I told you
The leaflet could not have been part of the publication Living Marxism, initially International Council Correspondence and later New Essays, because it ceased to be published by the early 1940s (I don't have copies) while Ken L argues that the speaking tour was in the late 40s (you didn't date the speaking tour precisely). His memory is as fried as his analysis. Why did you make no mention of this in your public LBO statements today? At any rate, he has made no attempt to indicate a link between Strasser and Mattick in terms of *anything* the latter wrote. So it is pitiful attempt to discredit me or Mattick.
Louis P has continued this discrediting on pen-l to which I am not subscribed. I am dealing with very terrible people here; or remember Ken Lawrence's attempt to discredit Chomsky as a Nazi sympathizer. At least, I am in good company.
I have not argued this way, and now I appreciate those who were outraged by Ken's attempt to cast me as a Nazi. This is simply unacceptable.
I have tried to show how the NOI's racial separatism which made a tacit agreement (if we must) with the Klan possible continues to inform MX's politics until the end. He counseled against integrated workers' solidarity in the here and now(and this is seriously troubling and perncious advocacy from the point of view of a workers movement and nothing to be taken lightly, though no one has yet commented on the march 64 passage to which Collins tried to give a favorable reading);he only supported civil rights while maintaining that secession/separatism was the final solution. His pseudo conversion, made much of by Breitman but criticized by Dyson, from separatism to black nationalism in the form of community control within the ghetto does not negate that he was still ultimately working for black belt secession--an interpretation defended by Cleage and T'Shaka according to Dyson who rejects Breitman's SWP reading.Moreover the real limits on the power achievable by such black nationalism/community control for the black working class and unemployed were never discussed.
Yes, I am repeating myself.
Also, Malcolm X's support for "socialism" took the form of embracing Nasser, Kenyatta, Ben Bella, Nkrumah and Castro. If it has been said of the Harlem Renaissance writers that they basked in the sun of the white bourgeoisie (E Franklin Frazier?), Malcolm X was doing the same in the sun of the third world statist bourgeoisie. He never uttered a word about those suffering in Nasser's or Kenyatta's prisons. Now tell me if I am wrong. If it is true, then this should prove quite troubling for trotskyists and other communists and human beings generally, and Malcolm X's reputation as a fighter for the oppressed needs to be reconsidered. That is, he was, ideologically speaking, a third world stalinist (if anything that's the ideology he had converted to late in his life, and several authors have raised problems about his analysis of post colonial regimes--see essays in Joe Wood ed. book on Malcolm X) and had he lived longer, he would have perhaps joined the Weatherman in singing odes to Comrade Kim Il Sung. There is nothing to indicate that this is not possible as far as I know. It is impossible to say that he wanted to do more or less than create such a nation state, along Stalinist lines, for blacks themselves. This is what can be called utopian nationalism, bound to degenerate into reactionary intrigues and the like.
Yours, Rakesh