💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › wayne-price-malcolm-x-and-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:49:11. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Malcolm X and anarchism Author: Wayne Price Date: January 25, 2010 Language: en Topics: Malcolm X, black anarchism Source: http://anarkismo.net/article/15647
“There will Ultimately be a Clash between the Oppressed and Those Who do
the Oppressing”
In the U.S., February is Black History Month. This is a good time to
review the life of Malcolm X, one of the great leaders of the Black
Liberation movement of the 60s. Anarchism, as an overall theory, is
well-known to be rather loose and eclectic. Therefore anarchists have
taken a great deal from other schools of thought, such as Marxism,
feminism, Queer theory, ecology, radical psychoanalysis, post-modernism,
etc. In my opinion, revolutionary anarchists also have much to learn
from the life and thinking of Malcolm X.
One weekend in the 70s, during a demonstration in New York’s Central
Park, I sat at a literature table for my radical group (then the
Revolutionary Socialist League). A fellow with a picture of Mao pinned
to his cap came to the table and glanced at a pamphlet we were selling
(written by me, actually), titled, “Malcolm X: Revolution Knows No
Compromise.” He sneered, “That’s anarchist!” and stalked off.
Malcolm X was not an anarchist. He wanted a revolution to break up the
U.S. government in order to create an independent Black nation, but he
was not anti-statist. In a general sense, he became anti-capitalist and
pro-socialist, but was not for libertarian socialism. Yet that Maoist
had a point! Like revolutionary anarchists, Malcolm X advocated Black
Liberation-from-below. He did not advocate that African-Americans become
part of the establishment and the power elite. He advocated
armed-self-defense rather than love of those who assaulted or killed
African-Americans. He called for self-organization and self-reliance for
African-Americans, rather than reliance on White people or on the U.S.
state. While the “integrationists” had a strategy of relying on the
Democratic Party and the national government, he urged militant
independence for African-Americans in every arena—what later became
called “Black Power.” He taught that African-Americans should be proud
of their history and their looks, rather than judge themselves through
the eyes of White people.
Malcolm X was an internationalist revolutionary, not a reformist. In the
statement quoted in the title of the pamphlet disliked by the
Maoist—from the last public speech he made as a member of the Nation of
Islam--he said, “The black revolution is world-wide in scope and in
nature. The black revolution is sweeping Asia, is sweeping Africa, is
rearing its head in Latin America…. Revolution is bloody, revolution is
hostile, revolution knows no compromise, revolution overturns and
destroys everything that gets in the way” (1966; p. 9). Of course,
compromises are made during a revolution, in particular when uniting
differing groupings of the oppressed, and Malcolm X knew it. But
ultimately there is no compromise between the oppressed and the
oppressors. One or the other must dominate.
Malcolm X made a class distinction in the African-American community. He
distinguished between the “house Negro” who, in the time of slavery,
identified with the White master, living in the master’s mansion, eating
scraps from the master’s table, and the “field Negro,” who was forced to
work in the fields, was beaten by the overseers, and had little love for
the masters. Today, this meant a split between the middle class “black
bourgeoisie,” with its integrationist goals and nonviolent methods, and
the militant, alienated, poorer, working class Blacks. Malcolm X claimed
to be one with the “field Negroes” of his day.
He was able to express his ideas in a plain, direct, fashion, that did
not talk down to his people but could explain difficult, unpopular,
ideas in a clear way. Unlike many would-be radicals, who hide their full
views from the workers, he said what he believed, despite its
unpopularity, telling the truth to Black working people. “I know you
don’t like what I’m saying, but I’m going to tell you anyway” (p. 16).
Such an approach implied an aggressive, militant, strategy against
African-American oppression. Yet his first organization, the Nation of
Islam, held him back. His leader, Elijah Muhammad, was happy to be the
head of his own little religion (his peculiar version of Islam), living
well off his members’ offerings and having a harem of “secretaries.” He
taught that Whites were (literally) non-human “devils,” and that Blacks
should wait passively for God to save them. While his “Muslims” talked
tough, they really did very little to help African-Americans. Meanwhile
the nonviolent integrationists, whatever their faults, were leading mass
demonstrations and illegal campaigns (“civil disobedience”). Malcolm X
was unhappy about this, but his boss limited Malcolm X’s political
activism and eventually expelled him from the Nation.
After this, Malcolm X came to reject his opinion of European-Americans
as a solid racist bloc which could not be split apart. This change is
often ascribed to Malcolm X’s visit to Mecca and his learning orthodox
(Sunni) Islam. This view is presented in The Autobiography of Malcolm X
(1965), edited by the moderate Alex Haley. No doubt there is truth in
this view. But Malcolm also ascribed his abandonment of racial thinking
to his international contacts with revolutionaries (not Muslim
theologicans). These influenced him to abandon Black Nationalism
altogether as a political philosophy.
“When I was in Africa in May [1964], in Ghana, I was speaking with the
Algerian ambassador who is extremely militant and who is a revolutionary
in the true sense of the word (…having carried on a successful
revolution against oppression in his country). When I told him that my
political, social, and economic philosophy was black nationalism, he
asked me very frankly, well, where did that leave him? Because he was
white. He was an African, but he was Algerian, and to all appearances he
was a white man. And he said, if I define my objective as the victory of
black nationalism…where does that leave revolutionaries in Morocco,
Egypt, Iraq, Mauritania? So he showed me where I was alienating people
who were true revolutionaries….
“So, I had to do a lot of thinking…. Can we sum up the solution to the
problems confronting our people as black nationalism? And if you notice,
I haven’t been using the expression for several months. But I still
would be hard pressed to give a specific definition of the overall
philosophy which I think is necessary for the liberation of the black
people in this country” (1966; pp. 212—213).
In his last year, Malcolm X gave up his racist conception of Whites,
saying that he was willing to work together with Whites of good will.
Asked, “But you no longer believe in a black state?” he responded, “No.
I believe in a society in which people can live like human beings on the
basis of equality” (p. 197). Nor was he, in principle, against all
multi-racial organizations. He gave up his opposition to racial
intermarriage. He separated his religious organization (the Muslim
Mosque Inc.) from his political organization (the Organization of
Afro-American Unity). “Our religion is Islam but we don’t mix our
religion with our politics and our economics and our social and civil
activities—not any more” (p. 38). He declared his willingness to
cooperate with Martin Luther King, Jr. and other integrationists,
without changing his own views. Malcolm X noted that it was the fear of
Black rebellions (“riots”) and of “extremism” as represented by himself
which made the White power structure willing to compromise with
moderates such as King.
“I believe there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and
those who do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash
between those who want freedom, justice, and equality for everyone, and
those who want to continue the systems of exploitation…but I don’t think
that it will be based upon the color of the skin, as Elijah Muhammad had
taught it” (p. 216).
None of this changed Malcolm X’s belief in the importance of
African-American self-organization, separate political organizations,
rifle clubs, and independence of the two-party system. He continued to
have a cultural and political identification with Africa and with the
international revolution. He ceased being a “nationalist” but he did not
become an “integrationist” (in the sense of being a liberal who wanted
African-Americans to completely assimilate into White America). Like C.
L. R. James before him, he rejected both nationalism and integrationism.
African-American self-organization, yes; creating a new African-American
capitalist state, no. The fight for equal rights for African-Americans,
yes; assimilation into White capitalist society, no.
Liberal Black leaders looked to an alliance with the Democratic Party,
particularly with presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Malcolm X despised the
electoralism of the liberals and their bootlicking of the White
politicians. During the 1964 U.S.presidential election, the Democrat
Johnson was opposed by the far-right-wing Republican, Goldwalter, and
the liberals, reform socialists, and Communists went all out for
Johnson. Black leaders called off civil rights demonstrations, so as not
to hurt Johnson among Whites. Malcolm X had a different response. He
declared,
“It isn’t a president who can help or hurt. It is the system. And this
system is not only ruling us in America, it is ruling the world….If
Johnson had been running all by himself, he would not have been
acceptable to anyone The only thing that made him acceptable to the
world was that the shrewd capitalists, the shrewd imperialists, knew
that the only way people would run toward the fox would be if you showed
them a wolf. So they created a ghastly alternative. And it had the whole
world—including people who call themselves Marxists—hoping that Johnson
would beat Goldwater. I have to say this. Those who claim to be enemies
of the system were on their hands and knees waiting for Johnson to get
elected….And at that moment he had troops invading the Congo and South
Vietnam!” (pp. 201—202).
Naturally, Malcolm X identified with the international revolution
against colonialism and imperialism. He admired the revolutionaries he
met and read about around the world. Almost all of these at the time
regarded themselves as some sort of “socialist”: Marxist-Leninist,
social democratic, Asian Socialist, African Socialist, Communist, etc.
Malcolm X could see for himself the evils that world capitalism had
created. “It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because
the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck….As the nations of the
world free themselves, then capitalism has less victims, less to suck,
and it becomes weaker and weaker” (p. 199).
He could see that revolutionaries everywhere identified with socialism.
He also could see how difficult it was to label oneself a socialist in
the U.S.A. Plus he was aware of how little he knew yet about socialist
ideas. For such reasons he did not make a point about calling himself a
“socialist.” Anarchists can see that those who influenced him in a
socialist direction were all state socialists (advocates of developing a
new society through the use of the state). This is a program which can
only lead, in practice, to state capitalism, with the state as the new
national capitalist exploiter.
However, Malcolm X had no experience with revolutionary anarchists who
might have raised an antistatist sort of socialism. Also, the level of
struggle among White workers, in the U.S. or even Europe was fairly low
at the time. Malcolm X could see that White students were capable of
opposing the state and racism, but it was difficult for him to see that
White workers, under certain conditions, might be part of a mass
struggle for freedom. This was before the 1968 mass strikes in France
and the 1969 strikes in Italy, or the large workers’ struggles in the
U.S. in the early 70s. Since his time, most of the “Third World” state
socialists have abandoned socialism, either for out-and-out market
capitalism or for some sort of religious dictatorship (with a capitalist
economy).
At the time of his assassination, Malcolm X was on the road to becoming
one of the U.S.’s great revolutionary leaders. The police (which had
agents in both Malcolm’s group and the Nation of Islam) had the ability
and the motive to whip up hostility between the two groups, leading to
his death. This was not that long before the assassination of Martin
Luther King, Jr.,…. We cannot know what Malcolm X would have evolved
into, if given the chance. No doubt he had his mistakes and limitations.
But he was also an important figure who spoke for the oppressed and
stood for human liberation. Revolutionary anarchists, who stand with
every rebelling section of oppressed and exploited humanity, have every
reason to respect Malcolm X, the great African-American revolutionary.
References:
Malcolm X (1966). Malcolm X Speaks. NY: Grove Press
Malcolm X (1965). The Autobiography of Malcolm X. (As told to Alex
Haley). NY: Ballantine Books.