I have not read Clayborne Carson, but I don't need to read him in order to characterize this as a bullshit lie. The KKK terror was about murdering people. Malcolm X never "cooperated" with KKK terror. I can only surmise that this is referring to Malcolm X's statements during his time with the NOI to the effect that he prefers out-and-out racists to the white liberal establishment because at least they are honest about what they believe. He stated that the white separatists like the Klan and the Nazis were at least on the same page as the NOI since the NOI wanted to be separated from whites themselves. In any case this is such a minor part of Malcolm's political philosophy, even before he evolved toward internationalism and socialism, that to cite it is to traffic in propaganda.
>He then broke from the NOI.
>His positive political economic vision never really got beyond black
>shopkeeper radicalism, though he made references to the need for guerilla
>warfare in the South and appeals to the United Nations. I don't think much
>positive would have come out of either.
More ignorant garbage. Malcolm identified with liberation movements, especially like Patrice Lumumba's. I have no idea why Rakesh tries to run this idiotic bullshit by people like myself who heard Malcolm X speak in person and who read everything he ever wrote.
>2. As Sonia Sanchez has argued, the collapse of the Panthers and its after
>school programs may have contributed to the creation of a vacuum filled by
>gangs and drug dealing. But now that we know of the horrific sexism and
>violence within the Panthers--see for example Elaine Brown's bio--I have
>trouble with your call for their revival. I don't think Social Change
>should be led by Ministers of Defense, Culture, Politics--dressed in
>leather pants and high boots. Those accoutrements may have their uses in
>other contexts but not politics.
More ignorant bullshit. The Panthers collapsed because their ultraleftism lent itself to government provocations and violent attacks. The idea of all-black organizations fighting US capitalism should be welcomed by Marxists. Since Rakesh is not much of a Marxist, he has no concept of why such organizations--including AIM and the Raza Unida Party--have a revolutionary dynamic. Understanding nationalism requires a dialectical approach. Rakesh's approach is from the standpoint of bourgeois social science, which befits his career trajectory.
>
>3. I think West's decision to dialogue with Farrakhan on the behalf of
>sisters is paternalistic and unjustifiable.
What should be criticized as well is your lunatic characterization of the NOI as building a fascist movement. Your hysteria around this question seems to have subsided a bit, but you still are clueless as to the class nature of fascist movements.
>5. You don't get it, the NOI is systematically racist. It echoes the
>racist right's explanation for why blacks are to be found
>disproportionately among the poor or the imprisoned.
Poor Rakesh, the perpetual graduate student, does not understand that racism is not false beliefs that will be overcome through true beliefs. There is no "racism" by this criteria in the US ruling class. Bill Clinton, the CEO's of the Fortune 500, etc. do not believe or state that blacks are racially inferior to whites. They simply profit from a system based on INSTITUTIONAL RACISM. The importance of Malcolm X's black nationalism is that it challenged the underlying institutions. That is much more important than his occasional reference to "white devils". Rakesh's obsession with "hate speech" should dovetail neatly with his professional aspirations. Columbia University, my employer, is gung-ho on "hate speech" but has exploited the black community for generations.
Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)