The difference between anarchists and the Socialist Party

“Intelligence enough to conceive, courage enough to will, power enough to compel. If our ideas of a new Society are anything more than a dream, these three qualities must animate the due effective majority of the working-people....” – William Morris

To most people nowadays, anarchism conjures up the image of Molotov cocktail throwing protesters but it is as well to be reminded that anarchism has a tradition in the working-class movement as old as Marxism itself.  Although  the Socialist Party is not anarchist there are many points in where its ideas coincide with the anarchist attitude.

An educated and conscious working class will insist on democracy. And not the narrow, largely fictitious democracy of voting every four years but democracy in all social and cultural activities, in all spheres of communal life from A to Z. Members of the Social Party are agreed as to the general object for which we are striving – the ownership of all the means of production by the community; that community to be organised on the most democratic basis possible. But, beyond this, socialist  are not concerned with the details and intricacies of the organisation of the new society; and it is possible that in the conception of what that organisation will be there may be the widest divergence of views. The point of difference here between the Socialist Party and anarchists is not on form of organisation of the future society, or of the details of such organisation.

It is not that the Socialist Party wishes to impose on the future society a huge bureaucratic system, dominating all the arrangements of social life, crushing all individuality, and reducing every detail of existence to rule and plan. But we do stand for social ownership and social control, as do the anarchists. We are, however, not called upon to lay down  rules for that future society. We shall let that society take care of itself in that respect. It is very interesting, no doubt, to speculate on the future arrangements of society, whether it will be based on workers councils , federations of communes, decisions made by general assemblies or delegated committees but it is not in our power to insist that these arrangements be this or that. Any discussion on this matter must necessarily be of an academic character.The basic difference between the Socialist Party and the anarchists is not in its relation to future society.

The immediate goal of reformists is palliatives. The immediate goal of state capitalist is the re-ordering of private ownership. The  immediate goal of the Socialist Party and anarchists is the social revolution. We both see only one solution: The Revolution.


 The central point of disagreement between the SPGB and the anarchists is the question of the state. The anarchist theory is that capitalism and the state would be abolished at the same time, in one operation. For them the revolutionary victory was synonymous with the abolition of the state. The Socialist Party also envisages a society in which there will be no classes and no state, but regards the state as the instrument of class rule, not the impartial representative of all the people, as it is represented to be. The state, in its essential features, is the instrument of one class for the suppression of another. The state machine is the coercive tool of the ruling class to exercise its will in maintaining its relations of production. The Social Party does not find much in the British constitution to admire. Under capitalism the state is the instrument of capital's domination over the class of wage workers. This assertion is a fact of political experience, which has been, and is still being demonstrated again and again.

The essential difference between the Socialist Party and anarchists is the methods and means of achieving the revolutionary transformation of society.  We view it that  here, today, political means are practically the only means practicable.  But the Anarchist will disagree.

Nevertheless, political action is not to be disparaged . The capture of the state by the workers places this instrument of coercion in the hands of the working-class majority to suppress any attempt of the capitalist minority to re-establish their system of exploitation. At the same time it will be  reorganised into new forms and directed into new channels.

The Socialist Party  proposes to use all the legislative and administrative machinery within the state and which the working class endeavour to take into its possession as the method of emancipation. We accept the vote and parliamentary action as revolutionary. The value of political action to the Socialist movement is called in question by anarchists who suggest what they consider to be  more speedy means or more effective methods to be adopted.  They expect nothing and never expected anything from parliamentary action. They maintain that participation in parliamentary action is a waste of  time and effort, and they relish the disappointing and the poor results parliamentary action has so far has achieved  for the Socialist Party. We cannot expect results, unless voters  themselves get the understanding and the spirit of organization, which has yet to develop. Where  people cannot imagine a way out of intolerable conditions there cannot be a great political movement and no amount of political propaganda can produce a movement.

In recent years, we have heard a great deal, in this connection, about direct action, the general strike, and the economic struggle  and so on, as if the method of action denoted by these terms constituted something quite new and original, instead of  harking back to syndicalist tactics which had been tried and tested  and frequently found  futile, the ineffectiveness of which has been demonstrated by experience.

The trade unions are receding more and more into purely defensive activity. They lose members and become weaker. A much more energetic policy is possible in the struggle against the employers, but even with more militancy, trade union action alone is not adequate.  The actual work of the unions is based upon an acceptance of capitalism. They are not organised for the purpose of liberating the working class from the condition of exploitation and oppression to which it is doomed under capitalism. Instead, they confine themselves to the attempt to raise the wages of the workers and obtain favourable social legislation while keeping the capitalist profit system. The trade unions are pushed toward the road of political action which is a generalisation of economic action.

Our primary function, however, is to organise as a political party, independent, class-conscious,  and democratic. The function of anarcho-syndicalists  lies with the unions. These two functions are not absolutely distinct and separate, they are co-ordinate, and to some extent interdependent. Yet they are not identical. The trade unions can help us, we can help them.  Socialists should be the subordinate partner in the matter of supporting industrial disputes. The Socialist Party declines to  dictate the policy of the trade union in conducting the strike, nor do we  expect the trade unions to abandon the immediate objects and demands in order to make the socialist revolution.

The class struggle is a political struggle. It cannot be fought successfully by the workers unless they have a political weapon, which means, their own political party. The capitalist class has its own political parties and interest groups and sees to it that they remain committed to its basic interests, the maintenance of the capitalist system. The capitalists sees to it that they remain under their control. They provides them with  media exposure,  provides them with funds, running into millions each year. In some places, the capitalists are in direct control of these parties, in others, its allies are in  control. Those anarchists who argue against against a workers’ party have so little confidence in the working class in whose name they presume to speak, that they cannot conceive of it winning the support of the bulk at the people. That it should be run by millions of workers is inconceivable to them.

The object of a socialist party is foremost the realisation of socialism. The object of a trade union is to make the best of existing conditions and to make the best terms for its members. Its priority is not to help on the emancipation of the working-class. The correlation between the two, as well as the difference of function, is clearly established. Yet the Socialist Party is frequently and unjustly charged with being hostile to trade unions, because we refuse to subordinate the one function to the other.

We do not pretend that our commitment to elections and voting is applicable everywhere and at all times. We say it is foolish not to let circumstance determine tactics, foolish  to admit one method and exclude another without regard to the situation that prevails.  Simply because the Socialist Party counsels workers to organise politically, to conquer and use the political power that the capitalist class  has learned to be so effective in imposing their rule, that is no reason why workers should abandon strike action, or should not resort to "direct action" whenever circumstances justify such strategy. Industrial and political action should be complementary to each other. The mistake is in attaching too much or too little importance to the one or the other. It is beneficial to workers if both these means of action are to be made the best use of. Collaboration between the two forms of organisation, the party and the unions, is essential to enable the working class to advance.

Without the party, the unions would be limited to partial and isolated struggles for reforms. Political action is something more than parliamentary action and the Socialist Party intent is not to become a voting machine. The function of the Socialist Party is not simply to elect members to Parliament to act as politicians and “statesmen,” but  as rebels, and not  to co-operate with capitalist parties in carrying out measures of reform in the mistaken belief that, perhaps, socialism might at last be realised; but in truth will  put off that realisation for as long as possible. The Socialist Party wants to see a class-conscious One Big Union on the industrial field and one class-conscious socialist party on the political field, each the counterpart of the other, and both working together in harmonious co-operation to overthrow the capitalist system and emancipate the workers from wage slavery.

 Socialists are bound to use their better understanding of society and the future to illustrate our theories and to give a clear purpose to the all day fighting, in which they are to participate. A communist revolution is not made by leaders and organisations; it is made by the workers, by the class. We  do not seek to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves. The workers’ revolution must be radical from the very outset, or it will be lost. There is required the complete expropriation of the possessing classes.  The work of the social revolution can only be accomplished by men and women with a clear understanding of  capitalism and socialism therefore the chief task of a Socialist Party is to educate. The development of the political struggle of the socialist movement must be depended upon clear minds. All who have understood and accepted the central principles of common ownership can become members of the party irrespective of their knowledge or lack of knowledge of Marxian economics, history and the social sciences.  In the interest of maintaining that definite program of the party it is imperative to exclude from our  party all speakers, writers, or even members who are not in the strictest harmony with its  principles.

 There is a complete divergence of view as to the steps to be taken to establish socialism, and thus it comes that there can be no place in a Socialist Party for anarchists until they abandon the distinctive principles of anarchism. However futile, in view of the present world situation, might be the attempt to fight for socialism, still this is the only course for workers to adopt. “Better the sense of futility than the morbid energy that expends itself on false roads. We will preserve our sense of truth, of reason at all cost, even at the cost of futility,” a commentator once said.

 The Socialist movement of to-day cannot bring socialism. The Co-operative Commonwealth will be inaugurated only  by the mass action of the workers. To assert the contrary is a denial of the very principles of socialism. Steadily the workers move along the road to socialism. Circumstances compel them to take that road. If we understand then the journey is made easier and the  Socialist Party helps bring this knowledge to the workers.

We advocate a positive policy, one that is based upon the present reality, as well as the objective needs of the working class.  We consider that the Socialist Party is  preparing the ground for a more revolutionary working class movement when workers at last recognise in the principles of socialism  the embodiment of their hopes. We confidently await and work towards the day when the ever-mounting pressure of capitalist society shall bring the workers to its cause. Ours is not the easy option. We offer the hardships of organisation, self-education of political understanding, and the painful awakening of aspirations for new social bonds and a new sense of potential community.

Workers when they become Socialist Party members do not become different from the rest of the working class. Their change in thought is only evidence of a transformation in the working-class movement. They remain workers, struggling alongside others for emancipation. Socialists do not  pose as superior a outside clique, a cadre of high-brow workers. Their objective is to educate all the workers on their interests and on what is at stake. The Socialist Party is an integral part of the working-class movement from which  propaganda is disseminated. Organised as a party  the strength of all the socialists becomes a united and definite section of the working class. As a body it gives expression to socialist opinion; it undertakes socialist activity. It insists upon the need for revolutionary change and  it expresses the aspirations of our class.

 The electing of workers’ representatives to political offices will surely not solve the basic problems of the working class. But when the workers begin to participate in politics as a class, through an independent socialist party of their own, they will have taken a long step forward toward their goal.