File: secH4.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 13.4-1
links: PTS
area: main
in suites: squeeze, wheezy
size: 24,760 kB
ctags: 640
sloc: makefile: 27
file content (1402 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 80,181 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<html>
<head>

<title>H.4 Didn't Engels refute anarchism in "On Authority"?</title>
</head>

<h1>H.4 Didn't Engels refute anarchism in <i>"On Authority"</i>?</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. As such, anarchists do not think that Engels 
refuted anarchism in his essay but rather just showed 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, meaning 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><p>
For Engels, all forms of group activity meant the subjection 
of the individuals that make it up. As he put 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] Given that, Engels 
considered the ideas of Bakunin to fly in the face of common 
sense and so show that he, Bakunin, did not know what he was 
talking about. However, in reality, it was Engels who did this.
</p><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 he opposed only certain kinds. 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. 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> 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>The Political 
Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 253, p. 241 and p. 255] 
</p><p>
Bakunin contrasted this position with the Marxist one, whom he 
argued were <i>"champions of the social order built from the top 
down, always in the name of universal suffrage and the sovereignty 
of the masses upon whom they bestow the honour of obeying their 
leaders, their elected masters."</i> In other words, a system 
based on delegated <b>power</b> and so <b>hierarchical</b> authority. 
This excludes the masses from governing themselves (as in the state) 
and this, in turn, <i>"means domination, and any domination presupposes 
the subjugation of the masses and, consequently, their exploitation 
for the benefit of some ruling minority."</i> [<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, 
p. 277]
</p><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><p>
Bakunin, clearly, 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> 
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>) being 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>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 187 and p. 218]
</p><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><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><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. We are well aware 
of the need to organise together and, therefore, the need to stick 
by decisions reached. The importance of solidarity in anarchist 
theory is an expression of this awareness. However, there are 
different kinds of organisation. There can be no denying that in 
a capitalist workplace or army there is "organisation" and "discipline" 
yet few, if any, sane persons would argue that this distinctly top-down 
and hierarchical form of working together is something to aspire to, 
particularly if you seek a free society. This cannot be compared to 
making and sticking by a collective decision reached by free discussion 
and debate within a self-governing associations. As Bakunin argued:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Discipline, mutual trust as well as unity are all excellent 
qualities when properly understood and practised, but disastrous
when abused . . . [one use of the word] discipline almost always 
signifies despotism on the one hand and blind automatic submission
to authority on the other . . . 
</p><p>
"Hostile as I am to [this,] the authoritarian conception of 
discipline, I nevertheless recognise that a certain kind of 
discipline, not automatic but voluntary and intelligently 
understood is, and will ever be, necessary whenever a greater 
number of individuals undertake any kind of collective work or 
action. Under these circumstances, discipline is simply the 
voluntary and considered co-ordination of all individual efforts 
for a common purpose. At the moment of revolution, in the
midst of the struggle, there is a natural division of functions
according to the aptitude of each, assessed and judged by the
collective whole: Some direct and others carry out orders.
But no function remains fixed and it will not remain permanently
and irrevocably attached to any one person. Hierarchical order
and promotion do not exist, so that the executive of yesterday
can become the subordinate of tomorrow. No one rises above the
others, and if he does rise, it is only to fall back again a
moment later, like the waves of the sea forever returning to
the salutary level of equality.
</p><p>
"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. This is not the kind of discipline
preached by the State . . . which wants the old, routine-like,
automatic blind discipline. Passive discipline is the foundation
of every despotism."</i> [<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, pp. 414-5]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
Clearly Engels misunderstood 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 your 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><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 did. 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><p><blockquote><i>
"The basic error . . . is in believing that organisation 
is not possible without authority.
</p><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>Errico Malatesta: 
His Life and Ideas</b>, pp. 84-5]
</blockquote></p><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><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). As Kropotkin memorably put it:
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>
"Having been brought up in a serf-owner's family, I entered active 
life, like all young men of my time, with a great deal of confidence 
in the necessity of commanding, ordering, scolding, punishing, and 
the like. But when, at an early stage, I had to manage serious 
enterprises and to deal with men, and when each mistake would lead 
at once to heavy consequences, I began to appreciate the difference 
between acting on the principle of command and discipline and acting 
on the principle of common understanding. The former works admirably 
in a military parade, but it is worth nothing where real life is 
concerned, and the aim can be achieved only through the severe effort 
of many converging wills."</i> [<b>Memoirs of a Revolutionist</b>,
p. 202]
</blockquote>
</p><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 addressed a series of logical
deductions he draws from a false assumption regarding those 
politics. Engels essay shows, to paraphrase Keynes cutting 
remarks against von Hayek, the bedlam that can be created 
when a remorseless logician deduces away from an incorrect 
starting assumption.
</p><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></a>

<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><p>
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. Anarchists reject such
nonsense. As George Barrett argued:
</p><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><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><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>, pp. 348-9]
</blockquote></p><p>
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 so, ironically, exercising your liberty by making
decisions and associating with others would become a denial 
of liberty. Clearly Engels argument is lacking something!
</p><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 freedom is maintained by the kind of relationships 
we form with others, <b>not</b> by isolation. As Bakunin 
argued, <i>"man in isolation can have no awareness of his 
liberty. Being free for man means being acknowledged,
considered and treated as such by another man. Liberty is 
therefore a feature not of isolation but of interaction, 
not of exclusion but rather of connection"</i>. [<b>Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>, p. 147] 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. To requote Malatesta, freedom we want <i>"is not 
an absolute metaphysical, abstract freedom"</i> but <i>"a real 
freedom, possible freedom, which is the conscious community of 
interests, voluntary solidarity."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, p. 43] 
</p><p>
To state the obvious, anarchists are well aware that <i>"anyone who 
associates and co-operates with others for a common purpose must 
feel the need to co-ordinate his [or her] actions with those of 
his [or her] fellow members and do nothing that harms the work of 
others and, thus, the common cause; and respect the agreements 
that have been made - except when wishing sincerely to leave the 
association when emerging differences of opinion or changed 
circumstances or conflict over preferred methods make co-operation 
impossible or inappropriate."</i> [Malatesta, <b>The Anarchist 
Revolution</b>, pp. 107-8] For anarchists, collective organisation 
and co-operation does not mean the end of individuality. Bakunin 
expressed it well: 
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"You will think, you will exist, you will act collectively,
which nevertheless will not prevent in the least the full
development of the intellectual and moral faculties of
each individual. Each of you will bring to you his own
talents, and in all joining together you will multiply 
your value a hundred fold. Such is the law of collective
action . . . in giving your hands to each other for this
action in common, you will promise to each other a mutual
fraternity which will be . . . a sort of free contract . . .
Then proceed collectively to action you will necessarily
commence by practising this fraternity between yourselves
. . . by means of regional and local organisations . . .
you will find in yourselves strength that you had never
imagined, if each of you acted individually, according
to his own inclination and not as a consequence of a
unanimous resolution, discussed and accepted beforehand."</i> 
[quoted by K.J. Kenafick, <b>Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx</b>, 
pp. 244-5]
</blockquote></p><p>
So, unlike the essentially (classical) liberal position of Engels,
anarchists recognise that freedom is a product of how we associate.
This need not imply continual agreement nor an unrealistic assumption
that conflict and uncooperative behaviour will disappear. For those 
within an organisation who refuse to co-operate, anarchists argue
that this problem is easily solved. Freedom of association implies 
the freedom <b>not</b> to associate and so those who ignore the 
decisions reached collectively and disrupt the organisation's workings 
would simply be <i>"compelled to leave"</i> the association. In 
this way, a free association <i>"could protect itself without the 
authoritarian organisation we have nowadays."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>The 
Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 152]
</p><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 <i>"the 
principle of authority"</i>) 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." 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.
</p><p>
Ultimately, Engels is simply confusing obedience with agreement, 
coercion with co-operation, organisation with authority, objective
reality with despotism. 
</p><p>
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="secH4.html#sech42">next section</a>). 
Once it is recognised that decisions can be made on the basis of 
co-operation 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 Does free love show the weakness of Engels' argument?</h2></a>

<p> 
Yes! Engels, let us not forget, argued, in effect, that any activities 
which <i>"replace isolated action by combined action of individuals"</i> 
meant <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><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><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><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, she 
<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><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><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. A few Marxists have also seen
this difference. For example, Rosa Luxemburg repeated (probably
unknowingly) Bakunin's distinction between forms of discipline 
and organisation when she argued that:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"We misuse words and we practice self-deception when we apply
the same term - discipline - to such dissimilar notions as:
(1) the absence of thought and will in a body with a thousand
automatically moving hands and legs, and (2) the spontaneous
co-ordination of the conscious, political acts of a body of
men. What is there in common between the regulated docility
of an oppressed class and the self-discipline and organisation
of a class struggling for its emancipation? . . . The working 
class will acquire the sense of the new discipline, the freely 
assumed self-discipline of the social democracy, not as a result 
of the discipline imposed on it by the capitalist state, but 
by extirpating, to the last root, its old habits of obedience 
and servility."</i> [<b>Rosa Luxemburg Speaks</b>, pp. 119-20]
</blockquote></p><p>
</p><p>
Engels is confusing two radically different means of decision 
making by arguing both involve subordination and authority. 
The difference is clear: the first 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. As 
Kropotkin put it:
</p>
<p><blockquote><i>
"This applies to all forms of association. Cohabitation of two individuals 
under the same roof may lead to the enslavement of one by the will of the 
other, as it may also lead to liberty for both. The same applies to the 
family or . . .  to large or small associations, to each social institution
. . .
</p><p>
"Communism is capable of assuming all forms of freedom or of oppression - 
which other institutions are unable to do. It may produce a monastery 
where all implicitly obey the orders of their superior, and it may 
produce an absolutely free organisation, leaving his full freedom to 
the individual, existing only as long as the associates wish to remain 
together, imposing nothing on anybody, being anxious rather to defend, 
enlarge, extend in all directions the liberty of the individual. Communism 
may be authoritarian (in which case the community will soon decay) or it 
may be Anarchist. The State, on the contrary, cannot be this. It is 
authoritarian or it ceases to be the State."</i> [<b>Small Communal 
Experiments and Why They Fail</b>, pp. 12-3]
</p></blockquote>
<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
life.
</p>

<a name="sech43"><h2>H.4.3 How do anarchists propose to run a factory?</h2></a>

<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><p>
This could only be asked if Engels was totally ignorant of Bakunin's 
ideas and his many comments supporting co-operatives as the means by 
which workers would <i>"organise and themselves conduct the economy 
without guardian angels, the state or their former employers."</i> 
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 meant that Bakunin, like all anarchists, was well aware of 
how a factory or other workplace would be organised: 
</p><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><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, 
thought that authority will <i>"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><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>, pp. 30-1] 
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). This did not
necessitate the same authoritarian social relationships as
exist under capitalism:
</p><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'tre</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>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 41-2]
</blockquote></p><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><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 has not been imposed upon them by any external will - 
the individual has been convinced of the need to co-operate 
and does so.
</p><p>
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)? So 
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.
</p>

<a name="sech44"><h2>H.4.4 How does the class struggle refute Engels' arguments?</h2></a>

<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. 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 <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><p>
The best answer to Engels claims can be found in the class struggle. 
Given that Engels was a capitalist (an actual 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><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> It argues, 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> 
The British anarcho-syndicalists of the <b>Direct Action Movement</b>
agreed and even quoted an industrial expert on the situation:
</p><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> [J.A.C. 
Brown, quoted in <b>Direct Action in Industry</b>]
</blockquote></p><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><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 abandons all responsibility 
and hands over to the next man above him 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><p>
The practice of <i>"working to rule"</i> and <i>"working without 
enthusiasm"</i> shows how out of touch Engels (like any capitalist) 
was with the realities of shop floor life. These forms of direct 
action are 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. In contrast, the hierarchical perspective
<i>"ignores essential features of any real, functioning social 
order. This truth is best illustrated in a work-to-rule strike, 
which turns on the fact that any production process depends on 
a host of informal practices and improvisations that could 
never be codified. By merely following the rules meticulously, 
the workforce can virtually halt production."</i> [James C. Scott, 
<b>Seeing like a State</b>, p. 6] As Cornelius Castoriadis argued:
</p><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><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><p>
Needless to say, co-operation and co-ordination are 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 
were run along the lines argued by Engels, it would quickly
grind to halt. So trying to eliminate workers' autonomy is
difficult as <i>"[i]ndustrial history shows"</i> that <i>"such 
management attempts to control the freedom of the work force 
invariably run up against the contradiction that the freedom is 
necessary for quality production."</i> [David Noble, <b>Forces
of Production</b>, p. 277] 
</p><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>, pp. 349-373, <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] There can be no better way to cripple an economy than to
impose Lenin's demand that the task of workers was that of
<i>"unquestioningly obeying the will of the Soviet leader, of the
dictator, <b>during</b> the work."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, 
vol. 27, p. 270]
</p><p>
As the experience of workers' in struggle shows, it is the 
<b>abolition</b> of autonomy which ensures the abolition of 
large-scale industry, not its exercise. 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 our ability to make decisions 
autonomously that keeps industry going.
</p><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.
</p>

<a name="sech45"><h2>H.4.5 Is the way industry operates 
<i>"independent of all social organisation"</i>?</h2></a>

<p>
As noted in the <a href="secH4.html#sech45">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><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 along with technology (which is often 
a weapon in that conflict - see <a href="secD10.html">section D.10</a>). 
As Castoriadis argued:
</p><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><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><p>
So 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><p>
David Noble quotes one shop steward who stated the obvious, namely
that workers are <i>"not automatons. We have eyes to see with, ears 
to hear with, and mouths to talk."</i> As 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. So Engels' notion that machinery 
was "despotic" hides 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 
organisation meant different social relationships to do collective 
tasks. It was precisely to draw attention to this that anarchists 
called themselves anti-authoritarians.
</p><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-wing "libertarian" guru Ludwig von Mises spouted 
this kind of nonsense 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. . . . 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 
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><p>
Needless to say, like Engels, von Mises 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 it. Thus the same workshop can be organised in different ways and so 
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><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><p><blockquote><i>
"I've said it once and I'll say it again: I've been an anarchist my
entire life and the fact that I'm responsible for this human collectivity
won't change my convictions. It was as an anarchist that I agreed to carry
out the task that the Central Committee of the Anti-Fascist Militias 
entrusted me.
</p><p>
"I don't believe - and everything happening around us confirms this -
that you can run a workers' militia according to classic military rules.
I believe that discipline, co-ordination, and planning are indispensable,
but we shouldn't define them in terms taken from the world that we're
destroying. We have to build on new foundations. My comrades and I are
convinced that solidarity is the best incentive for arousing an 
individual's sense of responsibility and a willingness to accept 
discipline as an act of self-discipline.
</p><p>
"War has been imposed upon us . . . but our goal is revolutionary 
victory. This means defeating the enemy, but also a radical change 
in men. For that change to occur, man must learn to live and conduct
himself as a free man, an apprenticeship that develops his personality
and sense of responsibility, his capacity to be master of his own
acts. The workers on the job not only transforms the material on 
which he works, but also transforms himself through that work. The 
combatant is nothing more than a worker whose tool is a rifle -
and he should strive toward the same objective as a worker. One
can't behave like an obedient soldier but rather as a conscious 
man who understands the importance of what he's doing. I know that 
it's not easy to achieve this, but I also know that what can't be
accomplished with reason will not be obtained by force. If we have
to sustain our military apparatus by fear, then we won't have 
changed anything except the colour of the fear. It's only by 
freeing itself from free that society can build itself in freedom."</i> 
[quoted by Abel Paz, <b>Durruti: In The Spanish Revolution</b>, p. 474]
</blockquote></p><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><p>
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 as they clearly
are in the former. Engels is simply playing with words!
</p><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 were not a specific set of relationships
between <b>humans.</b> As Bookchin argued:
</p><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><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] Thus
it is no great leap from the arguments of Engels in <i>"On
Authority"</i> to Lenin's arguments justifying the imposition
of capitalist organisational forms during the Russian Revolution:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Firstly, the question of principle, namely, is the appointment of 
individuals, dictators with unlimited powers, in general compatible 
with the fundamental principles of Soviet government? . . .
concerning the significance of individual dictatorial powers from the 
point of view of the specific tasks of the present moment, it must be 
said that large-scale machine industry - which is precisely the material
source, the productive source, the foundation of socialism - calls for 
absolute and strict unity of will, which directs the joint labours of 
hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of people . . . But how can 
strict unity of will be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will 
to the will of one . . . <b>unquestioning subordination</b> to a single will
is absolutely necessary for the success of processes organised on the 
pattern of large-scale machine industry. On the railways it is twice 
and three times as necessary . . . Today . . .  revolution demands -
precisely in the interests of its development and consolidation, precisely 
in the interests of socialism - that the people <b>unquestioningly obey the
single will</b> of the leaders of labour."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 27,
pp. 267-9]
</blockquote></p><p>
Hence the Bolsheviks need not have 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). 
Nor did they have to worry about putting economic power into the hands
of a state-appointed bureaucracy as "authority" and subordination were 
required to run industry no matter what. 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 under the Bolsheviks. 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><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 the society it is part 
of. An anarchist society would run industry based on the free agreement 
of workers united in free associations. 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></a>

<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>
The problems arise from the awkward fact that Engels' <i>"On Authority"</i> 
had 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> [<b>Marx-Engels 
Reader</b>, p. 731 and p. 730] 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> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 332-3]
</p><p>
Talk about playing with words! Earlier in his work Lenin summarised Engels 
<b>"On Authority"</b> 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 argued 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 argued 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><p>
Similarly, we find Engels arguing in <b>Anti-Duhring</b> that socialism 
<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>  This 
work was written in 1878, six years after <i>"On Authority"</i> where 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. 720, p. 721 and 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 proclaims that socialism will abolish this inescapable 
subjection to the <i>"veritable despotism"</i> of modern industry!
</p><p>
As can be seen from both Engels and Lenin, we have a contradiction within 
Marxism. On the one hand, they argue that authority (<i>"subjection"</i>) will 
always be with us, no matter what, as <i>"subordination"</i> and <i>"authority"</i> 
is independent of the specific social society we live in. On the other, they 
argue that Marxist socialism will be without a state, <i>"without subordination"</i>, 
<i>"without force"</i> and will end the <i>"subjection of men to their own means of 
production."</i> The two positions cannot be reconciled. 
</p><p>
Simply put, if <b>"On Authority"</b> 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><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> 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. 732, p. 731 and p. 723] 
If machinery and industry means despotism, as Engels claimed against Bakunin, 
then what does that mean for Lenin's aim to ensure <i>"the transformation 
of the whole state economic mechanism into a single huge machine . . .  as
to enable hundreds of millions of people to be guided by a single plan?"</i>
[<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 27, pp. 90-1] Surely such an economy would be, 
to use Engels' words, a <i>"a veritable despotism"</i>? 
</p><p>
The only possible solution is reducing the working day to a minimum and so the 
time spent as a slave to the machine (and plan) 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 Is revolution <i>"the most authoritarian thing there is"</i>?</h2></a>

<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><p>
Yet 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 impose their 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 were not divided by classes and so subject to specific 
forms of authoritarian social relationships is liberal 
nonsense. 
</p><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><p>
Malatesta stated the obvious:
</p><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><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><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><p>
"The freedom to oppress, to exploit . . . 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>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 51]
</blockquote></p><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. This explains why, as we discussed
in <a href="secH2.html#sech21">section H.2.1</a> anarchists
have always argued that a revolution would need to defend 
itself against those seeking to return the masses to their
position at the bottom of the social hierarchy. 
</p><p>
To equate the defence of freedom with "authority" is, in anarchist
eyes, an expression of confused politics. Ultimately, Engels is like 
the liberal who equates the violence of the oppressed to end oppression 
with that the oppressors!
</p><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. 
</p><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 committee executes 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><p>
Georges Fontenis summarises anarchist ideas on this subject
when he wrote:
</p><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><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 <i>"imposes its will upon the other"</i> 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>