FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

The Real Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.

George W. Bush had the gall to use Martin Luther King’s birthday as the occasion for announcing that his administration wanted to gut part of King’s legacy. “[W] e renew our commitment to the principles of justice, equality, opportunity and optimism that Dr. King espoused and exemplified,” Bush declared last month–as his administration sided against affirmative action programs in college admissions.

This latest slap in the face shows how comfortable Washington politicians have become with “celebrating” King’s life, while taking actions that are the opposite of what he stood for. And not only Republicans.

“It’s time for all of us to apply the same sense of consciousness, the same guts, the same determination, and the same impatience to change America for the better,” Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), an early favorite of many liberals for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, said of King. This from a man who voted for Bush’s war on Iraq–and offered only token opposition to the attack on affirmative action.

The truth is that Martin Luther King’s commitment to justice–and his determination to fight for it–sets him apart from everyone in the Washington establishment today.

* * *

King came to prominence as a leader of the Montgomery Bus Boycott in Alabama in 1955. The boycott was launched after Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus to a white passenger. But years of organizing had laid the basis for this struggle to erupt.

In the years following the Second World War–in which more than 3 million African Americans had registered for military service–the federal courts began overturning Jim Crow laws that upheld the South’s apartheid system of segregation. But for the court decisions to have any real meaning, Southern Blacks had to take action themselves.

Montgomery stood out from earlier civil rights struggles because of its mass character. Some 50,000 African American residents maintained the boycott of the city’s buses for more than a year–which took constant meetings and organizing.

King later spelled out the lesson of the boycott: “Feeling that our demands were moderate, I had assumed that they would be granted with little question…I came to see that no one gives up his privileges without strong resistance.”

King founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) as an alternative to national organizations like the NAACP that insisted on a purely legal strategy for civil rights. The SCLC was committed to mass mobilization. King put forward a new model for organizing, based on nonviolent direct action.

The principles of nonviolence became the watchword for civil rights activists across the South. But as the movement developed–particularly in the early 1960s, with a new wave of civil rights organizing led by Black college students, united in the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC)–King’s strategy gradually came into question.

For one thing, King’s principle of nonviolence couldn’t be sustained in the face of the Southern establishment’s savage violence. In practice, activists recognized the need for armed self-defense, while using nonviolent direct action as a tactic to build the struggle.

Moreover, King’s stated goal was to use mass mobilizations–often counting on the violence of Southern authorities to gain media attention–to embarrass the northern wing of the Democratic Party and force it to act for civil rights. But Democrats like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were openly hostile to the movement, because they didn’t want to offend Southern Dixiecrats.

King found himself caught in the middle, increasingly acting as a brake on the movement for fear of offending Democrats in Washington. So at the famous 1963 March on Washington–now remembered mainly for his “I Have a Dream” speech–King, at the request of the Kennedy White House, played the central role in toning down the demonstration and censoring a fiery speech planned by SNCC leader John L. Lewis.

* * *

By the mid-1960s, King was considered too moderate and out of touch by an increasingly radical movement. And at this point, he might have become something like the tame image of him promoted in Washington these days–a successful mainstream politician, perhaps, or at least an armchair “elder statesman.”

But as passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965–the two main pieces of legislation that destroyed legal segregation in the South–marked a new phase in the struggle, King, too, moved to the left. He turned his attention to the North, challenging not only legal discrimination, but economic and social inequalities–poverty, chronic unemployment, police brutality–that thrived throughout the U.S.

That brought King into conflict with northern Democrats, who could be pressured into supporting civil rights in the South against the Dixiecrat wing of their party, but didn’t take well to a challenge to their political machines and big business allies in the North.

King was conscious of the shift he was making. “For the last 12 years, we have been in a reform movement,” he told his staff. “But after Selma and the voting rights bill, we moved into a new era, which must be an era of revolution.”

In April 1967, King decided to take a public stand against the war in Vietnam–and put his prestige on the line in making the connection between the injustices that he struggled against at home and those committed abroad by the U.S. military.

“We were taking the Black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them 8,000 miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem,” he said in a speech at the Riverside Church in New York City.

“So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools…I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today–my own government.”

King explicitly recognized the economic roots of Washington’s imperialist war–and gave expression to the growing discontent within the army itself. “We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for [U.S. soldiers] must know after a short period that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved,” he said. “Before long, they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create a hell for the poor.”

The Washington establishment–liberals and conservatives alike–lashed out at King. Time magazine, which three years before had named him their “Person of the Year,” declared that his antiwar speech was “sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi.”

But King resisted the pull. His 1967 speech to the SCLC–given little more than half a year before he was killed–gives a sense of his willingness to ask questions that go far beyond civil rights reforms.

“[T]he movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society,” King said. “There are 40 million poor people here. And one day, we must ask the question, ‘Why are there 40 million poor people in America?’

“And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. And when you ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy…We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life’s marketplace. But one day, we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

“It means that questions must be raised. You see my friends, when you deal with this, you begin to ask the question, ‘Who owns the oil?’ You begin to ask the question, ‘Who owns the iron ore?’ You begin to ask the question, ‘Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?'”

* * *

It’s impossible to say how King would have answered these questions had he lived longer. The SCLC’s plans for a Poor People’s Campaign, for example, still reflected King’s strategy of pressuring Democratic Party politicians.

But there’s certainly no comparison with the harmless picture of King that we get 35 years later. “Our only hope today,” King said in 1967, “lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism and militarism.”

To socialists, that sounds a lot like our own call to action–and it’s why we claim Martin Luther King as an inspiration in our struggle for a new society.

ALAN MAASS is an editor of Socialist Worker. He can be reached at: maass@socialistworker.org

 

More articles by:

ALAN MAASS is the editor of the Socialist Worker and author of The Case for Socialism. He can be reached at: alanmaass@sbcglobal.net

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

April 24, 2019
Susan Babbitt
Disdain and Dignity: An Old (Anti-Imperialist) Story
Adam Jonas Horowitz
Letter to the Emperor
Lawrence Davidson
A Decisive Struggle For Our Future
John Steppling
The Mandate for Israel: Keep the Arabs Down
Victor Grossman
Many Feet
Cira Pascual Marquina
The Commune is the Supreme Expression of Participatory Democracy: a Conversation with Anacaona Marin of El Panal Commune
Binoy Kampmark
Failed States and Militias: General Khalifa Haftar Moves on Tripoli
Dean Baker
Payments to Hospitals Aren’t Going to Hospital Buildings
Alvaro Huerta
Top Ten List in Defense of MEChA
Colin Todhunter
As the 2019 Indian General Election Takes Place, Are the Nation’s Farmers Being Dealt a Knock-Out Blow?
Charlie Gers
Trump’s Transgender Troops Ban is un-American and Inhumane
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Just Another Spring in Progress?
Thomas Knapp
On Obstruction, the Mueller Report is Clintonesque
Elliot Sperber
Every Truck’s a Garbage Truck
April 23, 2019
Peter Bolton
The Monroe Doctrine is Back, and as the Latest US Attack on Cuba Shows, Its Purpose is to Serve the Neoliberal Order
David Schultz
The Mueller Report: Trump Too Inept to Obstruct Justice
Geoff Beckman
Crazy Uncle Joe and the Can’t We All Just Get Along Democrats
Medea Benjamin
Activists Protect DC Venezuelan Embassy from US-supported Coup
Patrick Cockburn
What Revolutionaries in the Middle East Have Learned Since the Arab Spring
Jim Goodman
Don’t Fall for the Hype of Free Trade Agreements
Lance Olsen
Climate and Forests: Land Managers Must Adapt, and Conservationists, Too
William Minter
The Coming Ebola Epidemic
Tony McKenna
Stephen King’s IT: a 2019 Retrospective
David Swanson
Pentagon Claims 1,100 High Schools Bar Recruiters; Peace Activists Offer $1,000 Award If Any Such School Can Be Found
Gary Olson
A Few Comments on the recent PBS Series: Reconstruction: America After the Civil War
April 22, 2019
Melvin Goodman
The NYTs Tries to Rehabilitate Bloody Gina Haspel
Robert Fisk
After ISIS, a Divided Iraq, Wounded and Grief-Stricken
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange as Neuroses
John Laforge
Chernobyl’s Deadly Effects Estimates Vary
Kenneth Surin
Mueller Time? Not for Now
Cesar Chelala
Yemen: The Triumph of Barbarism
Kerron Ó Luain
What the “White Irish Slaves” Meme Tells Us About Identity Politics
Andy Piascik
Grocery Store Workers Take on Billion Dollar Multinational
Seiji Yamada – Gregory G. Maskarinec
Health as a Human Right: No Migrants Need Apply
Howard Lisnoff
Loose Bullets and Loose Cannons
Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada
Dreaming in Miami
Graham Peebles
Consuming Stuff: The Polluting World of Fashion
Robert Dodge
Earth Day: Our Planet in Peril
Weekend Edition
April 19, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
What Will It Take For Trump to Get His Due?
Roy Eidelson
Is the American Psychological Association Addicted to Militarism and War?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Time is Blind, Man is Stupid
Joshua Frank
Top 20 Mueller Report “Findings”
Rob Urie
Why Russiagate Will Never Go Away
Paul Street
Stephen Moore Gets Something Right: It’s Capitalism vs. Democracy
Russell Mokhiber
Why Boeing and Its Executives Should be Prosecuted for Manslaughter
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail