If MLK was a Commie, so much the better for Commies

He wasn’t one, of course, or the FBI would have found the proof – certainly they looked hard enough. Martin Luther King was a liberal Republican (a species now extinct). But he definitely had democratic-socialist leanings, and we should keep that in mind, as a good thing about him, as we celebrate him every year.

For instance, at the time of his death he was working on a multiracial Poor People’s Campaign.

“His dream was for all poor and working people to live lives of decency and dignity”. – Cornel West

MLK’s radical vision got distorted: Here’s his real legacy on militarism & inequality.

Prophetic.

Inspired, BTW, by this Pit thread.

In what sense was he any type of Republican? He was never a member of the Republican Party. He never endorsed a single Republican politician.

From its founding in 1854 to losing the South in 1872, the GOP was anti slavery. MLK was against slavery.

That’s kinda pushing it for the man who said

or

One thing he was: one of our last great rhetoricians. Johnson did miracles one-on-one and Nixon spun webs over the phone, but neither were any great shakes up at the podium. Reagan delivered a bunch of pseudo-profundities that intellectuals were supposed to feel like shameful elitists for not appreciating (they didn’t anyway). Clinton’s speeches were all spin, Bush’s all corkscrew, and Obama sounds like he’s reading from a corporate brochure.

I miss the golden age of bloviators.

I thought he was before the 1960s, and should have checked, but . . . Googling turns up contradictory results.

That first cite made me throw up in my mouth.

The only people claiming MLK Jr. was a Republican are, well, Republicans, and not particularly credibly. What seems to be true is that MLK Sr. was a Republican (back, of course, when the Republicans were a different, pre-Southern Strategy party), and MLK Jr. at one point considered Richard Nixon a good friend (though they eventually had a falling out; see here), but MLK Jr. was not by any means a Republican. (Further cite)

(I realize now that the PolitiFact cite I linked to is what the thinkprogress cite BrainGlutton linked to is essentially based on.)

What’s the debate? That MLK had democratic-socialist leanings and therefore folks with similar political leanings should get the warm and fuzzies about it? “Good” as used in the is, of course, not an objectively definably attribute when it comes to politics. Surely those who lean in the other direction aren’t going to say it’s necessarily “good”.

And I can’t for the life of me figure out what the thread title is supposed to be saying.

The thread title seems straightforward. Expanded out: “If Martin Luther King Jr. was actually a Communist, as many allege, then this then this association should not be reason for us to think less of Martin Luther King Jr. (as the allegers might mean for us to do); rather, it would be reason for us to think more highly of Communists”. Agree with it or not, but the words are clear.

Except that it WOULDN’T be reason to think more highly of communists, and what does the title have to do with everything in the OP other than the 1st sentence (which is maybe 5% of the OP).

What the “h” “e” double toothpicks, dude? I’m right here.

MLK was a plagiarist. But he is in pretty good company there. Lincoln kinda plagiarized Pericles for the Gettysburg address. Craftsmen borrow, great artists steal.

I think the OP is missing the big picture. No, King was not a Communist (and if Hoover had evidence King was a Communist he wouldn’t have sealed the records - he would have sent it out to every newspaper in the country). But the Communists didn’t support King because they felt any real affinity for his beliefs. The Communists offered their support to King out of their own self-interests. They saw that America’s racial problems were one of our greatest vulnerabilities - it was an area in which we were on the wrong side. So Communists pushed for racial equality not because they particularly cared about the issue but just because they knew it was an issue where they could embarrass the United States.

A lot of good people were communists. Stalin probably included them under his “useful idiots” file. I don’t see any evidence that MLK was one. He seemed more social democrat than anything else.

But sorry, nothing can make an informed person think better of communism. 100 million dead places them firmly in the same moral sphere as the Nazis. They just had better publicists and made better decisions about who to invade and when.

Ack! My expansion needs to be reduced!

King was too smart to be a Communist or a Communist ally. He was trying to change public opinion in the United States and he knew that any association with Communism would destroy his mission. So while Communists repeatedly offered King support, he always made sure to keep as much distance from them as he could.

[QUOTE=King]
When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor can become a leading war hawk candidate for the Presidency, only the irrationalities induced by a war psychosis can explain such a melancholy turn of events.
[/quote]
Oh, I hadn’t seen that quote before. I guess that explains why Reagan resisted today’s holiday for as long as he did. In the end, he signed it into law, which is to his credit.

Smart for many reasons. If they had ever somehow taken over he would have been sent to a labor camp in Nebraska almost immediately if not shot outright. Communism has no place for idealists once the revolutionary phase is over.

It has no place for competing leadership figures and models. It is sustained on the ideology of the true believers among the masses and the ones that go along in leadership. There is no room for Trotsky, but plenty of room for Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Litvinov and Beria. Even Gorbachev.

How do you know they did not care about the issue? I daresay the Communists and ex-Communists who supported King – Stanley Levison, Jack O’Dell, Bayard Rustin – cared about it a great deal. Especially Rustin, who was black himself.