What do you think?
Rate this book
On Authority
Este eBook foi convertido ao formato digital por uma comunidade de voluntários. Você pode encontra-lo gratuitamente online. A compra da edição Kindle inclui os custos da entrega sem fio.
4 pages, article
First published January 1, 1873
About the author
Friedrich Engels
1,967 books1,647 followersGerman social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on
The Communist Manifesto
in 1848 and on numerous other works.
With the help of Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867-1894).
Friedrich Engels, a philosopher, political, historian, journalist, revolutionary, and also a businessman, closest befriended his lifelong colleague.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedri...
With the help of Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867-1894).
Friedrich Engels, a philosopher, political, historian, journalist, revolutionary, and also a businessman, closest befriended his lifelong colleague.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedri...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 147 reviews
November 18, 2020
Anarkiddies btfo
January 15, 2021
Engels’ argument against the principle idea of anarchy, anti-authoritarianism, in this 4 page tirade begins with a definition of what he believes authority to be. He defines authority as the imposition of the will of one upon another with a presupposing of subordination between the two concerned parties. Implicitly, he asserts that the anarchists oppose authority of all kind by conflating a disdain of authoritarianism and hierarchy with hatred of authority as he defines it.
He then asks the question, could a society ever exist without burdening itself with the notions of authority which plague the current world? Tackling it with characteristic bravery Engels trudges on, trying out a proof by counterexamples, using a cotton spinning mill, a railway and a ship out in the open sea to present his first erroneous conclusion.
When a complex workplace such as a cotton mill with several operations, each dependent on the efficiency of the others, has to decide on the specifics of the minutiae which are essential to the working of the place, the operations, carried out by humans, vie for control, democratically or otherwise and the end result, optimistically, would lead to a compromise which dominates the wish of the individuals who make up the operations, claims Engels. Thus, even in the most democratic manner of deciding things, the will of the majority demonstrates its authority and subordinates the individual, Engels concludes.
Then he presents the picture of a working railway station and wonders what would happen if the ‘authority’ of the railway employees were allowed to trump the ‘authority’ of the passengers. He posits that a single dominant will, may it be of a committee or an individual is a necessary condition for the resolutions of subordinate matters in the interest of the majority.
Finally, he says that a ship out in the high seas depends on a single will, or an ‘authority’, for its safety.
On a cursory glance, his arguments seem airtight, for all his axioms logically lead themselves in support to Engels’ desired belief. If authority is defined so, and the world is notionally this, then authority is natural and anarchists want to dispel authority as a concept which is either impossible or inefficient and therefore the anarchists are wrong.
However, his proof in reality is chock full of mistakes, most of them essential for the deduction of the conclusion. Some of them are as follows,
1) Anarchists do not oppose the kind of ‘authority’ displayed in the first example. A collective making a decision based on a fair and mutual democratic system which is devoid of hierarchy or a centralized power, is not the ‘authority’ that anarchists despise. Bakunin, the person in the forefront of the movement that Engels is addressing, makes that abundantly clear in his writings.
2) Anarchists do not oppose the kind of ‘authority’ displayed in the third example. Anarchists makes a clear distinction between delegating work to an authority of something and being held dominion by authority. A doctor is an authority on medicine. Their suggestions and general advice on illness are in most part to be trusted and we delegate the treatment of our bodies to them in times of poor health. The Bolsheviks held the people they were supposed to represent under their undue and centralized authority. People of their ilk must be opposed. There’s a clear difference between the two kinds which seems to be lost on Engels.
3) The second example presupposes a conflict between the ‘authority’ of the passengers and the ‘authority’ of the workers. Furthermore, it lacks specificity in its claim and reason for a need of a strong hand to put the workers in line.
For his next argument, Engels accuses anarchists of arguing in terms of semantics to advance their causes. He equates delegates of the people to envoys of authority and proclaims that changing names does not alter the truth. But by definition, anarchist delegates differ from autonomous representatives who hold power. Delegates can be recalled at any moment and in many traditions of anarchy are limited in their ability to make decisions without the voice of the majority on their side. Representatives, in most cases, can make decisions with impunity with only the fear of reelection and greater authoritative bodies to hold them back.
His next argument against Anarchism comes in form of the support of the transition state, and also by reflection, an attack on the anarchists belief that there shouldn’t be one. That is a core point of contention between Marxism-Leninism and all forms of Anarchism. A difference in ideology which cannot be explained in a review which is already way too long.
Finally, He says that a revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is,A part of the society forcing its ‘authority’ on another, thus implying that the anti-authoritarian Anarchists are not revolutionaries. Here Engel discards his own definition of authority, the one which requires authority to be defined from a dominant position to a subjugated postion, and just uses it as a synonym for will. How is a subjugated class fighting for its rights for self-determination a perfect demonstration of ‘authority’? Is a man who defends himself out of necessity also imposing his ‘authority’ over the attacker? And even if it was taken to be an abstract version of authority, whose only prerequisite for existence is an imposition of force, how is it related to the hierarchical authority that anarchists oppose?
Engels ends the essay by denouncing anarchists, proclaiming that they are either confused or counter-revolutionaries thus setting the stage for the actions of the Bolsheviks against the Makhnovstsi and the Russian Anarchists.
1\5.
He then asks the question, could a society ever exist without burdening itself with the notions of authority which plague the current world? Tackling it with characteristic bravery Engels trudges on, trying out a proof by counterexamples, using a cotton spinning mill, a railway and a ship out in the open sea to present his first erroneous conclusion.
When a complex workplace such as a cotton mill with several operations, each dependent on the efficiency of the others, has to decide on the specifics of the minutiae which are essential to the working of the place, the operations, carried out by humans, vie for control, democratically or otherwise and the end result, optimistically, would lead to a compromise which dominates the wish of the individuals who make up the operations, claims Engels. Thus, even in the most democratic manner of deciding things, the will of the majority demonstrates its authority and subordinates the individual, Engels concludes.
Then he presents the picture of a working railway station and wonders what would happen if the ‘authority’ of the railway employees were allowed to trump the ‘authority’ of the passengers. He posits that a single dominant will, may it be of a committee or an individual is a necessary condition for the resolutions of subordinate matters in the interest of the majority.
Finally, he says that a ship out in the high seas depends on a single will, or an ‘authority’, for its safety.
On a cursory glance, his arguments seem airtight, for all his axioms logically lead themselves in support to Engels’ desired belief. If authority is defined so, and the world is notionally this, then authority is natural and anarchists want to dispel authority as a concept which is either impossible or inefficient and therefore the anarchists are wrong.
However, his proof in reality is chock full of mistakes, most of them essential for the deduction of the conclusion. Some of them are as follows,
1) Anarchists do not oppose the kind of ‘authority’ displayed in the first example. A collective making a decision based on a fair and mutual democratic system which is devoid of hierarchy or a centralized power, is not the ‘authority’ that anarchists despise. Bakunin, the person in the forefront of the movement that Engels is addressing, makes that abundantly clear in his writings.
2) Anarchists do not oppose the kind of ‘authority’ displayed in the third example. Anarchists makes a clear distinction between delegating work to an authority of something and being held dominion by authority. A doctor is an authority on medicine. Their suggestions and general advice on illness are in most part to be trusted and we delegate the treatment of our bodies to them in times of poor health. The Bolsheviks held the people they were supposed to represent under their undue and centralized authority. People of their ilk must be opposed. There’s a clear difference between the two kinds which seems to be lost on Engels.
3) The second example presupposes a conflict between the ‘authority’ of the passengers and the ‘authority’ of the workers. Furthermore, it lacks specificity in its claim and reason for a need of a strong hand to put the workers in line.
For his next argument, Engels accuses anarchists of arguing in terms of semantics to advance their causes. He equates delegates of the people to envoys of authority and proclaims that changing names does not alter the truth. But by definition, anarchist delegates differ from autonomous representatives who hold power. Delegates can be recalled at any moment and in many traditions of anarchy are limited in their ability to make decisions without the voice of the majority on their side. Representatives, in most cases, can make decisions with impunity with only the fear of reelection and greater authoritative bodies to hold them back.
His next argument against Anarchism comes in form of the support of the transition state, and also by reflection, an attack on the anarchists belief that there shouldn’t be one. That is a core point of contention between Marxism-Leninism and all forms of Anarchism. A difference in ideology which cannot be explained in a review which is already way too long.
Finally, He says that a revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is,A part of the society forcing its ‘authority’ on another, thus implying that the anti-authoritarian Anarchists are not revolutionaries. Here Engel discards his own definition of authority, the one which requires authority to be defined from a dominant position to a subjugated postion, and just uses it as a synonym for will. How is a subjugated class fighting for its rights for self-determination a perfect demonstration of ‘authority’? Is a man who defends himself out of necessity also imposing his ‘authority’ over the attacker? And even if it was taken to be an abstract version of authority, whose only prerequisite for existence is an imposition of force, how is it related to the hierarchical authority that anarchists oppose?
Engels ends the essay by denouncing anarchists, proclaiming that they are either confused or counter-revolutionaries thus setting the stage for the actions of the Bolsheviks against the Makhnovstsi and the Russian Anarchists.
1\5.
January 9, 2021
“Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is.”
September 14, 2019
Engels doesn’t cite any anarchists in here because they don’t think what he says they think.
September 30, 2021
“These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves.”
Fred’s got it
Fred’s got it
September 20, 2021
It's an important essay to read, in a sense that it has been influential and many still find it convincing, so I certainly recommend reading it. However, the argument that it offers is quite pedestrian and not at all convincing to anyone exposed to enough realities of human organization (i.e. anyone over ~30 years old) and much less to anyone who've looked into control theory/application and/or complex systems. Like most Marxist thought (that I've come across so far), it's main aim seems to be persuasion, and _not_ inquiry into reality.
November 7, 2023
[Short update: It's no longer clear to me that Engels is talking about authority here. His definition of the term sounds much more like a particular use of social power rather than what anarchists (and political philosophers in general) consider to be authority (the right to command and be obeyed). If this is correct, then Engels completely misunderstood the nature of authority, anarchism and revolution.]
Engels advances two arguments against anarchism; specifically, the first argument is directed at the coherency of an anarchist mode of social organization, while the second argument is directed at the coherency between anarchist revolutionary practice and its anti-authoritarianism. Both arguments start from the following definition of authority: "the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, [the pressuposition of achieving] subordination".
The first argument is the following: "Everywhere combined action, the complication of processes dependent upon each other, displaces independent action by individuals. But whoever mentions combined action speaks of organisation; now, is it possible to have organisation without authority?"
We can formalize the argument in the following manner:
P1 Authority is the the imposition of the will of one person or group upon another (correlatively, the latter's subordination to that person or group's will);
P2 Every social organization involves co-operation with others;
P3 Co-operation with others involves the imposition of the will of one person or group upon another;
∴1 Every social organization involves the imposition of the will of one person or group upon another; [Hypothetical syllogism from P2 and P3]
∴2 Every social organization involves authority; [From P1, ∴1]
And so the anarchist aim of forming a non-authoritarian form of social organization is incoherent.
We can leave aside the question whether Engels' conception of authority is the same as that of anarchist authors such as Bakunin, Kropotkin or Malatesta (the short answer is "no"), and the question whether Engels is right in thinking that the rejection of all authority is the end of anarchist practice (again, the short answer is "no").
The crucial premise is (p3); Engels gives three examples in support of it: (i) the running of a factory; (ii) the operation of a railway; (iii) the steering of a ship. In all these three cases, a necessary factor for functionality is the imposition of one person or group's will over others, and so the workers must resort to the will of one individual who will dictate them what to do in order to keep funcionality; therefore, authority is necessary for a successful organization.
The problem with his reasoning is obvious: Engels is blindly following a intuition; his whole case rests on his difficulty in conceiving of a non-authoritarian community:, in thinking of "how [...] [the anarchists can] 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). Inconceivability is not, however, impossibility; in fact, anarchists are quick to reply that functionality can be maintained in these cases without imposition by virtue of voluntary association, agreement and collective decisions towards the realization of a common purpose in a self-governing manner (for details, see McKay, 2018, p.121-5). Engels is therefore mistakenly interpreting anarchist social organizations of agreement and free association as organizations of coercion and imposition of will due to his own prejudice. Even if such types of organization have not been achieved, it's still the case that there's no logical correlation between co-organization and subordination: free love and marriage both involve co-organization, but traditional marriage relantionships are based in a relation of domination and subordination, while free love relationships are not necessarily so -- both parties can reach an agreement mutually, equally and reciprocally. If such a distinction is meaningful, then (p3) is false, and the argument fails.
Engels might still reply that, in any case, some of the workers in factories, railways and ships (which have been elected and are recallable by the individuals freely associated in the community through mutual agreement) will have an authority; since anarchism is directed against all authority, this surely seems contradictory to their ends. But Engels is making a very basic mistake: anarchists are not against every kind of authority; in fact, Bakunin explicitly distinguishes between authorities within a certain field (i.e., experts and specialists) from persons in the position of authority. The first is not problematic because it is rational to follow according to their instructions given that they possess the right kind of knowledge that can helpfully guide us in achieving a certain goal, while the second is problematic because it has to do with the illegitimate imposition of hierarchies upon our freedom. Authorities within an anarchist community are of the first kind and therefore legitimate; Engels is arguing against a strawman here.
The second argument is the following: "[Anarchists] demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? 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 which its arms inspire in the reactionists."
We can formalize the argument in the following manner:
P1 Authority is the the imposition of the will of one person or group upon another (correlatively, the latter's subordination to that person or group's will);
P2 Every social revolution involves the imposition of the will of one group upon another;
∴1 Every social revolution involves authority; [From P1, P2]
And so the notion of a social revolution aimed at abolishing authority is incoherent; therefore, the aims of anarchist revolutionary practice are incoherent as well.
The problem with this argument is that Engels is overlooking something: in the context of class-divided societies, it is the ruling class that is imposing its will over the rest of the population (the lower classes); by contrast, when a social revolution occurs, the ruling class is overthrown by these lower classes and the social hierarchy is either destroyed of reconfigurated. In either case, the anarchist is quick to point that Engels is misinterpreting an act of liberation made by the ruling classes to determine by themselves how they should live as an imposition of the will. If imposition of will requires establishing a hierarchical structure, anarchist social revolutions can hardly be said to be authoritarian. Therefore, the second premise is false (the first premise is also an incomplete analysis of social revolution), and the argument is unconvincing. The upshot is that Engels is conflating two different types of violent action here, one made by the oppressed classes and the other made by the ruling classes.
Overall, this is a baffingly bad article. Engels seems to be the engaging with strawmen of anarchist authors throughout the entirety of the text, and his own bias towards authoritarian conceptions of social co-operation blocks him from understading the actual nature of anarchist modes of social organizing. I do not recommend this to anyone interested in the criticism of anarchist thought and practice; it's not even useful in understanding actual anarchist theory and practice.
Engels advances two arguments against anarchism; specifically, the first argument is directed at the coherency of an anarchist mode of social organization, while the second argument is directed at the coherency between anarchist revolutionary practice and its anti-authoritarianism. Both arguments start from the following definition of authority: "the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, [the pressuposition of achieving] subordination".
The first argument is the following: "Everywhere combined action, the complication of processes dependent upon each other, displaces independent action by individuals. But whoever mentions combined action speaks of organisation; now, is it possible to have organisation without authority?"
We can formalize the argument in the following manner:
P1 Authority is the the imposition of the will of one person or group upon another (correlatively, the latter's subordination to that person or group's will);
P2 Every social organization involves co-operation with others;
P3 Co-operation with others involves the imposition of the will of one person or group upon another;
∴1 Every social organization involves the imposition of the will of one person or group upon another; [Hypothetical syllogism from P2 and P3]
∴2 Every social organization involves authority; [From P1, ∴1]
And so the anarchist aim of forming a non-authoritarian form of social organization is incoherent.
We can leave aside the question whether Engels' conception of authority is the same as that of anarchist authors such as Bakunin, Kropotkin or Malatesta (the short answer is "no"), and the question whether Engels is right in thinking that the rejection of all authority is the end of anarchist practice (again, the short answer is "no").
The crucial premise is (p3); Engels gives three examples in support of it: (i) the running of a factory; (ii) the operation of a railway; (iii) the steering of a ship. In all these three cases, a necessary factor for functionality is the imposition of one person or group's will over others, and so the workers must resort to the will of one individual who will dictate them what to do in order to keep funcionality; therefore, authority is necessary for a successful organization.
The problem with his reasoning is obvious: Engels is blindly following a intuition; his whole case rests on his difficulty in conceiving of a non-authoritarian community:, in thinking of "how [...] [the anarchists can] 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). Inconceivability is not, however, impossibility; in fact, anarchists are quick to reply that functionality can be maintained in these cases without imposition by virtue of voluntary association, agreement and collective decisions towards the realization of a common purpose in a self-governing manner (for details, see McKay, 2018, p.121-5). Engels is therefore mistakenly interpreting anarchist social organizations of agreement and free association as organizations of coercion and imposition of will due to his own prejudice. Even if such types of organization have not been achieved, it's still the case that there's no logical correlation between co-organization and subordination: free love and marriage both involve co-organization, but traditional marriage relantionships are based in a relation of domination and subordination, while free love relationships are not necessarily so -- both parties can reach an agreement mutually, equally and reciprocally. If such a distinction is meaningful, then (p3) is false, and the argument fails.
Engels might still reply that, in any case, some of the workers in factories, railways and ships (which have been elected and are recallable by the individuals freely associated in the community through mutual agreement) will have an authority; since anarchism is directed against all authority, this surely seems contradictory to their ends. But Engels is making a very basic mistake: anarchists are not against every kind of authority; in fact, Bakunin explicitly distinguishes between authorities within a certain field (i.e., experts and specialists) from persons in the position of authority. The first is not problematic because it is rational to follow according to their instructions given that they possess the right kind of knowledge that can helpfully guide us in achieving a certain goal, while the second is problematic because it has to do with the illegitimate imposition of hierarchies upon our freedom. Authorities within an anarchist community are of the first kind and therefore legitimate; Engels is arguing against a strawman here.
The second argument is the following: "[Anarchists] demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? 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 which its arms inspire in the reactionists."
We can formalize the argument in the following manner:
P1 Authority is the the imposition of the will of one person or group upon another (correlatively, the latter's subordination to that person or group's will);
P2 Every social revolution involves the imposition of the will of one group upon another;
∴1 Every social revolution involves authority; [From P1, P2]
And so the notion of a social revolution aimed at abolishing authority is incoherent; therefore, the aims of anarchist revolutionary practice are incoherent as well.
The problem with this argument is that Engels is overlooking something: in the context of class-divided societies, it is the ruling class that is imposing its will over the rest of the population (the lower classes); by contrast, when a social revolution occurs, the ruling class is overthrown by these lower classes and the social hierarchy is either destroyed of reconfigurated. In either case, the anarchist is quick to point that Engels is misinterpreting an act of liberation made by the ruling classes to determine by themselves how they should live as an imposition of the will. If imposition of will requires establishing a hierarchical structure, anarchist social revolutions can hardly be said to be authoritarian. Therefore, the second premise is false (the first premise is also an incomplete analysis of social revolution), and the argument is unconvincing. The upshot is that Engels is conflating two different types of violent action here, one made by the oppressed classes and the other made by the ruling classes.
Overall, this is a baffingly bad article. Engels seems to be the engaging with strawmen of anarchist authors throughout the entirety of the text, and his own bias towards authoritarian conceptions of social co-operation blocks him from understading the actual nature of anarchist modes of social organizing. I do not recommend this to anyone interested in the criticism of anarchist thought and practice; it's not even useful in understanding actual anarchist theory and practice.
March 19, 2024
engels is so funny lmao "these gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves."
"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?"
"either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion"
"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?"
"either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion"
May 20, 2025
"Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction."
Engels goes hard.
Engels goes hard.
June 4, 2020
Anarchism is pathetic
August 18, 2022
"¿No han visto nunca una revolución estos señores?".
lol
lol
November 10, 2021
Wealthy factory owner defends authority lol
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 5, 2022
Engels' primary argument is that anarchist theoretical categories obscure more than they clarify. When this argument is presented to anarchists, their refutation amounts to "well, you know what we mean", which isn't actually a defense but rather an admission of the aptness of Engels' diagnosis. The purpose of philosophy is to clarify, to make it so we do not need to "know what someone means" but rather make it so we come to a clearer understanding than we were able to articulate at the beginning of the philosophical process. If a philosophy cannot accomplish this, it is hardly a philosophy capable of being a tool in the work of self-emancipation.
April 4, 2024
Um bom texto sobre um conceito extremamente importante, trazendo até alguns exemplos de como tipos de autoridades que mal percebemos, são tão poderosas para quem detém o poder.
Além disso, Engels levanta uma reflexão muito boa sobre sermos manipulados pela Burguesia com uma autoridade ilusória, que possui um discurso de manipulação em desacreditar a força do povo e em acreditar que a Burguesia, por meio da relação de trabalho, é necessária e precisa existir.
Além disso, Engels levanta uma reflexão muito boa sobre sermos manipulados pela Burguesia com uma autoridade ilusória, que possui um discurso de manipulação em desacreditar a força do povo e em acreditar que a Burguesia, por meio da relação de trabalho, é necessária e precisa existir.
January 20, 2022
There are many terrible socialist texts, but have any of them done nearly so much to undermine socialism as this?
Engels quibbles about the definition of the word "authority", going so far as to say that steam itself is an authoritarian figure. Everything is authoritarian to Engels, and to people who quote this sacred text to dunk on Anarchists, the fact that it fails to actually address the anarchist criticisms of authority is not relevant. "Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?" asks a factory owner who got accounts from the Paris Commune without ever engaging in any revolutionary action of his own.
Throwing off the authority of another is the most anti-authoritarian action there is. Especially when that authority is thrown off without the intent of imposing your will on society. Yet Engels would have us believe that everything from overthrowing slave masters to letting a friend drive when you all agree where you're going is authoritarian.
Yet something tells me that if he were alive to see it, Engels would not have defended Lenin taking power from the Soviets, or killing the sailors at Krondstadt, or any of the actions of "Socialist states".
On Authority is a favourite of people who skip the part of the Communist Manifesto's appendix that says "Section II would be written very differently after the Paris Commune" and don't pay any mind to Marx saying "the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution". But then again, those people probably only ever read that quote in State and Revolution.
It fucking sucks.
Engels quibbles about the definition of the word "authority", going so far as to say that steam itself is an authoritarian figure. Everything is authoritarian to Engels, and to people who quote this sacred text to dunk on Anarchists, the fact that it fails to actually address the anarchist criticisms of authority is not relevant. "Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?" asks a factory owner who got accounts from the Paris Commune without ever engaging in any revolutionary action of his own.
Throwing off the authority of another is the most anti-authoritarian action there is. Especially when that authority is thrown off without the intent of imposing your will on society. Yet Engels would have us believe that everything from overthrowing slave masters to letting a friend drive when you all agree where you're going is authoritarian.
Yet something tells me that if he were alive to see it, Engels would not have defended Lenin taking power from the Soviets, or killing the sailors at Krondstadt, or any of the actions of "Socialist states".
On Authority is a favourite of people who skip the part of the Communist Manifesto's appendix that says "Section II would be written very differently after the Paris Commune" and don't pay any mind to Marx saying "the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution". But then again, those people probably only ever read that quote in State and Revolution.
It fucking sucks.
April 18, 2021
I think he just wants to mock a group of people rather than producing some profound thoughts.
December 12, 2024
He ended anarchism in one paper
February 10, 2026
"What would happen to the first train dispatched if the authority of the railway employees over the Hon. passengers were abolished?...
When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that's true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world. "
keep seething anarkiddies
March 10, 2022
“Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? 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 which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction-“
Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction-“
December 2, 2018
This book reveals one important point but at the same time, I think, should stand as a self-criticism of itself. Important point that this books makes is that Marxists are not against authority and hierarchy. It is often misconception today (Especially in United States public discourse) that Marxists are egalitarian, that they do not respect authority and hierarchy etc. Of course that they are people like that who call themselves Marxists, but to stick that to Marxism can really spread misconception about it for bot supporters and deniers of it. But at the same time, this book should be percieved as self-critical. What Engels did not see is that they are positive and negative authority. He says that hierarchy and authority are neccessery in organizing workplace and so on, but at the same time for him authority is necessery for revolution, that should be used as a revolutionary tool...History showed us that this is not really true and we should keep that in mind. Authority is not noble itself, they are positive and negative aspects of it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 17, 2020
The thesis that anarchism is either clueless or backstabs the left; in either case serving the right.
May 26, 2021
I'm sure this short work will surely be discussed honestly and in good faith by modern day leftists :^)
Read
April 5, 2025he's so wrong on this but has such game
April 4, 2026
Me and all my homies hate anarchism
September 22, 2021
Everyone should read or listen to this at least once. The part which hit me the hardest was that of language. Sadly it's been seen a lot in politics today, people using synonyms assuming that because they've changed the vocabulary in their statement they have also changed the nature of the things being said. It is a sad failing in the education of our society that they aren't held accountable for the meaning behind their words rather than the words themselves, such failings are a result of the deterioration of the English language in our culture. In books, writers today are being instructed to use specific and less descriptive words. Only allowing them to say "said" or "asked" rather than providing descriptive language which evokes emotion such as words like whined, begged, insinuated, or accused. I read one book in which the words "he said," was used at least twenty times in a row, until I had lost track of who was talking, and greatly began losing interest due to the lack of emotion behind the conversation. This book, happened to be in a series which was a best seller. This deterioration in language has been called out in much of literature as a way to prune society of educated individuals. Making it easier to control the thought processes of the masses by creating a loud few who will parrot whatever their informer tells them to without researching the situation for themselves. We see it in Animal Farm, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, in George Orwell's 1984, and it's even touched upon in Mark Twain's The Mysterious Stranger. Such books were meant as a warning. Yet when society allows the deterioration of it's own educational system, and by extension it's language, the warning is inherently lost.
Read
April 11, 2026It's very telling that, in the reviews of this essay (way too short to be counted as a book), the ones associated with higher ratings are overwhelmingly quotes, quips, jibes and other such lowest-common-denominator performances of approval, while detailed analyses, counterarguments and actual effort are the burden taken up by people who have their qualms with the piece. It really says something about the types of people attracted by different political sects, and the mentalities fostered within each...
But to practice what I preach: The main argumentative thrust of this "book" is in my view very effectively both challenged and confirmed by Bakunin's slightly longer "What is Authority?" (written one year before "On Authority", and handily hyperlinked at the bottom of "On Authority" on the Marxists Internet Archive), in which - to oversimplify - the anarchist states some of the same things that Engels does: That some level of authority is made necessary by relations of production, but that this kind of authority - that of the expert or the scientist over someone with less knowledge, for example - is in many cases not comparable to the "slavery" of political authority:
See: The condemnation and suppression of genetic research in the USSR following the ascendancy to authority of a single man's deeply flawed doctrine, which, owing to his authority, could not be freely criticized or challenged with counterevidence...
In this Bakunin differs from Engels. Where Engels, an anti-statist himself (how I wish communists still had it in them to criticize the state so!) decries anti-authoritarians for seeking the abolition of the state "before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed", Bakunin sees these social conditions in the institutionalization of necessary authority and its transformation thereby into privileged and stagnant institutions with no goal but their own perpetuation - a blind spot in Engels's analysis and in the worldviews of all of his successors.
Now, since I have no idea how to conclude this "review" properly, here's my favorite part of "What is Authority?" - a good corrective to the snarky and punchy but ultimately hollow and short-sighted "On Authority":
tl;dr: Sure, authority is sometimes necessary and therefore not intrinsically bad, but authority in the hands of a privileged few is infinitely fallible and must be criticized, challenged and forced to evolve, regardless of class/moral character or level of expertise - which is something most communists just don't seem to get. Also, it's ridiculous to compare a revolt against authority to authority itself.
But to practice what I preach: The main argumentative thrust of this "book" is in my view very effectively both challenged and confirmed by Bakunin's slightly longer "What is Authority?" (written one year before "On Authority", and handily hyperlinked at the bottom of "On Authority" on the Marxists Internet Archive), in which - to oversimplify - the anarchist states some of the same things that Engels does: That some level of authority is made necessary by relations of production, but that this kind of authority - that of the expert or the scientist over someone with less knowledge, for example - is in many cases not comparable to the "slavery" of political authority:
The Liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognised them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatsoever, divine or human, collective or individual.
Suppose a learned academy, composed of the most illustrious representatives of science; suppose this academy charged with legislation for and the organisation of society, and that, inspired only by the purest love of truth, it frames none but the laws but the laws in absolute harmony with the latest discoveries of science. Well, I maintain, for my part, that such legislation and such organisation would be a monstrosity, and that, and that for two reasons: first, that human science is always and necessarily imperfect, and that, comparing what it has discovered with what remains to be discovered, we may say that it is still in its cradle. So that were we to try to force the practical life of men, collective as well as individual, into strict and exclusive conformity with the latest data of science, we should condemn society as well as individuals to suffer martyrdom on a bed of Procrustes, which would soon end by dislocating and stifling them, life ever remaining an infinitely greater thing than science.
The second reason is this: a society which should obey legislation emanating from a scientific academy, not because it understood itself the rational character of this legislation (in which case the existence of the academy would become useless), but because this legislation, emanating from the academy, was imposed in the name of a science which it venerated without comprehending - such a society would be a society, not of men, but of brutes. It would be a second edition of those missions in Paraguay which submitted so long to the government of the Jesuits. It would surely and rapidly descend to the lowest stage of idiocy.
See: The condemnation and suppression of genetic research in the USSR following the ascendancy to authority of a single man's deeply flawed doctrine, which, owing to his authority, could not be freely criticized or challenged with counterevidence...
In this Bakunin differs from Engels. Where Engels, an anti-statist himself (how I wish communists still had it in them to criticize the state so!) decries anti-authoritarians for seeking the abolition of the state "before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed", Bakunin sees these social conditions in the institutionalization of necessary authority and its transformation thereby into privileged and stagnant institutions with no goal but their own perpetuation - a blind spot in Engels's analysis and in the worldviews of all of his successors.
Now, since I have no idea how to conclude this "review" properly, here's my favorite part of "What is Authority?" - a good corrective to the snarky and punchy but ultimately hollow and short-sighted "On Authority":
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others...
I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason. I am conscious of my own inability to grasp, in all its detail, and positive development, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination.
tl;dr: Sure, authority is sometimes necessary and therefore not intrinsically bad, but authority in the hands of a privileged few is infinitely fallible and must be criticized, challenged and forced to evolve, regardless of class/moral character or level of expertise - which is something most communists just don't seem to get. Also, it's ridiculous to compare a revolt against authority to authority itself.
September 19, 2021
Pretty neat read that I’d assume would be common knowledge due to its simplistic and almost self explanatory nature.
The whole point of this piece is that there isn’t just one type of authority. Authority manifests itself in many ways that can be either good or bad depending on how the nature of it.
Engel’s whole thing in this is that anti authoritarians tend to reduce all authority to absolute authority and control by which one forcefully imposes their will upon another. This is an oversimplification of things that ignores the fact that authority is necessary in the structuring of all of society and even revolutionary movements. Without authority, organization becomes overly complicated and difficult, preventing efficient progress in any activity, especially revolutionary movements.
I wouldn’t call this Engel’s best work, but it is pretty decent and simple. It gets to the point and it tackles a common issue within anti capitalist movements at a basic level. It certainly would have been better if it went more in depth and discussed some specifics regarding the issue
The whole point of this piece is that there isn’t just one type of authority. Authority manifests itself in many ways that can be either good or bad depending on how the nature of it.
Engel’s whole thing in this is that anti authoritarians tend to reduce all authority to absolute authority and control by which one forcefully imposes their will upon another. This is an oversimplification of things that ignores the fact that authority is necessary in the structuring of all of society and even revolutionary movements. Without authority, organization becomes overly complicated and difficult, preventing efficient progress in any activity, especially revolutionary movements.
I wouldn’t call this Engel’s best work, but it is pretty decent and simple. It gets to the point and it tackles a common issue within anti capitalist movements at a basic level. It certainly would have been better if it went more in depth and discussed some specifics regarding the issue
July 19, 2021
huh, a one-page pdf, pretty sure a can hack that.
the ever-quoted "am no a tankie, read this you child" text is not quite the dunk people think it is. feels like some of his was directly refuted in conquest of bread, ie stuff on mutual agreement with trains. a lot of the argument rests on "All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution", and idk about yous but i wasnt aware that the ussr ever withered away in the sound marxist sense.
"These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves" is solid patter, great memeable content, but it's not really turned me into an immediate statist. anarchism, at least as an organising principle, still seems like a more direct way of getting people involved than some big anti-idpol tankie circlewank.
the ever-quoted "am no a tankie, read this you child" text is not quite the dunk people think it is. feels like some of his was directly refuted in conquest of bread, ie stuff on mutual agreement with trains. a lot of the argument rests on "All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution", and idk about yous but i wasnt aware that the ussr ever withered away in the sound marxist sense.
"These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves" is solid patter, great memeable content, but it's not really turned me into an immediate statist. anarchism, at least as an organising principle, still seems like a more direct way of getting people involved than some big anti-idpol tankie circlewank.
December 4, 2021
It has been an influential text within Marxist theory, but to me, Engels's arguments are flawed and ridden with holes. I'm not an anarchist but Engels clearly seems to be straw-manning the anarchist (or anti-authoritarian) position on authority here.
I agree with him the state cannot be abolished immediately as the result of the revolution, this is where I fall into the Marxist camp rather than the anarchist one. I also agree that revolutions involve subjugation and violence. But it must be kept in mind that anarchists are not opposed to revolutionary violence either. Their problem is with centralized hierarchies which stifle democratic participation, something Engels never seems to engage with in this text.
I agree with him the state cannot be abolished immediately as the result of the revolution, this is where I fall into the Marxist camp rather than the anarchist one. I also agree that revolutions involve subjugation and violence. But it must be kept in mind that anarchists are not opposed to revolutionary violence either. Their problem is with centralized hierarchies which stifle democratic participation, something Engels never seems to engage with in this text.
July 15, 2025
this might be the worst work in the entirety of political theory.
Friedrich Engels doesn't argue against anti-authoritarianism, instead he makes up his own concept of what "authority" is, which is an all-present concept that is LITERALLY useless. a concept of authority which is present in EVERYTHING doesn't mean anything, it certainly isn't the authority that Bakunin, and other anarchists of Engels' time, critiqued.
this essay perfectly displays Friedrich Engels as a bourgeois factory owner imposing counterrevolutionary, bourgeois notions of authority as a "necessary", which in turn makes it impossible to actually have a conversation about power structures. this is EXACTLY what the ruling classes have always done by the way, so good job Engels for siding against the workers.
Friedrich Engels doesn't argue against anti-authoritarianism, instead he makes up his own concept of what "authority" is, which is an all-present concept that is LITERALLY useless. a concept of authority which is present in EVERYTHING doesn't mean anything, it certainly isn't the authority that Bakunin, and other anarchists of Engels' time, critiqued.
this essay perfectly displays Friedrich Engels as a bourgeois factory owner imposing counterrevolutionary, bourgeois notions of authority as a "necessary", which in turn makes it impossible to actually have a conversation about power structures. this is EXACTLY what the ruling classes have always done by the way, so good job Engels for siding against the workers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 147 reviews