Social Justice versus Social Equality: The Capitalistic Jurisprudence of Marcus Garvey

Author(s): Otis B. Grant

Source: Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Mar., 2003), pp. 490-498
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3180876
Accessed: 04/05/2009 01:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Black
Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
 SOCIALJUSTICEVERSUS
SOCIALEQUALITY
The CapitalisticJurisprudence
of Marcus Garvey
OTIS B. GRANT
Indiana University

Duringthe 1920s, the GarveymovementchallengedBlack intellectualism,

which at the time was in the midst of a renaissance.Influencedby the phi-
losophy of Booker T. Washingtonand considered irreparablyidealistic,
Garveyism,nevertheless,remainsthe largestsociopoliticalracemovement
in history.Throughouthis legal quandaries,Garveyaccuratelyarticulated
thatthe Americanlegal system was highly bureaucratizedandthatthe effi-
cient processing of legal matters was the system's paramountconcern.
Garvey's ideology eerily resembles the law and economics paradigmof
contemporaryAmericanjustice, and his embrace of social justice over
social equality is now realized in the rational choice frameworkof the
Americanlegal system.Consequently,Garveyremainsrelevantbecausehe
correctlysurmisedthatcapitalismis the cornerstoneof righteousnessand
thussocialjustice shouldbe evaluatedby a capitalisticyardstickratherthan
by a social justice paradigm.

Keywords:Garvey;Garveyism;social justice; capitalism

The conditions that spurred Garveyism in the United States are

well documented. Just after World War I, African Americans faced
a harsh reality. America was in the midst of a deep economic
depression, and employment was scarce. Whites often took their
frustrations out on Blacks, who were competing with them for the
few available jobs. During the "red summer of 1919," race riots
exploded in most major cities. Violence was used to enforce the
second-class status of Blacks. Lynching was rampant, and the
police often turned a blind eye to instances of crime when it was tar-
JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES, Vol. 33 No. 4, March2003 490-498
DOI: 10.1177/0021934702250031
? 2003 Sage Publications
490
 Grant/ SOCIALJUSTICEVERSUS SOCIALEQUALITY 491

geted at Blacks. AfricanAmericanleaders,who haddemandedthat

Blacks close rankswith Whitesduringthe firstWorldWarto fight a
commonenemy abroad,were hardpressedto explainthe continua-
tion of second-class statusfor Blacks at home. Physically andpsy-
chologically dispirited,Black Americanshadpaid a heavy cost for
believing in the sincerityof the Americanlegal system. As Clarke
(1974) accuratelyarticulated,
The broken promises of the postwar period had produced wide-
spreadcynicism in the Black populationwhich had lost some of its
belief in itself as a people. (p. 14)

For African Americans,the Garveymovementappearedat the

perfecttime. Duringthe postwarperiod,the AmericanSocial Con-
tract,which espoused "equaljustice underlaw,"was breachedby
those who were determinedto use the law to keep Blacks from
enjoyingthe privilegesof freedom.Clarke(1974) pointedout that

the Garvey movement began to take effective roots in America

when millions of Blacks had begun to feel that they would never
know full citizenshipwith dignityin this countrywheretheirances-
torshadbeen broughtagainsttheirwill, andwheretheyhadcontrib-
utedto the wealthanddevelopmentof the countryin spite of condi-
tions of previous servitude.(p. 46)

Whereas both integrationistsand nationalistswere concerned

about social equality,the nationalistswere particularlycognizant
thatWhites continuedto ignore the sociohistoricalsignificanceof
Black economic exploitation.Rejecting the assimilationdoctrine
of racial equality,M. Garvey (1924a) assertedthat Whites would
continue to be prejudicedagainstBlacks, as follows:

Because as a race, [Blacks] have accomplishednothing;we have

built no nation, no government;because we are dependentfor our
economic and political existence. (p. 18)

Garvey arguedthat prejudiceis the logical derivativeof a race

thatis proudof its accomplishments.For Garvey,success was the
492 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES / MARCH2003

resultof a competitivesense of superiorityandof doing something

betterthanothers.He claimed thatlow achieverswere not as good
as high achieversand thatWhites believed they were high achiev-
ers. As such, they embracedthe notion that "no matterhow bad a
failurea White man was, he was always betterthan a Black man"
(Graves, 1962, p. 70). M. Garvey (1924a) maintainedthat Black
leadersfail because they refuse to "workandcreatefor [their]own
race thatwhich the race could be able to take creditfor"(p. 11). In
denouncingBlack leaders,Garveyassertedthey "wouldnot think
of repeatingfor [their]race the work of the pilgrim fathersor the
colonists who laid foundationsof America"(p. 11).

SOCIAL JUSTICE NOT SOCIAL EQUALITY

Thereis evidence thatGarveydismissed integrationon natural-

istic grounds;however,thereis also evidence thathe rejectedinte-
gration because it suppressed Black business initiatives.
Garveyism was economic nationalism. Consequently, White
oppression could not be eradicatedwithout spurringBlack eco-
nomic development.Garveyitesnot only were self-reliantbut also
rejectedthe notion that Whites had a duty to help Blacks in their
struggle for equality. Garvey readily incorporated the
sociopoliticalegocentricityof the White majoritywhen rationaliz-
ing Black self-sufficiency,contendingthat

the relianceof the [Black]race uponthe progressandachievements

of othersfor.... sympathy,justice and rights is like a dependence
upona brokenstick,restinguponwhich will eventuallyconsign you
to the ground.(A. Garvey,1923, p. 23)

Although Garvey facilitated the first social movement among

AfricanAmericansandthe largestinternationalrace movementin
the history of Black people, many African American leaders
believed he failed to adequately address racism. Graves (1962)
arguedthat Garveyismdid not offer any
 Grant/ SOCIALJUSTICEVERSUS SOCIALEQUALITY 493

realorlastingsolutionto America'sracialproblemandalthoughit
gainedwidecurrencyatthattime,Garveyism hasvirtuallynovalue
todayas a solutionto theracialproblem.(p. 73)

For Graves(1962), "thepersistentissue implied by Garveyism

[was] not who is a 'true American' . . . but rather, when will all
Americans enjoy full rights as opposed to second class citizen-
ship?"(p.73). Nonetheless, Graves'sadmonishmentof Garveyism
reflects the conciliatorynatureof integrationistideology. Notwith-
standing the obvious circularityof Graves's sociopolitical quan-
dary,his contentionis flawed. Garveywas a Pan-Africanseparatist.
"Racefirst"was the adage of Garveyism.This meant thatWhites
were excludedfromthe UniversalNegro ImprovementAssociation
(UNIA) membership.This philosophynot only was reflectedin the
rejection of White financial supportbut also was evident in the
Garveyites' commitment to the liberation of Africans and their
active participationin anticolonial struggles. For Garvey, "race
first"would manifestas a strongindependentBlack nationthatwas
built on nationality.Dispelling the Americancreed of E Pluribus
Unum,GarveyarguedthatAfricanAmericanswere "onthe fringe
on the civilizationof others"andthatif they remainedthere,in the
end, they would be "completelyobliterated"(M. Garvey,1924c).
Garveyismwasjust as problematicfor the existing Black leader-
ship as it was for Whites because it challengedthe economic para-
digm of capitalismas well as the social structureof Americanpoli-
tics. Dismissing the culturalism of the "Harlem renaissance,"
Garveywas a realistwhose aim, as Cruse (1984) pointed out, was
"the federation of Africa and the West Indies within the British
Commonwealthon a capitalisticpartnershipbasis"(pp.293-294).
To realize his goals, Garveyorganizedthe UNIA. In June 1919,
the UNIA incorporatedthe Black Star SteamshipLine underthe
laws of the state of Delaware. By 1920, the Black Star Line had
assets totaling $342,677.39. Despite the assets of the company,
Garvey understoodthe motivationsof his distractersand warned
his followers that"severalunscrupulouspersonshavebeen scatter-
ing false reportsandrumorsaboutthe Black StarLine"(Hill, 1983,
p. 231).
494 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES/ MARCH 2003

Sensing Garvey's powerful influence, the American govern-

ment began a campaignwith the expresspurposeof destroyingthe
movement.J. EdgarHoover,the man who would one day lead the
FBI, took a personalinterestin prosecutingGarvey.In 1920, Hoo-
ver, then special assistantto the U.S. attorneygeneral, wrote in a
memorandumto Special Agent Ridgely that "he [Garvey]has not
as yet violated any federal law whereby he could be proceeded
againston the groundsof being an undesirablealien, fromthe point
of view of deportation"(Hill, 1983, p. 72).
Eventually,Hoover got what he wanted.The dismal socioeco-
nomic conditionof postwarAmericaprovidedfederalgovernment
officials with prolific opportunitiesto recruitpaid informers.As a
result,the governmentwas successful in infiltratingand gathering
intelligence on UNIA. Federal officials were assisted by local
police, who passed on informationgatheredby theirUNIA infor-
mants.The Black clergy was especially harshon Garveyand will-
ing to work with the federalgovernment,as evident when Charles
SpencerSmithof the AfricanMethodistEpiscopalChurchwroteto
U.S. AttorneyGeneralMitchellPalmerattestingthatthe Black Star
Line was "a fake and simple" and that Garvey "shouldeither be
requiredto discontinue his present vicious propagandaand fake
practicesor be deportedas an undesirable"(Hill, 1983, p. 446).

LEGAL TROUBLES

The governmentwastedlittle time in using the weight of the law

against the UNIA. WhereasGarveyconstantlyfaced legal dilem-
mas, his most importanttroublescenteredon the Black StarLine.
Officially,the basis of his imprisonmentinvolved selling stock in
the Black StarLine for the purchaseof ships thatat the time of pur-
chase were not seaworthy.The federal governmentchargedhim
with violating Section 215 of the United States CriminalCode.
Technically,he was convicted of "a conspiracywith one or more
unknown and unmentionedconspiratorsin using the mail in a
scheme to defraud"(U.S. v. Garvey,1925, p. 592).
 Grant/ SOCIALJUSTICEVERSUS SOCIALEQUALITY 495

Although Garvey should be takento task for choosing to act as

his own defense attorney,what is often overlooked is that Garvey
correctly interpreted the thrust of American jurisprudence.
Garveycorrectly surmisedthe economic axiom of American law
when he pronounced,"No law but strength:No justice butpower"
(M. Garvey, 1924b). Garvey recognized there was a difference
between social equality and social justice, and statedthat African
Americansshould

stopmaking... noiseaboutsocialequality,givingtheWhitepeople
theideathatwe arehankeringaftertheircompany,andgetdownto
businessandbuildupa strongrace,industrially,
commercially,edu-
and
cationally politically,everythingsocial will come afterwards.
(M. Garvey,1921)

Accordingly,a fundamentaldifferencebetween the UNIA and

the Pan-AfricanCongressis thatthe lattersought social equalityat
the expense of economic parity.Garveydid not separateeconomics
fromjurisprudence.Throughouthis legal quandaries,Garveyaccu-
rately presumed that the American legal "system" was highly
bureaucratizedand that the efficient processing of legal matters
was the system's most importantconcern. Like all nationalists,
Garveywas a conflict theorist.This was especially evidentwhenhe
arguedthat"norace in the world is so just as to give others,for the
asking, a square deal in things economic, political and social"
(M. Garvey, 1924a, p. 10). Trueto his nationalisticroots, Garvey
(1924a) arguedthat

all people are strugglingto blast a way throughthe industrial

monopolyof racesandnations,buttheNegroas a wholehasfailed
to graspitstruesignificanceandseemsto delightinfillingonlythat
placecreatedforhimby theWhiteman.(p. 10)

Influenced by the philosophy of Booker T. Washington,

Garvey's capitalistic ideology eerily resembles the law and eco-
nomic paradigmof contemporaryAmericanjurisprudence.Then
as now, law and economic practitionersare choice theorists who
496 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES/ MARCH 2003

insist on separatingefficiency from notions of equality. At the

macro level, efficiency refers to the least wasteful approachto a
problemso thatthe size of society's economic pie is maximized.At
the micro level, law and economic adherentsembrace a rational
choice theoremto articulatethat people are economic actorswho
areself-interestedmaximizers.Withinthe law andeconomic ideol-
ogy of Garvey,the Black Star Line did not representa "back to
Africa" movement but ratherAfrican Americans' acceptance of
capitalismas a means of progression.

LAW AS ECONOMICS

Duringthe 1920s, the law andeconomic frameworkwas evident

in the U.S. criminaljustice system. The system was becoming
highly bureaucratized,and the efficient processing of criminal
cases became the most importantconcern.Efficiency had become
the cornerstoneof righteousness,and"socialjustice"couldbe eval-
uated by using an economist's yardstick.Thus, the law and eco-
nomic approachboth explains Garvey's legal developments and
accuratelyanalyzesquestionsinvolvingGarvey'scourtprocesses.
Garvey surmisedthat American law could be understoodas a
rationalsystem of behaviorbased on economic interest,which was
at best raciallyskewed.GarveyarguedthatWhiteshad a monopoly
on economic power that "throughthe selfishness of administra-
tion ... cause[s] the majorityof the masses to exist always in want"
(A. Garvey, 1923, p. 35). Here, administrationrefers to jurispru-
dence. Garveyknew thatWhites would neverallow Blacks to suc-
cessfully gain equality,andin fact, it was as inefficientfor Blacks to
seek equality as it was for Whites to give it.
For Garveyites, economic opportunityequates social justice.
Garvey argued that civil rights leaders fail because they errone-
ously believe that social justice is the same as civil rights. Hence,
these leadersunwittinglyused theirintellectualabilitiesto promote
social equality rather than economic comparability. Garvey
assertedthat such a philosophy was contradictory.Garveyunder-
stood the economic theorem of American jurisprudence. For
 Grant/ SOCIALJUSTICEVERSUS SOCIALEQUALITY 497

Garvey,social justice must include permanenteconomic founda-

tions that are progressive. Whereas many African Americans
would subscribeto the economic practices of Black nationalism,
they were not willing to trade their citizenship in a country that
oppressedthem with the prospectof economic freedomin Africa.
As Pickens (1922) remarked,"American[Negroes]would be fool-
ish to give up theircitizenshiphere for one thousandyearimproba-
bility in Africa or anywhereelse" (p. 10).
Garveycorrectlyarguedthatlaw is a rationalsystem of behavior
based on the economic interest of those in positions of power.
Garvey believed that those in power in the WesternHemisphere
engaged in behaviorthey believed to be morally correct and that
they designed the law to reflect what they delineatedwas rational
behavior.This too explains the severityof Garvey'ssentence. The
courtsorderedGarveydeportedin aneffortto destroythe influence
he had on African Americans.Indeed, even afterbeing convicted
on mail fraud,Garveywas able to find investorsfor his new com-
pany,the Black CrossNavigationandTradingCompany.Nonethe-
less, like the Black Star Line, the Black Cross Navigation and
TradingCompanyalso went bankrupt.
When analyzingGarvey'sinterpretationof law, it is not impor-
tant that economic theory can explain how law can induce the
objective behaviorof the actors.What mattersis whetherthe law
induced rationalbehavior.Garvey lost the court case because his
opponents were successful in distorting situations that routinely
occur in the business sector.Garveywas not vulnerablebecause of
Hoover's indictmentof mail fraud.He was vulnerablebecause he
faced the full weight of the American government,including the
Departmentof Justice, the U.S. Postal Service, the Departmentof
Treasury,and the State Department,not to mention various state
andlocal law enforcementagencies. In short,Garveyfaced an effi-
cient, well-financedgovernmentoperationof official surveillance
and infiltrationinto the UNIA (Martin,1976).
Today,Garvey'slegal predicamentscan be explainedin termsof
a particularworldviewthatassumes efficiency and economic self-
interestare the principlesfor understandinglaw and adjudication.
It is plausibleto rejectGarveyism.Moreover,it may be appropriate
498 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES/ MARCH 2003

to arguethatracism shouldnot be understoodas a system of ratio-

nal behavior. However, it is more problematic to contend that
Garvey'sbehaviorwas not a productof "efficient"reasoning.

REFERENCES

Clarke,J. H. (1974). MarcusGarvey:The Harlemyears. Transition,46, 14-19.

Cruse,H. (1984). The crisis of the Negro intellectual.New York:Quill.
Garvey,A. (Ed.). (1923). Philosophyand opinionsofMarcusGarvey.New York:Universal.
Garvey,M. (1921, October 1). Negro World[Newsletter].New York:Author.
Garvey,M. (1924a). Aims and objects of a movementfor a solution of the Negroproblem.
New York:UniversalNegro ImprovementAssociation.
Garvey,M. (1924b, February2). Negro World[Newsletter].New York:Author.
Garvey,M. (1924c, August 9). Negro World[Newsletter].New York:Author.
Graves,J. L. (1962). The social ideas of MarcusGarvey.Journal of Negro Education, 31,
65-74.
Hill, R. A. (1983). The Marcus Garvey and Universal Negro ImprovementAssociation
papers. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Martin, T. (1976). Race first: The ideological and organizational struggles of Marcus
Garveyand the UniversalNegroImprovementAssociation. Westport,CT:Greenwood.
Pickens, W. (1922). Letterto MarcusGarvey.Chicago Defender,p. 10.
U.S. v. Garvey,292 F. 591 (1925).

Otis B. Grantis an assistantprofessor of law at Indiana Universityand the director

of theInstitutefortheStudyof Race, Lawand Public Policy.A graduateof the Gestalt
Institute,he also holds a doctorateof law degreefrom the Universityof Connecticut
School of Law. A widelypublished author,his researchfocuses on the social con-
structionof race, class, and genderinpublic law and the legal implicationsof minor-
ity social and economic movements.