File: secH4.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 11.7-1
links: PTS
area: main
in suites: etch, etch-m68k, lenny
size: 19,196 kB
ctags: 601
sloc: makefile: 38
file content (1299 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 68,726 bytes
<html>
<head>
<title>H.4 Didn't Engels refute anarchism in 
his essay "On Authority"?</title>
</head>
<H1>H.4 Didn't Engels refute anarchism in 
his essay "On Authority"?</H1>
<p>
No, far from it. Engels (in)famous essay <i>"On Authority"</i> is 
often pointed to by Marxists of various schools as refuting 
anarchism. Indeed, it is often considered the essential 
Marxist work for this and is often trotted out (pun intended)
when anarchist influence is on the rise. However this is not 
the case. In fact, his essay is both politically flawed and 
misrepresentative of his foes opinions. As such, anarchists 
do not think that Engels refuted anarchism in his essay. 
Indeed, rather than refute anarchism, Engels' essay just 
shows his ignorance of the ideas he was critiquing. This 
ignorance essentially rests on the fact that the whole 
concept of authority was defined and understood differently 
by Bakunin and Engels meant that the latter's critique was
flawed. While Engels may have thought that they both were 
speaking of the same thing, in fact they were not. 
<p>
For Engels, all forms of group activity meant the subjection 
of the individuals that make it up. As he puts it, <i>"whoever 
mentions combined action speaks of organisation"</i> and so it 
is not possible <i>"to have organisation without authority,"</i> 
as authority means <i>"the imposition of the will of another 
upon ours . . . authority presupposes subordination."</i> 
[<b>Marx-Engels Reader</b>, p. 731 and p. 730] As such, he 
considers the ideas of Bakunin to fly in the face of 
common sense and so show that he does not know what he 
is talking about. However, it is Engels who shows that 
he does not know what he is talking about.
<p>
The first fallacy in Engels account is that anarchists, as 
we indicated in <a href="secB1.html">section B.1</a>, do 
not oppose all forms of authority. Bakunin was extremely
clear on this issue and differentiated between <b>types</b> of
authority, of which only certain kinds did he oppose. For
example, he asked the question <i>"[d]oes it follow that I
reject all authority?"</i> and answered quite clearly: 
<i>"No, far be it from me to entertain such a thought."</i> He 
acknowledged the difference between being <b>an</b> authority 
-- an expert -- and being <b>in</b> authority, for example.
This meant that <i>"[i]f I bow before the authority of the
specialists and declare myself ready to follow, to a
certain extent and so long as it may seem to me to be
necessary, their general indications and even their
directions, it is because their authority is imposed
upon me by no one . . . I bow before the authority of
specialists because it is imposed upon me by my own
reason."</i> [<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 253]
<p>
Similarly, he argued that anarchists <i>"recognise all natural
authority, and all influence of fact upon us, but none of
right; for all authority and all influence of right,
officially imposed upon us, immediately becomes a falsehood 
and an oppression."</i> He stressed that the <i>"only great and 
omnipotent authority, at once natural and rational, the 
only one we respect, will be that of the collective and 
public spirit of a society founded on equality and 
solidarity and the mutual respect of all its members."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 241 and p. 255]
<p>
So while Bakunin and other anarchists, on occasion, <b>did</b>
argue that anarchists reject <i>"all authority"</i> they, as Carole
Pateman correctly notes, <i>"tended to treat 'authority' as a
synonym for 'authoritarian,' and so have identified 'authority'
with hierarchical power structures, especially those of the
state. Nevertheless, their practical proposals and some of
their theoretical discussions present a different picture."</i> 
[<b>The Problem of Political Obligation</b>, p. 141] This can
be seen when Bakunin noted that <i>"the principle of <b>authority</b>"</i>
was the <i>"eminently theological, metaphysical and political
idea that the masses, <b>always</b> incapable of governing
themselves, must submit at all times to the benevolent
yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which in one way or another,
is imposed from above."</i> [<b>Marxism, Freedom and the State</b>,
p. 33] Clearly, by the term <i>"principle of authority"</i> Bakunin
meant <b>hierarchy</b> rather than organisation and the need
to make agreements (what is now called self-management). 
<p>
Therefore Bakunin did not oppose <b>all</b> authority but rather
a specific kind of authority, namely <b>hierarchical</b> authority.
This kind of authority placed power into the hands of a few.
For example, wage labour produced this kind of authority,
with a <i>"meeting . . . between master and slave . . . the
worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time."</i> 
[<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 187] The state 
is also based hierarchical authority, with <i>"those who 
govern"</i> (i.e. <i>"those who frame the laws of the country as 
well as those who exercise the executive power"</i>) are in an 
<i>"exceptional position diametrically opposed to . . . popular 
aspirations"</i> towards liberty. They end up <i>"viewing society 
from the high position in which they find themselves"</i> and 
so <i>"[w]hoever says political power says domination"</i> over 
<i>"a more or less considerable section of the population."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 218]
<p>
Thus hierarchical authority is top-down, centralised and 
imposed. It is <b>this</b> kind of authority Bakunin had in mind
when he argued that anarchists <i>"are in fact enemies of all
authority"</i> and it will <i>"corrupt those who exercise [it]
as much as those who are compelled to submit to [it]."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 249] In other words, "authority" was used 
as shorthand for "hierarchy" (or "hierarchical authority"), 
the imposition of decisions rather than agreement to abide 
by the collective decisions you make with others when you
freely associate with them. In place of this kind of authority, 
Bakunin proposed a <i>"natural authority"</i> based on the masses 
<i>"governing themselves."</i> He did not object to the need for 
individuals associating themselves into groups and 
managing their own affairs, rather he opposed the idea
that co-operation necessitated hierarchy:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Hence there results, for science as well as for industry,
the necessity of division and association of labour. I
take and I give -- such is human life. Each is an 
authoritative leader and in turn is led by others.
Accordingly there is no fixed and constant authority, but
continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all,
voluntary authority and subordination."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 353-4]
</blockquote><p>
This kind of free association would be the expression of 
liberty rather than (as in hierarchical structures) its 
denial. Anarchists reject the idea of giving a minority 
(a government) the power to make our decisions for us. 
Rather, power should rest in the hands of all, not 
concentrated in the hands of a few. Anarchism is based
on rejecting what Bakunin called <i>"the authoritarian 
conception of discipline"</i> which <i>"always signifies 
despotism on the one hand and blind automatic 
submission to authority on the other."</i> In an anarchist 
organisation <i>"hierarchic order and advancement do not 
exist"</i> and there would be <i>"voluntary and thoughtful 
discipline"</i> for <i>"collective work or action."</i> 
This would be a new kind of discipline, one which is 
<i>"voluntary and intelligently understood"</i> and 
<i>"necessary whenever a greater number of individuals 
undertake any kind of collective work or action."</i> 
This is <i>"simply the voluntary and considered 
co-ordination of all individual efforts for a 
common purpose . . In such a system, power, properly 
speaking, no longer exists. Power is diffused to the 
collectivity and becomes the true expression of the 
liberty of everyone, the faithful and sincere 
realisation of the will of all . . . this is the 
only true discipline, the discipline necessary for 
the organisation of freedom."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 259-60]
<p>
Clearly Engels misunderstands the anarchist conception 
of liberty. Rather than seeing it as essentially negative, 
anarchists argue that liberty is expressed in two different,
but integrated, ways. Firstly, there is rebellion, the 
expression of autonomy in the face of authority. This is
the negative aspect of it. Secondly, there is association, 
the expression of autonomy by working with equals. This is
the positive aspect of it. As such, Engels concentrates on
the negative aspect of anarchist ideas, ignoring the positive,
and so paints a false picture of anarchism. Freedom, as
Bakunin argued, is a product of connection, not of isolation. 
How a group organises itself determines whether it is 
authoritarian or libertarian. If the individuals who take 
part in a group manage the affairs of that group (including
what kinds of decisions can be delegated) then that group is 
based on liberty. If that power is left to a few individuals 
(whether elected or not) then that group is structured in an 
authoritarian manner. This can be seen from Bakunin's 
argument that power must be <i>"diffused"</i> into the collective 
in an anarchist society. Clearly, anarchists do not 
reject the need for organisation nor the need to make 
and abide by collective decisions. Rather, the question 
is how these decisions are to be made -- are they to be 
made from below, by those affected by them, or from above, 
imposed by a few people in authority.
<p>
Only a sophist would confuse hierarchical power with the 
power of people managing their own affairs. It is an 
improper use of words to denote equally as "authority" 
two such opposed concepts as individuals subjected to 
the autocratic power of a boss and the voluntary 
co-operation of conscious individuals working together 
as equals. The lifeless obedience of a governed mass 
cannot be compared to the organised co-operation of 
free individuals, yet this is what Engels does. The 
former is marked by hierarchical power and the turning 
of the subjected into automations performing mechanical
movements without will and thought. The latter is 
marked by participation, discussion and agreement. 
Both are, of course, based on co-operation but to 
argue that latter restricts liberty as much as the 
former simply confuses co-operation with coercion. 
It also indicates a distinctly liberal conception 
of liberty, seeing it restricted by association with 
others rather than seeing association as an expression 
of liberty. As Malatesta argued:
<p><blockquote><i>
"The basic error . . . is in believing that organisation 
is not possible without authority.
<p>
"Now, it seems to us that organisation, that is to say,
association for a specific purpose and with the structure
and means required to attain it, is a necessary aspect of
social life. A man in isolation cannot even live the life
of a beast . . . Having therefore to join with other
humans . . . he must submit to the will of others (be
enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority)
or live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests
of the greatest good of all (be an associate). Nobody can
escape from this necessity."</i> [<b>Life and Ideas</b>, pp. 84-5]
</blockquote><p>
Therefore, organisation is <i>"only the practice of co-operation
and solidarity"</i> and is a <i>"natural and necessary condition
of social life."</i> [Malatesta, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 83] Clearly, the 
question is not whether we organise, but how do we do so. 
This means that, for anarchists, Engels confused vastly
different concepts: <i>"Co-ordination is dutifully confused
with command, organisation with hierarchy, agreement with
domination -- indeed, 'imperious' domination."</i> [Murray
Bookchin, <b>Towards an Ecological Society</b>, pp. 126-7]
<p>
Socialism will only exist when the discipline currently 
enforced by the stick in the hand of the boss is replaced 
by the conscious self-discipline of free individuals. It 
is not by changing who holds the stick (from a capitalist 
to a "socialist" boss) that socialism will be created. 
It is only by the breaking up and uprooting of this slavish 
spirit of discipline, and its replacement by self-management, 
that working people will create a new discipline what will 
be the basis of socialism (the voluntary self-discipline 
Bakunin talked about).
<p>
Clearly, then, Engels did not refute anarchism by his essay.
Rather, he refuted a straw man of his own creation. The 
question was <b>never</b> one of whether certain tasks need
co-operation, co-ordination, joint activity and agreement. 
It was, in fact, a question of <b>how</b> that is achieved. As 
such, Engels diatribe misses the point. Instead of addressing 
the actual politics of anarchism or their actual use of the
word "authority," he rather addresses a series of logical
deductions he draws from a false assumption regarding those 
politics. Engels essay shows the bedlam that can be created 
when a remorseless logician deduces away from an incorrect 
starting assumption.
<p>
For collective activity anarchists recognise the need to make 
and stick by agreements. Collective activity of course needs 
collective decision making and organisation. In so far as 
Engels had a point to his diatribe (namely that group efforts 
meant co-operating with others), Bakunin (like any anarchist)
would have agreed. The question was how are these decisions
to be made, not whether they should be or not. Ultimately,
Engels confused agreement with hierarchy. Anarchists do not. 
<p>
<a name="sech41"><H2>H.4.1 Does organisation imply the end of liberty?</H2>
<p>
Engels argument in <i>"On Authority"</i> can be summed up as any form 
of collective activity means co-operating with others and that
this means the individual subordinates themselves to others,
specifically the group. As such, authority cannot be abolished 
as organisation means that <i>"the will of a single individual 
will always have to subordinate itself, which means that 
questions are settled in an authoritarian way."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 731]
<p>
As such, Engels argument proves too much. As every form of
joint activity involves agreement and <i>"subordination,"</i> then
life itself becomes <i>"authoritarian."</i> The only free person,
according to Engels' logic, would be the hermit. As George
Barrett argues:
<p><blockquote><i>
"To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and 
to co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But 
to suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom 
is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise 
of our freedom.
<p>
"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is 
to damage freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for 
it forbids men [and women] to take the most ordinary everyday 
pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a walk with my friend 
because it is against the principle of Liberty that I should 
agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. 
I cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, 
because to do so I must co-operate with someone else, and 
co-operation implies an agreement, and that is against 
Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is
absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, 
when I agree with my friend to go for a walk.
<p>
"If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge 
that it is good for my friend to take exercise, and therefore 
I attempt to compel him to go for a walk, then I begin to limit 
freedom. This is the difference between free agreement and 
government."</i> [<b>Objections to Anarchism</b>]
</blockquote><p>
So, if we took Engels' argument seriously, then we would have
to conclude that living makes freedom impossible! After all 
by doing any joint activity you "subordinate" yourself to
others and, ironically, exercising your liberty by making
decisions and associating with others would become a denial 
of liberty. Clearly Engels argument is lacking something!
<p>
Perhaps this paradox can be explained once we recognise 
that Engels is using a distinctly liberal view of freedom 
-- i.e. freedom from. Anarchists reject this. We see 
freedom as holistic -- freedom from and freedom to. This 
means that that freedom is maintained by the kind of 
relationships we form with others, <b>not</b> by isolation. 
Liberty is denied when we form hierarchical relationships 
with others not necessarily when we associate with others. 
To combine with other individuals is an expression of 
individual liberty, <b>not</b> its denial! We are aware that 
freedom is impossible outside of association. Within an 
association absolute "autonomy" cannot exist, but such 
a concept of "autonomy" would restrict freedom to such a 
degree that it would be so self-defeating as to make a 
mockery of the concept of autonomy and no sane person 
would seek it.
<p>
Clearly, Engels "critique" hides more than it explains. Yes, 
co-operation and coercion both involve people working jointly 
together, but they are <b>not</b> to be equated. While Bakunin 
recognised this fundamental difference and tried, perhaps 
incompletely, to differentiate them (by arguing against 
"the principle of authority") and to base his politics on 
the difference, Engels obscures the differences and muddies 
the water by confusing the two radically different concepts 
within the word "authority." 
<p>
Any organisation or group is based on co-operation and 
co-ordination (Engels' "principle of authority"). How 
that co-operation is achieved is dependent on the 
<b>type</b> of organisation in question and that, in turn, 
specifies the <b>social</b> relationships within it. It is 
these social relationships which determine whether
an organisation is authoritarian or libertarian, not the
universal need to make and stick by agreements. Engels is 
simply confusing obedience with agreement, coercion with 
co-operation, organisation with authority, objective
reality with despotism.
<p>
As such, rather than seeing organisation as restricting
freedom, anarchists argue that the <b>kind</b> of organisation
we create is what matters. We can form relationships with 
others which are based on equality, not subordination. As 
an example, we point to the differences between marriage
and free love (see 
<a href="secH1.html#sech110">next section</a>). Once it is recognised
that decisions can be made on the basis of agreements
between equals, Engels essay can be seen for what it is -- 
a deeply flawed piece of cheap and inaccurate diatribe.
<p>
<a name="sech42"><H2>H.4.2 How does free love versus marriage indicate the weakness of Engels' argument?</H2>
<p> 
Engels, let us not forget, argues, in effect, any activities which 
<i>"replace isolated action by combined action of individuals"</i> 
means <i>"the imposition of the will of another upon ours"</i> and so 
<i>"the will of the single individual will have to subordinate itself, 
which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian manner."</i> 
This, for Engels, means that <i>"authority"</i> has not <i>"disappeared"</i> 
under anarchism but rather it has only <i>"changed its form."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 730-1]
<p>
However, to say that authority just changes its form misses 
the qualitative differences between authoritarian and 
libertarian organisation. Precisely the differences which
Bakunin and other anarchists tried to stress by calling
themselves anti-authoritarians and being against the 
<i>"principle of authority."</i> By arguing that all forms of
association are necessarily "authoritarian," Engels is
impoverishing the liberatory potential of socialism. He
ensures that the key question of liberty within our
associations is hidden behind a mass of sophistry.
<p>
As an example, look at the difference between marriage 
and free love. Both forms necessitate two individuals 
living together, sharing the same home, organising their 
lives together. The same situation and the same commitments. 
But do both imply the same social relationships? Are they
both <i>"authoritarian"</i>?
<p>
Traditionally, the marriage vow is based on the wife promising 
to obey the husband. Her role is simply that of obedience (in 
theory, at least). As Carole Pateman argues, <i>"[u]ntil late
into the nineteenth century the legal and civil position of
a wife resembled that of a slave"</i> and, in theory, <i>"became the
property of her husband and stood to him as a slave/servant
to a master."</i> [<b>The Sexual Contract</b>, p. 119 and pp. 130-1]
As such, an obvious social relationship exists -- an
authoritarian one in which the man has power over the woman.
We have a relationship based on domination and subordination. 
<p>
In free love, the couple are equals. They decide their own affairs, 
together. The decisions they reach are agreed between them and no 
domination takes place (unless you think making an agreement
equals domination or subordination). They both agree to the 
decisions they reach, based on mutual respect and give and take. 
Subordination to individuals does not meaningfully exist (at
best, it could be argued that both parties are "dominated" by
their decisions, hardly a meaningful use of the word). Instead 
of subordination, there is free agreement. 
<p>
Both types of organisation apply to the same activities -- a 
couple living together. Has "authority" just changed its form 
as Engels argued? Of course not. There is a substantial 
difference between the two. The former is authoritarian. One 
part of the organisation dictates to the other. The latter is 
libertarian as neither dominates (or they, as a couple, 
"dominate" each other as individuals -- surely an abuse 
of the language, we hope you agree!). Each part of the 
organisation agrees to the decision. Do all these differences 
just mean that we have changed name of "authority" or has
authority been abolished and liberty created? This was
the aim of Bakunin's terminology, namely to draw attention 
to the qualitative change that has occurred in the social 
relationships generated by the association of individuals
when organised in an anarchist way.
<p>
As such, Engels is confusing two radically different means 
of decision making by arguing both involve subordination and 
authority. The difference is clear: the former involves the
domination of an individual over another while the second 
involves the "subordination" of individuals to the decisions 
and agreements they make. The first is authority, the second
is liberty. 
<p>
Therefore, the example of free love indicates that, for
anarchists, Engels arguments are simply pedantic sophistry.
It goes without saying that organisation involves co-operation
and that, by necessity, means that individuals come to agreements
between themselves to work together. The question is <b>how</b> do
they do that, not whether they do so or not. As such, Engels'
arguments confuse agreement with hierarchy, co-operation with
coercion. Simply put, the <b>way</b> people conduct joint activity 
determines whether an organisation is libertarian or authoritarian. 
That was why anarchists called themselves anti-authoritarians,
to draw attention to the different ways of organising collective
work.
<p>
<a name="sech43"><H2>H.4.3 How do anarchists propose to run a factory?</H2>
<p>
In his campaign against anti-authoritarian ideas within the 
First International, Engels asks in a letter written in 
January 1872 <i>"how do these people [the anarchists] propose 
to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without 
having in the last resort one deciding will, without a 
single management."</i> [<b>The Marx-Engels Reader</b>, p. 729] 
<p>
This, of course, can only be asked if Engels was totally 
ignorant of Bakunin's ideas and his many comments supporting 
co-operatives and workers' associations as the means by 
which workers would <i>"organise and themselves conduct the 
economy without guardian angels, the state or their former 
employers."</i> Indeed, Bakunin was <i>"convinced that the co-operative 
movement will flourish and reach its full potential only in 
a society where the land, the instruments of production, 

and hereditary property will be owned and operated by the 
workers themselves: by their freely organised federations 
of industrial and agricultural workers."</i> [<b>Bakunin on 
Anarchism</b>, p. 399 and p. 400] Which means that Bakunin,
like all anarchists, was well aware of how a factory or 
other workplace would be organised: 
<p><blockquote><i>
"Only associated labour, that is, labour organised upon the 
principles of reciprocity and co-operation, is adequate to 
the task of maintaining . . . civilised society."</i> [<b>The 
Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 341]
</blockquote><p>
By October of that year, Engels had finally <i>"submitted arguments 
like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians"</i> who replied to 
run a factory, railway or ship did require organisation <i>"but here 
it was not a case of authority which we confer on our delegates, 
<b>but of a commission entrusted!</b>"</i> Engels commented that the 
anarchists <i>"think that when they have changed the names of 
things they have changed the things themselves."</i> He, therefore, 
thinks that authority <i>"will . . . only have changed its form"</i> 
rather than being abolished under anarchism as <i>"whoever mentions 
combined action speaks of organisation"</i> and it is not possible 
<i>"to have organisation without authority."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 732 and 
p. 731]
<p>
However, Engels is simply confusing two different things, 
authority and agreement. To make an agreement with another 
person is an exercise of your freedom, not its restriction. 
As Malatesta argued, <i>"the advantages which association and 
the consequent division of labour offer"</i> meant that humanity 
<i>"developed towards solidarity."</i> However, under class society
<i>"the advantages of association, the good that Man could
drive from the support of his fellows"</i> was distorted and
a few gained <i>"the advantages of co-operation by subjecting
other men to [their] will instead of joining with them."</i>
This oppression <i>"was still association and co-operation,
outside of which there is no possible human life; but it
was a way of co-operation, imposed and controlled by a few
for their personal interest."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, p. 28] Anarchists
seek to organise association to eliminate domination. This
would be done by workers organising themselves collectively
to make their own decisions about their work (workers'
self-management, to use modern terminology).
<p>
As such, workers would organise their tasks but this did not
necessitate the same authoritarian social relationships as
exist under capitalism:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Of course in every large collective undertaking, a division
of labour, technical management, administration, etc., is
necessary. But authoritarians clumsily play on words to
produce a <b>raison d'etre</b> for government out of the very
real need for the organisation of work. Government . . . 
is the concourse of individuals who have had, or have
seized, the right and the means to make laws and to oblige
people to obey; the administrator, the engineer, etc.,
instead are people who are appointed or assume the
responsibility to carry out a particular job and do
so. Government means the delegation of power, that is
the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into
the hands of a few; administration means the delegation of
work, that is tasks given and received, free exchange of
services based on free agreement. . . Let one not confuse
the function of government with that of administration,
for they are essentially different, and if today the two
are often confused, it is only because of economic and
political privilege."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, pp. 39-40]
</blockquote><p>
For a given task, co-operation and joint activity may be
required by its very nature. Take, for example, a train
network. The joint activity of numerous workers are 
required to ensure that it operates successfully. The
driver depends on the work of signal operators, for 
example, and guards to inform them of necessary information
essential for the smooth running of the network. The
passengers are dependent on the driver and the other
workers to ensure their journey is safe and quick. As
such, there is an objective need to co-operate but this
need is understood and agreed to by the people involved.
<p>
If a specific activity needs the co-operation of a number of 
people and can only be achieved if these people work together 
as a team and, therefore, need to make and stick by agreements, 
then this is undoubtedly a natural fact which the individual 
can only rebel against by leaving the association. Similarly, 
if an association considers it wise to elect a delegate whose 
tasks have been allocated by that group then, again, this 
is a natural fact which the individuals in question have 
agreed to and so have not been imposed upon the individual
by any external will -- the individual has been convinced
of the need to co-operate and does so.
<p>
Engels, therefore, confuses the authority of the current system,
organised and imposed from the top-down, with the self-management
required by a free society. He attempted to apply the same word
"authority" to two fundamentally different concepts. However,
we abuse words and practice deception when we apply the same
term to totally different concepts. As if the hierarchical,
authoritarian organisation of work under capitalism, imposed
by the few on the many and based by the absence of thought
and will of the subordinated, could be compared with the
co-ordination of joint activities by free individuals! What 
is there in common with the authoritarian structure of the
capitalist workplace or army and the libertarian organisation
required by workers to manage their struggle for freedom and,
ultimately, to manage their own working activity? Engels 
does damage to the language by using the same word 
("authority") to describe two so radically different things 
as the hierarchical organisation of wage labour and the free 
association and co-operation of equals of self-management. If 
an activity requires the co-operation of numerous individuals 
then, clearly, that is a natural fact and there is not much 
the individuals involved can do about it. Anarchists are not 
in the habit of denying common sense. The question is simply 
<b>how</b> do these individuals co-ordinate their activities. Is 
it by means of self-management or by hierarchy (authority)?
<p>
As such, anarchists have always been clear on how industry 
would be run -- by the workers' themselves in their own free
associations. In this way the domination of the boss would be
replaced by agreements between equals (see also sections 
<a href="secI3.html#seci31">I.3.1</a> and 
<a href="secI3.html#seci32">I.3.2</a> on how anarchists think workplaces will be
run in a free society).
<p>
<a name="sech44"><H2>H.4.4 How does the class struggle refute Engels' 
arguments that industry required leaving <i>"all autonomy behind"</i>?</H2>
<p>
Engels argued that large-scale industry (or, indeed, any
form of organisation) meant that "authority" was required.
He stated that factories should have <i>"Lasciate ogni autonomia,
voi che entrate"</i> (<i>"Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy
behind"</i>) written above their doors. Indeed, that is the
basis of capitalism, with the wage worker being paid to
obey. This obedience, Engels argued, was necessary even
under socialism, as applying the "forces of nature" meant
<i>"a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation."</i>
This meant that <i>"[w]anting to abolish authority in large-scale 
industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 731]
<p>
The best answer to Engels claims can be found in the class
struggle. Given that Engels was a capitalist (i.e. an owner
of a factory), he may have not been aware of the effectiveness
of <i>"working to rule"</i> when practised by workers. This basically
involves doing <b>exactly</b> what the boss tells you to do, regardless
of the consequences as regards efficiency, production and so on.
Quite simply, workers' refusing to practice autonomy can be an 
extremely effective and powerful weapon in the class struggle. 
<p>
This weapon has long been used by workers and advocated by
anarchists, syndicalists and wobblies. For example, the IWW
booklet <b>How to fire your boss</b> argues that <i>"[w]orkers often 
violate orders, resort to their own techniques of doing things, 
and disregard lines of authority simply to meet the goals of 
the company. There is often a tacit understanding, even by 
the managers whose job it is to enforce the rules, that these 
shortcuts must be taken in order to meet production quotas 
on time."</i> They argue, correctly, that <i>"if each of these rules 
and regulations were followed to the letter"</i> then <i>"[c]onfusion 
would result -- production and morale would plummet. And best 
of all, the workers can't get in trouble with the tactic 
because they are, after all, 'just following the rules.'"</i>
<p>
The British anarcho-syndicalists of the <b>Direct Action Movement</b>
agree and even quote an industrial expert on the situation:
<p><blockquote><i>
"If managers' orders were completely obeyed, confusion would 
result and production and morale would be lowered. In order to 
achieve the goals of the organisation workers must often violate 
orders, resort to their own techniques of doing things, and 
disregard lines of authority. Without this kind of systematic 
sabotage much work could not be done. This unsolicited sabotage 
in the form of disobedience and subterfuge is especially necessary 
to enable large bureaucracies to function effectively."</i> [<b>Social 
Psychology of Industry</b> by J.A.C. Brown, quoted in <b>Direct Action 
in Industry</b>]
</blockquote><p>
Another weapon of workers' resistance is what has been called
<i>"Working without enthusiasm"</i> and is related to the "work to
rule." This tactic aims at <i>"slowing production"</i> in order to
win gains from management:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Even the simplest repetitive job demands a certain minimum of
initiative and in this case it is failing to show any non-obligatory
initiative . . . [This] leads to a fall in production -- above all
in quality. The worker carries out every operation minimally;
the moment there is a hitch of any kind he [or she] abandons
all responsibility and hands over to the next man [or woman]
above him [or her] in the hierarchy; he works mechanically,
not checking the finished object, not troubling to regulate
his machine. In short he gets away with as much as he can,
but never actually does anything positively illegal."</i> [Pierre
Dubois, <b>Sabotage in Industry</b>, p. 51]
</blockquote><p>
The practice of <i>"working to rule"</i> and 
<i>"working without enthusiasm"</i> 
shows how out of touch Engels (like any capitalist) is with 
the realities of shop floor life. These forms of direct action 
is extremely effective <b>because</b> the workers refuse to act 
autonomously in industry, to work out the problems they face 
during the working day themselves, and instead place all the 
decisions on the authority required, according to Engels, to 
run the factory. The factory itself quickly grinds to a halt. 
What keeps it going is not the <i>"imperious"</i> will of authority, 
but rather the autonomous activity of workers thinking and 
acting for themselves to solve the numerous problems they face 
during the working day.
<p>
As Cornelius Castoriadis argues:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Resistance to exploitation expresses itself in a drop in
<b>productivity as well as exertion on the workers' part</b> . . .
At the same time it is expressed in the disappearance of
the <b>minimum</b> collective and spontaneous <b>management and
organisation</b> of work that the workers normally and of
necessity puts out. No modern factory could function for
twenty-four hours without this spontaneous organisation of
work that groups of workers, independent of the official
business management, carry out by filling in the gaps of
official production directives, by preparing for the
unforeseen and for regular breakdowns of equipment, by
compensating for management's mistakes, etc.
<p>
"Under 'normal' conditions of exploitation, workers are
torn between the need to organise themselves in this way
in order to carry out their work -- otherwise there are
repercussions for them -- and their natural desire to 
do their work, on the one hand, and, on the other, the
awareness that by doing so they only are serving the 
boss's interests. Added to those conflicting concerns
are the continual efforts of factory's management 
apparatus to 'direct' all aspects of the workers'
activity, which often results only in preventing them
from organising themselves."</i> [<b>Political and Social
Writings</b>, vol. 2, p. 68]
</blockquote><p>
Needless to say, co-operation and co-ordination is required in
any collective activity. Anarchists do not deny this fact of
nature, but the example Engels considered as irrefutable simply 
shows the fallacy of his argument. If large-scale industry 
was run along the lines argued by Engels, it would quickly
grind to halt. 
<p>
Ironically, the example of Russia under Lenin and Trotsky 
reinforces this fact. <i>"Administrative centralisation"</i> was 
enforced on the railway workers which, in turn, <i>"led 
more to ignorance of distance and the inability to 
respond properly to local circumstances . . . 'I have no 
instructions' became all the more effective as a defensive 
and self-protective rationalisation as party officials vested 
with unilateral power insisted all their orders be strictly 
obeyed. Cheka ruthlessness instilled fear, but repression . . . 
only impaired the exercise of initiative that daily operations
required."</i> [William G. Rosenberg, <i>"The Social Background to
Tsektran,"</i> <b>Party, State, and Society in the Russian Civil War</b>,
Diane P. Koenker, William G. Rosenberg and Ronald Grigor
Suny (eds.), p. 369] Without the autonomy required to manage
local problems, the operation of the railways was seriously
harmed and, unsurprisingly, a few months after Trotsky
subjected to railway workers to the <i>"militarisation of 
labour"</i> in September 1920, there was a <i>"disastrous collapse 
of the railway network in the winter of 1920-1."</i> [Jonathan 
Aves, <b>Workers against Lenin</b>, p. 102]
<p>
As the experience of workers' in struggle shows, it is the 
<b>abolition</b> of autonomy which means the abolition of 
large-scale industry, not its exercise. This can be seen
from various forms of direct action such as "working to rule"
as well as Trotsky's attempts to impose the "militarisation
of labour" on the Russian workers. The conscious decision by 
workers to <b>not</b> exercise their autonomy brings industry 
grinding to a halt and are effective tools in the class 
struggle. As any worker know, it is only their ability to 
make decisions autonomously that keeps industry going.
<p>
Rather than abolishing authority making large-scale industry 
impossible, it is the abolishing of autonomy which quickly 
achieves this. The issue is how do we organise industry so 
that this essential autonomy is respected and co-operation
between workers achieved based on it. For anarchists, this 
is done by self-managed workers associations in which 
hierarchical authority is replaced by collective self-discipline 
(as discussed in <a href="append41.html#app12">section 12</a> of
the appendix on <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>).
<p>
<a name="sech45"><H2>H.4.5 Is the way industry operates 
<i>"independent of all social organisation"</i>?</H2>
<p>
As noted in the 
<a href="secH1.html#sech112">last section</a>, 
Engels argued that applying the 
<i>"forces of nature"</i> meant <i>"a veritable despotism independent 
of all social organisation."</i> This meant that <i>"[w]anting to 
abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to 
wanting to abolish industry itself."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 731]
<p>
For anarchists, Engels' comments ignore the reality of class 
society in an important way. Modern (<i>"large-scale"</i>) industry 
has not developed neutrally or naturally, independently of all 
social organisation as Engels claimed. Rather it has been 
shaped by the class struggle. As we argued in 
<a href="secD10.html">section D.10</a>, 
technology is a weapon in the class struggle. As Castoriadis 
argues:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Management organises production with a view of achieving
'maximum efficiency.' But the first result of this sort of
organisation is to stir up the workers' revolt against
production itself . . . To combat the resistance of the
workers, the management institutes an ever more minute 
division of labour and tasks . . . Machines are invented,
or selected, according to one fundamental criterion: Do
they assist in the struggle of management against workers,
do they reduce yet further the worker's margin of autonomy,
do they assist in eventually replacing him [or her]
altogether? In this sense, the organisation of production
today . . . is <b>class organisation.</b> Technology is
predominantly <b>class technology.</b> No . . . manager would
ever introduce into his plant a machine which would 
increase the freedom of a particular worker or of a
group of workers to run the job themselves, even if
such a machine increased production.
<p>
"The workers are by no means helpless in this struggle.
They constantly invent methods of self-defence. They
break the rules, while 'officially' keeping them. They
organise informally, maintain a collective solidarity
and discipline."</i> [<b>The Meaning of Socialism</b>, pp. 9-10]
</blockquote><p>
As such, one of the key aspects of the class struggle
is the conflict of workers against attempts by management
to eliminate their autonomy within the production process.
This struggle generates the machines which Engels claims
produce a <i>"veritable despotism independent of all social
organisation."</i> Regardless of what Engels implies, the way
industry has developed is not independent of class society
and its "despotism" has been engineered that way. For
example, it may be a fact of nature that ten people may be
required to operate a machine, but that machine is not
such a fact, it is a human invention and so can be changed.
Nor is it a fact of nature that work organisation should be
based on a manager dictating to the workers what to do --
rather it could be organised by the workers themselves,
using collective self-discipline to co-ordinate their
joint effort.
<p>
As one shop steward put it, workers are <i>"not automatons.
We have eyes to see with, ears to hear with, and mouths
to talk."</i> As David Noble comments, <i>"[f]or management 
. . . that was precisely the problem. Workers controlled
the machines, and through their unions had real authority
over the division of labour and job content."</i> [<b>Forces
of Production</b>, p. 37] This autonomy was what managers
constantly struggled against and introduced technology
to combat. As such, Engels' notion that machinery was
"despotic" hide the nature of class society and the fact
that authority is a social relationship, a relationship
between people and not people and things. And, equally,
that different kinds of authority meant different kinds
of organisation and different social relationships to do
the collective tasks. It was precisely to draw attention
to this that anarchists called themselves anti-authoritarians.
<p>
Clearly, Engels is simply ignoring the actual relations
of authority within capitalist industry and, like the
capitalism he claims to oppose, is raising the needs of
the bosses to the plane of "natural fact." Indeed, is 
this not the refrain of every boss or supporter of 
capitalism? Right-libertarian guru Ludwig von Mises 
spouted this kind of refrain when he argued that 
<i>"[t]he root of the syndicalist idea is to be seen 
in the belief that entrepreneurs and capitalists are 
irresponsible autocrats who are free to conduct their 
affairs arbitrarily. Such a dictatorship must not be 
tolerated . . . The fundamental error of this argument 
is obvious [sic!]. The entrepreneurs and capitalists are 
not irresponsible autocrats. They are unconditionally 
subject to the sovereignty of the consumers. The market 
is a consumers' democracy."</i> [<b>Human Action</b>, p. 814] In
other words, it is not the bosses fault work is so hard 
or that they dictate to the worker. No, of course not, 
it is the despotism of the machine, of nature, of the 
market, of the customer, anyone and anything <b>but</b> 
the person <b>with</b> authority who is actually giving 
the orders and punishing those who do not obey! 
<p>
Needless to say, like Engels essay, von Mises' argument 
is fundamentally flawed simply because the boss is not 
just repeating the instructions of the market (assuming 
that it is a "consumers' democracy," which it is not). 
Rather, they give their own instructions based on
their own sovereignty over the workers. The workers could,
of course, manage their own affairs and meet the demands
of consumers directly. The "sovereignty" of the market
(just like the "despotism" of machines and joint action)
is independent of the social relationships which exist
within the workplace, but the social relationships themselves
are not predetermined by them. Thus the same workshop can
be organised in different ways. As such, the way industry
operates <b>is</b> dependent on social organisation. The workers
can manage their own affairs or be subjected to the rule
of a boss. To say that "authority" still exists simply
means to confuse agreement with obedience.
<p>
The importance of differentiating between types of
organisation and ways of making decisions can be seen from 
the experience of the class struggle. During the Spanish 
Revolution anarchists organised militias to fight the fascists. 
One was lead by anarchist militant Durruti. His military adviser, 
Prez Farras, a professional soldier, was concerned about the 
application of libertarian principles to military organisation. 
Durruti replied:
<p><blockquote><i>
"I have already said and I repeat; during all my life, I have 
acted as an anarchist. The fact of having been given political 
responsibility for a human collective cannot change my convictions. 
It is under these conditions that I agreed to play the role
given to me by the Central Committee of the Militias.
<p>
"I thought -- and what has happened confirms my belief -- that a 
workingmen's militia cannot be led according to the same rules as
an army. I think that discipline, co-ordination and the fulfilment 
of a plan are indispensable. But this idea can no longer be
understood in the terms of the world we have just destroyed. 
We have new ideas. We think that solidarity among men must
awaken personal responsibility, which knows how to accept 
discipline as an autonomous act.
<p>
"Necessity imposes a war on us, a struggle that differs from 
many of those that we have carried on before. But the goal of our
struggle is always the triumph of the revolution. This means not 
only victory over the enemy, but also a radical change in man.
For this change to occur, man must learn to live in freedom and 
develop in himself his potentialities as a responsible individual.
The worker in the factory, using his tools and directing production, 
is bringing about a change in himself. The fighter, like the
worker, uses his gun as a tool and his acts must lead to the 
same goals as those of the worker. 
<p>
"In the struggle he cannot act like a soldier under orders but 
like a man who is conscious of what he is doing. I know it is not 
easy to get such a result, but what one cannot get by reason, one 
can never get through force. If our revolutionary army must be
maintained through fear, we will have changed nothing but the 
colour of fear. It is only by freeing itself from fear that a 
free society can be built."</i> [quoted by Abel Paz, <b>Durruti: The 
People Armed</b>, p. 225]
</blockquote><p>
Is it really convincing to argue that the individuals who made
up the militia are subject to the same social relationships as
those in a capitalist or Leninist army? The same, surely, goes
for workers associations and wage labour. Ultimately, the
flaw in Engels' argument can be best seen simply because he 
thinks that the <i>"automatic machinery of a big factory is much 
more despotic than the small capitalist who employ workers ever 
have been."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 731] Authority and liberty become 
detached from human beings, as if authoritarian social 
relationships can exist independently of individuals! It 
is a <b>social</b> relationship anarchists oppose, not an 
abstraction.
<p>
As such, Engels' argument is applicable to <b>any</b> society
and to <b>any</b> task which requires joint effort. If, for
example, a table needs four people to move it then those
four people are subject to the "despotism" of gravity!
Under such "despotism" can we say its irrelevant whether
these four people are slaves to a master who wants the
table moved or whether they agree between themselves to
move the table and on the best way to do it? In both
cases the table movers are subject to the same "despotism" 
of gravity, yet in the latter example they are <b>not</b> 
subject to the despotism of other human beings they
are subject to in the former. Clearly, Engels is playing
with words!
<p> 
The fallacy of Engels' basic argument can be seen from 
this simple example. He essentially uses a <b>liberal</b>
concept of freedom (i.e. freedom exists prior to society 
and is reduced within it) when attacking anarchism. Rather 
than see freedom as a product of interaction, as Bakunin 
did, Engels sees it as a product of isolation. Collective 
activity is seen as a realm of necessity (to use Marx's 
phrase) and not one of freedom. Indeed, machines and the
forces of nature are considered by Engels' as "despots"!
As if despotism was not a specific set of relationships
between <b>humans.</b> As Bookchin argues:
<p><blockquote><i>
"To Engels, the factory is a natural fact of technics, not
a specifically bourgeois mode of rationalising labour;
hence it will exist under communism as well as capitalism.
It will persist 'independently of all social organisation.' 
To co-ordinate a factory's operations requires 'imperious 
obedience,' in which factory hands lack all 'autonomy.' 
Class society or classless, the realm of necessity
is also a realm of command and obedience, of ruler and
ruled. In a fashion totally congruent with all class
ideologists from the inception of class society, Engels
weds Socialism to command and rule as a natural fact.
Domination is reworked from a social attribute into a
precondition for self-preservation in a technically
advanced society."</i> [<b>Towards an Ecological Society</b>,
p. 206]
</blockquote><p>
Given this, it can be argued that Engels' <i>"On Authority"</i> 
had a significant impact in the degeneration of the 
Russian Revolution into state capitalism. By deliberately 
obscuring the differences between self-managed and authoritarian 
organisation, he helped provide Bolshevism with ideological 
justification for eliminating workers self-management in 
production. After all, if self-management and hierarchical 
management both involve the same <i>"principle of authority,"</i> 
then it does not really matter how production is organised 
and whether industry is managed by the workers or by 
appointed managers (as Engels stressed, authority in industry 
was independent of the social system and all forms of 
organisation meant subordination). Murray Bookchin draws 
the obvious conclusion from Engels' (and Marx's) position:
<i>"Obviously, the factory conceived of as a 'realm of necessity' 
[as opposed to a 'realm of freedom'] requires no need 
for self-management."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 126] 
<p>
Hence the Bolsheviks need not to consider whether replacing 
factory committees with appointed managers armed with 
<i>"dictatorial powers"</i> would have any effect on the position 
of workers in socialism (after all, the were subject to 
subordination either way). Engels had used the modern 
factory system of mass production as a direct analogy 
to argue against the anarchist call for workers' councils, 
for autonomy, for participation, for self-management. 
Authority, hierarchy, and the need for submission and 
domination is inevitable given the current mode of 
production, both Engels and Lenin argued. Little wonder, 
then, the worker become the serf of the state (see
<a href="append41.html#app11">section 11</a> of the appendix
on <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>
for more details). 
In his own way, Engels 
contributed to the degeneration of the Russian Revolution 
by providing the rationale for the Bolsheviks disregard for 
workers' self-management of production. 
<p>
Simply put, Engels was wrong. The need to co-operate and
co-ordinate activity may be independent of social development,
but the nature of a society does impact on how this
co-operation is achieved. If it is achieved by hierarchical
means, then it is a class society. If it is achieved by
agreements between equals, then it is a socialist one. As
such, how industry operates <b>is</b> dependent on society it 
is part of. An anarchist society would run industry based 
on the free agreement of workers united in free associations 
(see 
<a href="secH4.html#sech43">section H.4.3</a>). 
This would necessitate making and 
sticking to joint decisions but this co-ordination would be 
between equals, not master and servant. By not recognising
this fact, Engels fatally undermined the cause of socialism.
<p>
<a name="sech46"><H2>H.4.6 Why does Engels' "On Authority" harm Marxism?</H2>
<p>
Ironically, Engels' essay <i>"On Authority"</i> also strikes at the
heart of Marxism and its critique of anarchism. Forgetting
what he had written in 1873, Engels argued in 1894 that
for him and Marx the <i>"ultimate political aim is to overcome
the whole state and therefore democracy as well."</i> [quoted
by Lenin, <i>"State and Revolution"</i>, <b>Essential Works of
Lenin</b>, p. 331] Lenin argued that <i>"the abolition of the
state means also the abolition of democracy."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 332]
<p>
However, Lenin quoted Engels' "On Authority" which stated
that any form of collective activity meant "authority" and
so the subjection of the minority to the majority (<i>"if
possible"</i>) and <i>"the imposition of the will of another
upon ours."</i> [Engels, <b>Marx-Engels Reader</b>, p. 731 and 
p. 730]
<p>
Aware of the contradiction, Lenin stresses that 
<i>"someone may even begin to fear we are expecting 
the advent of an order of society in which the 
subordination of the minority to the majority will 
not be respected."</i> That was not the case, however. 
He simply rejected the idea that democracy was <i>"the 
recognition of this principle"</i> arguing that <i>"democracy 
is a <b>state</b> which recognises the subordination of 
the minority to the majority, i.e. an organisation 
for the systematic use of <b>violence</b> by one class 
against the other, by one section of the population 
against another."</i> He argued that <i>"the need for violence 
against people in general, the need for the <b>subjection</b> 
of one man to another, will vanish, since people will 
<b>become accustomed</b> to observing the elementary 
conditions of social life <b>without force</b> and <b>without
subordination.</b>"</i> [Lenin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 332-3]
<p>
Talk about playing with words! Earlier in his work Lenin
summarised Engels "On Authority" by stating that <i>"is it
not clear that . . . complex technical units, based on
the employment of machinery and the ordered co-operation
of many people, could function without a certain amount
of subordination, without some authority or power."</i> [<b>Op.
Cit.</b>, p. 316] Now, however, he argues that communism
would involve no <i>"subordination"</i> while, at the same time,
be based on the <i>"the principle of the subordination of
the minority to the majority"</i>! A contradiction? Perhaps
no, as he argues that the minority would <i>"become
accustomed"</i> to the conditions of <i>"social life"</i> 
-- in other words the recognition that sticking to your
agreements you make with others does not involve
"subordination." This, ironically, would confirm 
anarchist ideas as we argue that making agreements
with others, as equals, does not involve domination
or subordination but rather is an expression of
autonomy, of liberty.
<p>
Similarly, we find Engels arguing in <b>Anti-Duhring</b> that
socialism would <i>"puts an end to the former subjection of
men to their own means of production"</i> and that <i>"productive
labour, instead of being a means of subjugating men, will
become a means of their emancipation."</i> [<b>Marx-Engels
Reader</b>, p. 720 and p. 721] This work was written in
1878, six years after <i>"On Authority"</i> when he stressed
that <i>"the automatic machinery of a big factory is much
more despotic than the small capitalists who employ
workers ever have been"</i> and <i>"subdu[ing] the forces of
nature . . . avenge themselves"</i> upon <i>"man"</i> by 
<i>"subjecting
him . . . to a veritable despotism independent of all
social organisation."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 731] Engels is 
clearly contradicting himself. When attacking the anarchists, 
he argues that the <i>"subjection"</i> of people to the means of 
production was inevitable and utterly <i>"independent of all 
social organisation."</i> Six years later he argues that 
socialism will abolish this inescapable subjection to 
the <i>"veritable despotism"</i> of modern industry!
<p>
As can be seen from both Engels and Lenin, we have a 
contradiction within Marxism. On the one hand, they argue 
that authority ("subjection") will always be with us, no 
matter what, as "subordination" and "authority" is 
independent of the specific social society we live in. On
the other, they argue that Marxist socialism will be 
without a state, "without subordination," "without force" 
and will end the "subjection of men to their own means of 
production." The two positions cannot be reconciled. 
<p>
Simply put, if Engels "On Authority" is correct then,
logically, it means that not only is anarchism impossible
but also Marxist socialism. Lenin and Engels are trying to 
have it both ways. On the one hand, arguing that anarchism 
is impossible as any collective activity means subjection 
and subordination, on the other, that socialism will end 
that inevitable subjection. And, of course, arguing that 
democracy will be "overcome" while, at the same time, 
arguing that it can never be. Ultimately, it shows that
Engels essay is little more than a cheap polemic without
much merit.
<p>
Even worse for Marxism is Engels' comment that authority and
autonomy <i>"are relative things whose spheres vary with the
various phases of society"</i> and that <i>"the material conditions
of production and circulation inevitably develop with
large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture, and
increasingly tend to enlarge the scope of this authority."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 732] Given that this is <i>"a veritable
despotism"</i> and Marxism aims at <i>"one single vast plan"</i>
in modern industry, then the scope for autonomy, for
freedom, is continually reduced during the working day.
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 723 and p. 731] The only possible solution
is reducing the working day to a minimum and so the time
spent as a slave to the machine is reduced. The idea that
work should be transformed into creative, empowering and
liberating experience is automatically destroyed by Engels
argument. Like capitalism, Marxist-Socialism is based on
"work is hell" and the domination of the producer. Hardly
an inspiring vision of the future.
<p>
<a name="sech47"><H2>H.4.7 Why does Engels' argument that revolution is 
<i>"the most authoritarian thing there is"</i> totally miss the point?</H2>
<p>
As well as the argument that "authority" is essential for
every collective activity, Engels raises another argument
against anarchism. This second argument is that revolutions 
are by nature authoritarian. In his words, a <i>"revolution is 
certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the 
act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon 
the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon -- 
authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the 
victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it 
must maintain this rule by means of the terror its arms 
inspire in the reactionaries."</i> [<b>Marx-Engels Reader</b>, p. 733]
<p>
However, such an analysis is without class analysis and so 
will, by necessity, mislead the writer and the reader. Engels 
argues that revolution is the imposition by <i>"one part of the 
population"</i> on another. Very true -- but Engels fails to 
indicate the nature of class society and, therefore, of a 
social revolution. In a class society <i>"one part of the 
population"</i> constantly <i>"imposes its will upon the other 
part"</i> -- those with power imposes its decisions to those 
beneath them in the social hierarchy. In other words, the 
ruling class imposes its will on the working class everyday 
in work by the hierarchical structure of the workplace and 
in society by the state. Discussing the "population" as 
if it was not divided by classes and so subject to specific 
forms of authoritarian social relationships is liberal 
nonsense. 
<p>
Once we recognise that the "population" in question is divided 
into classes we can easily see the fallacy of Engels argument. 
In a social revolution, the act of revolution is the overthrow 
of the power and authority of an oppressing and exploiting 
class by those subject to that oppression and exploitation. 
In other words, it is an act of <b>liberation</b> in which the 
hierarchical power of the few over the many is eliminated 
and replaced by the freedom of the many to control their 
own lives. It is hardly authoritarian to destroy authority! 
Thus a social revolution is, fundamentally, an act of 
liberation for the oppressed who act in their own interests
to end the system in which <i>"one part of population imposes its
will upon the other"</i> everyday. 
<p>
Malatesta states the obvious:
<p><blockquote><i>
"To fight our enemies effectively, we do not need to deny
the principle of freedom, not even for one moment: it is
sufficient for us to want real freedom and to want it for
all, for ourselves as well as for others.
<p>
"We want to expropriate the property-owning class, and with
violence, since it is with violence that they hold on to
social wealth and use it to exploit the working class. Not
because freedom is a good thing for the future, but because
it is a good thing, today as well as tomorrow, and the
property owners, be denying us the means of exercising
our freedom, in effect, take it away from us.
<p>
"We want to overthrow the government, all governments --
and overthrow them with violence since it is by the use
of violence that they force us into obeying -- and once
again, not because we sneer at freedom when it does not
serve our interests but because governments are the
negation of freedom and it is not possible to be free
without getting rid of them . . . 
<p>
"The freedom to oppress, to exploit, to oblige people
to take up arms [i.e. conscription], to pay taxes,
etc., is the denial of freedom: and the fact that
our enemies make irrelevant and hypocritical use of
the word freedom is not enough to make us deny the
principle of freedom which is the outstanding 
characteristic of our movement and a permanent,
constant and necessary factor in the life and progress
of humanity."</i> [<b>Life and Ideas</b>, p. 51]
</blockquote><p>
It seems strange that Engels, in effect, is arguing that the 
abolition of tyranny is tyranny against the tyrants! As
Malatesta so clearly argued, anarchists <i>"recognise violence
only as a means of legitimate self-defence; and if today
they are in favour of violence it is because they maintain
that slaves are always in a state of legitimate defence."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 59] As such, Engels fails to understand the 
revolution from a <b>working class</b> perspective (perhaps 
unsurprisingly, as he was a capitalist). The "authority" 
of the "armed workers" over the bourgeois is, simply,
the defence of the workers' freedom against those who
seek to end it by exercising/recreating the very 
authoritarian social relationships the revolution sought 
to end in the first place. Ultimately, Engels is like the 
liberal who equates the violence of the oppressed to
end oppression with that the oppressors!
<p>
Needless to say, this applies to the class struggle as well.
Is, for example, a picket line really authoritarian because 
it tries to impose its will on the boss, police or scabs? 
Rather, is it not defending the workers' freedom against 
the authoritarian power of the boss and their lackeys (the 
police and scabs)? Is it "authoritarian" to resist authority 
and create a structure -- a strike assembly and picket line -- 
which allows the formally subordinated workers to manage their 
own affairs directly and without bosses? Is it "authoritarian" 
to combat the authority of the boss, to proclaim your freedom 
and exercise it? Of course not. Little wonder Bakunin talked
about <i>"the development and organisation"</i> of the <i>"social (and, 
by consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses"</i> 
and <i>"the revolutionary organisation of the natural power of 
the masses"</i>! 
<p>
Structurally, a strikers' assembly and picket line -- which 
are forms of self-managed association -- cannot be compared 
to an "authority" (such as a state). To try and do so fails 
to recognise the fundamental difference. In the strikers' 
assembly and picket line the strikers themselves decide 
policy and do not delegate power away into the hands of an 
authority (any strike committees execute the strikers 
decisions or is replaced). In a state, <b>power</b> is delegated 
into the hands of a few who then use that power as they see 
fit. This by necessity disempowers those at the base, who 
are turned into mere electors and order takers (i.e. an 
authoritarian relationship is created). Such a situation 
can only spell death of a social revolution, which requires 
the active participation of all if it is to succeed. It also,
incidentally, exposes a central fallacy of Marxism, namely that 
it claims to desire a society based on the participation of 
everyone yet favours a form of organisation -- centralisation 
-- that excludes that participation. 
<p>
Georges Fontenis summarises anarchist ideas on this subject
when he writes:
<p><blockquote><i>
"And so against the idea of State, where power is exercised by 
a specialised group isolated from the masses, we put the idea 
of direct workers power, where accountable and controlled 
elected delegates (who can be recalled at any time and are 
remunerated at the same rate as other workers) replace 
hierarchical, specialised and privileged bureaucracy; 
where militias, controlled by administrative bodies such 
as soviets, unions and communes, with no special privileges 
for military technicians, realising the idea of the armed 
people, replace an army cut off from the body of Society 
and subordinated to the arbitrary power of a State or 
government."</i> [<b>Manifesto of Libertarian Communism</b>, p. 24]
</blockquote><p>
Anarchists, therefore, are no more impressed with this aspect
of Engels critique than his "organisation equals authority" 
argument. In summary, his argument is simply a liberal analysis 
of revolution, totally without a class basis or analysis and so 
fails to understand the anarchist case nor answer it. To argue 
that a revolution is made up of two groups of people, one of
which "imposes its will upon the other" fails to indicate 
the social relations that exist between these groups (classes)
and the relations of authority between them which the revolution 
is seeking to overthrow. As such, Engels critique totally misses 
the point.

<p> 
</BODY>
</HTML>