STOKELY CARMICHAEL is considered by many people to be the leader of a genuinely revolutionary movement. Last spring, therefore, when he was invited to speak at a meeting of revolutionary solidarity in Havana few were surprised.

Stokely's "black power" was in everyone's ears, and it maintained a radical ring for most--except perhaps for the few who took the time to read the book he co-authored with Charles V. Hamilton entitled Black Power. Stokely's vision as outlined in the book, is decidedly not a very radical one. Carmichael seems to see the black people of this country as being little different from traditional ethnic, immigrant groups. Thus, he would have the black people of America act as a disciplined interest group, to extract demands from the pluralistic society. This accomplished, he believes blacks can enter society on a relatively equal basis.

The black community, in short, must form its own institutions and pull itself up largely by its own bootstraps.

Stokely also puts forward the un-radical view that, given a little imagination and intelligence, the problems of the ghetto can be solved within the framework of present-day America. He cites the "ineptness of decision makers, the anachronistic institutions, the inability to think boldly, and above all the unwillingness to innovate" as the "match that will continue to ignite the dynamite in the ghettos."

The implication is that if only decision makers were more capable, bold and innovative, and the anachronistic institutions were somehow rationalized, the problems of the black men in America would be resolved.

IT IS therefore little wonder that Stokely's book came as a major shock to white radicals. His analysis seems virtually to have overlooked the corporate capitalistic infra-structure of American society that is the focus of their attention. And only once in the entire book is even passing reference made to Vietnam. Martin Luther King, not to mention white radicals, must see this as a serious omission.

Despite the fact that Stokely's program is basically moderate, and should therefore be acceptable to the "liberal establishment," even the most progressive liberals will have nothing to do with Stokely, or black power (and consequently will probably not bother to read Black Power).

This is because Stokely's rhetoric and the movement's rhetoric in general have made black power synonymous with violence and riots. This image may excite radicals, but it completely turns off "liberals" of all persuasions. The tragedy is that the image now appears to be a false one.

BLACK power as a movement seems to be going the way of the Social Democratic Party in Germany before World War I, with Stokely Carmichael playing the role of Eduard Bernstein.

Bernstein, a leader of the Party, was the first revisionist, and stripped Marxism of its revolutionary practices. The Social Democratic Party, however, continued to preach revolutionary orthodoxy, and many people continued to think of them as firebrands.

So, by the time the Social Democrats of Germany ackowledged the reformist nature of their politics, and dropped the revolutionary rhetoric, they had lost many moderate supporters. Also, the working classes, disillusoned, turned away from them. They therefore suffered a backlash from both extremes.

IN Black Power Stokely has "revised" a theory which had never existed except as revolutionary rhetoric. The result is that while black power is saying one thing black power theory is holding out something actually quite different. The rhetoric must scare away all but the militant members of the black community, many of whom are only adventurers. But the real problem calls for serious, concerted work, and above all, money.

Black radicals ought therefore to realize that their projects will probably not get off the ground unless institution-building goals are given priority and unnecessarily provocative rhetoric is abandoned.

More importantly, however, white liberals and more moderate elements within the black community must realize that the rhetoric itself is in many ways an expression of the deep seated feelings of the ghetto. Inflammatory language does fill a genuine need for the people of the ghetto, as promises of black-run cooperative stores can never do. This paradox can only be resolved by the triumph of black power's real goals.

White liberals must understand this. They will have to swallow a good deal of their self-righteous indignation--and genuine hurt. But they can never again wash their hands and complacently bear witness to the continued crucification of the black man in America. They must help black power along.