You are making a distinction without making a difference in the argument. "it's not an ideology, it's an analytical framework", sounds more like a bad marketing campaign than a compelling argument.

> The word we should both be using is Communist and yes Malcom X was a communist. "In 1950, the FBI opened a file on Malcolm after he wrote a letter from prison to President Truman expressing opposition to the Korean War and declaring himself a communist."

You are taking things out of context. At the time anti-communism was used and abused to suppress all sort of inconvenient political movements. Saying "then yeah I'm a communist" in defiance didn't make you one.

Also:

https://www.marxist.com/malcolm-x-forty-years-after.htm

> Malcolm X was always a man who was rethinking and recreating himself, but there is no concrete documentation that he was on the verge of becoming a Marxist, or even a socialist.

https://www.socialist.net/malcolm-x-you-show-me-a-capitalist...

> Despite the opinion of some so-called Marxist groups in the US and abroad, Malcolm X was not a socialist, and he never claimed to be.

https://socialistresurgence.org/2020/02/21/malcolm-x-black-n...

> His evolution was incomplete—or rather, incompleted. He was not, or was not yet, as Breitman is careful to point out, a Marxist.