To Pierre Berton's question on January 19, 1965–"But you no longer believe in a black state?"–he gave the flat answer:

And on January 24, when he read to an OAAU rally the text of a telegram he had sent to George Lincoln Rockwell, head of the American Nazi Party, he disassociated himself not only from the abstentionism but also from the separatism of the Nation of Islam:

While Malcolm never publicly stated why he was changing his position on separatism, it is clear that he stopped advocating it, even as a long-range position, by the end of the transition period. What was not noticed at that time, and was not discussed publicly for many months after that by Malcolm or anyone else, was that he also began to reconsider the whole question of black nationalism following his trip to Africa in the spring of 1964.

The first time Malcolm talked about this to any Americans outside of his associates in the OAAU was five weeks before his death. On January 18, 1965, he gave an interview to representatives of the Young Socialist, and this is how he answered their question, "How do you define black nationalism, with which you have been identified?":

It was not until after the publication of the Young Socialist interview a few days after Malcolm's death that anyone looked back to see when Malcolm had stopped calling himself a black nationalist. It was at the end of May, right after his first trip abroad in 1964.

Early in 1965, Malcolm announced that the OAAU was preparing a new program. It was to be presented in printed form by the OAAU at an Audubon rally on February 15, 1965. But Malcolm's home was bombed on February 14 and the February 15 rally was devoted to discussion mainly of that event. Presentation of the new "Basic Unity Program," dated February 15, was postponed to a subsequent meeting, and Malcolm was assassinated at the next meeting. But the "Basic Unity Program" did not call the OAAU black nationalist; it never even mentioned the expression. (See Appendix B for full text.)

Is it correct to still speak of Malcolm as a black nationalist when we know that he had stopped calling himself that and was questioning the adequacy of black nationalism as "the solution to the problems confronting our people"? The answer is yes, if we continue to use the definition of black nationalism attempted earlier in this chapter.

The most urgent need of the Negro people is their mobilization and unification into an independent movement to fight for their freedom. Black nationalism contributes to that process, in much the way that class consciousness contributes to the formation of an independent movement of workers for their emancipation from exploitation.

But black nationalism is a means, not the end; it is a means, but not the only means; it is probably an indispensable means toward the solution, but it is not the solution itself. It helps to build an independent movement, but it does not by itself provide the program that will lead such a movement to victory–any more than class consciousness by itself supplies all the answers for the workers.

Light can be shed on Malcolm's reappraisal if we understand that there is more than one variety of black nationalist. Relevant to this discussion is the variety that can be called pure-and-simple. (This was first discussed in a 1964 series of articles, later published under the title, Marxism and the Negro Struggle.' 1)

The pure-and-simple black nationalist is concerned exclusively or primarily with the internal problems of the Negro community, with organizing it, with helping it to gain control of the community's politics, economy, etc. He is not concerned, or is less concerned, with the problems of the total American society, or with the nature of the larger society within which the Negro community exists. He has no theory or program for changing that society; for him that is the white man's problem.

At a New York symposium sponsored by the Committee to Aid the Monroe Defendants on May 1, 1962, Malcolm, after speaking on police brutality against blacks, was asked from the audience to comment on the fact that police were also brutal to whites. He said:

That was the reply of a pure-and-simple black nationalist. We have already quoted Malcolm's statement to A. B. Spellman early in the transition period: "We have got to get our problems solved first and then if there's anything left to work on the white man's problems, good . . ." That too was typical pure-and-simple black nationalism.

But while Malcolm was that kind of black nationalist in the transition period, he did not remain that kind. As he held discussions with people in Africa, in the Middle East, at the United Nations and in the United States, as he studied and thought and learned, he moved beyond pureand-simple black nationalism–toward black nationalism plus. Plus what? "Radicalism," the third chapter of this book, has already shown from Malcolm's speeches and interviews that he was coming to the conclusion that radical changes have to be made in the society as a whole if black people are to achieve their freedom. This did not contradict his belief that blacks should control their own community; it was an addition to that belief.

The solution cannot be "summed up" as black nationalism. That means black nationalism plus fundamental social change, plus the transformation of the whole society. Malcolm still was looking for the name, but he was becoming black nationalist plus revolutionary. (We know he had great respect for the latter term; he may have hesitated to apply it to himself out of modesty, or because he thought it would be an added handicap in this country.)

What he was questioning about black nationalism was not its essence but its pure-and-simple form. He was questioning this because it "was alienating people who were true revolutionaries"– in this case, white revolutionaries. A pureand-simple black nationalist wouldn't care what effect he had on whites, revolutionary or not. Malcolm cared because he intended to work with white revolutionaries; he knew their collaboration was needed if society was to be transformed.

Malcolm was beginning to think about the need to replace capitalism with socialism if racism was to be eliminated. He was not sure if it could be done, and he was not sure how it could be done, but he was beginning to believe that that was the road to be traveled.

Black nationalism and separatism are not the same thing, though unfortunately they are often confused. Separatism is a tendency favoring the withdrawal of Negroes into a separate black nation, either in America or in Africa. Black nationalism is a tendency for Negroes to unite as a group, as a people, in organizations that are Negro-led and Negro-controlled, and sometimes all-black, in order to fight for their freedom. Black nationalism, as it now exists, does not imply any position on the question of a separate nation in the future, for or against. So you can be a black nationalist without being a separatist, although all separatists are black nationalists. You will find a much better and longer analysis of this greatly misunderstood distinction in the Socialist Workers Party's 1963 convention resolution, Freedom Now: The New Stage in the Struggle for Negro Emancipation (distributed by Pathfinder Press).

When Malcolm was a Black Muslim, he was of course a separatist. At his first press conference after leaving the Black Muslims last March, he said he was out to build a black nationalist movement, and the major stress was on black nationalism. But he also had a few words to say about separatism. He said he still thought separation was "the best solution"; previously he would have said the only solution. "But," he continued, "separation back to Africa is still a long-range program, and while it is yet to materialize, 22 million of our people who are still here in America need better food, clothing, housing, education, and jobs right now" (his emphasis).

Perhaps he thought a separate nation, while desirable, was so far off there was no use talking about it. Perhaps he thought it was a divisive issue impeding black unity. Or perhaps he no longer thought it desirable. In any case, he stopped being a separatist at the time of his break with the Black Muslims, or soon after.

What about his position on black nationalism? Everyone called him a nationalist, friend and foe, and there was no question about it until a few weeks ago. Then he was asked, in the Young Socialist interview, "How do you define black nationalism, with which you have been identified?"

He began his answer by saying, "I used to define black nationalism as the idea that the black man should control the economy of his community, the politics of his community, and so forth." That is, he used to define it in the traditional way, as I tried to do a few minutes ago.

The second paragraph of Malcolm's reply, which you can read for yourselves in the Young Socialist, relates a discussion he had with a white Algerian revolutionary he met in Ghana last May who sought to convince Malcolm that his self-designation as a black nationalist tended to alienate people "who were true revolutionaries dedicated to overturning the system of exploitation that exists on this earth by any means necessary." His third and final paragraph was:

So, I had to do a lot of thinking and reappraising of my definition of black nationalism. Can we sum up the solution to the problems confronting our people as black nationalism? And if you notice, I haven't been using the expression for several months. But I still would be hard pressed to give a specific definition of the overall philosophy which I think is necessary for the liberation of the black people in this country.

Please notice: He was reappraising his definition of black nationalism and wondering if it can be summed up as the solution; he had stopped using the term, but he had not yet been able to find another definition for the philosophy necessary for black liberation. Now let me offer what I think is the explanation for all this.

Malcolm had been a black nationalist—it was the starting point for all his thinking, the source of his strength and dynamism. And he remained a black nationalist to his last hour, however uncertain he was about what to call himself or the program he was trying to formulate. It would be a bad mistake to mix up what he was with what he thought might be a better name for what he was.

The most urgent need of the Negro people is still the mobilization and unification of the Negro masses into an independent movement to fight for their freedom. Black nationalism is still highly progressive because it contributes to that process and to the creation of that kind of movement. But black nationalism is a means, not the end; it is a means, but not the only means; it is probably an indispensable means toward the solution, but it is not the whole solution. It helps to build an independent movement, but it does not necessarily provide the program that will lead such a movement to victory.

In a series of articles in the Militant last year, I tried to clarify some questions about black nationalism by noting that there are at least two types of black nationalist. One is the pure-and-simple black nationalist. He is concerned exclusively or primarily with the internal problems of the Negro community, with organizing it, helping it to control the economy of the community, the politics of the community, etc. He is not so concerned with the problems of the total American society, or with the nature of the total society within which the Negro community exists. He has no theory or program for changing that society; for him that's the white man's problem.

Now Malcolm was not that kind of black nationalist, or if he was a year ago, he did not remain that. As he discussed with people in Africa, in the Near East, at the United Nations, and in the United States, as he studied and thought and learned, he began to become a black nationalist plus. Plus what? I have already given you many quotations from his speeches and interviews showing that as he studied the economy, the nature of the political and social system of American capitalism, as he developed greater and keener understanding of how this system functions and how the riling class rules and how racism is a component and instrument of that nile, he came more and more to the conclusion that not only must the Negro control his own community, but radical changes have to be made in the society as a whole if the Negroes are to achieve their freedom.

Black nationalism, yes. But the solution cannot be summed up as only black nationalism. Needed is black nationalism plus fundamental social change; black nationalism plus the transformation of the entire society. Whatever difficulty Malcolm may have had in finding the right name, what he was becoming was black nationalist plus revolutionist. (The Young Socialist interview shows that he had great respect for that word.)

There are really only three ways in which it is possible to think of the Negro people getting freedom and equality. One way (notice I said to think about getting freedom) is through gradualism; peaceful reform; a little bit now and a little bit more ten years from now. Not Freedom Now, but Freedom Later, which for purposes of Negroes now alive, means Freedom Never. This is the program of Lyndon Johnson, Reuther, King, Wilkins, and Rustin. Malcolm, as we know, flatly rejected this approach.

The second way is through separation, through migration to Africa, or through obtaining part of what is now the United States. Malcolm, as I indicated, had turned away from this approach, whatever his reasons may have been for doing so.

The third way—and I repeat there are only these three ways, there are no others—is through the revolutionary reorganization of society, by basically changing the economy, political structure, laws, and educational system, and by replacing the present capitalist ruling class with a new government instituted by the forces that are opposed to racism and determined to uproot it.

From the quotations I read you before on what Malcolm was saying about capitalism and socialism and racism, it is clear that Malcolm tended to favor this third approach, or at least had his eyes turned in that direction. He wasn't sure if it could be done, and he wasn't sure how it could be done, but he was thinking about it and how it fitted into the program and activity of the Organization of Afro-American Unity.

This, I believe, correctly explains his uncertainty about what to call himself. He was a black nationalist plus, a black nationalist plus a social revolutionist, or in the process of becoming one.

Socialists should be the last to be surprised at such development. We have for some time been stressing the tendency of nationalism to grow over into and become merged with socialism; we have seen just that transformation occur in Cuba with Castro and his movement, which began as nationalist. We have argued against many opponents that the logical outcome of black nationalism in a country like ours is to reach the most advanced, most radical social and political conclusions. That is why we have advocated and predicted that black nationalists and revolutionary socialists can, should, and will find ways of working together.

Malcolm's uncertainty about the right name arises from the fact that he was doing something new—he was on the road to a synthesis of black nationalism and socialism that would be fitting for the scene and acceptable to the masses in the black ghetto. He did not complete the synthesis before he was murdered. It remains for others to complete what he was beginning.

Now he is dead, taken from us in what might been the most important and fruitful year of his life.

Let us not deceive ourselves. It was a stunning blow, as Frank Lovell said at last week's memorial of the Afro-American Broadcasting Company, a stunning blow to the Negro people and to those Americans who want to eradicate the system that breeds racism. Men like Malcolm do not appear often or in great numbers. The enemies of human progress benefit from his death. The fighters for human progress are weakened and hurt by it.

But a stunning blow to the struggle does not destroy the struggle. Malcolm will not easily be replaced. But he will be replaced. The capitalist system breeds not only racism but rebels against racism, especially among the youth. Malcolm cannot be replaced overnight, but meanwhile we all can and should strive harder, work harder, fight harder, unite more closely to try to fill the gap left by the death of this man we loved, and give help and encouragement to those destined to replace him.

NOTE

1. This interview, held on January 18, 1965, and published in the Young Socialist (March–April 1965), has been reprinted in By Any Means Necessary (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1970).