It is fairly common knowledge that MLK in his later years became an advocate of multiracial economic justice. His specific proposal was a guaranteed income. This thread is not intended to be a newsflash or to bash MLK.
www.progress.org/dividend/cdking.html
Like most liberal/progressive/other ideals, I wondered where this comes from, and questioning of those who believe such things yields little results, save for learning what a white, religiously hypocritical, rich male I am.
From the above linked article:

The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.

It eluded me for a long time where the kind of attitude comes from, until I ran across the description of liberals as "professional activists", who have conditioned themselves their entire life that protesting for  nebulous varieties of justice is the most honorable that one can do.
To me, such a campaign would demand defined goals (we see multiple goals in the above linked article), which in turns require definitions of the ideal. Since I keep seeing the terms "social justice" and "economic justice", I looked them up. I'll spare you a litany of similar definitions, but they all had one thing in common.
"Redistribution of income so the poor can be economically equal with the rich."
That's not entirely unexpected. It is also an old concept, but what caught my eye was the term itself: social justice.
Definition of justice: "Justice is a concept involving the fair, moral, and impartial treatment of all persons, especially in law."
It appears that anybody using the term "social justice" argues that the the rich OWE the poor, because the rich are rich and the poor are poor. On a personal level? It is my moral obligation to give away my money to people who make less money than I do.
The original question remains, dressed up a little: WTF was MLK thinking??

Quoted: Apparently I was never exposed to "his later years" That sounds more like quanellx or jackson or sharpton not like the MLK I read about My favorite quote of his............ "I don't want you to borrow at the bank, I want you to LEND at the bank" (That doesn't sound like someone calling for "redistribution of wealth")

Most articles will point out that you never hear about his later years, and will imply a conspiracy by the powers that be.
Depending upon the beliefs of the author and their perception of the powers that be, the conspiracy is to keep MLK looking like the upright civil rights hero he started as ("We don't like MLK"), or the conspiracy is to keep the economically disadvantaged in their place by preventing them from hearing about what MLK did in his last couple of years ("We like MLK").
There's no conspiracy. There's just nothing particulary inspiring or inherently interesting about somebody morphing into a communist.

Quoted: ...It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. ... I know this isn't the point of your post, but I don't think cannibalism has ever been a diet staple; AFAIK it is usually a religuous rite relevant to the defeat of an enemy. You gotta have some respect for the man for challenging a white establishment, and while I agree that the best way for the black community to achieve equality is thru economic equality; I certainly can't support forced equality. I had thought that Dr. King's message was to encourage blacks to rise economically on their own merit. Maybe this is isn't exactly on point, either, and maybe I've just mis-perceived things, but I have always had the impression that MLK beleived that poor whites and blacks were natural allies, but despaired of ever getting the two groups to work together. I did not know that he directly advocated a guaranteed income. Could it be that he was smarter than that, and just intentionally misrepresented the facts, like he did with cannibalism, to get the attention of his audience - giving them what they wanted to hear?

What do you mean by "economic equality"?