Malcolm X biography marred by political confusion

Scan page 9

“Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention,” by Manning Marable. New York, Viking Press. $30.

As a student of Malcolm X’s life and powerful ideas, I eagerly waited for Manning Marable’s new biography “Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention.” Here, I thought, would be an exhaustive presentation of Malcolm by an academic heavyweight out of Columbia (Marable died April 1, just days before the publication of this book), which would hopefully reveal new insights into the mind of a man who touched millions of lives.

In the prologue Marable tells us that he wrote this book because he felt that the famed “Autobiography of Malcolm X” (which he had used to teach college courses) was inadequate in some areas and inaccurate in others. Marable writes that he aims to go “beyond the legend: to recount what actually occurred in Malcolm’s life.” And for those who are becoming newly acquainted with Malcolm X’s life and work— who may be hungry for more details regarding Malcolm’s life and assassination—the book may prove to be a useful companion to the “Autobiography.”

But sadly, Marable’s strength—bringing together an astounding amount of details regarding Malcolm’s life—turns into a liability, as it leaves little room for consistent in-depth analysis of Malcolm’s ideas, and makes the book far less engaging than the gripping pages of the “Autobiography.”

Furthermore, especially for those that have long studied Malcolm, the book will likely be disappointing (particularly in the epilogue) due to a politically weak and disjointed analysis on Malcolm’s changing ideas.

The book’s strengths are on display as soon as it begins; Marable weaves the tale of Malcolm’s birth and very early years into the context of the rising movement of Marcus Garvey, for which Malcolm’s father (Earl Little) was a dedicated activist. Marable notes that it was “one of the largest mass movements in black history,” and for readers unfamiliar with the Garvey movement, this will be an excellent introduction. We find out that the Little children were “constantly drilled in the principles of Garveyism, to such an extent they expressed their black nationalist values at school” (p. 29).

Marable gives a similar historical treatment to the Nation of Islam as the book progresses, showing how Malcolm’s siblings urged him to join the NOI in letters and visits while Malcolm was incarcerated. Marable adeptly makes links with the past, writing, “The black nationalist message of racial pride, a rejection of integration, and self-sufficiency rekindled strong connections with the driving faith of his parents” (p. 78).

Here too (while Malcolm was locked up), we see the beginning of Malcolm’s skills as an activist and teacher develop. Marable writes that in prison Malcolm had “committed himself to a rigorous course of study. In doing so, he consciously remade himself into Gramsci’s now famous “organic intellectual,” creating habits that, years later, would become legendary” (p. 90).

Upon Malcolm’s release from prison, Marable describes his meteoric rise within the Nation of Islam due to his amazing ability to organize and recruit. After a few months of work in the Detroit NOI mosque where Malcolm was first active, membership had tripled. Soon Malcolm was an assistant minister and then a minister, and was responsible—in a relatively short time—for establishing four new temples and successfully reviving those in Philadelphia and New York. Malcolm’s record of tireless work, which Marable documents throughout the book, is an amazing testament of love for his people, and should inspire all activists.

Marable does a skillful job of detailing Malcolm’s growth away from the NOI’s abstentionist politics. Marable repeatedly brings up the instances—such as Malcolm’s response to the police brutality toward Johnson X Hinton and others, which was depicted in Spike Lee’s movie “Malcolm X”—that “set in motion the forces culminating in Malcolm’s inevitable rupture with the Nation of Islam. … Malcolm knew that the Nation’s future growth depended on its being immersed in the black community’s struggles of daily existence. His evangelism had expanded the NOI’s membership, giving it greater impact, but it was also forcing him to address the problems of non-Muslim black Americans in new ways. Eventually he would have to choose: whether to remain loyal to Elijah Muhammad, or to be ‘on the side of my people’” (p. 129).

This became painfully apparent when Los Angeles police brutally shot down seven NOI members, paralyzing one for life and killing another. Malcolm was livid, and according to Marable, began to assemble a NOI hit squad to retaliate against the LAPD. Elijah Muhammad wouldn’t give his approval to any such move—but even more important, stopped Malcolm from “organizing a black united front against the police in Southern California…” (p. 208).

“Malcolm himself was humiliated by the NOI’s failure to defend its own members. Everything that he had experienced over the previous years—from mobilizing thousands in the streets around Hinton’s beating in 1957 to working with Phillip Randolph to build a local Black united front in 1961-1962—told him that the Nation could protect its members only through joint action with civil rights organizations and other religious groups. … He had become convinced that Elijah Muhammad’s passive position could not be justified. … Political agitation and public protests, along the lines of CORE and SNCC, were essential to challenging institutional racism…” (p. 209).

While discussing Malcolm’s own struggles with tactics and strategies, Marable also details the contours of the debates taking place in the civil rights movement. But the weakness of Marable’s political analysis becomes apparent as he sets up Malcolm’s break from the Nation of Islam,.

At this point, Marable guesses at Malcolm’s thought process as the latter examines the NOI’s racial views: “Were Yacub’s History [an important part of the NOI ideology]… false, then people of European descent were not devils to be fought against, but individuals who could oppose racism … a new religious mapping of the world based on orthodox Islam would not necessarily stigmatize or isolate the United States because of its history of slavery and racial discrimination. Instead of a bloody jihad, a holy Armageddon, perhaps America could experience a nonviolent, bloodless revolution. At some point, Malcolm must have pondered the unthinkable: it was possible to be black, a Muslim, and an American” (p. 285, emphasis in original).

How does an embracing of orthodox Islam, and rejection of Yacub’s History, equate to a lack of stigmatization directed at America for its racial record, or to a nonviolent, bloodless revolution, or to Malcolm perceiving himself as an American? The jumps in logic are confusing.

Marable is similarly confusing in his attempts to explain Malcolm’s views on race. At one point Marable tells us that Malcolm “made his race-neutral views clear” (p. 333), but later he writes, “[Malcolm] did not embrace ‘color blindness’” (p. 484). The reality of Malcolm’s views on these questions is more nuanced than Marable takes the time to explain. It is true that Malcolm had moved beyond Yacub’s history, and the belief that all whites were totally unredeemable, but this didn’t give all white people a free pass in his eyes.

In religious terms this meant that white people could, in fact, become practitioners of Islam. In political terms, Marable quoted Malcolm as pointing to a litmus test as well. Malcolm believed that the white people who had a strong personal commitment to racial inequality were usually “socialists” (p. 336).

Later he quotes Malcolm revealingly: “I firmly believe in my heart,” [Malcolm] declared, that when the black man acts “to use any means necessary to bring about his freedom or put halt to that injustice, I don’t think he’ll be by himself. … I for one will join in with anyone, I don’t care what color you are, as long as you want to change this miserable condition” (p. 391). The understanding implicit in this statement is that the whites who join with Malcolm would also have to adhere to his credo of “by any means necessary.” It is worth noting additionally that Malcolm “characterized U.S. racism as being an inseparable part of the entire political and social system” (p. 412).

Marable implies later that Malcolm was in the process of breaking from Black nationalism. He writes, “By the final months of his life he resisted identification as a “black nationalist,” seeking ideological shelter under the race-neutral concepts of Pan-Africanism and Third World revolutionaries” (p. 485). But this allegation is undermined by Marable’s own work, which cites Malcolm—after being asked by the son-in-law of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood why he failed to see that Islam confirms the oneness and equality of all races—as responding, “As a black American, I do feel that my first responsibility is to my twenty-two million fellow black Americans” (p. 368).

Marable himself writes, “Despite his new-found reluctance at being described as a black nationalist, Malcolm still perceived political action in distinctly racial categories, which may further explain why he made no moves to integrate his groups” (p. 407). And “Malcolm [in ‘striking contrast’ to MLK] perceived himself first and foremost as a black man. … [He] perceived black Americans as an oppressed nation-within-a-nation, with its own culture, social institutions, and group psychology. … he always thought first and foremost about blacks’ interests” (p. 482).

For some reason, Marable feels the need to separate Malcolm’s politics into an American point of view on one hand and a third world point of view on the other: “Despite his radical rhetoric … the mature Malcolm believed that African Americans could use the electoral system and voting rights to achieve meaningful change. … But outside of the United States … he did not see electoral politics and gradual social change as a viable approach for transforming postcolonial societies. He endorsed revolutionary violence against the apartheid regime in South Africa, and guerrilla warfare against the neocolonial regime in Congo and in the Portuguese colonies of Guinea-Bissau, Angola, and Mozambique…” (p. 484).

But was Malcolm only a revolutionary when it came to Africa, and then a reformist when it came to America? Marable further confuses us when he writes, “What Malcolm sought was a fundamental restructuring of wealth and power in the United States—not violent social revolution, but radical and meaningful change nevertheless” (p. 483).

Here Marable admits that Malcolm sought fundamental restructuring of wealth and power, but then he states that this excludes violent revolution. Malcolm’s famous credo is “by any means necessary”! What part of “by any means necessary” would lead anyone to believe that Malcolm was ruling any strategy out—either elections or revolution—when it came to his goals?

Had Malcolm been making statements in favor of registering voters and urging voting? Yes. But Marable notes that there was something else among these statements, something that troubled him: “There was a glaring inconsistency in [Malcolm’s] logic. Malcolm was encouraging African Americans to vote … yet simultaneously he accused both major parties of racism. … The African American who habitually voted for the Democrats ‘is not only a chump but a traitor to his race’” (p. 307). And again Marable notes that “[Malcolm] sincerely believed that blacks and other oppressed Americans had to break from the existing two-party system” (p. 405).

The only way that readers might believe there is inconsistency in Malcolm’s logic is if they are bound to one of the major capitalist parties; here Marable doesn’t leave open the possibility that Malcolm was preparing those who looked to him for political guidance to register to vote, but to withhold that vote until they got a candidate that truly represented their interests (or until putting forth a candidate themselves).

In the epilogue to the book Marable turns to the present: “Given the election of Barack Obama, it now raises the question of whether blacks have a separate political destiny from their white fellow citizens. … Malcolm’s vision today would have to radically redefine self-determination and the meaning of black power in a political environment that to many appeared to be “post-racial” (p. 486).

Marable speaks of a “post-racial” society even though impoverished Black communities, prisons overflowing with Blacks, and instances of police brutality are (continued on page 11, in “Canada: Build on historic gains for NDP!”)

Socialist Action may 2011 9

Scan page 10

10 Socialist Action may 2011 ... Antiwar (continued from page 1: “April 9 & 10 protests show a new and diverse antiwar movement”)

Muslim Umah of North America, the Council on American Islamic Relations, and the organizers of the Muslim Peace Coalition—a group formed to link the fight against Islamophobia to the fight against the U.S. wars. In San Francisco on April 10, 3000 activists heard Iman Zaid Shakir, founder of Zaytuna College, and Zahra Billoo, executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Perhaps 2000 Muslims marched on the East Coast, and in this way demonstrated their willingness to consider the idea that fighting together with the antiwar movement might be an effective defense against the terror of preemptive prosecution, deportation, and other kinds of victimization.

Nor were the McCarthyite hearings aimed at Muslim Americans the only civil liberties focus of April 9 and 10. Victimized Chicago antiwar activists Hatem Abudayyah and Mick Kelley urged the crowds in New York and San Francisco respectively to embrace their fight against FBI raids and grand jury witch hunts. “I will not submit to government efforts to criminalize Palestine solidarity work,” Abudayyah said. The Committee to Stop FBI Repression organized a spirited contingent to march in the San Francisco demonstration.

The inclusion of the clear demand to end the $3 billion that the U.S. gives annually to Israel resulted in a more youthful and spirited demonstration. Students for Justice for Palestine, one of the most active groups on campus today, organized a contingent in New York City. Contrary to some April 9/10 critics, the demand to cut all U.S. aid to Israel and to end U.S. support to the Israeli occupation of Palestine did not cut across this important bicoastal mobilization. Endorsements from were secured from more than 600 organizations across the country, including some of New York’s largest or most powerful unions—SEIU Local 1199 and TWU Local 100.

Speakers from the nations under assault by the U.S., or with family ties there, were prominent in both cities’ rallies. In San Francisco, Afghan activist Malalai Joya explained that U.S. intervention had strengthened, rather than weakened, the enemies of women’s rights. Zaineb Alani, an Iraqi-American poet and peace activist, with more than 40 members of her extended family currently living under occupation in Iraq or in refugee status in neighboring countries, opened the rally in New York City. Her message, she said, was inspired by the news that Iraqi activists were bravely sitting in at U.S. military bases around her homeland.

Zohra Ahmed, member of the Pakistan Solidarity Network, addressed the crowd in Manhattan, who were also informed that the Labor Party of Pakistan and other groups had organized April 9 solidarity demonstrations in four cities of the South Asian nation.

“Bring the War Dollars Home!” was another prominent theme of both rallies. New York Transport Workers Union Local 100 Vice President Kevin Harrington demanded an end to the devastating budget cutbacks faced by his membership. The San Francisco rally heard greetTony Savino / Socialist Action ings from Tim Paulsen of the Central Labor Council and from Clarence Thomas, executive board member of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 10—now being sued by the bosses’ Pacific Maritime Association in retaliation for their heroic one-day strike in solidarity with Wisconsin workers.

Nellie Bailey, a leader of Harlem Fights Back Against the War, told of the devastation being wrought on the social services needed by New York’s Black community. Teresa Gutierrez, a leader of the May 1 immigrant rights coalition, linked the war on immigrant workers to the attacks on the unions and working people abroad. Mary Richmond, president of the Capital District (N.Y.) National Organization for Women, stood at the mike with a handmade sign that said, “Class Warfare.”

Harvey Wasserman, a longtime anti-nuke activist and the author of “Solartopia,” made the case for spending war dollars on wind and solar power technologies that could slow down the climate crisis. Luis Cotto, a Hartford, Conn., city councilor, encouraged others to pass “Bring the War Dollars Home” resolutions, as his colleagues had done. While the challenge remains to firmly connect the antiwar movement and the growing struggle against government cutbacks and the attacks on the unions, the seed was surely sown on April 9 and 10. U.S. ramps up war machine Without a movement in the streets mobilizing greater and greater parts of the population for an end to Washington’s project, the wars abroad and at home can only become more brutal.

According to analyst Ray McGovern, at the end of April the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan passed the 6000 mark, “with 43,184 the official figure for the number wounded. An additional 54,592 have required medical evacuation from combat. Thus, about 104,000 U.S. troops—a conservative minimum not including the walking wounded, those with traumatic brain injury, attempted or successful suicides, and civilian contractors—are casualties of these long wars.”

While the White House would have the populace believe that these numbers are going to go down, projected military spending gives no reason for such optimism. Gareth Porter, deconstructing the Obama Pentagon budget, argues that the president’s war expenditures from 20122020 will result in an average base military expenditure 40% higher than similar budgets from the 1990s.

The NATO bombing of Libya suggests the kind of deadly operations the Pentagon has in mind in response to the threat posed to U.S. interests by the Arab Spring. Tom Dispatch editor Nick Turse explains that the Huey helicopters being deployed against the democracy demonstrators in Yemen are likely aircraft sent by the U.S. in response to the outbreak of the movement against the Sanah regime. This deal was just a small element of the $1.3 billion in military equipment that has been sent to Yemen to maintain “stability.”

In fact, the White House is streamlining the process by which the U.S. goes to war in response to challenges to the Middle East status quo. The precedent of the undeclared war on Libya is clearly not good enough for the war makers. According to the former congressman and director of Win Without War, Tom Andrews, legislaTony Savino / Socialist Action tion expected to become part of the Defense Authorization Bill has been introduced in both the House and Senate (H.R. 968 and S. 551) that will, he claims, authorize the president and the secretary of defense to take military action anywhere, anytime, against anyone they claim is associated with al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

This legislation seemingly further codifies the right of the president to detain anyone he suspects of links to terrorism, make them available for a military tribunal, or hold them indefinitely with no provisions for any kind of review. What is the road ahead?

Despite the relative success of the April antiwar actions, there is no doubt that the size of recent U.S. antiwar mobilizations pales before the massive turnouts of almost a decade ago when hundreds of thousands took to the streets against the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But the smaller turnouts are less a product of a decline in antiwar sentiment than they are of other critical factors that have served to undermine all social movements.

Indeed, polls taken by a dozen mainstream newspapers and polling organizations over the last month indicate a majority opposition to all U.S. wars. But the gap between consciousness and action has yet to be bridged.

Working people have likewise absorbed body blows to their standard of living to a degree that seemed inconceivable just a few years ago. But with the exception of the impressive mobilizations in Wisconsin and perhaps a few other places, the hidebound and class-collaborationist trade-union bureaucracy and the Democratic Party have succeeded in channeling mass protests into “lesser-evil” electoral politics and futile lobbying campaigns.

Unless confronted by a counterforce of historic proportions, there will be no victories today. Only the force of millions in massive and united actions that challenge every aspect of the capitalist offensive can begin to reverse the present trend of one defeat after another.

Dennis Edge Tony Savino / Socialist Action (Photos) Scenes from April 9 in New York City. (Left) Malik Mujahid of the Muslim Peace Coalition addresses the rally at Union Square.

Growing understanding of this fact was revealed when a youthful working-class protester in Wisconsin carried a placard that was widely reproduced. It read, “Fight like an Egyptian!”

What seemed impossible yesterday in Egypt, ruled by a brutal U.S.-backed dictator, is now on the order of the day. We can and should expect no less from U.S. workers—who have some lessons of their own to teach, based on their proud history and traditions. But to carry out these tasks, new grassroots movements of labor and political activists, with true democratic leaderships, will have to be built.

Based on the success of the April 9 and 10 demonstrations, the United National Antiwar Committee (UNAC) Coordinating Committee has issued a call for coordinated Oct. 15 local antiwar actions across the country and internationally. In addition, UNAC is urging antiwar activists to embrace the call by Black is Back for local activities on Aug. 20. This is the date set for action protesting U.S.-backed wars against African people on the continent, in Haiti, and in the Black community here at home.

UNAC has also begun organizing for a second antiwar conference. UNAC’s example of democratic organization, mass open conferences, unity with all the oppressed, and linking the wars abroad with the wars at home is an example to all social movements. It is indeed the same strategic path that the broader working class will follow in the months and years ahead to change the present relationship of forces and launch an offensive that will shake the world.

For more information, please visit www. unacpeace.org. n

Scan page 11

Socialist Action