BLACK POWER
43
"revolution" is, it seems to me, primarily to be explained by the
intransigence or indifference of his society: either society refuses
reforms or gives them in the form of tokens. Thus,
if
one views the
Garrisons and Carmichaels as "extremists," one should at least place
the blame for that extremism where it belongs - not on their indi–
vidual temperaments, their genetic predispositions, but on a society
which scorned or toyed with their initial pleas for justice.
In turning to the Anarchist movement, I think we can see be–
tween it and the new turn taken by SNCC and CORE (or, more
comprehensively still, by much of the New Left) significant affinities
of style and thought. These are largely unconscious and unexplored;
I have seen almost no overt references to them either in the move–
ment's official literature or in its unofficial pronouncements. Yet the
affinities seem to me important.
But first I should make clear that in speaking of "Anarchism"
as if it were a unified tradition, I am necessarily oversimplifying. The
Anarchist movement contained a variety of contending factions, dis–
parate personalities and differing national patterns. Some Anarchists
believed in terrorism, others insisted upon nonviolence; some aimed
for a communal life based on trade union "syndicates," others re–
fused to bind the individual by organizational ties of any kind; some
wished to retain private ownership of property, others demanded its
collectivization.
9
Despite these differing perspectives, all Anarchists did share one
major premise: a distrust of authority, the rejection of all forms of
rule by man over man, especially that embodied in the State, but
also that exemplified by parent, teacher, lawyer, priest. They jus–
tified their opposition in the name of the individual; the Anarchists
wished each man to develop his "specialness" without the inhibiting
interference imposed by authority, be it political or economic, moral
or intellectual. This does not mean that the Anarchists sanctioned
9. In recent years several excellent histories and anthologies of Anarchism
have been published: George Woodcock's brilliant
Anarchism
(New York,
1962), James Joll's
The Anarchists
(London, 1964), Irving L. Horowitz's
anthology
The Anarchists
(New York, 1964) which concentrates on the
"classics" of the literature, and Leonard Krimerman and Lewis Perry's
collection,
Patterns of Anarchy
(New York, 1966), which presents a less
familiar and more variegated selection of Anarchist writings.
