Rakesh wrote: "Oh, heck, here is a little more of the reply."
KL: Is this the academic equivalent of strip tease? Must we toss coins on the stage?
Rakesh: "1. My main focus remains the criticism of the NOI in terms of things its leaders, Malcolm X included, actually do and have done. As I understand it this whole thread began as a discussion of the NOI with which Cornel West had decided to struggle on behalf of the sisters. We seem to be agreed that the NOI may not have the positive qualities Dan V has attributed to it--if its history is any guide to its present. What happened to the debate about whether the NOI, the friend of the Klan, is relatively progressive on questions of race/racism and less so on class/capital--as Daniel V put it."
KL: This libels even Elijah Muhammad, who certainly was no "friend of the Klan" -- regarded as a group of white devils. I'm beginning to wonder whether the protagonists in this debate ever read Muhammad Speaks in the 1960s and 1970s, which hammered away constantly at racist terror as long as Elijah Muhammad lived.
However, I did not enter the thread to discuss today's manifestation of the NOI under Louis Farrakhan; I entered it to refute your lies about Malcolm X. The fact that you felt it necessary to hold Malcolm responsible for the man his widow regarded as his murderer indicates an unstated political agenda on your part.
Rakesh: "Malcolm X's heroic exposure of the NOI and his own Klan links, as well as his important criticism of the March on Washington, come only as he becomes more and more critical of the NOI."
KL: This is selective interpretation at its worst. The comments about the march were perfectly consistent with NOI doctrine of that era, and Malcolm was its most successful representative. Failing to grasp that is one reason why you cannot see the contradictions in the NOI, and thus view it as nothing more than a reactionary sect.
Rakesh: "2. Ken argues that Malcolm X could not lend support to SNCC because of its adoption of the tactic of non violence. But as a member of the NOI Malcolm X also stood against the non racialism for which SNCC stood. That is, his opposition was based on more than its tactics until he broke from the NOI. He wanted separatism--separate land and government, a new racially defined nation state.
"After the break, he could militate for armed self defense of civil rights workers in the South. Ken does not clarify at what point Malcolm supported the armed self defence of the civil rights workers struggling to bring an end to the world the Klan and NOI wanted to preserve."
KL: This is more learned ignorance, sophistry as smoke. In those days and much earlier, Malcolm appeared frequently on Irv Kupcinet's television talk show in Chicago. He always stood in favor of ALL militancy displayed by Blacks, and particularly advocated exemplary displays of armed resistance -- even by street gangs. He was careful to say that he regarded the civil rights leadership as pied pipers, but he nevertheless challenged them to be "men" [sic] and praised them when they rose to the occasion. As an NOI leader, he was an intelligent practitioner of united front tactics. Writers like Rakesh who conceive only their absurd caricature of the NOI thus fail to explain Malcolm's growth except as repudiation, which is a serious political error.
Rakesh: "Ken seems not to think that a tacit agreement to the maintainence of the separation of races necessarily means that the NOI, ostensibly a black self defense group, could not protect those struggling for desegregation. At any rate, where is the proof that Malcolm X thought his tacit agreement with the Klan was repellant when he entered into it (1961)?"
KL: Talk about a dead horse! Where is the proof that this "agreement" amounted to anything? But AGAIN, FOR EFFECT, why is this so-called "fact," which could not have had an effect on SNCC's esteem for Malcolm in 1961 or 1964 or 1965, more important to you than the actual political consequences of Malcolm's relations with SNCC from 1961 onward? It is your dodge of that direct question that demonstrates the political bankruptcy of your position -- as history, as biography, and most of all for me, as a guide to action.
Rakesh: "He seems to have been a committed separatist at that point, and he never really broke from that ideology. For example, as interesting as malcolm's criticism of the march on washington was, it was also enunciated from teh point of view of a radical black islamic separatist or at least that ideology was inextricably tied up with his criticism. This renders the criticism quite ambiguous."
KL: It was not ambiguous to anyone in SNCC, neither to those moving with Jim Forman onto a revolutionary course, nor to the radical pacifist wing, nor even to those headed into Democratic and Republican party politics. (Yes, despite some LBO list participants' misguided passion for Democrats, when Freedom Movement activists elected a bourgeois road it as easily led them to Richard Nixon as to Lyndon Johnson, and sometimes to both. Movement organizer and singer Jim Dunn used to quote the old African proverb: "If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.")
Rakesh: "Indeed Ken L may think this separatism to be the strength of his thought where I find that it seriously compromises it."
KL: I think it is another pretext for avoiding the central issue. Would SNCC radicals have been stronger if they had instead faithfully followed Martin Luther King? To ask that question is to answer it. King himself begged the government to grant him "victories," in order to prevent the radicalization.* What other political choice was there? Jim Forman would have preferred a Black Marxist leader with Malcolm's stature, but no such person existed. I regard SNCC's achievements as the most important events in the U.S. 1960-1967, and prerequisites to the broader radicalization that followed, comparable historically to the Abolitionist period of the 19th century, or to the C.I.O. period of labor history. Howard Zinn's title, SNCC: The New Abolitionists, was exactly right. That doesn't mean that every political decision was perfect, nor do I play down the mistakes in drawing lessons for today's and tomorrow's activists. But compare this view with Rakesh's. He offers absolutely no credible alternative. [*footnote: Scholarship based on published memoirs can be deceptive on this point. Conrad Lynn, for example, regarded MLK as treacherous, but Lawrence Hill refused to publish Lynn's autobiography until he had softened his language and added words of praise.]
Rakesh: "At any rate, that Malcolm X was later ashamed of this tacit agreement is profoundly important. One only wishes those who shared the stage with Farakahn would feel the same shame now. What would have Malcolm thought of the Second March on Washington called for by his killers?"
KL: This comparison is offensive. Louis Farrakhan has not offered anything resembling the political challenge that Malcolm always did. If you make illegitimate comparisons, you end up with worthless or harmful political consequences. The rule remains: garbage in, garbage out.
Rakesh: "3. No one has denied that Malcolm X's later or latest thought contains contradictory elements. This has been justified in terms of the confusion and challenges of the time. Ken argues that Malcolm X would have been more sympathetic to radical black belt groups (Forman moved in this direction it seems, and I have expressed my disagreement in other places); ..."
KL: Point the finger at me too. When Carl and Anne Braden hired me for the SCEF staff in August of 1971, they offered me the choice of any Deep South state as my base. As we were discussing the possibilities on August 8, word came of the police-FBI dawn armed attack on the headquarters of the Republic of New Africa in Jackson, in which a police lieutenant was killed, a patrolman and an FBI agent were wounded, and all the RNA fighters emerged whole. I told the Bradens I'd pick Mississippi, so I could work on their defense, basing my choice largely on the one we never got to save Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, murdered in their sleep by Chicago cops and FBI attackers in 1969. I spent the entire decade of the 1970s crisscrossing the U.S. and Europe in support of these brave men and women who had fought back against the armed might of the state and won. I guess Rakesh would counsel abstention unless both the victims and the resisters suit his acceptable profile.
Rakesh: "Louis P seems to tow the SWP line that Malcolm X was about to become an anti imperialist Leninist or champion of the new national bourgeoisies in third world; Henryck likes Malcolm because he opposed the imperialist running dogs. And the islamic and separatist and petty bourgeois elements of his thought remain there until the end. Must hagiography get in the way of an actual analysis of what Malcolm X stood for or believed? If it were clear, then why do widely divergent groups claim him? Is it only a question of getting Malcolm right or understanding what he got wrong as well?"
KL: I believe this mischaracterizes Louis's position, but he can speak for himself. Why do diverse groups claim Moses, Buddha, or Karl Marx? Is it a lack of clarity, or is it because their achievements and importance exceed their beliefs? Are biographies that laud Marx's great contributions to human liberation "hagiography"? Again, the question answers itself, to Malcolm's credit. Anyone who has touched and inspired the most selfless and dedicated activists of a generation merits greater respect than this. Shall I begin my pitch for Marxism with a laundry list of Marx's shortcomings? I am willing, as time permits, to discuss them with comrades, but I would not yield a millimeter to anti-Marxists who want to use Marx's alleged mistakes as a pretext for justifying a reactionary political course.
Rakesh: "4. I was encouraged by Len Holt to read Malcolm X critically; I also read quite a bit else on the civil rights movements, though I have seem to come across as ignorant to my interlocutors. After reading Malcolm X the book/speeches and the movie critically, I found that it's not simply a matter of Spike Lee downplaying the role of the NOI in his assasination or diluting his radical ideas. It's also a question of Lee not facing up to the many disturbing elements in his thought. Ken wants him to remain a folk hero. So was Gandhi as people invoked the name of the Mahatma as they engaged in acts that Mohandas spoke against. So there is the question of how the invocation of the folk hero works in social movements or today in the sale of hats and other clothing, and the question of what the folk hero actually thought and fought for. I have not read Jan Carew's study of Malcolm X or Joe Wood's ed collection; perhaps these will make me less critical; perhaps Michael Dyson's study will be illuminating as well. Malcolm X's own words have not made me less critical. But I welcome any insights based on such studies."
KL: I have not seen the film nor read the books. I am discussing Malcolm's role in what Jim Forman rightly called The Making of Black Revolutionaries. In a smaller way, I witnessed a similar process at close hand when C.L.R. James was living in my home during his half-year in Chicago. Black nationalists, radical scholars, Marxists, New Leftists, and street-level activists of every stripe flocked to him, to gain whatever wisdom they could. He asked them a lot of questions about their activities, and gave them encouragement, but not once did he make any attempt to indoctrinate them in the politics of our small sect. Several years ago, in collaboration with Paul Buhle, Sojourner Truth Organization assembled and published a collection of tributes to Nello, as we called him. For that project I interviewed his nephew, Darcus Howe (leader of the Race Today collective), in London. Darcus and I marveled at the breadth of Nello's following, among radical groupings that have little else in common. Most intelligent witnesses regard such a lifetime achievement as commendable, not worrisome. Malcolm accomplished as much or more in fewer than half as many years.
Rakesh: "5. I have been called overintellectualized , vile, arrogant, idiotic, etc. If I were to tell you how amusing, as well as disturbing, it is for me to read a bunch of angry nasty white men lecturing me about my insenstivity to racism and the struggle against it, then I suppose I will get another message from Doug, cc'ed to the rest of you, telling us all to chill out. So I won't tell you. It does not seem necessary to lace your criticisms of me with so many ad hominem comments. But I am truly impressed with the passion and viciousness these white men have demonstrated in putting me in my place; it augurs well for the future of debate and reason in the US. Unfortunately you all have not scared me into shutting up--though that's the last thing I would imagine reasonable white men would want to do. I welcome further criticisms but my reply will be delayed. Perhaps more people with different ideas will enter the fray. That would be great."
KL: I have no idea of your sensitivity or lack of it to racism, nor have I suggested any such conclusion. I missed "vile," though it may have crossed my mind. Is Henry Liu a white man? News to me. I have properly accused you of posting lies about Malcolm X, of attempting to obfuscate his central importance to the most radical challenge to U.S. capitalism (not primarily to racism, but definitely to white supremacy) of the 1960s, and of offering no constructive alternative to those actual events, properly understood. My suspicion, based on many years of reading this sort of nonsense, is that its purpose is to assure a comfortable position in academic life. No actual political insurgents could find value in it. For Marxists, the cry of "ad hominem" often turns out to be yet another evasion, averting attention from the underlying political-economic basis of the argument, though such evaluations are perfectly legitimate. No one has avoided direct answers to your arguments themselves, no matter how frivolous. Have you run these exchanges past, say, John Bracey? I'm confident he, or any number of radical Black scholars, would be as incensed as we on this list, although they might regard answering them as an unworthy indulgence.
Ken Lawrence