King's legacy still cause of debate

Jan 19, 2014 Full story: USA Today 1,088

It is a large legacy that looms over the past five decades, from the prophetic "I Have a Dream" speech delivered during the March on Washington to his last campaign taking a stand for underpaid black sanitation workers in Memphis, the city where he was slain.

Full Story

Since: Aug 09

Minneapolis, MN

#1136 Aug 1, 2014
Okay. I recently read MLK's autobiography. And yes, I recall him mentioning something about socialism. But none of what he said made me think that he was a socialist. Of course, there can be honest differences of interpretation. I read the book with the prescience that MLK was definitely not a socialist. So, I was not looking for any statements that would indicate that he was a socialist. Maybe he was socialistic; but not a socialist. We need to know this so that we will not become confused as to exactly what socialism is. And socialism is best defined as economic planning. For example, if we decide among ourselves to reduce youth unemployment, we would PLAN policies tat lead to a reduction of youth unemployment. In places like Somalia where we have a problem of recurring famines, we would PLAN irrigation projects that reduce droughts. Maybe we can build only one or two irrigation projects at a time. But over time with that kind of PLANNING we would eliminate droughts and famines entirely no matter how poor the country may be.

Another example of socialism would be to decide to eliminate debts on which we must pay high interest rates. By PLANNING to hold a small percentage of our cash flow in reserves to pay off those debts, we would eventually gain economic independence.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#1137 Aug 2, 2014
There are Marxists who do not say "I am a Marxist", but whose Marxism is evident to anyone who reads them and is reasonably familiar with Marxian ways of thinking.Thus far, I've yet to come across any statement by Lukacs or Gramsci which says "I am a Marxist." Indeed, to avoid Fascist censorship Gramsci was very careful NOT to mention Marxism, and often simply spoke of "philosophy of praxis". But only someone utterly unfamiliar with Marxist thought could be taken in by the disguise.
Dr. King, in private writings, interviews, letters often makes clear that he is socialistic in his thinking. What's interesting is in private discourse he often uses the word socialism for what in more public addresses he simply calls "more fully developed democracy." It is common knowledge that socialists of the 19th and 20th centuries often made the critique that "democracy" in capitalist societies wasn't genuine, or was very narrow. It didn't extend to economic life at all, and was often limited even politically for those social classes beneath the bourgeoisie. What these socialists--Marxist and non-Marxist--held was that a fuller democracy, a more fully actualized democracy is possible and must be created; and this more fully developed democracy meant socialism.(Before the rise of totalitarian states calling themselves socialist, most socialists---and even their adversaries---assumed as a matter of course that socialism meant far more democracy (TOO MUCH for the right and liberals) than is possible under present capitalist conditions in England, France or the USA. King whose focus in philosophical study was (aside from Personalism) mainly SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY knew this. In fact, he opposes fully developed democracy in STRIDE TOWARD FREEDOM and WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE to both Communism and capitalism. To be honest, and put my cards on the table, so do I. Only I am prepared to say PUBLICLY what King usually said privately, that we need a SOCIALIST democracy. That ordinary people need both political freedom and democracy governance of economy and their conditions of work, etc. King had to operate under the blight of McCarthyism. I don't.

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#1139 Aug 2, 2014
I remember that at the time King was overtly in support of corrective measures against poverty and racism which involved govt action. The word SOCIALISM rightly applies to such things, as it applies to many policies of countries like France, Denmark, UK, Germany, NZ, Australia, Israel, Japan, Canada, etc.

Yes it's socialism. Abdul is playing on the twisting of the meaning which occurred during the period of Red Hysteria, when "socialist" mean the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

No, today it means France. And King was one. As am I, then and now.

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#1140 Aug 2, 2014
And, yes, this view of a more evolved democracy that King speaks of is in agreement with my own and other anarchists' critique of Marxist-Leninism and of Marx himself, that there is not an inevitable phase of evolution which must lead from industrial corporate capitalism to a dictatorship of the proletariat with intermediate state capitalist phases...

No, in fact though Marx himself erred in his conclusions, the result of a better Marxian analysis of things leads us to King's concept of an evolved, perfected democracy. And that is in keeping with King's praxis: NON-VIOLENCE. Notice that the M-L violent path created vast crimes against humanity.

So in fact not only is King's philosophy elegant, his social science is both visionary and pragmatic.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#1141 Aug 2, 2014
Insect Trust wrote:
And, yes, this view of a more evolved democracy that King speaks of is in agreement with my own and other anarchists' critique of Marxist-Leninism and of Marx himself, that there is not an inevitable phase of evolution which must lead from industrial corporate capitalism to a dictatorship of the proletariat with intermediate state capitalist phases...
No, in fact though Marx himself erred in his conclusions, the result of a better Marxian analysis of things leads us to King's concept of an evolved, perfected democracy. And that is in keeping with King's praxis: NON-VIOLENCE. Notice that the M-L violent path created vast crimes against humanity.
So in fact not only is King's philosophy elegant, his social science is both visionary and pragmatic.
In STRIDE TOWARD FREEDOM, STRENGHT TO LOVE & (to a lesser extent) WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE, King objects philosophically to Marxist materialism from the perspective of his own Personalist and Hegelian idealism. So, part of the dispute is philosophical and metaphysical. But he objects MORALLY to the political repression of Marxist-Leninist regimes, regimes which carry out their struggle for a "classless" society in ways which simply reinstitute class oppression in a different form. In STRENGHT TO LOVE King admits that he finds moving the moral passion of Marx and Engels for social justice, and surmises that (atheistic or not) Marx's moral passion derives from the prophetic tradition of his Hebrew heritage. And while King rejects the violence carried out in the name of the classless society, he does not reject the ideal of a classless society. Indeed, King describes the classless society as a "noble end" (STRENGHT TO LOVE, p. 168)--even though Marxists Leninists seek it by ignoble means. But that classless society, free of economic and political oppression--free also of racism--is the ultimate aim of socialism or communism.(And we may recall that in HOMAGE TO CATALONIA, Orwell claims that for the average socialist worker in Spain during the 1930s, socialism meant a classless society---for King, a "noble end").
Indeed, isn't that also what Nkrumah wanted (at least initially)? isn't that what Fanon wanted? A liberated human being in a liberated society achieved by means of socialism and democracy? So, did King. So do I.

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#1142 Aug 2, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>In STRIDE TOWARD FREEDOM, STRENGHT TO LOVE & (to a lesser extent) WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE, King objects philosophically to Marxist materialism from the perspective of his own Personalist and Hegelian idealism. So, part of the dispute is philosophical and metaphysical. But he objects MORALLY to the political repression of Marxist-Leninist regimes, regimes which carry out their struggle for a "classless" society in ways which simply reinstitute class oppression in a different form. In STRENGHT TO LOVE King admits that he finds moving the moral passion of Marx and Engels for social justice, and surmises that (atheistic or not) Marx's moral passion derives from the prophetic tradition of his Hebrew heritage. And while King rejects the violence carried out in the name of the classless society, he does not reject the ideal of a classless society. Indeed, King describes the classless society as a "noble end" (STRENGHT TO LOVE, p. 168)--even though Marxists Leninists seek it by ignoble means. But that classless society, free of economic and political oppression--free also of racism--is the ultimate aim of socialism or communism.(And we may recall that in HOMAGE TO CATALONIA, Orwell claims that for the average socialist worker in Spain during the 1930s, socialism meant a classless society---for King, a "noble end").
Indeed, isn't that also what Nkrumah wanted (at least initially)? isn't that what Fanon wanted? A liberated human being in a liberated society achieved by means of socialism and democracy? So, did King. So do I.
While the white right would find validation in the observation that there was a Hebraic influence on Marx's thought, that Communism is a “Jew thing”, King can be placed firmly in traditions which trace back to Paine and Jefferson, in which the right claims to believe.

But he has his own Judaic influence as well, in Buber, and the example of the praxis of Gandhi, in which the blatant truth of the notion of the rights of man, of the right to live in a just community, are vividly illustrated to those in power, in a democratic demonstration of that truth.

It's peaceful and it's democratic. And it is socialist because it addresses society as a whole and seeks to change social structure at the macro levels.

I can see Marx as a socialist transitional figure, in terms of praxis, between social revolutionaries who wrought change by utter violence and with no intention to bring social equality and justice along with cultural changes (Charlemagne, Mahomet) and the more evolved thinking of Gandhi and King.

Thanks to Paine and Jefferson, we are beyond kings (and hopefully dictators). Thanks to Marx we are beyond acceptance of an empowered elite. Thanks to Gandhi and King we are beyond the requirement of bloody oppressive revolutionary dialectic as the means to achieve positive social evolution.

It's simple really... all we'd have to do to complete the job is wake people up to its wisdom and necessity. Speak more cleverly than their contrived media indoctrination. Let the truth be heard.

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#1143 Aug 2, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
Bro., that falls far short of declaring that he was a socialist. Remember how you confused the mood of the word "Marxian" with socialist when we were discussing Nkrumahism? I won't call you a lie on this point. But it seems to me that you may have confused "socialistic" with socialist or socialism. One is an adjective and the later two are nouns. So he never said "I am a socialist." Had MLK lived longer, he may very have developed into a socialist. But the overriding philosophy in MLK's life was Gandhism and Gandhi's Satyagraha which was a new word to describe an entirely new philosophy. Gandhi was never a socialist although his close and dear comrade Nehru was a socialist. Thus India (and Bangladesh) is a socialist state. Bangladesh is officially a People's Republic.
Satyagraha means taking control of a nation's own traditional economics and modernizing it to fit modern conditions. In many ways, it is similar to socialism. But like Nkruamisn which is socialism, it is most definitely not Marxism. Even Nehrus' socialism would probably not be considered Marxism.
This is important because it offers clarity on what we must do to develop the African Nation, Basically, we can rely on merely copying the white man. We must rely on the resources of Africa's traditional values and history to attain thought that is in harmony with the needs of Africa. That is what Consciencism is all about.
When we do this we can learn a great deal about how MLK's thinking fits in to all of this. And I think we can make a lot of progress that will benefit the African Nation. So, I do not approach any of this from an egotistical perspective. I think thinking Africans need to exchange honest ideas and opinions on this and hopefully move the discourse to a much higher level.
You talk Nkrumah out of one side of your mouth and jihad out the other.

You're confused. But you don't confuse me, Abdul.

Since: Aug 09

Minneapolis, MN

#1144 Aug 2, 2014
Savant wrote:
There are Marxists who do not say "I am a Marxist", but whose Marxism is evident to anyone who reads them and is reasonably familiar with Marxian ways of thinking.
The precise term for that kind of Marxist is closet Marxist, a chicken-shyt Marxist one who is too stupid or cowardly to say so out loud. I do not like the direction that your thinking is going right now.
Savant wrote:
Thus far, I've yet to come across any statement by Lukacs or Gramsci which says "I am a Marxist."
Never heard of them two. But they probably are not Marxists. Trust the primary sources.
Savant wrote:
Indeed, to avoid Fascist censorship Gramsci was very careful NOT to mention Marxism, and often simply spoke of "philosophy of praxis". But only someone utterly unfamiliar with Marxist thought could be taken in by the disguise.
A person can have thoughts and ideas identical to those of Karl Marx and not be a philosophical Marxist. This is an important distinction because Karl Marx pointed towards atheism. Africans like Nkrumah and King were men of the cloth, ministers of religion and therefore theists, the absolute opposite of Marxism.
Savant wrote:
Dr. King, in private writings, interviews, letters often makes clear that he is socialistic in his thinking.
That is cool. He had every right to think about what Marx and other socialists and thinkers in general. But after thinking about and mentioning it and having sympathy for it, he nevertheless NEVER made a public confession to I and NEVER even made a full commitment to it. King was not a socialist. And we need to know this so that we may know socialism from other kinds of isms. King was probably a diehard and committed liberal like all of his closest companions. And while they accomplished a lot to be commended for, the major problems of this community, this African Nation do not even come close to being solved until we get into Nkrumahism. When we know this for example, we will know how to vote for the Obamas of the world and not be tricked by them. After having voted for him, one would still know that he is no dam good. The man is rotten to his core. He is an evil murderer. And we ought to not sell our souls to Obama. He is only a very empty and evil man. He is not as good as drunk and doped up Bush. Bush has an ounce of good in him. Obama has none although he can sometimes follow good advice. But not often.
Savant wrote:
said What's interesting is in private discourse he often uses the word socialism for what in more public addresses he simply calls "more fully developed democracy."
Okay. hat is probably what he was. That is how I see him. That is how all is close friends are: a more fully developed liberal Dummyrat .

Continued below...

Since: Aug 09

Minneapolis, MN

#1145 Aug 2, 2014
Continued from above…

Savant wrote:
It is common knowledge that socialists of the 19th and 20th centuries often made the critique that "democracy" in capitalist societies wasn't genuine, or was very narrow.
Okay. They were certainly right on that point.
Savant wrote:
It didn't extend to economic life at all, and was often limited even politically for those social classes beneath the bourgeoisie.
Okay. What we as Africans need to concern ourselves with is that fact that liberalism limits our community. There is absolutely nothing in the liberal Dummyrat Party that respects the interests of Africans. That why when we elect an African to be president, the power structure still make it their top priority to drop depleted uranium on the Great Man Made River in Africa, thereby poisoning the water supply and making it unsafe to drink.( http://libyadiary.wordpress.com/category/nato... ) Sources state that nearly 20% of all babies born in Libya since then have some form of cancer. But the black liberals, not even Jesse Jackson, do not even have the decency to say “Hey, Mr. President (I have much better names for that sorry bastard) as decent and civilized Africans, we deplore your use of depleted uranium anywhere in the world without serious justification and especially not in Africa.” This is what we are really talking about here. This is the 900 pound gorilla in the room. But nobody wants to mention it. Nobody wants 5to ask, that considering that none of King’s closest friends have publicly opposed depleted uranium in Africa, what if King was still alive. Wound he have had the courage and wisdom to speak against that kind of genocide in Africa? Maybe. But we must remember that it took him many years after much soul searching and discussion within the African community for him to publicly state that the war in Vietnam was morally repugnant. If it had taken him that long in the present time when we are not talking about agent orange but nuclear weapons themselves, they would have wiped out the entire Vietnamese nation before KING could have uttered one word of concern about it.

Let’s get real. We love King in retrospect. But aside from historical analysis we do not need to be going goo-goo over his thinking. That train has left the station. As Kwame Ture clearly established at the time before King died, the center of our struggle now is in Africa. In those days, we had to literally fight the Portuguese ibn Guinea. Later, we had to deal with them in Mozambique and Angola. In the meantime, the enemy overthrew our Government in Ghana. Why? Why did that same enemy use a blackfaced-monkey to overthrow Qaddafi? None of those questions are being asked while we go goo-goo about Kings pussyfooting around socialism. Was he a pussified socialist? Probably so. But none of that helps us as we deal with much deeper issues because since King’s death, the crisis of Africans in America has grown much, much worse. And the reason things have gotten so serious is due in no small measure to such issues as King’s refusal and failure to support Black Power.

Continued below...

Since: Aug 09

Minneapolis, MN

#1146 Aug 2, 2014
Continued from above…

Savant wrote:
What these socialists--Marxist and non-Marxist--held was that a fuller democracy, a more fully actualized democracy is possible and must be created; and this more fully developed democracy meant socialism.
Yeah. Been there done that. It is far worse than liberalism. It is called Troskyism. That is why Stalin kilt that bastard.

The trots, and I have long suspected you of being sympathetic to the Trotsky-ites, are mainly the white left especially so-called Socialist Workers Party and the Third International. It is third probably because it deviated from both Lenin and Stalin. On the African side, we have been cursed with the so-called African Peoples Socialist Party. So let us not waste our resources and energy debating that nonsense. I am against it. But being against their way of thinking and acting, I invited them to join the African United Front and the Front for the Unification & Development of African & Arabia. They refused.

That has been my biggest political mistake. I invited all of such African leftist groups, even when they had white members among them to work with us against the common enemy. That would include the Nation of Islam and all of its associated cults. I give credit to Farrakhan for at least discussion ONLY the watered down version of what I had in mind. But it seems that every other scumbag in NOI worked against the African United Front. Instead they attempted to impose their violent cult on African Political Parties. Clearly we connot accept that. Malcolm X is considered the real founder on the AUF just before he was cut down. He defined it as finding common cause against the enemy by submerging our obvious different ideals. The point was to get us all to coordinate on the political and economic levels.

But as I have already explained in mentioning the history of the Black Majority Party and the corrupt white dominated Peoples Improvement Party, whenever we merge with the white power structure our interests get sidetracked and we are reduced to the political level of plantation slaves while the whites are the overseers and masters. One further thing needs to be said about that corrupt white left. Look at the entire history including its current sociological and economic expression. In the case of Brooklyn, Illinois, the ONLY industry is prostitution. Even dope dealing takes second position behind the sax trade. There are massage parlors and strip joints. There are streetwalkers and back alley crawlers. Every sick and deviant thing related to sex that you can imagine, that is the ONLY industry in Brooklyn And, it is controlled and dominated by whites, colonized. The Mafia type corruption. This is both Obama’s and Hitler KKKLington’s back yard. And we wonder why neither of those two POSes is worth a dam to an African.
There is exactly ONE black involved. I do not know for sure (but I intend to find out, GOD-Willing) but I suspect that he is the successor to the leader of the Black Majority Party. Strips joints and public sexual acts. Some of them recently spent about 5 tears in the federal lockup. But they still run that business. And it involves money laundering by putting prostitution money behind clean companies such as friend chicken vendors. Some are definitely money losers. But they show fake profits which is nothing but prostitution money.

Continued below…

Since: Aug 09

Minneapolis, MN

#1147 Aug 2, 2014
Continued from above...

I mention this because nobody wants to talk about it. But imagine the moral corruption of little black girls who have to go to church on Sundays and school five days a week by walking pass and whorehouse. If they had the least bit of decency, they would put a fence around that crap to protect the children.

The other treason is that our African history in this country is mainly confined to the African Church, the AME Church AND the African Baptists. They started the City of Brooklyn as a haven for runaway slaves. The question is how did these institutions allow such corruption to dominate their lives? They go to the whorehouses on Saturdays and to church EVERY Sunday morning. This is the ugly truth. Before I became a Muslim and hopeless in their eyes, they invited me to come to church and find a wife. Unfortunately, most of the choir girls were h-words. I refuse to get involved and converted to Islam.

Nonetheless, pragmatism dictates that the African church is the ONLY efficient way to reach the African community. For this reason we invite them to form a Believers political association that surpasses sectarian religious differences
Savant wrote:
King knew this. In fact, he opposes fully developed democracy in STRIDE TOWARD FREEDOM and WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE to both Communism and capitalism. To be honest, and put my cards on the table, so do I. Only I am prepared to say PUBLICLY what King usually said privately, that we need a SOCIALIST democracy.
Whatever the f*ck THAT is. It does not impress me one bit. We need to build grass root institutions of all types on our community. I leave at that for now. I do not see how we can find the time to debate abstract crap about the ideal utopia.

Savant wrote:
That ordinary people need both political freedom and democracy governance of economy and their conditions of work, etc. King had to operate under the blight of McCarthyism. I don't.
Well democracy is much more than voting once every four years. The political will of the African people must be organized at the internal African community level. I have already suggested that we can build political parties based on associations of African churches which is entirely the opposite of all Marxism.
Abdurratln

Minneapolis, MN

#1149 Aug 2, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>In STRIDE TOWARD FREEDOM, STRENGHT TO LOVE & (to a lesser extent) WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE, King objects philosophically to Marxist materialism from the perspective of his own Personalist and Hegelian idealism. So, part of the dispute is philosophical and metaphysical. But he objects MORALLY to the political repression of Marxist-Leninist regimes, regimes which carry out their struggle for a "classless" society in ways which simply reinstitute class oppression in a different form. In STRENGHT TO LOVE King admits that he finds moving the moral passion of Marx and Engels for social justice, and surmises that (atheistic or not) Marx's moral passion derives from the prophetic tradition of his Hebrew heritage. And while King rejects the violence carried out in the name of the classless society, he does not reject the ideal of a classless society. Indeed, King describes the classless society as a "noble end" (STRENGHT TO LOVE, p. 168)--even though Marxists Leninists seek it by ignoble means. But that classless society, free of economic and political oppression--free also of racism--is the ultimate aim of socialism or communism.(And we may recall that in HOMAGE TO CATALONIA, Orwell claims that for the average socialist worker in Spain during the 1930s, socialism meant a classless society---for King, a "noble end").
Indeed, isn't that also what Nkrumah wanted (at least initially)? isn't that what Fanon wanted? A liberated human being in a liberated society achieved by means of socialism and Tdemocracy? So, did King. So do I.
King was a preacher, a True Believer. All Africans are Believers. And virtually All-Africans oppose the atheism of Maexism. This goes without. So nobody needs to debate it or discuss it. It is axiomatic. We are not like white people who typically flirt with secularism and atheism and all kinds of other stupid crap. GOD appeared in Africa and every African knows it.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#1150 Aug 3, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
The precise term for that kind of Marxist is closet Marxist, a chicken-shyt Marxist one who is too stupid or cowardly to say so out loud. I do not like the direction that your thinking is going right now.
<quoted text>
Never heard of them two. But they probably are not Marxists. Trust the primary sources.
<quoted text>
A person can have thoughts and ideas identical to those of Karl Marx and not be a philosophical Marxist. This is an important distinction because Karl Marx pointed towards atheism. Africans like Nkrumah and King were men of the cloth, ministers of religion and therefore theists, the absolute opposite of Marxism.
<quoted text>
That is cool. He had every right to think about what Marx and other socialists and thinkers in general. But after thinking about and mentioning it and having sympathy for it, he nevertheless NEVER made a public confession to I and NEVER even made a full commitment to it. King was not a socialist. And we need to know this so that we may know socialism from other kinds of isms. King was probably a diehard and committed liberal like all of his closest companions. And while they accomplished a lot to be commended for, the major problems of this community, this African Nation do not even come close to being solved until we get into Nkrumahism. When we know this for example, we will know how to vote for the Obamas of the world and not be tricked by them. After having voted for him, one would still know that he is no dam good. The man is rotten to his core. He is an evil murderer. And we ought to not sell our souls to Obama. He is only a very empty and evil man. He is not as good as drunk and doped up Bush. Bush has an ounce of good in him. Obama has none although he can sometimes follow good advice. But not often.
<quoted text>
Okay. hat is probably what he was. That is how I see him. That is how all is close friends are: a more fully developed liberal Dummyrat .
Continued below...
If you've not even HEARD of Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs, they you really need to improve your education. Lukacs most famous work is probably HISTORY AND CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS--which I read as a STUDENT. Antonio Gramsci is known for his PRISON NOTEBOOKS, one edition of which I also read while a student. Those two are perhaps the most famous Marxist philosophers of the 20th century! Not only philosophers, but historians, sociologists, political scientists and even many psychologists (like humanist Marxist Erich Fromm) would be deeply familiar with them. I've READ their works as well as scholarly studies of them. While I can claim to have read ALL of their voluminous works, I've read a considerable of it. Again, I don't recall reading any statement by either of them saying "I am a Marxist." But in ANY scholarly community of philosophers or social scientists you'd be thought a dunce if you didn't know that Gramsci and Lukacs were Marxists!

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#1151 Aug 3, 2014
One thing is interesting: On more than one occasion King clearly states his OPPOSITION to both capitalism and Communism ( least in Marxist Leninist version). He NEVER says he's against socialism, and he points to both Scandinavian and East Indian socialist tendencies with OBVIOUS approval. I mentioned to Ekdesiladki, and Indian lady who used to post here, about some of the leaders of agrarian reform movements in India whom King met there after the Montgomery campaign,. They were promoting agricultural cooperatives to redistribute wealth and empower the Indian poor. Ekdesi informed me that these leaders were Gandhian socialists who tried to continue the legacy of Gandhi (the spiritual aims of the movement) after the Mahatma's assassination. When she mentioned that they were Gandhian socialists---which didn't exactly take me by surprise since King was esteeming their promotion of Indian cooperatives---I simply said to Desi: "I should have known it! A Christian socialist admiring a Gandhian Hindu socialist." King is always on he side of the disinherited and the dispossessed.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#1152 Aug 3, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
King was a preacher, a True Believer. All Africans are Believers. And virtually All-Africans oppose the atheism of Maexism. This goes without. So nobody needs to debate it or discuss it. It is axiomatic. We are not like white people who typically flirt with secularism and atheism and all kinds of other stupid crap. GOD appeared in Africa and every African knows it.
King was too much of a THINKER to be a true believer.

Since: Aug 09

Minneapolis, MN

#1153 Aug 3, 2014
Savant wrote:
One thing is interesting: On more than one occasion King clearly states his OPPOSITION to both capitalism and Communism ( least in Marxist Leninist version). He NEVER says he's against socialism, and he points to both Scandinavian and East Indian socialist tendencies with OBVIOUS approval. I mentioned to Ekdesiladki, and Indian lady who used to post here, about some of the leaders of agrarian reform movements in India whom King met there after the Montgomery campaign,. They were promoting agricultural cooperatives to redistribute wealth and empower the Indian poor. Ekdesi informed me that these leaders were Gandhian socialists who tried to continue the legacy of Gandhi (the spiritual aims of the movement) after the Mahatma's assassination. When she mentioned that they were Gandhian socialists---which didn't exactly take me by surprise since King was esteeming their promotion of Indian cooperatives---I simply said to Desi: "I should have known it! A Christian socialist admiring a Gandhian Hindu socialist." King is always on he side of the disinherited and the dispossessed.
Well, I have said repeatedly that there is no Gandhian socialism, although I could be wrong. I just do not think Gandhi's Satyagraha amounts to socialism. But I see nothing wrong it. I just thinks it confuses our people to much to talk like that.

Since: Aug 09

Minneapolis, MN

#1154 Aug 3, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>King was too much of a THINKER to be a true believer.
King was a 4th generation Baptist preacher. He described himself as being very religious. This is one reason I understand him so well. My own parents were founders of the African Baptist movement. But that movement has been a failure to some extent. Most of them actually opposed the Civil Rights Movement so much so that MLK and his colleagues had to withdraw and form a new denomination. I want to emphasize just how much the Uncle Toms fought against Civil Rights. But they all want to complain when we call them Uncle Toms.

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#1155 Aug 3, 2014
Many people including social scientists generally have been influenced by Marx's thinking and specifically his analytic methods. That doesn't make us all Marxists. No cowardice is involved. I simply do not wish to label myself as part of a group of Marxists, when mostly such groups pursue lines of thinking with which I do not agree, such as M-L vanguardism.

I have been influenced by a number of people, so must I name myself after all of them? It will take me all day to describe myself. I'm a Zapatista, Marxist, Gandhian, Kingian, Jeffersonian, Brownian (John), Lennonist (John), Jonesian (Mother)...

Whereas you're a deluded twisted jihadi cultist follower of the pedophile genocidal-criminal False Prophet Mohamhead.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#1156 Aug 3, 2014
Insect Trust wrote:
Many people including social scientists generally have been influenced by Marx's thinking and specifically his analytic methods. That doesn't make us all Marxists. No cowardice is involved. I simply do not wish to label myself as part of a group of Marxists, when mostly such groups pursue lines of thinking with which I do not agree, such as M-L vanguardism.
I have been influenced by a number of people, so must I name myself after all of them? It will take me all day to describe myself. I'm a Zapatista, Marxist, Gandhian, Kingian, Jeffersonian, Brownian (John), Lennonist (John), Jonesian (Mother)...
Whereas you're a deluded twisted jihadi cultist follower of the pedophile genocidal-criminal False Prophet Mohamhead.
Except for dogmatists, even people who consider themselves to be Marxists don't necessarily where the label on their sleeves. Hence Gramsci, Lukacs and numerous other people who thought of themselves as Marxist spent more time doing Marxian analyses of stuff than going about proclaiming what they were.
Also, it would have been stupid and suicidal under a Mussolini or Franco or Hitler to go around proclaiming yourself to be a Marxist. This would not be a mark of courage, but stupidity.
Now even people who have issues with Marx might still see the value of much of his contributions. ONe writer mentions that in a lecture to AA university students in the late 1950s, King compared to Marx to Galileo, Freud, Darwin and (if I recall it correctly) the Mahatma. So, even if you differ with someone you might still see very important contributions made by this person. King seemed to have admired Marx's emphasis on the need for workers and poor people to EDUCATE themselves and develop a higher level of consciousness. Not all revolutionaries of Marx's time put such emphasis on education. So, the Hegelian Christian idealist and the atheistic materialist could share some common ground.

Since: Aug 09

Minneapolis, MN

#1157 Aug 3, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text> Except for dogmatists, even people who consider themselves to be Marxists don't necessarily where the label on their sleeves. Hence Gramsci, Lukacs and numerous other people who thought of themselves as Marxist spent more time doing Marxian analyses of stuff than going about proclaiming what they were.
Did they belong to or were they associated with any political party or movement? For an Nkrumahist, this question is crucial. Thinking oneself this or that and not acting on it, is empty. Thought and action come together. For the Nkrumahist Africans must place highest priority on organization and institution n building. It is one thing to merely say I think co-ops are a good idea. But it is far better to walk thousands of miles from door to door helping people to understand and get involved in an organized co-operative effort.
Savant wrote:
<quoted text> Also, it would have been stupid and suicidal under a Mussolini or Franco or Hitler to go around proclaiming yourself to be a Marxist. This would not be a mark of courage, but stupidity.
Stupid? Suicidal? If he were real socialists, they would have, should have organized a resistance movement.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Cocoa Beach Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
beach boys Dec 12 anita johnson 2
'There's your new spacecraft, America!': NASA Dec 8 SpaceBlues 1
vacationing soon at cocoa beach Dec 8 gary 12
Launch of new Orion spaceship has NASA flying high Dec 6 gary 4
has 16streets turned into a lgbt surf report? Dec 5 hatteras island f... 1
Expanded health coverage merits push from leaders Nov 26 MARGE 1
Skateboarders on Barton Ave Rockledge Out of Co... (May '14) Nov 23 Rockledge Sucks 14
Cocoa Beach Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Cocoa Beach People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Cocoa Beach News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Cocoa Beach

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:16 am PST

NBC Sports 6:16AM
Roy Miller needs knee surgery to repair meniscus injury
NBC Sports 6:40 AM
Bortles: We showed the country who we are
NBC Sports11:45 AM
Just like old (sad) times: Buccaneers double-digit home underdogs vs. Packers
NBC Sports 1:39 PM
Young Jaguars piecing together key building blocks - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 8:19 PM
Ranking Packers' Best Wins over Buccaneers