The Last Year of Malcolm X: The Evolution of a Revolutionary

by George Breitman

Malcolm X's political evolution after he left the Nation of Islam. Analyzes the conflicts that resulted in Malcolm's being driven out of the Nation, his views on how to combat anti-Black discrimination, and how, as he put it, to "internationalize" the struggle. Photos, notes, further reading and list of audio recordings of Malcolm X.

Genres: History, Biography, African American, Biography Memoir, American History

104 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1967

About the author

George Breitman was born in Newark, New Jersey in 1916. After working in the Civilian Conservation Corps, and the Works Progress Administration, he joined the Trotskyist movement and became a founding member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in 1938. He edited The Militant and served in World War II. In the 1960s, Breitman assumed responsibility for the SWP's Pathfinder Press and edited Writings of Leon Trotsky, 1929-1940, and wrote Malcolm X Speaks (1965). The Papers contain biographical items, correspondence, articles, various materials pertaining to his political activities and to the history of U.S. and international Trotskyism.
He also wrote under the name Albert Parker

Reviews

[Cosimo Ranieri · Rating 5 out of 5]

A good book to better understand what Malcolm X was at the end of his life. A book that explain how Malcolm, in the last part of his life, completely changed his approach on the African-American problem and became an open-minded and international leader. It's a book that rightly destroy the idea endorsed by who still wrongly think Malcolm was a violent and full of hate man.

[Minnie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Powerful story about a powerful man. This is a "Negro Classic," about a revolution that was televised. The movie, Malcolm X, was good but the book is better.

I needed to go back and read this year and compare it with Manning Marable' Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention. Will start it May 1, 2011.

I will never finish reading about this man. He will forever be on my reference shelf.

[Theresa Mahfood · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read with interest Mr. Breitman's perspective on the last year of Malcolm X's life. Mr. Breitman presented a clear view, which is consistent with the facts, on Malcolm's evolving beliefs with respect to nationalism and allying with whites in the struggle for human rights. However, while Mr. Breitman criticized others throughout the book for lack of objectivity in their portrayals of Malcolm, his own loyal adherence to socialist and Marxist dogma put a damper on several of his other conclusions. I think Mr. Breitman was sincere in his intentions, but his dogmatism led him to, perhaps, interpret Malcolm's words from a narrow lens.

Mr. Breitman never knew Malcolm personally but was one of the founding members of the Socialist Workers Party ("SWP"). The SWP ensured that Malcolm's speeches got published in The Militant newspaper at a time when no other newspapers would publish his speeches. They also gave Malcolm a platform to spread his message, for which we should all be grateful. Malcolm spoke at The Militant Labor Forum three times before his untimely assassination. That said, although the SWP were objective in how they published Malcolm's views while he was alive, after his death one cannot be so sure. It was no secret that several members of the SWP were eager to persuade Malcolm to get on board with their Marxist agenda, and after Malcolm's death, they have presented him mostly in a biased way which is favorable to their belief system.

It is my opinion that this book does not always deliver an objective look at Malcolm's evolving social, political, and economic views. Subsequently, Mr. Breitman sometimes came across as pushing his own socialist agenda rather than impartially evaluating Malcolm's political and economic trajectory. No matter how much Mr. Breitman wanted to think Malcolm would have become a socialist, there is enough evidence that Malcolm was nowhere near becoming one.

On the Stan Bernard Radio Show on February 18, 1965, Gordon Hall accused Malcolm of "breaking bread with socialists and communists." Malcolm's reaction? "You are absolutely out of your mind!" He exclaimed. He then made it clear that he was not a socialist or communist and seemed offended that he was even accused of breaking bread with them. He added, "Just because you speak somewhere, it doesn't make you that! ...I speak to the public and I'll speak on any platform!" Does that sound like a man who wanted to be remembered as pro-socialist?

Malcolm was, in fact, his own man, trying to come up with a new and fresh political and economic philosophy independent of existing ideologies. According to Carlos Moore, a black Marxist who had hosted Malcolm during some of his travels: "Malcolm was tactically using The Militant [newspaper] to get his words out....But he was neither a Trotskyite, a Stalinist, or a Leninist, or a Castroite. Until the end, Malcolm was very much his own man politically."

At an OAAU rally, Malcolm stated:

"[The black man] can come up with a new philosophy. He can come up with a philosophy that nobody has heard of yet. He can invent a society, a social system, an economic system, a political system, that is different from anything that exists or has ever existed anywhere on this earth. He will improvise; he’ll bring it from within himself. And this is what you and I want."

Are these really the words of a man moving towards socialism? Or are these not, instead, the words of a driven man wanting to create an entirely new philosophy to solve the problems of the black masses?

Malcolm believed strongly in a concept he called "nonalignment" and rejected all labels, including "leftist", "centrist", and "rightist" in a Q&A session in January 1965. I saw no mention in this book of Malcolm saying the following in fall of 1964:

"I am not anti-American, un-American, seditious, nor subversive. I don't buy the anti-capitalist propaganda of the communists, nor do I buy the anti-communist propaganda of the capitalists."

Nor did Mr. Breitman mention that Malcolm said in his diary (fall 1964): "When we all learn to think as human beings instead of as capitalists, communists and socialists, this will then be a world for all human beings."

Would a pro-socialist/anti-capitalist really indicate, as Malcolm did, that we should stop thinking of ourselves as "capitalists, communists, and socialists" and instead focus on each others' humanity?

I contend that Malcolm remained non-aligned with respect to socialism and capitalism. Here are his words to M.S. Handler in fall 1964:

"Some of my dearest friends are Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, and even atheists—some are capitalists, Socialists, and Communists—some are moderates, conservatives, extremists...My friends today are black, brown, red, yellow, and white! It takes all these religious, political, economic...and racial ingredients to make the Human Family and the Human Society complete. We must forget politics and propaganda and approach this as a Human Problem which all of us as human beings are obligated to correct. The well-meaning whites must become less vocal and more active against racism of their fellow whites. . .and Negro leaders must make their own people see that with equal rights also come equal responsibilities."

So what did Malcolm mean by nonalignment? He clearly defined it for us and used Egypt as an example: "They take from East and West and don't take sides with either one. Nasser took everything Russia could give, and then put all the communists in jail." (I should note that Malcolm did not promote putting anyone in jail for their ideology). He further stated, "Positive neutrality means if you want to help us, help us; we're still not with you. If you have a contribution to make to our development, do it. But that doesn't mean we're with you or against you. We're neutral. We're for ourselves. Whatever is good for us, that's what we're interested in...This is what you and I need to learn...how to be positively neutral. You and I need to learn how to be non-aligned."

Mr. Breitman also claimed that Malcolm completely rejected his former advocacy of black owned businesses after returning from Africa in May 1964. He used the OAAU's June 28 Statement of Basic Aims and Objectives as proof of this by asserting that nowhere in the Basic Aims and Objectives is any mention of "black owned business" as a solution. Did Mr. Breitman forget that Malcolm said the following at that June 28 Rally?

"We have an economics department. For any of you who are interested in business or a program that will bring about a situation where the black man in Harlem can gain control over his own economy and develop business expansion for our people in this community so we can create some employment opportunities for our people in this community, we will have this department."

One can objectively conclude that Malcolm expanded his economic thinking beyond mere black business. However, nowhere did I see him reject the idea of a predominately black community like Harlem pooling together its wealth as the Chinese and Jewish communities do to expand black owned businesses. In fact, in an interview with Robert Penn Warren in June 1964, Malcolm again used the Chinese New Yorkers as good examples to follow. Likewise, he promoted the idea of Harlem taking political, economic, and social control of its community (independent of outside and non-local government control) in his OAAU speech on February 15, 1965. Wouldn't advocating such positions indicate that he retained at least some of his entrepreneurial ideas for black people until the end?

Malcolm did say that African Americans should consider whether socialism, as practiced in Africa, can offer any ideas on how to operate their own communities before they incorporate into the American capitalist system. However, isn't it plausible that Malcolm's brief romance with African socialism was more so related to his pro-African stance than anything else? After all, he seemed to have no use for European socialism. Further, scientific socialists did not regard African socialism as real socialism. In 1967, Kwame Nkrumah even said the term "African socialism" was too vague to be useful as there was no clear definition. More importantly, incorporating African socialist ideas on a community level in Harlem as Malcolm seemed to suggest is not socialism in any revolutionary sense. Rather, it is creating several community run social programs to help the poor of Harlem (similar to the Black Panthers' free breakfast program).

Some of Malcolm's views were even incompatible with most forms of socialism. He greatly opposed welfare until the end. "It creates laziness" and "robs us of our human dignity," He'd say, which is in line with libertarian criticisms of welfare. He also strongly believed in private land ownership. In a postcard to Alex Haley, he wrote, "It is better to live in a shack that you own, at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, than in the city in a mansion that belongs to someone else." He believed in free speech and press, and his desire for private organizations such as his OAAU to take control of failing Harlem public schools (an idea resembling what we now think of as Charter Schools) was anything but socialist in nature.

Interestingly, Malcolm stated the following in his Autobiography:

"An American white Ambassador in one African country was Africa's most respected American Ambassador: I'm glad to say that this was told to me by one ranking African leader. We talked for an entire afternoon. Based on what I had heard of him, I had to believe him when he told me that as long as he was on the African continent, he never thought in terms of race, that he dealt with human beings, never noticing their color. He said he was more aware of language differences than of color differences. He said that only when he returned to America would he become aware of color differences.

I told him, 'What you are telling me is that it isn't the American white man who is a racist, but it's the American political, economic, and social atmosphere that automatically nourishes a racist psychology in the white man.' He agreed. We both agreed that American society makes it next to impossible for humans to meet in America and not be conscious of their color differences. And we both agreed that if racism could be removed, America could offer a society where rich and poor could truly live like human beings.

That discussion with the Ambassador gave me a new insight -- one which I like: that the white man is not inherently evil, but America's racist society influences him to act evilly. The society has produced and nourishes a psychology which brings out the lowest, most base part of human beings."

Would an individual moving towards Marxist ideas be keen on a society "where rich and poor could truly live" together like human beings? That idea seems antithetical to socialism since it implies that classes would remain.

The American Ambassador Malcolm referred to was William Attwood. Attwood's recollection of this exchange with Malcolm is consistent with the account in The Autobiography. Peter Goldman noted in The Death and Life of Malcolm X that Attwood did not get the sense from his conversations with Malcolm in Africa that Malcolm was actually identifying capitalism with racism. Rather, Attwood said, "He was saying that in America we're reminded of color by the scenery and the furniture of our past. Abroad, we're just Americans." So while Malcolm did say, "You can't have capitalism without racism" to a group from the SWP, Attwood and others who spoke to him about this issue in more depth felt he saw the problem as more societal than economic.

In an interview with Young Socialist, when asked what was responsible for racial prejudice in America, Malcolm's answer was not capitalism. Instead, his answer was "ignorance and greed. And a skillfully designed program of miseducation that goes right along with the American system of exploitation and oppression. If the entire American population were properly educated ... I think many whites would be less racist in their feelings. They would have more respect for the Black man as a human being. . .Also, the feeling of inferiority that the Black man has would be replaced by a balanced knowledge of himself. He’d feel more like a human being. He’d function more like a human being, in a society of human beings. So it takes education to eliminate it, and just because you have colleges and universities doesn’t mean you have education. The colleges and universities in the American educational system are skillfully used to miseducate."

One could argue that the "American system of exploitation and oppression" Malcolm referred to was capitalism, but his response seemed more consistent with the notion that it is the excessive greed and ignorance of individuals running the government and abusing economic systems that creates systemic oppression. America happened to employ capitalism as its economic system. Malcolm also criticized communist Soviet Union for being oppressive towards nonwhites. Therefore, it is the society that needs to be changed through education to end racism. Merely replacing an economic or political system will not eliminate racism. It seems Malcolm understood this.

Mr. Breitman exaggerated the degree to which Malcolm was sympathetic to socialism by compiling all of Malcolm's seemingly anti-capitalist quotes without including his numerous other quotes inconsistent with those statements. Further, Mr. Breitman never drew enough attention to the fact that Malcolm, by his own admission, was still only learning about these concepts and had yet to truly define them. In October 1963, Malcolm stated in a Q&A session at Berkeley that he knew "nothing about socialism." The term didn't enter his vocabulary until after his travels abroad in 1964, and he later acknowledged not having much time to read about it. This was a man who normally defined every term he utilized and read as much as he could before drawing conclusions. Yet he never defined what he meant by socialism or capitalism. His transitioning opinions on these topics seemed tied mostly to what he was told or shown abroad by militant leaders and Ambassadors. His interest in socialism stemmed mainly from his belief that the newly independent nations wouldn't all become socialist by coincidence. Shouldn't this be addressed in any book talking about Malcolm's evolving views? Without properly defining socialism or capitalism, his discussion of these concepts seemed merely rhetorical.

Malcolm was certainly anti-imperialist, but imperialism is not the same as capitalism. At times, he seemed to conflate the two. Without knowing clearly what he meant by capitalism, we have no idea what he meant by, "You show me a capitalist, I'll show you a bloodsucker."

Mr. Breitman made little mention of insights from persons who spoke with Malcolm during this period such as Carlos Moore, Jan Carew, M.S. Handler, Charles Silberman, James Farmer, and some of Malcolm's close followers within the Muslim Mosque that would have weakened his argument that Malcolm was moving in a socialist direction.

He also seemed to downplay the important role Sunni Islam had on Malcolm's evolving worldview and withheld facts showing that Malcolm was becoming even more religious towards the end of his life. Instead, one may even get the impression from Mr. Breitman's writings that Malcolm began downplaying religion, and that his travels to West Africa had a more significant impact on his evolution than his religious travels. However, this couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, Malcolm visited Mecca at least five times in his last year to "sharpen [his] spiritual eye" and spent many weeks studying Islam in Egypt in 1964. He was becoming just as much of a spiritual revolutionary as he was a cultural and political revolutionary. Of course, one cannot be as God-fearing and deeply religious as Malcolm was and also a Marxist, so I can understand why Mr. Breitman would have left out these facts.

Out of all the "socialist" countries in Africa, Malcolm seemed most impressed with Nasser's government in Egypt which promoted education, a pious religious atmosphere for the people, and healthcare for Egyptians at no charge. Egypt had also nationalized exploitative companies previously owned by Europeans such as the Suez Canal Company as a move towards independence from Colonial powers. Malcolm emphasized that most of the revolutions going on in the world at that time lacked balance because of a de-emphasis on religion. Therefore, while he admired the courage of any revolutionary to stand up and fight against oppressive powers, he was not necessarily keen on the type of leadership established in those countries following their respective revolutions. On December 20, 1964 at the Audubon Ballroom, he said:

"The Egyptian [revolution] differs from most revolutions in that it's one of the few revolutions that has taken place where religion has not been minimized. In most revolutions, religion is immediately de-emphasized. Eventually that revolution loses something. Always. But the thing about the Egyptian revolution was that it never de-emphasized the importance of religion. In these new cities, the first thing they build is a mosque, so the people can practice their religion. Then they build schools so the people can be educated free; and then they build hospitals. They believe that the religious aspect keeps the people spiritually and morally balanced, and then everyone should have the best education and free hospitalization. These new villages actually reflect the whole motive behind the Egyptian revolution...I was there and studied it for two months. It's a balanced revolution. I go for revolution, but revolution should always do something for the people and it should always keep them balanced."

Why didn't Mr. Breitman include the above quote? And why did he not mention that all talk of socialism and capitalism abruptly vanished from Malcolm's vocabulary in February 1965? If Malcolm was really moving in a socialist direction, why did he only mention these concepts in passing or as minor points, and why did he not focus on expanding these ideas? Instead, his immediate political concerns were international in nature but not necessarily economic, his focus on Sunni Islam was amplified the last month of his life, and his practical economic ideas such as a Technician Pool had nothing to do with socialism. I think studying Malcolm's Memorandum to the Organization of African Unity, along with the OAAU's 17-point program, provides a better foundation for understanding Malcolm's solutions to the race problem during his last year than this book. Malcolm was a spiritual revolutionary and humanist at the time of his death. As Malcolm's daughter, Ilyasah Shabazz, has stated, "My father's revolution was education."

If Mr. Breitman really was objective, he would emphasize that Malcolm, in his own words, was "not dogmatic about anything" - that he could change his mind at the drop of a hat when new evidence presented itself. He said, "I refuse to be in anyone's straight jacket." Aligning with the socialists would have placed him in a straight jacket. When asked about his philosophy during his last year, he repeatedly answered, "I don't know, but I'm flexible.....all I know is that I am a Muslim and a revolutionary." The only other ideological label he accepted was "internationalist".

In summary, Mr. Breitman's book is interesting and provocative but ought to be read cautiously for the reason that his socialist dogma clouds his interpretation of the martyred leader's teachings.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

COINTELPRO was a series of covert and illegal operations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover with the goal to “neutralize,” a “true Black revolution” in the United States. The FBI began surveiling Malcolm X in 1953 just one year after he was released from prison and he remained a target of the Counterintelligence Program for the rest of his life b/c he was viewed as a “Messiah” type figure who "could unify, and electrify, the militant black nationalist movement."

B/c of Malcolm's Black nationalist views, which in the last year of his life evolved into revolutionary internationalism/Pan-Africanism, he was constantly being antagonized and misrepresented by the press and civil rights leaders/organizations with more moderate politics. When he was assassinated in February of 1965, the goal was not only to remove him from the freedom struggle in the United States but to kill his ideas, influence, and leave him discredited and forgotten.

George Breitman was one of the ppl who worked diligently after Malcolm's death to ensure he was remembered as a hero and a revolutionary. Breitman helped transcribe Malcolm's speeches and edited a number of collections. In The Last Year of Malcolm X, he outlines Malcolm's political and organizational development after splitting with the Nation of Islam to show his evolution toward becoming a true revolutionary leader. This is an important undertaking as it not only corrects the popular portrayal of Malcolm X by the press as a violent separatist but also clarifies some of the misleading, ambiguous, and politically incomplete parts of Alex Haley's The Autobiography of Malcolm X which Malcolm never read the full and final version of.

[redlouder · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un livre vraiment intéressant qui nous permet de connaître les différentes facettes de Malcom X must have !

[Nathaniel Flakin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read Malcolm X's autobiography about a month ago, and was both inspired by his militancy and kind of surprised by his conservative political views. But after he left the Nation of Islam, Malcom X was rethinking and radicalizing, and this is just barely reflected at the end of his autobiography. Some argue that Malcolm X was on a path to becoming a mainstream, liberal civil rights leader. But I think Breitman argues much more convincingly that he was evolving toward radical, anticapitalist, socialist, internationalist, and revolutionary positions. This is reflected, among other things, by his growing friendship with the #trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. While he had long seen the struggle against oppression as one of Black against white, he was increasingly talking about a worldwide struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors. "You can't have capitalism without racism." This short book is an excellent companion to the autobiography – really inspiring to see how Malcolm X's uncompromising opposition to oppression drew him towards revolutionary socialism.

[Jaret Ferratusco · Rating 5 out of 5]

An intensely personal look at the final transformative year in the extraordinary (and extraordinarily short) life of Malcolm X. With little patience for bullshit and equally small reserve for attending to opinions while facts can speak for themselves, author George Breitman argues against the arguments against Malcolm like a prizefighter, while offering to others a practical guide to the journey of Malcolm's life's work.

The book does not directly assess areas of Malcolm's life before the final year, except where it may pertain to modern comparisons or simple fact-checking, which makes for an intriguing long-form essay on the subject.

Note to self: Read more of George Breitman's books about Malcolm X (he has several).

[Marc Lichtman · Rating 4 out of 5]

On January 18, 1965, Malcolm X gave an interview to representatives of the Young Socialist magazine, and this is how he answered their question, "How do you define black nationalism, with which you have been identified?":

“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.

“But when I was in Africa in May, in Ghana, I was speaking with the Algerian ambassador who is extremely militant and is a revolutionary in the true sense of the word (and has his credentials as such for having carried on a successful revolution against oppression in his country). When I told him that my political, social and economic philosophy was black nationalism, he asked me very frankly, well, where did that leave him? Because he was white. He was an African, but he was Algerian, and to all appearances he was a white man. And he said if I define my objective as the victory of black nationalism, where does that leave him? Where does that leave revolutionaries in Morocco, Egypt, Iraq, Mauritania? So he showed me where I was alienating people who were true revolutionaries, dedicated to overthrowing the system of exploitation that exists on this earth by any means necessary.

“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 noticed, I haven't been using the expression for several months. But I still would be hard pressed to give a specific definition of the over-all philosophy which I think is necessary for the liberation of the black people in this country.”--From Malcolm X Talks to Young People: Speeches in the United States, Britain, and Africa.

“George Breitman, however, disagreed. Breitman, who was a member of the Socialist Workers Part National Committee at the time, deserves credit for the work he did in editing many of Malcolm’s speeches for publication, with care and integrity. But he had become committed to insisting that Malcolm X was a Black nationalist until the day he was gunned down. And that Malcolm, had he lived, would have remained a Black nationalist for as far into the future as it made any sense to think about. In fact, Breitman devoted an entire chapter of the book ‘The Last Year of Malcolm X: The Evolution of a Revolutionary’ to a more-or-less open polemic with what Malcolm X had said in the YS interview.”

"The ‘Last Year of Malcolm X’ is a useful book, clearly written and easy to read. It documents quite a bit about Malcolm’s political development during that last year. But the chapter I’m referring to, entitled “Separatism and Black Nationalism” is dedicated to establishing that Malcolm could not have meant what he said….” (from Malcolm X, Black Liberation, and the Road to Workers Power by Jack Barnes).

For understanding the road Malcolm was on, going in the direction of Marxism, and for much else about him, and about the Black struggle in the US, read Malcolm X, Black Liberation, and the Road to Workers Power.

[Thomas Rush · Rating 2 out of 5]

“The Autobiography of Malcolm X” Will Always Be The Go-To Book Regarding The Life Of Malcolm X.

Every once in a while, in Life, I am able to find a gold nugget of a book that says more clearly what I am trying to say in more comprehensive and profound ways than I ever could. For me, “A Lie Of Reinvention: Correcting Manning Marable's Malcolm X” by Mr. Jared A. Ball and Mr. Todd Steven Burroughs is that book. This book, in it's entirety, is what I would say to review “The Last Year of Malcolm X: The Evolution Of A Revolutionary” by George Breitman. Please read Mr. Ball's and Mr. Burrough's book if you really want to know the true deal about what is going on with George Brietman's book. If one wants to wet one's taste buds for what appeals to me about this book, use the essay that begins on page 55 by Mr. Kamau Franklin titled “An Ivory-Tower Assassination of Malcolm X.” It is an excellent piece and summary for what occurs throughout the whole book, and pays particular focus to the agenda of George Breitman. For those of us in awe of Malcolm X, there is a deep well of affection that we feel for him when we find information that resonates with his true essence. This book by Mr. Ball and Mr. Burroughs is that book, a book that brings out Malcolm's ability to put a big ball of luminous sunshine in the soul of those who come to know him. For those of us who deeply respect Malcolm, this feeling is at a visceral, gut-level, because it is such an overpowering emotion. After “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” this book by Mr. Ball and Mr. Burroughs is a book that I cling to in understanding, and feeling, the spirit of Malcolm, as it manifests itself in the World. I absolutely love this book by Mr. Ball and Mr. Burroughs and recommend it to anyone who is truly trying to understand Malcolm. It is the most perspicacious book about Malcolm, after The Autobiography, that I have come across in reference to him up until this time. Please bear in mind that I have been studying Malcolm for 34 years.

[Nikhil P. Freeman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Produced in 1967, Breitman highlights the final years in the life of Malcolm X: dealing with his split from the Nation of Islam, his travels abroad, his expanding social and political beliefs, and his challenges in managing (integrating) the Muslim Mosque Inc. and the Organization of Afro-American Unity’s goal of bringing out revolutionary change in the lives of Black people worldwide alongside the conciliatory progressive gradualism of the civil rights leaders and organizations of the day.

[Tony Rogers Jr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read to fully understand Malcolm’s evolution.