             H.4 Didn't Engels refute anarchism in "On Authority"?

   No, far from it. Engels (in)famous essay "On Authority" 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.

   For Engels, all forms of group activity meant the subjection of the
   individuals that make it up. As he put it, "whoever mentions combined
   action speaks of organisation" and so it is not possible "to have
   organisation without authority," as authority means "the imposition of
   the will of another upon ours . . . authority presupposes
   subordination." [Marx-Engels Reader, 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.

   The first fallacy in Engels account is that anarchists, as we indicated
   in [1]section B.1, do not oppose all forms of authority. Bakunin was
   extremely clear on this issue and differentiated between types of
   authority, of which he opposed only certain kinds. For example, he
   asked the question "[d]oes it follow that I reject all authority?" and
   answered quite clearly: "No, far be it from me to entertain such a
   thought." He acknowledged the difference between being an authority -
   an expert - and being in authority. This meant that "[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." Similarly, he argued that anarchists "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." He stressed that
   the "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." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p.
   253, p. 241 and p. 255]

   Bakunin contrasted this position with the Marxist one, whom he argued
   were "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." In other words, a system based on delegated power and so
   hierarchical authority. This excludes the masses from governing
   themselves (as in the state) and this, in turn, "means domination, and
   any domination presupposes the subjugation of the masses and,
   consequently, their exploitation for the benefit of some ruling
   minority." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 277]

   So while Bakunin and other anarchists, on occasion, did argue that
   anarchists reject "all authority" they, as Carole Pateman correctly
   notes, "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."
   [The Problem of Political Obligation, p. 141] This can be seen when
   Bakunin noted that "the principle of authority" was the "eminently
   theological, metaphysical and political idea that the masses, always
   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." [Marxism, Freedom and the State, p. 33]
   Clearly, by the term "principle of authority" Bakunin meant hierarchy
   rather than organisation and the need to make agreements (what is now
   called self-management).

   Bakunin, clearly, did not oppose all authority but rather a specific
   kind of authority, namely hierarchical authority. This kind of
   authority placed power into the hands of a few. For example, wage
   labour produced this kind of authority, with a "meeting . . . between
   master and slave . . . the worker sells his person and his liberty for
   a given time." The state is also based hierarchical authority, with
   "those who govern" (i.e. "those who frame the laws of the country as
   well as those who exercise the executive power") being in an
   "exceptional position diametrically opposed to . . . popular
   aspirations" towards liberty. They end up "viewing society from the
   high position in which they find themselves" and so "[w]hoever says
   political power says domination" over "a more or less considerable
   section of the population." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p.
   187 and p. 218]

   Thus hierarchical authority is top-down, centralised and imposed. It is
   this kind of authority Bakunin had in mind when he argued that
   anarchists "are in fact enemies of all authority" and it will "corrupt
   those who exercise [it] as much as those who are compelled to submit to
   [it]." [Op. Cit., 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 "natural authority" based on
   the masses "governing themselves." 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:

     "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." [Op. Cit., pp. 353-4]

   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:

     "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 . . .

     "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.

     "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."
     [Bakunin on Anarchism, pp. 414-5]

   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
   "diffused" 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.

   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:

     "The basic error . . . is in believing that organisation is not
     possible without authority.

     "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."
     [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, pp. 84-5]

   Therefore, organisation is "only the practice of co-operation and
   solidarity" and is a "natural and necessary condition of social life."
   [Malatesta, Op. Cit., 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: "Co-ordination is dutifully
   confused with command, organisation with hierarchy, agreement with
   domination - indeed, 'imperious' domination." [Murray Bookchin, Towards
   an Ecological Society, pp. 126-7]

   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:

     "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." [Memoirs of a Revolutionist, p.
     202]

   Clearly, then, Engels did not refute anarchism by his essay. Rather, he
   refuted a straw man of his own creation. The question was never one of
   whether certain tasks need co-operation, co-ordination, joint activity
   and agreement. It was, in fact, a question of how 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.

   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.

H.4.1 Does organisation imply the end of liberty?

   Engels argument in "On Authority" 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 "the will of a single individual will always have to subordinate
   itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian
   way." [Op. Cit., p. 731]

   Engels argument proves too much. As every form of joint activity
   involves agreement and "subordination," then life itself becomes
   "authoritarian." The only free person, according to Engels' logic,
   would be the hermit. Anarchists reject such nonsense. As George Barrett
   argued:

     "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.

     "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.

     "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."
     [Objections to Anarchism, pp. 348-9]

   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!

   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, not by isolation. As Bakunin argued,
   "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". [Michael
   Bakunin: Selected Writings, 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, not 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 "is
   not an absolute metaphysical, abstract freedom" but "a real freedom,
   possible freedom, which is the conscious community of interests,
   voluntary solidarity." [Anarchy, p. 43]

   To state the obvious, anarchists are well aware that "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."
   [Malatesta, The Anarchist Revolution, pp. 107-8] For anarchists,
   collective organisation and co-operation does not mean the end of
   individuality. Bakunin expressed it well:

     "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." [quoted by K.J.
     Kenafick, Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx, pp. 244-5]

   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 not to associate and so those who ignore the decisions reached
   collectively and disrupt the organisation's workings would simply be
   "compelled to leave" the association. In this way, a free association
   "could protect itself without the authoritarian organisation we have
   nowadays." [Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 152]

   Clearly, Engels "critique" hides more than it explains. Yes,
   co-operation and coercion both involve people working jointly together,
   but they are not 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." 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 type
   of organisation in question and that, in turn, specifies the social
   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.

   Ultimately, Engels is simply confusing obedience with agreement,
   coercion with co-operation, organisation with authority, objective
   reality with despotism.

   Rather than seeing organisation as restricting freedom, anarchists
   argue that the kind 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 [2]next section). 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.

H.4.2 Does free love show the weakness of Engels' argument?

   Yes! Engels, let us not forget, argued, in effect, that any activities
   which "replace isolated action by combined action of individuals" meant
   "the imposition of the will of another upon ours" and so "the will of
   the single individual will have to subordinate itself, which means that
   questions are settled in an authoritarian manner." This, for Engels,
   means that "authority" has not "disappeared" under anarchism but rather
   it has only "changed its form." [Op. Cit., pp. 730-1]

   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 "principle of authority." 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.

   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 "authoritarian"?

   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, "[u]ntil late into the nineteenth
   century the legal and civil position of a wife resembled that of a
   slave" and, in theory, she "became the property of her husband and
   stood to him as a slave/servant to a master." [The Sexual Contract, 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.

   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.

   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:

     "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." [Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, pp.
     119-20]

   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:

     "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 . . .

     "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."
     [Small Communal Experiments and Why They Fail, pp. 12-3]

   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 how 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 way 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.

H.4.3 How do anarchists propose to run a factory?

   In his campaign against anti-authoritarian ideas within the First
   International, Engels asks in a letter written in January 1872 "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"? [The Marx-Engels Reader, p. 729]

   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 "organise and themselves conduct the economy
   without guardian angels, the state or their former employers." Bakunin
   was "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." [Bakunin on Anarchism, 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:

     "Only associated labour, that is, labour organised upon the
     principles of reciprocity and co-operation, is adequate to the task
     of maintaining . . . civilised society." [The Political Philosophy
     of Bakunin, p. 341]

   By October of that year, Engels had finally "submitted arguments like
   these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians" who replied to run a
   factory, railway or ship did require organisation "but here it was not
   a case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a
   commission entrusted!" Engels commented that the anarchists "think that
   when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things
   themselves." He, therefore, thought that authority will "only have
   changed its form" rather than being abolished under anarchism as
   "whoever mentions combined action speaks of organisation" and it is not
   possible "to have organisation without authority." [Op. Cit., p. 732
   and p. 731]

   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, "the advantages
   which association and the consequent division of labour offer" meant
   that humanity "developed towards solidarity." However, under class
   society "the advantages of association, the good that Man could drive
   from the support of his fellows" was distorted and a few gained "the
   advantages of co-operation by subjecting other men to [their] will
   instead of joining with them." This oppression "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." [Anarchy, 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:

     "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 raison d'tre
     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." [Op. Cit., pp. 41-2]

   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.

   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.

   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 how 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.

H.4.4 How does the class struggle refute Engels' arguments?

   Engels argued that large-scale industry (or, indeed, any form of
   organisation) meant that "authority" was required. He stated that
   factories should have "Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate"
   ("Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy behind") 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 "forces of nature" meant "a veritable
   despotism independent of all social organisation." This meant that
   "[w]anting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount
   to wanting to abolish industry itself." [Op. Cit., p. 731]

   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 "working to rule" when
   practised by workers. This basically involves doing exactly 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.

   This weapon has long been used by workers and advocated by anarchists,
   syndicalists and wobblies. For example, the IWW booklet How to fire
   your boss argues that "[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." It
   argues, correctly, that "if each of these rules and regulations were
   followed to the letter" then "[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.'" The British anarcho-syndicalists of the Direct Action Movement
   agreed and even quoted an industrial expert on the situation:

     "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." [J.A.C. Brown, quoted in Direct Action in
     Industry]

   Another weapon of workers' resistance is what has been called "Working
   without enthusiasm" and is related to the "work to rule." This tactic
   aims at "slowing production" in order to win gains from management:

     "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." [Pierre
     Dubois, Sabotage in Industry, p. 51]

   The practice of "working to rule" and "working without enthusiasm"
   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 because 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 "imperious"
   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
   "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." [James C. Scott, Seeing like a State, p. 6] As Cornelius
   Castoriadis argued:

     "Resistance to exploitation expresses itself in a drop in
     productivity as well as exertion on the workers' part . . . At the
     same time it is expressed in the disappearance of the minimum
     collective and spontaneous management and organisation 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.

     "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."
     [Political and Social Writings, vol. 2, p. 68]

   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]ndustrial history
   shows" that "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." [David Noble, Forces of
   Production, p. 277]

   Ironically, the example of Russia under Lenin and Trotsky reinforces
   this fact. "Administrative centralisation" was enforced on the railway
   workers which, in turn, "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." [William G.
   Rosenberg, "The Social Background to Tsektran", pp. 349-373, Party,
   State, and Society in the Russian Civil War, 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 "militarisation of labour"
   in September 1920, there was a "disastrous collapse of the railway
   network in the winter of 1920-1." [Jonathan Aves, Workers against
   Lenin, 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
   "unquestioningly obeying the will of the Soviet leader, of the
   dictator, during the work." [Collected Works, vol. 27, p. 270]

   As the experience of workers' in struggle shows, it is the abolition of
   autonomy which ensures the abolition of large-scale industry, not its
   exercise. The conscious decision by workers to not 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.

   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.

H.4.5 Is the way industry operates "independent of all social organisation"?

   As noted in the [3]last section, Engels argued that applying the
   "forces of nature" meant "a veritable despotism independent of all
   social organisation." This meant that "[w]anting to abolish authority
   in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry
   itself." [Op. Cit., p. 731]

   For anarchists, Engels' comments ignore the reality of class society in
   an important way. Modern ("large-scale") 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
   [4]section D.10). As Castoriadis argued:

     "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 class organisation.
     Technology is predominantly class technology. 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.

     "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."
     [The Meaning of Socialism, pp. 9-10]

   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 "veritable despotism independent of all
   social organisation." 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.

   David Noble quotes one shop steward who stated the obvious, namely that
   workers are "not automatons. We have eyes to see with, ears to hear
   with, and mouths to talk." As Noble comments, "[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." [Forces of Production, 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.

   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 "[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." [Human Action, 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 but the
   person with authority who is actually giving the orders and punishing
   those who do not obey!

   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 is 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.

   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:

     "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.

     "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.

     "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."
     [quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti: In The Spanish Revolution, p. 474]

   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 "automatic machinery
   of a big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalist who
   employ workers ever have been." [Op. Cit., p. 731] Authority and
   liberty become detached from human beings, as if authoritarian social
   relationships can exist independently of individuals! It is a social
   relationship anarchists oppose, not an abstraction.

   Engels' argument is applicable to any society and to any 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 not subject
   to the despotism of other human beings as they clearly are in the
   former. Engels is simply playing with words!

   The fallacy of Engels' basic argument can be seen from this simple
   example. He essentially uses a liberal 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 humans. As Bookchin argued:

     "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." [Towards an
     Ecological Society, p. 206]

   Given this, it can be argued that Engels' "On Authority" 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 "principle of authority,"
   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:
   "Obviously, the factory conceived of as a 'realm of necessity' [as
   opposed to a 'realm of freedom'] requires no need for self-management."
   [Op. Cit., p. 126] Thus it is no great leap from the arguments of
   Engels in "On Authority" to Lenin's arguments justifying the imposition
   of capitalist organisational forms during the Russian Revolution:

     "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 .
     . . unquestioning subordination 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 unquestioningly obey
     the single will of the leaders of labour." [Collected Works, vol.
     27, pp. 267-9]

   Hence the Bolsheviks need not have to consider whether replacing
   factory committees with appointed managers armed with "dictatorial
   powers" 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.

   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 is 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.

H.4.6 Why does Engels' "On Authority" harm Marxism?

   Ironically, Engels' essay "On Authority" 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 "ultimate
   political aim is to overcome the whole state and therefore democracy as
   well." [quoted by Lenin, "State and Revolution", Essential Works of
   Lenin, p. 331] Lenin argued that "the abolition of the state means also
   the abolition of democracy." [Op. Cit., p. 332]

   The problems arise from the awkward fact that Engels' "On Authority"
   had stated that any form of collective activity meant "authority" and
   so the subjection of the minority to the majority ("if possible") and
   "the imposition of the will of another upon ours." [Marx-Engels Reader,
   p. 731 and p. 730] Aware of the contradiction, Lenin stresses that
   "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." That was not the case, however. He simply
   rejected the idea that democracy was "the recognition of this
   principle" arguing that "democracy is a state which recognises the
   subordination of the minority to the majority, i.e. an organisation for
   the systematic use of violence by one class against the other, by one
   section of the population against another." He argued that "the need
   for violence against people in general, the need for the subjection of
   one man to another, will vanish, since people will become accustomed to
   observing the elementary conditions of social life without force and
   without subordination." [Op. Cit., pp. 332-3]

   Talk about playing with words! Earlier in his work Lenin summarised
   Engels "On Authority" by stating that "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." [Op. Cit.,
   p. 316] Now, however, he argued that communism would involve no
   "subordination" while, at the same time, be based on the "the principle
   of the subordination of the minority to the majority"! A contradiction?
   Perhaps no, as he argued that the minority would "become accustomed" to
   the conditions of "social life" - 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.

   Similarly, we find Engels arguing in Anti-Duhring that socialism "puts
   an end to the former subjection of men to their own means of
   production" and that "productive labour, instead of being a means of
   subjugating men, will become a means of their emancipation." This work
   was written in 1878, six years after "On Authority" where he stressed
   that "the automatic machinery of a big factory is much more despotic
   than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been" and
   "subdu[ing] the forces of nature . . . avenge themselves" upon "man" by
   "subjecting him . . . to a veritable despotism independent of all
   social organisation." [Op. Cit., p. 720, p. 721 and p. 731] Engels is
   clearly contradicting himself. When attacking the anarchists, he argues
   that the "subjection" of people to the means of production was
   inevitable and utterly "independent of all social organisation." Six
   years later he proclaims that socialism will abolish this inescapable
   subjection to the "veritable despotism" of modern industry!

   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.

   Simply put, if "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.

   Even worse for Marxism is Engels' comment that authority and autonomy
   "are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of
   society" and that "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." Given that this is "a veritable despotism" and Marxism
   aims at "one single vast plan" in modern industry, then the scope for
   autonomy, for freedom, is continually reduced during the working day.
   [Op. Cit., 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 "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?"
   [Collected Works, vol. 27, pp. 90-1] Surely such an economy would be,
   to use Engels' words, a "a veritable despotism"?

   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.

H.4.7 Is revolution "the most authoritarian thing there is"?

   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 "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."
   [Marx-Engels Reader, p. 733]

   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 "one part of the population" on
   another. Very true - but Engels fails to indicate the nature of class
   society and, therefore, of a social revolution. In a class society "one
   part of the population" constantly "imposes its will upon the other
   part" - 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.

   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
   liberation 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 "one part of
   population imposes its will upon the other" everyday.

   Malatesta stated the obvious:

     "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.

     "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.

     "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 . . .

     "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."
     [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 51]

   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 "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."
   [Op. Cit., p. 59] As such, Engels fails to understand the revolution
   from a working class 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 [5]section H.2.1 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.

   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!

   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.

   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, power 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.

   Georges Fontenis summarises anarchist ideas on this subject when he
   wrote:

     "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."
     [Manifesto of Libertarian Communism, p. 24]

   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.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB1.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH4.html#sech42
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH4.html#sech45
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD10.html
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech21
