Sham Murad  

Martin Luther King is celebrated as a dreamer. But his true legacy — his attack on poverty, capitalism, and U.S wars — is erased from classrooms and political speeches. 

Sixty-two years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech. The speech became a defining moment in the civil rights movement: studied in history classrooms, referenced in media and music, referred to in political discourse across the globe, and was followed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, the same preacher’s searing indictments of capitalism and imperialism have been systematically obscured, concealed beneath a sanitised legend that distorts their convictions. 

King was not a motivational speaker; he was a radical whose message had been pacified. This pacification is intentional; eroding his radicalism means you do not have to teach the masses of King’s revolutionary ideas. King’s other speeches, such as “Beyond Vietnam” and “The Other America”, are rarely cited alongside his “I Have a Dream” speech. King did not shy away from criticizing power structures, but these speeches are often disregarded because they do not fit the holistic, feel-good mold that classrooms and politicians prefer. 

King was not just a peaceful marcher. In the last years of his life, he embraced radicalism and did not shy away from frustrating liberal allies as a result. Whilst King was not a Marxist (yet), he was deeply critical of capitalism, understood the dangers of U.S. imperialism, and was disillusioned by American democracy. His final campaign was not about voting rights or desegregation, but rather a fight for a multiracial economic justice movement. Below are a few examples.  

MLK’s opposition to imperialism

On 4 April 1967, King delivered his “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence” speech at Riverside Church. He declared that silence in the face of U.S destruction in Vietnam was itself betrayal. Then came his most damning line: America, he said, was “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” — a judgment that remains true nearly sixty years later. He exposed the inherent hypocrisy of condemning domestic riots for the use of violence in achieving political aims, while simultaneously relying on military force and bombing overseas to advance U.S foreign policy. 

King directed his speech not to those in Hanoi, China, or Russia, but spoke directly to Americans. He drew the connection between the plight of Black Americans at home and U.S. aggression abroad: racism, economic exploitation, and militarism were all part of the same system. An America that could spend endless resources on war abroad, but neglect issues of poverty and inequality at home. 

The speech alienated him from his liberal allies and the media class, who attacked him for being ‘too political’ and demanded his focus return to civil rights issues in the U.S. The Washington Post criticised King’s speech, noting that he “diminished his usefulness to his cause, to his country, and to his people”

MLK’s internationalism 

In March 1957, Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King travelled to Ghana for its independence ceremony and to lunch with Kwame Nkrumah, exhibiting his solidarity with the Pan-African movement and all oppressed people globally. 

In an interview with Ghanaian radio, King said:

 “This event, the birth of this new nation, will give impetus to oppressed peoples all over the world. I think it will have worldwide implications and repercussions—not only for Asia and Africa, but also for America… It renews my conviction in the ultimate triumph of justice. And it seems to me that this is fit testimony to the fact that eventually the forces of justice triumph in the universe, and somehow the universe itself is on the side of freedom and justice. So that this gives new hope to me in the struggle for freedom.”

It was a bold gesture, drawing inspiration from anti-colonial movements. King drew direct parallels between those who fought against racial discrimination in the U.S. and the struggles against colonialism in Africa. The civil rights movement was part of a global liberation movement, despite the establishment’s efforts to sanitise the message and isolate it from their comrades worldwide. 

MLK’s criticism of capitalism

On 18 March 1968, MLK delivered his speech “The Other America“, describing what he called schizophrenic dualism in every U.S: those who live in luxury and those who live in poverty; those with opportunity and prosperity, and those who are plagued by unemployment, inadequate housing, and systematic injustice. He declared that capitalism was inept at eliminating poverty and that a radical redistribution of economic power was necessary.

In the same speech, King said the U.S. practised “socialism for the rich and rugged hard individualistic capitalism for the poor”. He spoke of the undignified nature of a system that protected wealth for a few while leaving millions in deprivation. Throughout his activism, he fought not only against segregation but also for a guaranteed basic income for all. 

King called for disruption

King understood that changing the law was insufficient to address systemic inequality. He criticised white moderates for ranking the importance of ‘order’ over justice, calling their complacency a greater obstacle than open racism – a battle we continue to struggle with today. For him, moral appeals were never enough to bring real structural change. 

Though he preached nonviolence, he supported direct action despite public discomfort. Speaking a year after the Harlem race riots of August 1964, to a predominantly white audience, he famously said, “A riot is the language of the unheard”. He did not excuse riots, but he demanded people confront their moral complexity: how else can the downtrodden and oppressed make themselves politically heard?

Poor People’s Campaign    

Whilst a fair amount of King’s work includes anti-communist sentiment, this was during the height of The Red Scare – a period of intense fear-mongering attacks against communists that resulted in the violation of civil liberties or erosion of careers. In the final year of his life, however, his focus shifted markedly. King cared less about “integration” and more about revolution. He challenged militarism, capitalism, and racism. This radical turn does not align with the sanitized, feel-good image associated with the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech. Still, it remains essential that his revolutionary critique not be erased from public memory.

The moral and political vision in which King articulated transcended Christianity and resonates across religious and cultural boundaries, particularly within Islam. Muslims have historically resisted systems of domination and sided with the oppressed, in line with the Qur’an’s command to support the mustad’afun (the oppressed). 

“And what is it with you? You do not fight in the cause of Allah and for oppressed men, women, and children who cry out, ‘Our Lord! Deliver us from this land of oppressors! Appoint for us a saviour; appoint for us a helper—all by Your grace.” [4:75]

King was not simply a Christian reformer but a global moral voice, part of a broader struggle against oppression. 

Sham Murad is a Baghdad-born refugee, activist, and community organiser. She holds a BA in International Relations and Development and an MA in Law, and works with A is for Activism supporting immigrant and refugee children.