-dominated one by that. But relying on one race or the lumpen by any means is anti-working-class and will do nothing but divide entire cities on racial lines. While black working-class is oppressed, it is oppressed no more than the rest of the working-class. The black lumpenproletariat, pettybourgeoisie and bourgeoisie MUST NOT be granted any exclusive privilege over that of the white lumpenproletariat, pettybourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, nevertheless any other ethnic group making up any given society. Working-class is working-class, regardless of race. A truly revolutionary force must be of the utmost working-class background.
---------
THis is inaccurate about MLK
When the writer says that MLK did not mention much cass issues. You need to check out the 4-4-67 speech Why I oppose the war in Vietnam. THis is the best MLK speech and moreover , MLK WAS IN FACT TIEING CLASS WAR AND RACISM AND ATTACKING THE CORPORATE PRESS MORE AND MORE THE CLOSER YOU GET TO THE ASSASSINATION. That is why the governemnt shot him. This is the argument of a great book Act of State the Execution of Martin Luther King. THere was a new edition published just in April of this year.

YOU MUST LISTEN TO THE VIETNAM SPEECH. ITS INCREDIBLE AND YOU WILL IMMEDIATELY SEE WHY YOU NEVER EVER HEAR ABOUT THIS ONE

The media only refers to the civil rights seat on the busishness because they are aribrushing history. They do not want you to know about the stuff that made the gov kill him. They do not want you to hear THIS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U

[Charles Xavier]

Both were good people, who pushed working class and racial politics forward. Anyone who says otherwise is being sectarian.

[Ismail]

Malcom X? He was stupid enough to believe in a wierdo cult like the Black Muslims were the future.Yeah, because we all know the Nation of Islam was never extremely popular among many blacks at one point. Nevermind the fact that he 'converted' while in prison, which was obviously a desperate measure. The NoI simply reeled him in further after that.


Then he wimped out and sold out his comrades. Rot in hell, i say.Explain.

Anyway, to answer thread question, Malcolm X was more revolutionary. MLK Jr. always seemed to be on the more idealistic side. As some have said, "MLK Jr. is in our hearts, Malcolm X is in our minds."

[oujiQualm]

Yeah, because we all know the Nation of Islam was never extremely popular among many blacks at one point. Nevermind the fact that he 'converted' while in prison, which was obviously a desperate measure. The NoI simply reeled him in further after that.

Explain.

Anyway, to answer thread question, Malcolm X was more revolutionary. MLK Jr. always seemed to be on the more idealistic side. As some have said, "MLK Jr. is in our hearts, Malcolm X is in our minds."

------

In my view the two were becomming much more similar than different. Recall that in the last year of their lives both began 2 critical changes.

1) moving from a racial view to more of a class view as compared with their previous positions.

2) Connecting the domestic struggle with US imperialism abroad. I attended a conference at the Audobon ballroom last Feb. All the scholars present there agreed: the single thing that precicpited the "three circle assassinaion-- NoI- NYPD BOSSI unit-CIA cooperating together-- was Malcolm X trip to Africa, in which he persuaded some African leaders to press a resolution at the UN that would seek UN action on the civil right INSIDE THE US!!

Malcom X was going around the world pointing out the irony of the CIA involvement in the Lamumba assassination (three days before JFK took office!) and also in the 1964 Congo "civil war" and the CIA trying to get UN flags to hide the imperialistic nature of these interventions. Basically he said " in that case why not get the UN to intervene in Alabama"

Were this to be said at the UN-- well this would have been a severe humiliation to the US in the Cold War. The Soviets would have played it to the hilt.

It was the connecting of the two antenae on the Stingray -- the foreign and the domestic-- that got both killed.

Again I urge you to listen to the MLK vietnam speech above. To many comments I have seen here reflect only the clipped MLK that the Corporate Media have edited so politely for us!

[Chapter 24]

Each had something that the other didn't, and lacked something there other had. MLK did not hold views based on racial-nationalistic theory (although Malcolm X in his later years changed his views and became tolerant of other races) and desired drastic change, however what MLK lacked was the militancy needed for a revolutionary. Malcolm X, on the other hand, held the militancy needed for revolutionary action, but nationalist views held in his early years were more prominent, which went along with his membership in the NOI.
In general, both were great men with theories worthy of contribution, but both had faults of their own. And in the end, both were major influences during the civil rights movement.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Alot of people in history have called for fighting to solve their problems; Martin Luther King was the first American to effectively shake the world without firing a single shot. If thats not radical then what is?

[Adam KH]

Alot of people in history have called for fighting to solve their problems; Martin Luther King was the first American to effectively shake the world without firing a single shot. If thats not radical then what is?

Some say that King and Gandhi gave their people liberation without even uttering a violent word. But violence was a major force in both struggles, and no matter how much either figure spoke out against it, both benefited from violence (and were ultimately destroyed by it).

I have the utmost respect for both King and Malcolm. They each had their strengths and weaknesses, but they both had this interests of the working class at heart. Malcolm X said far more that I agree with, but I get the feeling that King was a bit more clever.

[Vendetta]

Both were very important to their cause; however, with Malcolm X making such quotes as 'show me a capitalist and I'll show you a bloodsucker,' he seems to be a more revolutionary figure.

And there's the whole militant side.

[progressive_lefty]

I love Malcolm X, but he did say a lot of things that I completely disagree with. He begun to wisen up when he was out of the Nation of Islam.

[Revy]

MLK was hardly a "bourgeois liberal". He was a socialist, and was planning to run for President on the Peace and Freedom Party line, which had a large base in the Black Panther Party. Both MLK and BPP fought for an equal, racially integrated socialist society.

When Malcolm X started his new organization, he explicitly criticized capitalism, something he didn't do while in the NOI, which didn't care about that issue. All the NOI cared about was racial separatism, anti-Semitism, and promoting its strange racialized distortion of Islam.

Malcolm X is worthy of respect, even though while in the NOI he said a lot of things that socialists don't agree with. He was a black leader who promoted resistance against racism. That's what he always did.

[Red Rebel]

My main problem with MLK is that he was advocating for Black liberation peacefully. When facing a government that is openly violent, you don't respond peacefully. The only reason the government acted was that they saw that they could split the peacefully protesters with the violent ones.

[DesertShark]

I have a lot of respect and admiration for both of these men. I often wonder how much more they could have done if they were not murdered. The biggest down fall of the social movements in the 60s was that they were divided. If all the movements had come together and realized they were all fighting for the same thing, I think the movement would have been more successful and achieved what everyone wanted.

I disagree that peaceful movements do not work. In my opinion (and this comes almost entirely from the Dalai Lama's views) peaceful movements are the only way to truly achieve the change we want to see. While it may take a long time, it is the only way for truth to prevail. Violence will only masks our ideals and in the long run hurt the cause.

-DesertShark

[Rosa Provokateur]

My main problem with MLK is that he was advocating for Black liberation peacefully. When facing a government that is openly violent, you don't respond peacefully. The only reason the government acted was that they saw that they could split the peacefully protesters with the violent ones.

The government acted because it had to. The media was all over it and nobodys about to let peaceful men, women, and children get hosed, shot at, and attacked with dogs. If the state did it'd have alot of explaining to do when the public started asking questions.

MLK wore them down with love.

[JimmyJazz]

I came across this quote from MLK's Letter From a Birmingham Jail:


Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.First, WTF at the bolded section.

Second, the Uncle Tom-ish nature of quoting a bunch of dead white heroes (including one slave owner) to justify your arguments for simply racial justice leaves a bad taste in my mouth to say the least.


MLK was hardly a "bourgeois liberal". He was a socialist, and was planning to run for President on the Peace and Freedom Party line, which had a large base in the Black Panther Party. Both MLK and BPP fought for an equal, racially integrated socialist society.

When your vision for implementing socialism is through the ballot box, you are a bourgeois liberal, imo. I'm not saying there has to be bloodshed--I hope there is not. But there has to be a definite and qualitative break with the capitalist system. Most liberals are actually pretty socialistic at heart, but they aren't prepared to do what it takes to get from here to there, so they keep trying to work through the capitalist electoral system. Therein lies the main difference between liberals and committed socialists.

[Dóchas]

malcolm seems to be more radical than martin luther king jr but i dont know a great deal about both of them so im in no position to criticize/compliment either

[Peaceful Revolutionary]

I personally feel both are equally great, though I did vote for Martin Luther King Jr. The reason for this is that, although Malcolm-X did much of the true revolutionary work, Martin Luther did the job of getting the publicity that is necessary for true revolutionary events to take place

[oujiQualm]

I am wondering if this poster is as familiar with the late MLK as with the earlier MLK. If not it is surely understandable as the later MLK -- when he speaks of economics, war and class-- is entirely censored from the Corporate Press.

In my opinion the speach Why I am opposed to the War in Vietnam is the greatest speech ever. You can find it on Youtube, and its fun.

[Bear MacMillan]

I think both were great men, and that the bourgeois media makes King look like a bourgeois racial egalitarian, while completely disregarding his statements on capitalism and socialism. If King were alive today, the media would most likely denounce him as communist and unpatriotic. On the other hand, Malcolm X was definitely more "revolutionary", however it seems that his politics changed almost all the time. While we can call him a socialist, which he was in the last years of his life, black supremicists, Muslim radicals and many others also lay claim to him.

In short, both men were greatly important figures in the civil rights movement, the opposition to the imperialist war in Vietnam and many other things, however, their legacies are such that anyone can lay claim to their greatness. Their lives have become tabula rasa, where anyone from US senators to revolutionary socialists can say they are their political inspiration.

[oujiQualm]

I would strongly recommend the essay about Malcolm X. by James W. Douglass. In it he clearly connects the assassination to 3 interconnecting circles, The NOI NYPD BOSSI Unit and the CIA.

He is currently working on a new book about the MLK and Malcolm X assassinations

Recently he published JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. THis book has been endoresde by Daniel Ellsberg of Watergate fame, Marcus Raskin, founder of IPS and former Kennedy Insider who left because of disagreements with McGeorge Bundy.

It is a radically different retelling of the traditional Kennedy bashing narratives by CIA friendlies like Sy Hersh. Radically different answer to Chomskys superficial and completely one sided Kennedy Bashing. As much about Cold War policy as it is about the assassination, must reading!

Also it shows an amazing connection between the 11-2-63 aborted Chicago plot on JFK and the 1969 murder of Fred Hampton. The cure for so much disinformation that has very consciously been aimed at the left-- a la Encounter magazine, the CIA funded faux left magazine of the Cold War years. I mention this last example not because I want you to take my word for it, but rather to encourage you to read up on it!

[gorillafuck]

Malcolm X

[Kibbutznik]

MLK was a total reformist and helped lead the black movement right into the democratic party, which, not surprisingly, turned out to be a dead end for it. I would not support him in any way. As for X, he was certainly a very inspirational figure, and I think he made some excellent speeches. I also think he was moving sharply to the left, and that this is the reason for why he was killed. But I still would not politically support his group, inasmuch as it was still a nationalist group, which took as a model the bourgeois liberation movements in Africa.

Martin Luther King Jr. has been sanitized by history to appear in such a way. MLK was much more of a revolutionary than he is often given credit for. He made mistakes, which ultimately channelled the black movement into the Democratic Party, but that was not his intention.

A little discussed fact of history was that his March On Washington, which culminated in the famous "I Have a Dream Speech", was supposed to be an occupation of the halls of government in Washington to force the government to give a serious look at the issues faced by blacks in the south. He was persuaded, with the greatest assurances of progress by President Kennedy, to abandon the original plan, a decision he regretted for the rest of his life.

[couch13]

Both were revolutionary, yet Malcolm takes the cake in this one.

Not afraid of violence, supported an end the the American government, directly attacked capitalism as the cause of violence.

BTW, what we have recieved as information of Malcolm has been a watered down version of events. The Autobiography of Malcolm X had three chapters not placed into the published version. Manny Marable is, in 2009, publishing a book on Malcolm that will bring his final message to light.

[Comrade Anarchist]

I'd have to say Martin Luthur King.

[Asoka89]

"Who was more revolutionary"

Choice C: Neither

hahahaha that's the perfect example of whats wrong with 90 percent of RevLeft......
I voted Martin Luther King Jr cause he had more of an impact on civil rights / race relationships.

[brigadista]

That argument is ludicrous. No one is saying that the struggle for democratic reforms was wrong but that King derailed it by limiting it to such demands. And the Panthers, by the way, although far to the left of King, were never Marxists, and based themselves mainly on the lumpenproletariat

"Working class people of all colors must unite against the exploitative, oppressive ruling class. Let me emphasize again - we believe our fight is a class struggle not a race struggle."
— Bobby Seale, co-founder Black Panther Party

From
http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/

"Black Panther Theory: The practices of the late Malcolm X (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/malcolm-x/index.htm) were deeply rooted in the theoretical foundations of the Black Panther Party. Malcolm had represented both a militant revolutionary, with the dignity and self-respect to stand up and fight to win equality for all oppressed minorities; while also being an outstanding role model, someone who sought to bring about positive social services; something the Black Panthers would take to new heights. The Panthers followed Malcolm's belief of international working class unity across the spectrum of color and gender, and thus united with various minority and white revolutionary groups. From the tenets of Maoism they set the role of their Party as the vanguard (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/v/a.htm#vanguard) of the revolution and worked to establish a united front, while from Marxism they addressed the capitalist economic system, embraced the theory of dialectical materialism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectical-materialism), and represented the need for all workers to forcefully take over the means of production."

[ibn Bruce]

Malcom X? He was stupid enough to believe in a wierdo cult like the Black Muslims were the future. Then he wimped out and sold out his comrades. Rot in hell, i say

Malcolm left the 'Nation of Islam' to become Traditional Sunni, this did not however mean he sold out, merely that it allowed him to see the broader picture, that race plays a part in oppression, but class is just as important. He was a committed revolutionary, and he said he feared nothing but God. If that is wimping out, then I guess I would love to be a wimp.

Simply because he abandoned the idea that Whites were created by a mad scientist and that Elijah Mohammed was God, does not mean he betrayed anyone, by becoming a 'real' Muslim, he stayed just as revolutionary, but abandoned the more problematic world views of the NOI.

Guess my avatar shows whom I support most.

[scarletghoul]

Malcolm X was cooler, but they are both awesome. The poll should have been bigger though, there are many great heroes of the civil rights movement

[eisidisirock]

MLK was waaay to Christian and Malcolm X was waaay too racist. But he was much better when he got out of Nation Of Islan so i would say Malcolm.

[ibn Bruce]

I hope you don't mean racism against White people...

[AvanteRedGarde]

Martin Luther King Jr. has been sanitized by history to appear in such a way. MLK was much more of a revolutionary than he is often given credit for. He made mistakes, which ultimately channeled the black movement into the Democratic Party, but that was not his intention.

A little discussed fact of history was that his March On Washington, which culminated in the famous "I Have a Dream Speech", was supposed to be an occupation of the halls of government in Washington to force the government to give a serious look at the issues faced by blacks in the south. He was persuaded, with the greatest assurances of progress by President Kennedy, to abandon the original plan, a decision he regretted for the rest of his life.

You're completely wrong on both counts, especially the first. MLK was criticized as a reformist and more, from the left, while he was alive. In fact, now that I think about it, he had public debates with Robert F. Williams about questions of armed self-defense and non-violence. Has MLK been sanitized? Of course. However, MLK is promoted so vigorously precisely because he so blatantly reformist and starry eyed with American exceptionalism.

Some have contented that MLK and the mainstream nonviolent was actually hoisted into the March on Washington by Kennedy, in order to pacify it. I doubt it was this clear and direct, but it's pretty obvious that the powers-that-be preferred MLK to someone like Malcolm or Williams. Having Malcolm (whom wasn't widely known until the media started trotting him out as the bad 'hateful' "nigger") or Williams (who was under Federal indictment and in exile in Cuba during 1963) headline the event simply would not have been an option. Both would have excited the crowd too much. Furthermore, even if MLK was, "persuaded, with the greatest assurances of progress by President Kennedy," it is merely a testament to his non-revolutionary character, and in fact misleadership of the black masses.

That said, during his last years MLK clearly became more open to ideas that were already prevalent throughout the Black movement. Most likely, he became disillusioned with moral persuasion alone and found it most advantageous to work more closely with others in the Black movement at that time such as Stokely Charmichael , Max Stanford, etc. From this association he began to pick up more heated rhetoric and (finally) making international connections. In my opinion however, one of the best strategies of reformism is the adoption of radical rhetoric. In any event, such a change in tempo on Martin's part was enough to make the State kill him.

There's more issues I could go into, but I'll leave it at that. It's Black History Month. And ya'll just got schooled.

[brigadista]

why isn't fred hampton in the poll?

[Asoka89]

Fred Hampton is NO WHERE near as significant as either of these men. He was a smart kid, a Marxist who did some good work, but I don't see how you can even mention him here

If I ask you whether you like Kiwis or Bananas better -- and your response is Apples, you my friend are an idiot

[Blackscare]

I don't think Malcom X was a "good" revolutionary, racism is as much cultural as institutional. Therefore, revolution will not be able to get rid of the problem of racism like it would be able to end labor alienation.

I only support revolution for communist/anarchist reasons. Social issues like racism MUST be resolved peacefully, because unlike a communist revolution where the (economic) dividing lines between people can be altered, race cannot be changed. Violent race-based revolution will only lead to all out race wars and ethnic hatred. In the end it leaves the underlying problems unchanged or worse, at the cost of many lives.

In context, I totally understand X's advocacy of self defense among the oppressed blacks in the US at the time, and I support that, I just don't see revolution as the valid next step.

[Blackscare]

Should he have called for an overthrow of the system? It's hard to believe that a person on this forum even asks that question seriously.


This may get me in hot water, but I have to disagree. There is a time and place for everything, and while violent revolution is something I support, there ARE times when it is inopportune or unlikely to succeed. Had MLK led a revolution, him and his followers would have almost certainly been slaughtered. They were outgunned and outnumbered by the government and whites who would oppose revolution even if formerly they had supported civil rights.

Not every issue is prime for armed struggle, even if it is a just cause. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense.

[manic expression]

I don't think Malcom X was a "good" revolutionary, racism is as much cultural as institutional. Therefore, revolution will not be able to get rid of the problem of racism like it would be able to end labor alienation.

I only support revolution for communist/anarchist reasons. Social issues like racism MUST be resolved peacefully, because unlike a communist revolution where the (economic) dividing lines between people can be altered, race cannot be changed.

How so? Different societies view "race" in different ways. Race, as we know it, did not always exist, and it certainly will not exist forever. When you have a new way of organizing a society, you have new ways of looking at the world. To be sure, the most prominent ideas of every epoch have ever been the ideas of the ruling class; when you have a new ruling class, you also bring new ideas to prominence.

In short, race can be changed, if only because it's been changed many times before.

[rioters bloc]

I heart Malcolm X. Heaps and heaps. That said I don't know enough about MLK in order to compare the two in terms of how revolutionary they were. Not to mention that I think it's kind of a pointless exercise.


why isn't fred hampton in the poll?

Not sure what you mean by this question, I'm guessing he's in the poll because the original poster didn't want him in the poll..? ;)

[Jay Rothermel]

http://www.themilitant.com/2009/7311/731150.html
Malcolm X: A course of conduct to emulate
Revolutionary struggle, not conspiracy schemes,
offers road forward for oppressed and exploited

excerpt:

Reprinted below are the remarks by Steve Clark at a February 21 forum on the 44th anniversary of the assassination of Malcolm X. Clark is the editor of several collections of speeches by Malcolm X published by Pathfinder Press and a member of the Socialist Workers Party National Committee.
The forum was held at the Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial and Educational Center, at the site of the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem where Malcolm X was fatally shot at the podium on Feb. 21, 1965. A report on the meeting appeared in the March 16 issue of the Militant.


I’m glad to be here with all of you this evening to help keep alive the legacy of one of the 20th century world’s most outstanding revolutionary leaders of working people, and of the struggle for Black freedom—Malcolm X. And not just a legacy, but above all a course of conduct to emulate.
There is much we may never know about Malcolm’s assassination in this very hall 44 years ago, since there are so many forces—the FBI and other federal police agencies, the New York cops, and those in and around what was then the leadership of the Nation of Islam—who have a stake in covering up the truth.

What I want to focus on, however, is the political course Malcolm was on during the final year of his life that made him so dangerous to—and so hated by—all those who unsuccessfully sought to prevent his example from becoming better known.

Evolution didn’t end in Mecca
In his book Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Barack Obama—the newly inaugurated president and commander-in-chief of the world’s final empire—has this to say: “If Malcolm’s discovery toward the end of his life, that some whites might live beside him as brothers in Islam, seemed to offer some hope of eventual reconciliation, that hope appeared in a distant future, in a far-off land.”

But Barack Obama gives us only the Malcolm of the Autobiography. Like many who seek to deny Malcolm’s revolutionary political course during the final months of his life, Obama freezes Malcolm’s political evolution in April 1964, with the pilgrimage to Mecca. It’s as if Malcolm had been assassinated 10 months before he actually was. Spike Lee’s movie does the same thing.

This is standard for those who would turn Malcolm into a moral or religious reformer, instead of a political leader who acted on the reality that the concessions working people win under capitalism are always a by-product of revolutionary struggle.

It’s standard for those who hold onto Malcolm X as a nationalist, rather than an internationalist champion of struggles by the oppressed and exploited the world over.

And we even hear it these days from some who try to twist and disfigure Malcolm X into a beacon of the growing minority among African Americans in the professional and middle classes who distance themselves more and more—socially and politically—from the great mass of working people, whose living and job conditions continue to get worse, and in whose interests Malcolm fought and died.

Yes, of course, if all Malcolm’s legacy amounted to was the hope that “some whites might eventually live beside him as brothers in Islam”—then, certainly, that’s quite a reach for the transformation of the United States and most of the rest of the world! It is a hope for “a distant future”—at the very best.

Malcolm’s political legacy
But Mecca was not the culmination of Malcolm’s evolution. He lived, learned, spoke, and fought for another 10 months!
And dozens of Malcolm’s speeches, interviews, and letters from those months are available in books kept in print primarily by Pathfinder Press. All of us can study—and work to emulate—what Malcolm actually said and set out to achieve.

In them we discover the Malcolm who—when asked by a Village Voice interviewer, just a few weeks before he was killed, whether his aim was to awaken Blacks to their exploitation—immediately shot back: “No, to their humanity, to their own worth.”

There we find the Malcolm who spoke out against those who don’t give women “incentive by allowing her maximum participation in whatever area of the society where she’s qualified.” Whatever country you visit, Malcolm said, “the degree of progress can never be separated from the woman.”
We find the Malcolm who rejected the Nation of Islam’s opposition to intermarriage, saying: “I believe in recognizing every human being as a human being—neither white, black, brown, or red… . It’s just one human being marrying another human being, or one human being living around and with another human being.”

It’s during those 10 months that we find the Malcolm who sought to unify the broadest layers—irrespective of religious beliefs, or absence of religious beliefs—in militant political action against every manifestation of racist bigotry, of capitalism’s economic and social exploitation, and of murderous imperialist wars—from the Congo, to Vietnam, to Cuba at the time, and today we can add Iraq, Gaza, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (where missile strikes by the Obama administration in recent weeks have killed at least 30 people).

In order to join in these struggles effectively, Malcolm said, you have to keep “your religion at home, in the closet”—because whether you are “a Methodist or a Baptist or an atheist or an agnostic,” or a Muslim, the oppressed catch the same hell.

[Adam KH]

I hope you don't mean racism against White people...

What if he did?

[ibn Bruce]

What if he did?

Then he is a fool.

[CheFighter777]

Malcolm X didn't threaten the USA as much as Dr. King did, which is the reason they took him out as the real Revolutionary!

CNN recently did a really good "Black in America" documentary that showed how there was full on conspiracy involved on Dr. King's death. I was surprised CNN even went as far as they did in the coverage, making the US Government the killer.