MARTIN LUTHER KING AND MALCOLM X WERE NOT OPPOSITES

MARTIN LUTHER KING AND MALCOLM X WERE NOT OPPOSITES

1. KING AND MALCOLM WERE NOT IDEOLOGICAL COMPETITORS

Mike Ryan, Canadian activist and teacher, PACIFISM AS PATHOLOGY, 1998, p. 152.

A particularly good example of this can be found in the Spring 1987 issue of Kick It Over when Malcolm X (El Hajj Malik el Shabazz) is described in a footnote as having been a competitor to Martin Luther King, presumably on the basis of Malcolm's belief that decolonization of black people in America would be a process involving violence. White often elect to protray these two men as ideological competitors, a matter reflecting the splits in consciousness of our own movement rather than theirs. In actuality, both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King shared a single long term goal ‑‑ the liberation of black people in America. The could each be found at the same mass actions, and they both ultimately died at the hands of assassins as a result of their lifelong struggles.

Mike Ryan, Canadian activist and teacher, PACIFISM AS PATHOLOGY, 1998, p. 152‑3.

We have already looked at what Dr. King had to say regarding violence. A similar look at what Malcolm X had to say on violence reveals that, while there are differences in outlook between the two men, they are not as great as we have been led to believe. In a 1964 speech, Malcolm X said, "Now, I'm not criticizing those here who are nonviolent. I think everyone should do it the way they feel is best, and I congratulate anyone who can remain nonviolent in the face of all [that confronts us].
3. NONVIOLENCE WAS FINE WITH BOTH KING AND X, BUT RACIST VIOLENCE WAS THE PROBLEM

Mike Ryan, Canadian activist and teacher, PACIFISM AS PATHOLOGY, 1998, p. 153.

In a 1965 interview [Malcolm X] goes on: "I don't favor violence. If we could bring about recognition and respect for our people by peaceful means, well and good. Everybody would like to reach [our] objectives peacefully. But I am also a realist. The only people in this country who are asked to be nonviolent are [the oppressed]. I've never heard anyone go to the Ku Klux Klan and teach them nonviolence, or the [John] Birch Society, or other right‑wing elements. Nonviolence is only preached to black Americans and I don't go along with anybody who wants to teach our people nonviolence until someone at the same time is teaching our enemy to be nonviolent. I believe we should protect ourselves by any means necessary when we are attacked by racists."

Alexandra Kollontai

Russian Socialist (1873-1952)

Feminism

The most prominent woman in Russia’s Communist Party during the Bolshevik Revolution was Alexandra Kollontai. As a member of Lenin’s Central Committee, she was part of the group that carried out the Revolution in 1917. She is known today as a historic contributor to the international women’s movement, and as one of the first Bolshevik leaders to oppose the growth of bureaucracy in the young socialist state.

The women’s movement in the West has shown considerable interest in Kollontai and her leadership of the women’s section of the Communist Party. Much of her analysis of feminism in early twentieth century Russia still applies today and can be used to uncover some of the mistreatment of women in contemporary society.
This biography will explain Kollontai’ s entrance into the international feminist movement, what she addressed in her writings, her influence on the international women’s movement, her work in Russia’s social democracy. Finally, it will highlight her views on female liberation.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, Kollontai became a socialist. She explained her entry into revolutionary ranks quite simply: “Women, their fate, occupied me all my life; women’s lot pushed me to socialism (Farnsworth, 1980).” According to Kollontai, there was one instance which made her decide to become a socialist. She was on a tour of a textile plant which employed 12,000 men and women workers.

Kollontai decided to inspect the workers’ housing. In dingy barracks, the air unbearably stale and heavy, cots were lined up for the workers, married and single. Amid the cots children milled about, some playing, some crying. An old woman sat, supposedly in charge. Kollontai’s attention was drawn to one little boy, about the age of her own son, who lay very still. He was dead. No one had noticed. When told about it, the old woman replied that such deaths were not unusual and that someone would come later and take him away. Based on this incident, she decided that the entire economic system had to change (Farnsworth, 1980).