It has been said that Socialism is merely the half-way house to Anarchism. This belief, so widespread among Englishmen, is so palpably absurd that one marvels how an intelligent person can be deceived therewith.

The progress of the Commonweal from Socialism to Anarchism is instanced in proof. It will be seen from the headings of this journal, which are herewith reproduced, that originally the paper appeared as the “official journal of the Socialist League”; that later it blossomed forth as a “journal of revolutionary Socialism”; and finally as a “revolutionary journal of Anarchist-Communism.” This, it is said, is proof of the close connection between Socialism and Anarchism. What are the facts? Simply these: that from its inception the Socialist League (to whom the Commonweal originally belonged), from its anti-political constitution, offered a field for Anarchistic propaganda. Whilst consistently repudiating Anarchist doctrines, the Socialist League differed from other Socialist organisations which attempted to realise Socialistic projects by constitutional methods, in that it favoured the anarchical policy of physical force revolution. A number of Anarchists joined the League (as I have pointed out elsewhere), with the avowed object of turning its efforts into out-and-out Anarchistic channels. In this they were successful, for gradually but surely the Socialists left the League in disgust at their “revolutionary” associates, and the Anarchists were soon masters of the situation, having secured the printing plant and machinery, as well as the Commonweal itself, immediately converting the paper into an exponent of revolutionary Anarchist opinions. This is the real explanation of the Commonweal’s change of attitude. Moreover, when the Commonweal was the property of the Socialist League it spoke out plainly against Anarchism, and when it fell into the hands of the Anarchists it most bitterly declaimed against Socialism and all its works.

It is quite true that a person who has but an imperfect grasp of Socialist principles may possibly tend in an Anarchist direction, so true is it that a little learning is a dangerous thing. But to the Socialist who is also a student of history and economics no such mental contortion is possible; he sees that as between Socialism and Anarchism there must be war to the death—the one being the actual antithesis of the other.

In the early infancy of the Socialist movement, when the essentials were a red tie and a belief in the daily expected “revolution,” many well-intentioned but certainly unlearned men and women flocked to the Socialist banner in the expectation of the near approach of the millennium. When the Socialist party attained its majority these childish notions were cast on one side, and the task it set out to accomplish was not that of overturning society and establishing the complete Socialist Commonwealth at a blow, but that of convincing men and women that the gradual adoption of Collectivist principles by the State and the municipalities would prove so plainly beneficial to the community that the principle would be extended until finally all industries would be absorbed. In this they have been eminently successful, for to-day, private capitalism for private gain is being gradually but surely superseded by public co-operation for public benefits.

This change of attitude on the part of the Socialists, of course, did not satisfy the few discontents who, still faithful to the “Revolution” and the red tie, naturally went over to the Anarchists, as being the only party left which still stood for the old nonsensical ideas. Some few years back splits occurred in three or four branches of the Social Democratic Federation, notably at Canning Town, Deptford, and Peckham. Some of the members who either resigned or were expelled that body, now constituted themselves into local Anarchist “groups.” They were composed almost entirely of young and inexperienced persons—many mere youths (and everyone knows that youth is the period of indiscretions). To-day the persons who once composed these three Anarchist “groups” are anything but Anarchist in their sympathies; many, in fact, having gone back to their old love—riper age having brought saner ideas. Of the “groups” at Peckham and Deptford but two persons to-day remain faithful to the Anarchist cause!

The belief that Socialism and Anarchism are synonymous can be explained only on two grounds; either the person who makes the statement is ignorant of the meaning and purport of either or both Socialism and Anarchism, or he is a person interested in misrepresenting Socialism from personal or political motives. Socialism is the exact opposite of Anarchism, both in theory and tactics. Socialism means State and municipal ownership of the nation’s industries for the nation’s interest. Anarchism means the abolition of the State—central and municipal—and of every form of organisation, system, and authority whatsoever. Socialism proposes to reach its ideal commonwealth through the constitutional medium of parliamentary and municipal action. Anarchism seeks not to alter the social system, but to strike at its representatives, and its weapons are the cowardly ones of knife, torch, revolver, and bomb. The two theories have nothing in common.