MLK/Ghandi VS Malcolm X

[fLow]

This debate occurred in a welcome thread and I think it's worthy to be continued here. I agree with Alloy that MLK and Ghandi were not accomplishing empowerment. Instead they were accomplishing liberalism, hence they are adored by middle-upper classes, and Malcolm X was almost like a god in the ghettos.

Continue on!

[The Wiseman]

This debate occurred in a welcome thread and I think it's worthy to be continued here. I agree with Alloy that MLK and Ghandi were not accomplishing empowerment. Instead they were accomplishing liberalism, hence they are adored by middle-upper classes, and Malcolm X was almost like a god in the ghettos.

Continue on!

MLK was shot when he began to stray away from liberal reformism, i.e. addressing militarism, capitalism, and racism in his "Beyond Vietnam" speech and working for the black sewage workers strike in Memphis. But during the main segment of MLK's action he was actually more of a deterrent to addressing self-determination simply because he relied on legislation rather than community control. Plus the reforms that came about through MLK were only addressed due to the threatened violence of leaders like Malcolm X. Meaning the "civil rights reforms" of the 1960s followed the same pattern as all reforms: 1) Addressing some reformist demands to avoid revolutionary action and more "impossible demands", leaving fundamental structures in tact 2) Taking control away from the community and into the hands of the state 3) Relying on the "leaders" to disband rank-and-file action once some reforms have been addressed 4) They are easy for the ruling class to strip away once public focus has shifted elsewhere. Community organizations like the Black Panthers took reforms in their own hand, i.e. the breakfast program in public schools. A primary goal of statist welfare is to take reforms in their own hands and undermine community self-determination. This is what MLK pushed for and this is a reason why much of his action proved to be a set-back for colored self-determination. Malcolm X on the other hand, may not have taken the most "action", but his words and rhetoric provided outlets for lower class people of color to address their dignity and form their own self-determined organizations after his death. On the other hand, people who solely followed MLK believed that they were "successful" and nothing further needed to be "addressed".

[Revolutionary78]

Malcom X was the best. MLK was ok. Ghandi sucks. And thats my 2 cents.

[The Wiseman]

Gandhi was an opponent of spontaneous working class action that led to the end of British imperialism in India. As with all reformists he wanted to keep resistance "well-guided by the correct leaders" with "responsible political action".

His response to the RIN mutiny that contributed heavily to British withdrawal from India:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Mutiny#The_Controversy:_Political_abandonment_of_the_Mutineers

Surprisingly for events of the magnitude and reach that the mutinies came to be, the mutineers in the armed forces got no support from the national leaders and was largely leaderless. Mahatma Gandhi, in fact, condemned the riots and the ratings’ mutiny, his statement on 3 March 1946 criticised the strikers for mutinying without the call of a "prepared revolutionary party" and without the "guidance and intervention" of "political leaders of their choice"[3].

[Revolutionary78]

Gandhi was an opponent of spontaneous working class action that led to the end of British imperialism in India. As with all reformists he wanted to keep resistance "well-guided by the correct leaders" with "responsible political action".

His response to the RIN mutiny that contributed heavily to British withdrawal from India:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Mutiny#The_Controversy:_Political_abandonment_of_the_Mutineers

Thats not true. Brittian was already lving India. They could not sustain contol over India after all their loses. By that time they had allready sucked all the resources out of India and had no money. By that time mperialism was over. Indonessa and Iraq both got independence without Ghandi.

[The Wiseman]

Thats not true. Brittian was already lving India. They could not sustain contol over India after all their loses. By that time they had allready sucked all the resources out of India and had no money. By that time mperialism was over. Indonessa and Iraq both got independence without Ghandi.

I didn't say that India got independence because of Gandhi, actually I was making a point to the contrary. The mutiny from the RIN (Royal Indian Navy) contributed heavily along with resistance fighting from the INA (Indian National Army). Gandhi opposed such spontaneous resistance because it was not "guided" by a "revolutionary party". Anti-imperialist resistance in India had partially contibuted to British withdrawal but it was due to violent and non-legislative action, not Mahatma Gandhi.

Indonesia was under Dutch control by the way and like most colonial nations that attained independence it was not only due to the drain of resources from imperialist nations due to World War II, but the anti-imperialist struggles from within as well. Even though many of the imperialist nations were unable to sustain such massive counterinsurgency wars after World War II, partially thanks to military aid from the U.S. (i.e. France in Vietnam and Algeria) and loans from the World Bank (i.e. the Portuguese in East Timor, Angola, and Mozambique), many were able to hold onto their colonies for some years before granting independence.

[An extract from a letter written by P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30 1976, reads thus:

When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Clement Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in post war years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan Calcutta for two days. I put it straight to him like this: ‘The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?’ In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN Mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’.

There is, however, no basis for the claim that the Civil Disobedience Movement directly led to independence. The campaigns of Gandhi… came to an ignoble end about fourteen years before India achieved independence… During the First World War the Indian revolutionaries sought to take advantage of German help in the shape of war materials to free the country by armed revolt. But the attempt did not succeed. During the Second World War Subhas Bose followed the same method and created the INA. In spite of brilliant planning and initial success, the violent campaigns of Subhas Bose failed… The Battles for India's freedom were also being fought against Britain, though indirectly, by Hitler in Europe and Japan in Asia. None of these scored direct success, but few would deny that it was the cumulative effect of all the three that brought freedom to India. In particular, the revelations made by the INA trial, and the reaction it produced in India, made it quite plain to the British, already exhausted by the war, that they could no longer depend upon the loyalty of the sepoys for maintaining their authority in India. This had probably the greatest influence upon their final decision to quit India. Source: Majumdar, R.C., Three Phases of India's Struggle for Freedom, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1967, pp. 58–59.

[Revolutionary78]

So thn what ar you arguing for? India got independence for the reason you stated Indonessia did. Aer you saying Ghandi has a good philosiphy or ar you saying that Ghandi did not do much?

[Bob]

So thn what ar you arguing for? India got independence for the reason you stated Indonessia did. Aer you saying Ghandi has a good philosiphy or ar you saying that Ghandi did not do much?

Gandhi's role in India's independence is highly over exaggerated.

[Revolutionary78]

Gandhi's role in India's independence is highly over exaggerated.

I agree I really dont see what he did. Plus he was racist and a complete hypocrit. He beleived in peace yet he beat his wife. How can you respect that?

[Alloy]

Actually on his pilgrimage to Mecca, when witnessing Muslims of different races engaging as equals, Malcolm came to believe that Islam could transcend racial barriers. It stands to reason his ideas of racial segregation would have been affected by this change in his perspective.

And you think white America would've allowed black America to empower themselves within their communities? Racial segregation was symptomatic of the racist ideas that the US was founded on. Continuing that mentality would simply have been a perpetuation of that thesis.

I'm not sure how you can say Dr. King made things worse.

Yes SetuT he believed "IF" the whites accepted Islam then we could try integration but again Islam make you believe a lot of things. Trying to convert racist white Christians at that time to Islam is bat shit crazy since they would hang you if weren’t holding up a bible to them.

Through self determination we could have empowered ourselves, If they tried anything to break that then remember these whites where mostly dealing with non-violence before. Once we would have gained power in our communities we could have integrated with them on our terms. Read Wisemans post on what he "accomplished", I wish he knew how Gandhi was a racist so he could have cut that non-violent shit out.

[Bob]

Woah, someone is totally misrepresenting what Malcolm X said. He said that in the long term, all races will be able to integrate through Islam. However his primary aim, at that time, was to unite blacks and produce self-determination:

SPELLMAN: How religious is the Muslim Mosque Inc.? Will it be more politically oriented?

MALCOLM X: The Muslim Mosque Inc. will have as its religious base the religion of Islam which will be designed to propagate the moral reformation necessary to up the level of the so-called Negro community by eliminating the vices and other evils that destroy the moral fiber of the community -- this is the religious base. But the political philosophy of the Muslim Mosque will be black nationalism, the economic philosophy will be black nationalism, and the social philosophy will be black nationalism. And by political philosophy I mean we still believe in the Honorable Elijah Muhammad's solution as complete separation. The 22,000,000 so-called Negroes should be separated completely from America and should be permitted to go back home to our African homeland which is a long-range program; so the short-range program is that we must eat while we're still here, we must have a place to sleep, we have clothes to wear, we must have better jobs, we must have better education; so that although our long-range political philosophy is to migrate back to our African homeland, our short-range program must involve that which is necessary to enable us to live a better life while we are still here. We must be in complete control of the politics of the so-called Negro community; we must gain complete control over the politicians in the so-called Negro community, so that no outsider will have any voice in the so-called Negro community. We'll do it ourselves. Link

[SetuT]

Yes SetuT he believed "IF" the whites accepted Islam then we could try integration but again Islam make you believe a lot of things. Trying to convert racist white Christians at that time to Islam is bat shit crazy since they would hang you if weren’t holding up a bible to them.

I was talking about Malcolm's views on racial segregation ... here's an interview after he left NOI;

[Bob]

I was talking about Malcolm's views on racial segregation ... here's an interview after he left NOI;

Setut, you ought to not refer to incomplete videos. Take a look at the portion of my previous excerpt:

so the short-range program is that we must eat while we're still here, we must have a place to sleep, we have clothes to wear, we must have better jobs, we must have better education; so that although our long-range political philosophy is to migrate back to our African homeland, our short-range program must involve that which is necessary to enable us to live a better life while we are still here. We must be in complete control of the politics of the so-called Negro community; we must gain complete control over the politicians in the so-called Negro community, so that no outsider will have any voice in the so-called Negro community. We'll do it ourselves.

That means self-determination, i.e. controlling one's own institution. Malcolm X did not ever suggest that institutions of the black community should be controlled by whites. In fact he was well opposed to that, especially if run by white liberals.

[SetuT]

I wasn't disputing that he supported self-determination. I was talking about how his views on segregation may have changed after his pilgrimage to Mecca. I'm not sure how this excerpt of the interview doesn't support this. He seems pretty clear about his changed view on segregation.

I mentioned X, because me and Alloy were debating whether Dr. King did more harm than good for not supporting segregation. I'm not particularly familiar with Malcolm X, I'll have to read a bit before I get involved in a debate on him.

[Bob]

I wasn't disputing that he supported self-determination. I was talking about how his views on segregation may have changed after his pilgrimage to Mecca. I'm not sure how this excerpt of the interview doesn't support this. He seems pretty clear about his changed view on segregation.

That's correct. It did changed. Whites can only be integrated under blacks through Islam. That's what he pointed out quite well.

I mentioned X, because me and Alloy were debating whether Dr. King did more harm than good for not supporting segregation. I'm not particularly familiar with Malcolm X, I'll have to read a bit before I get involved in a debate on him.

Dr. King was not just against segregation, but integration, i.e. blacks under white institutions. That's where there is a huge difference between the two.

That said, the idea of self-determination and if required, complete freedom, is completely valid, especially if the oppressor class continues to maintain its posture.

[Alloy]

The segregation could have helped them with self determination because the whites would not be meddling with there system. When we mixed in with the whites WE had to play by THERE rules with them owning OUR institutions, that’s why now we rely on the whites doing everything and owning our institutions. The NOI wanted complete racial segregation I'm not suggesting that, what I was suggesting was they segregate till they could have built up enough power to play hard with the whites.

[Bob]

Alloy, another term for that form of segregation is called democracy. MLK, instead expected that white man's democracy will represent us.

Hell no, only people of colour can only represent themselves. That's democracy whether supported by Malcolm X or not.

[SetuT]

Alloy, another term for that form of segregation is called democracy. MLK, instead expected that white man's democracy will represent us.

It's true MLK probably had an unreasonable faith in the 'American Dream', and that white America, would allow the empowerment of black people.

I think toward the end of his life, his faith in the US was broken, and he started pushing for much more radical change ... hence the Poor People's Campaign.

 

His vision was for change that was more revolutionary than mere reform: he cited systematic flaws of racism, poverty, militarism and materialism, and that "reconstruction of society itself is the real issue to be faced."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

[Bob]

That doesn't change the fact that MLK was a sell out. His integration plan was a downright failure, it will never work, and that is even the case now. It doesn't matter if you're in US, or Australia, in both nations integration has failed and are taking people of colour further back.

[SetuT]

I don't think he was a sellout. His Christian faith probably had something to do with his approach .. brotherhood of man and all that. When he found that his approach wasn't working he changed his tune, unfortunately almost immediately after that he was killed. Having said that, I'm no expert on King, so if you have any info that might point to his being a sellout please pass it on.

Also I don't think racial integration has been a failure for people of colour. It's the doctrine of white supremacy that has held us back, and which has warped the notion of integration into a mechanism for the perpetuation of the status quo. White supremacy is the problem here , not the races mixing (says the halfcaste ).