Malcolm X or MLK

So what's the general consensus among black socialists on Zig Forums, regarding both MLK and Malcolm X? Most black idpollers (especially BLM) favor MLK, so I want to hear the opinion from non idpol black socialists.

Attached: malcolm-or-mlk.jpg (1920x1275, 311.93K)

Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/files/BEN_FLETCHER.pdf

Malcolm was superior only because the Black Panther Party was started in the wake of his death.

...

TBH MLK, I know people will say that makes me spooked but his platform was much better. You could argue that he only had success because of X and those like him posing a greater threat to the establishment though.

I wish MLK had lived, who knows what could have happened? I mean imagine if he was still alive in the 90s or even the 80s? He could have won a presidential campaign easy and he was a socialist.

If MLK were alive today half the "anti-idpol" folks would hate his guts.

He'd be a socdem-lite, sort of like Bernie Sanders. MLK wasn't nearly as radical as some folks like to claim, despite being a hero of the proletariat.

Attached: basedmlk.jpg (1600x1000, 258.91K)

That's still pretty revolutionary for America. I'm not saying he would have been the next Stalin.

Modern America, but we've got a long tradition of radical revolutionaries that should be looked to.
One of those was enough tbh.

He would become increasingly radicalized as events proceeded. MLK was genuinely for equality, which is why the moment he began to stray into socialism, he was murdered. MLK gave up a lot of material comforts for change unlike Bernie "two vacation homes" Sanders

Maybe I'm wrong, but looking at a lot of other black leaders, like Angela Davis, they severely mellowed in their later years and I figure MLK would have done the same in reaction to the rise of neoliberalism. MLK and Malcolm died heroes but part of me thinks that if they would have survived they would have ended up disappointing us.

Angela Davis was always compromised and represented the interests of the petty-bourgeois. She was a leading member of the Communist Party in the 60's and 70's which was thoroughly infiltrated by the CIA and the Stalinists. The CPA at the time were also staunch supporters of the Democratic Party.

The difference between Davis and MLK was that MLK was not aligned with any political and gained prominence simply as a pastor who advocated for racial equality. It was precisely when he began to form a socialist political ideology that King became a threat to the bourgeois and had to be done away with.

Look user maybe your right, but my point was at the time of his death that MLK's socialism was closer to social democracy than seize the MoP. If there's an alternative universe where he survived I hope that he got and staid more radical but right now I'm drunk and depressed so maybe that's affecting my analysis. In any case I don't think we should try to claim MLK was more radical than he was, he already is a hero to the working class and doesn't need to be lionized for us to admire him and be inspired by him.

I bet if X were alive today he'd be smoking hookah and killing moderators with his AR15

Attached: ea135cbdb65dbf7720d603411b03b48308840005c9269a648ca3a15fd402c3ef.jpg (769x751, 305.57K)

OP here.


Fair enough. He is, however, beloved by Black Lives Matter, so I somewhat associated him with idpol. Maybe his strategy was weak, not his ideals.


Yeah, I know. He even got along with neonazis, if only because of his black nationalist ideals. His strategy, however, seemed far more effective than MLKs (agressive defense vs MLKs bourgeois pacifism).

So far, I can somewhat see MLKs ideals are prefered, but Malcolm X's strategy was far superior.

Violent resistance from a position of a numerical minority is just starting a fight you can't win. MLK was more influential in his own time, because his (ideological, but also tactical) pacifism did a great job of influencing public opinion. It's a propaganda war either way and violence isn't always the most effective tactic.

MLK was sucdem because that's as far left as he had time to move before he got assassinated. He wasn't always interested in economic critique. IIRC it was something he came around to later on.

Both are pretty good but a third contester is arguably better than both…

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (600x398, 218.59K)

I agree both were very valuable to black advancement. However the lessons and actions of the original BPP are some of the most important things black Americans could today adopt. Just my two cents.

Any socialist organization should adopt some of the tactics that they employed. They scared J. Edgar shitless when they began providing for impoverished communities.

This.


Ben Fletcher>Hampton>MLK>X
libcom.org/files/BEN_FLETCHER.pdf

Although X was much more radical in terms of actual black nationalism, the difference between MLK and X is mainly praxis/rhetoric.

Besides, Fred Hampton is honestly the ideal figure to look at in terms of blacks building a class movement.

Malcom X would be our enemy if he was alive today. He was a fascist.