February was the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Malcolm X, one of the greatest leaders of the Black liberation movement of the 1960s.

Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin once wrote: “During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander.

“After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonise them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the consolation of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarising it.”

Lenin was talking about how many of the “socialists” of his day were attempting to turn Marx into a harmless icon. But his observation can also be applied to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.

The ruling class certainly heaped on Malcolm “the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander”. This can be seen in how the New York Times editorialised the day after his assassination: “He was a case history, as well as an extraordinary and twisted man, turning many true gifts to evil purpose.”

“Twisted” was their way of saying he was mentally unbalanced, insane and evil to boot. The Times editors went on the say that “his ruthless and fanatical belief in violence … marked him for fame, and for a violent end”. I.e., he was responsible for his own death.

That the reputable Times could spout such vile slander was indicative. The gutter press was even worse.

But in the decades since, the Times and other ruling class voices have sought to “canonise” Malcolm. Roads and schools and other institutions have been named after him. The government even issued a postage stamp in his honour – all the while seeking to blunt and vulgarise his revolutionary message. Liberals, both Black and white, have sought to portray him as a mere pro-capitalist liberal like themselves.

Black nationalism

Malcolm first rose to prominence as a leader of the Nation of Islam, popularly known as the Black Muslims. This was originally a relatively small religious cult, which Malcolm helped to transform into a powerful organisation – a movement that inspired a generation in the 1950s and 1960s with its message of militant Black nationalism. It struck a chord, especially in the ghettos of the north, while the civil rights movement was centred in the apartheid south.

Malcolm broke with the organisation at the end of 1963 and early 1964. From then he charted a new course, moving far beyond his earlier teachings. But key aspects of what he espoused while a leader of the Black Muslims he held until his death.

These can be briefly and partially summarised: Blacks cannot get their freedom except by fighting for it; the US government is racist and is not going to grant freedom; gradualism, the program of the liberals, white and Black, is not the road to equality; the Black misleaders must be exposed and opposed; Blacks must rely on themselves and control their own struggle; Blacks must determine their own strategy and tactics; Blacks must select their own leaders; Blacks have the right to armed self-defence against racist violence.

It was the last position that led the Times and liberals to slander Malcolm as an advocate of violence. He stood for the exact opposite: ending the violence of the racists through self-defence.

In 1963, the centre of the Black struggle began to shift to the northern ghettos, where the message of Black nationalism found a ready audience, and where Blacks were taking to the streets. Shortly before the historic 1963 March on Washington for Freedom and Jobs, one of the high points of the southern struggle, there was a march as big or bigger in Detroit.

It was in this context that tensions arose in the Nation of Islam. By their militant stance, the Black Muslims helped push other Black organisations to the left. This was their positive contribution. But they were on the sidelines of the struggle, not participants. Among the younger members of the Nation, there were signs of a desire to get into the battle, to pass from propaganda to action.

This is what led to Malcolm’s split with the Black Muslims: the growth of militancy and mass action in the Black community, and the different ways in which the two main tendencies in the Black Muslims wanted to respond to the masses knocking on the doors of their mosques.

Malcolm broke with the Nation’s spiritual leader, Elijah Muhammad, and turned his attention to the broad Black struggle. He would later say, “I feel like a man who has been asleep somewhat and under someone else’s control. I feel that what I am thinking and saying now is for myself. Before it was for and by the guidance of Elijah Muhammad. Now I think with my own mind.”

Internationalism

So began a new stage in Malcolm’s life, his all-too-brief last year, in which he grew mentally by leaps and bounds. He travelled widely this last year and met revolutionaries from many countries and all races. He also discovered that true Islam views all races alike. As a consequence, he threw overboard the whole Black Muslim mythology about superior and inferior races and its doctrine about inherent evil and degeneracy in a white skin. Repudiating racism in all its forms, he resolved to judge people and movements on the basis of their deeds, not skin colour. Deeds, not words.

Malcolm set about building a new movement of Blacks, on an entirely different basis than religion, while he himself remained a Muslim. It would welcome all Blacks who wanted to struggle, regardless of religion, philosophy or other differences. This new organisation, which he was working to build when he was cut down, was called the Organization of African American Unity (OAAU). The name was taken from the Organization of African Unity, reflecting his identification with the anti-colonial revolution then in full swing not only in Africa, but in Asia and Latin America too.

While retaining his Black nationalism, he moved beyond it to an internationalist stance.

This identification with the struggle of all the oppressed was in his speeches while he was in the Nation, but became sharper in his last year. The government was alarmed by his campaign to win support internationally to bring the US to trial in the United Nations for its racist oppression.

His denunciation of US imperialism, which also began while he was a Black Muslim, became stronger. He was especially eloquent in his denunciation of US involvement in the murder of Lumumba in Congo, the war in Vietnam, the attacks against the Cuban and Chinese revolutions.

Anti-capitalism

Finally, there was Malcolm’s development throughout his last year towards anti-capitalism and socialism. He began to emphasise that in the countries he visited that were recently freed from colonialism, it seemed they were turning against capitalism. Another step was his deepening relation with the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party and Young Socialist Alliance.

When there was the new upsurge of Black nationalism in the early 1960s, the SWP embraced it. In its 1963 convention, the SWP noted that Black nationalism and socialism “are not only compatible but complementary forces that should be welded closely in thought and action”.

We took note of the militant speeches by Malcolm X when he was still in the Nation. The SWP newspaper, the Militant, covered these speeches in a positive manner, often reprinting Malcolm’s own words. This was in sharp contrast to the Communist and Socialist parties, which denounced Malcolm X and Black nationalism. Malcolm took note of this and of the fact that the Militant defended the democratic rights of the Black Muslims when they were under government attack. He would buy the paper when it was sold outside his meetings.

We saw the importance of Malcolm’s break with the Nation and his new course. Shortly after, in April 1964, Malcolm agreed to speak at a large meeting organised by the Militant Labor Forum, associated with the SWP, on the topic “the Black revolution”. One aspect of his speech was strong opposition to Blacks supporting the Democratic Party, a theme he developed throughout his last year. He repeatedly cautioned against falling for the ploy of supporting the “fox” – the Democrats – out of revulsion for the “wolf” – the Republicans.

He spoke again at the forum in May 1964, at a meeting we organised to counter a scare about a “Harlem hate gang” – a thinly veiled attack on the OAAU by the capitalist press. In this meeting he said of US capitalism: “It’s impossible for a chicken to produce a duck egg … it can only produce according to … what it was constructed to produce. The system in this country cannot produce freedom for an Afro-American. It is impossible for this system, this economic system, this political system, this social system, this system period … And if ever a chicken did produce a duck egg, I’m quite sure you would say it was certainly a revolutionary chicken!”

In January 1965 Malcolm again spoke at the Militant Labor Forum. He said it “was always an honour” to speak at the forum, and that “the Militant newspaper is one of the best in New York City. In fact it is one of the best anywhere you go today because everywhere I go I see it. I saw it even in Paris about a month ago … If you put the right things in it, what you put in it will see it gets around.”

After that meeting, I asked Malcolm if he would be interviewed for the Young Socialist newspaper, of which I was the editor. He agreed, and Jack Barnes, who was a leader of the YSA, and I interviewed him shortly before his assassination.

In answer to the question, “What is your view of the worldwide struggle between capitalism and socialism?” Malcolm said: “It is impossible for capitalism to survive … it is only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely.” A Marxist might object that capitalism will not collapse by itself, but must be overthrown, but this is certainly not a pro-capitalist statement.

A few years later, Martin Luther King began to come to the same anti-capitalist conclusions. From different starting points, these two giants began to converge.