This is a subject on which I have very little experitse. But I have always admired Malcomb X, perhaps because my first exposure to him began when he was linking the struggle of the American Blacks to the global anit-imperialism movement He was the first to hold those views publicly since Robeson,, a great friend of China and the global oppressed. I find myself agreeing with your views about Malcomb X, even if all the accusations from Rakesh should turn out to be true. Deals of expediency are made in revolutionary politics all through history. What counts is the overall direction and Malcomb X was certainly moving in the right direction. Paul's Roman background did not overshadow his contribution to the building of early Christianity, a socialist movement.
Louis Proyect wrote:
> Rakesh:
> >That's in the FBI record. It does not seem to
> >me that the Klan could be motivated to lend support to the NOI's seizure
> >of land unless the NOI promised something in return. Is that a
> >reasonable inference?
>
> Inference? Surmising? Is that what you want to do? Be my guest. What I'd
> suggest is that you find another career besides academia where stringent
> documentation is a requirement.
>
> As far as that FBI memo is concerned, it also contains the following
> information:
>
> Comments and Contacts with the Communism and Russia
>
> [BUREAU DELETION] advised on [BUREAU DELETION] 1960, that during December,
> 1960, Minister Malcolm X Little of NOI Temple No. 7, made the following
> statements [to the effect that] the white man is the enemy of the black
> man. The Czarist government suppressed the people and the same kind of
> revolution as occurred in Russia will take place here in the United States.
> The revolution will start in Harlem and [the Nation of Islam will be] the
> leaders of this black man revolution. MALCOLM X espressed himself as a
> great admirer of NICOLAI [sic] LENIN and JOSEPH STALIN and stated that they
> were actually non-white men..."
> ------
>
> The point to all this is that Malcolm X was very early in his political
> evolution when he was carrying out Elijah Muhammed's orders, or defending
> the Russian revolution. In 1961, he was an obedient servant of Elijah
> Muhammed who went everywhere and did everything the cult leader directed
> him to.
>
> The Malcolm X that Marxists are most interested in is the Malcolm who broke
> with Elijah Muhammed. As a NOI leader in the pre-break early period,
> Malcolm often made outrageous statements that might pump up his reputation
> on the streets of Harlem just like the ex-leader of the Harlem mosque,
> Conrad Muhammed, would do. If this is was all we knew about Malcolm X, he
> would be nothing but a footnote.
>
> What is so unspeakably vile is Rakesh's insistence on drawing upon this
> early period which includes the Klan meeting as some kind of paradigm for
> Malcolm X's political philosophy. This is beyond distortion. It is a filthy
> lie. The Malcolm X who the left has been engaged with is the Malcolm of the
> OAAU, who declared that the US needed a revolution. He said in his
> autobiography that the word for revolution is "Umwalzung" or complete
> overturn. He cited Ben Bella, the revolutionary Algerian nationalist as an
> example of the kind of revolutionary he aspired to be.
>
> The reason that Malcolm X was tracked and harrassed by the CIA was that he
> was making connections with such revolutionaries everywhere he went,
> including the United States. He was warmly greeted on his visits to
> Socialist Workers Party headquarters and never turned down an invitation to
> speak at Militant Labor Forums, where I first heard him speak in the winter
> of 1965.
>
> Instead of examining this period of Malcolm X's maturity, Rakesh prefers to
> dwell on an obscure moment in 1961, when Malcolm was acting on strict
> instructions from Elijah Muhammed. When he broke with the NOI, the first
> thing he did was expose and denounce this meeting which was probably one of
> the sore points that led to his assassination. Rakesh interprets this
> meeting as a crowning symbol of Malcolm X's "reactionary" politics when
> every other serious scholar sees the public repudiation of the meeting
> which took place 3 years later as the true paradigm. Rakesh unfortunately
> is not interested in scholarship, but in making cheap propaganda points.
>
> Louis Proyect
> (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)