« back to all changes in this revision
Viewing changes to secH4.html
- browse files at revision 5
- compare with another revision
- download diff
- download tarball
- view history from revision 5
- Committer: Bazaar Package Importer
- Author(s): Mauro Lizaur
- Date: 2010-08-15 20:50:06 UTC
- mfrom: (1.2.3 upstream)
- Revision ID: james.westby@ubuntu.com-20100815205006-g6n34el0anfxdjcv
Tags: 13.4-1
* New upstream release. (Closes: #441622)
* New maintainer upload (In an agreement with Ed Boraas).
* Switch to DebSrc3.0 (quilt) format.
* Marking dead links with a line-through with CSS plus
a possible mirror at archive.org (Closes: #292386)
* New maintainer upload (In an agreement with Ed Boraas).
* Switch to DebSrc3.0 (quilt) format.
* Marking dead links with a line-through with CSS plus
a possible mirror at archive.org (Closes: #292386)
- files added:
- .pc
- .pc/clean-links-html.patches
- .pc/clean-links-html.patches/html
- .pc/clean-links-txt.patches
- .pc/clean-links-txt.patches/txt
- debian/patches
- debian/source
- html
- txt
- files removed:
- 10years.html
- files modified:
- debian/README.Debian
added
removed
secH4.html
1
<html>
2
<head>
3
<title>H.4 Didn't Engels refute anarchism in
4
his essay "On Authority"?</title>
5
</head>
6
<H1>H.4 Didn't Engels refute anarchism in
7
his essay "On Authority"?</H1>
8
<p>
9
No, far from it. Engels (in)famous essay <i>"On Authority"</i> is
10
often pointed to by Marxists of various schools as refuting
11
anarchism. Indeed, it is often considered the essential
12
Marxist work for this and is often trotted out (pun intended)
13
when anarchist influence is on the rise. However this is not
14
the case. In fact, his essay is both politically flawed and
15
misrepresentative of his foes opinions. As such, anarchists
16
do not think that Engels refuted anarchism in his essay.
17
Indeed, rather than refute anarchism, Engels' essay just
18
shows his ignorance of the ideas he was critiquing. This
19
ignorance essentially rests on the fact that the whole
20
concept of authority was defined and understood differently
21
by Bakunin and Engels meant that the latter's critique was
22
flawed. While Engels may have thought that they both were
23
speaking of the same thing, in fact they were not.
24
<p>
25
For Engels, all forms of group activity meant the subjection
26
of the individuals that make it up. As he puts it, <i>"whoever
27
mentions combined action speaks of organisation"</i> and so it
28
is not possible <i>"to have organisation without authority,"</i>
29
as authority means <i>"the imposition of the will of another
30
upon ours . . . authority presupposes subordination."</i>
31
[<b>Marx-Engels Reader</b>, p. 731 and p. 730] As such, he
32
considers the ideas of Bakunin to fly in the face of
33
common sense and so show that he does not know what he
34
is talking about. However, it is Engels who shows that
35
he does not know what he is talking about.
36
<p>
37
The first fallacy in Engels account is that anarchists, as
38
we indicated in <a href="secB1.html">section B.1</a>, do
39
not oppose all forms of authority. Bakunin was extremely
40
clear on this issue and differentiated between <b>types</b> of
41
authority, of which only certain kinds did he oppose. For
42
example, he asked the question <i>"[d]oes it follow that I
43
reject all authority?"</i> and answered quite clearly:
44
<i>"No, far be it from me to entertain such a thought."</i> He
45
acknowledged the difference between being <b>an</b> authority
46
This meant that <i>"[i]f I bow before the authority of the
47
specialists and declare myself ready to follow, to a
48
certain extent and so long as it may seem to me to be
49
necessary, their general indications and even their
50
directions, it is because their authority is imposed
51
upon me by no one . . . I bow before the authority of
52
specialists because it is imposed upon me by my own
53
reason."</i> [<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 253]
54
<p>
55
Similarly, he argued that anarchists <i>"recognise all natural
56
authority, and all influence of fact upon us, but none of
57
right; for all authority and all influence of right,
58
officially imposed upon us, immediately becomes a falsehood
59
and an oppression."</i> He stressed that the <i>"only great and
60
omnipotent authority, at once natural and rational, the
61
only one we respect, will be that of the collective and
62
public spirit of a society founded on equality and
63
solidarity and the mutual respect of all its members."</i>
64
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 241 and p. 255]
65
<p>
66
So while Bakunin and other anarchists, on occasion, <b>did</b>
67
argue that anarchists reject <i>"all authority"</i> they, as Carole
68
Pateman correctly notes, <i>"tended to treat 'authority' as a
69
synonym for 'authoritarian,' and so have identified 'authority'
70
with hierarchical power structures, especially those of the
71
state. Nevertheless, their practical proposals and some of
72
their theoretical discussions present a different picture."</i>
73
[<b>The Problem of Political Obligation</b>, p. 141] This can
74
be seen when Bakunin noted that <i>"the principle of <b>authority</b>"</i>
75
was the <i>"eminently theological, metaphysical and political
76
idea that the masses, <b>always</b> incapable of governing
77
themselves, must submit at all times to the benevolent
78
yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which in one way or another,
79
is imposed from above."</i> [<b>Marxism, Freedom and the State</b>,
80
p. 33] Clearly, by the term <i>"principle of authority"</i> Bakunin
81
meant <b>hierarchy</b> rather than organisation and the need
82
to make agreements (what is now called self-management).
83
<p>
84
Therefore Bakunin did not oppose <b>all</b> authority but rather
85
a specific kind of authority, namely <b>hierarchical</b> authority.
86
This kind of authority placed power into the hands of a few.
87
For example, wage labour produced this kind of authority,
88
with a <i>"meeting . . . between master and slave . . . the
89
worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time."</i>
90
[<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 187] The state
91
is also based hierarchical authority, with <i>"those who
92
govern"</i> (i.e. <i>"those who frame the laws of the country as
93
well as those who exercise the executive power"</i>) are in an
94
<i>"exceptional position diametrically opposed to . . . popular
95
aspirations"</i> towards liberty. They end up <i>"viewing society
96
from the high position in which they find themselves"</i> and
97
so <i>"[w]hoever says political power says domination"</i> over
98
<i>"a more or less considerable section of the population."</i>
99
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 218]
100
<p>
101
Thus hierarchical authority is top-down, centralised and
102
imposed. It is <b>this</b> kind of authority Bakunin had in mind
103
when he argued that anarchists <i>"are in fact enemies of all
104
authority"</i> and it will <i>"corrupt those who exercise [it]
105
as much as those who are compelled to submit to [it]."</i>
106
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 249] In other words, "authority" was used
107
as shorthand for "hierarchy" (or "hierarchical authority"),
108
the imposition of decisions rather than agreement to abide
109
by the collective decisions you make with others when you
110
freely associate with them. In place of this kind of authority,
111
Bakunin proposed a <i>"natural authority"</i> based on the masses
112
<i>"governing themselves."</i> He did not object to the need for
113
individuals associating themselves into groups and
114
managing their own affairs, rather he opposed the idea
115
that co-operation necessitated hierarchy:
116
<p><blockquote><i>
117
"Hence there results, for science as well as for industry,
118
the necessity of division and association of labour. I
119
take and I give -- such is human life. Each is an
120
authoritative leader and in turn is led by others.
121
Accordingly there is no fixed and constant authority, but
122
continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all,
123
voluntary authority and subordination."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 353-4]
124
</blockquote><p>
125
This kind of free association would be the expression of
126
liberty rather than (as in hierarchical structures) its
127
denial. Anarchists reject the idea of giving a minority
128
(a government) the power to make our decisions for us.
129
Rather, power should rest in the hands of all, not
130
concentrated in the hands of a few. Anarchism is based
131
on rejecting what Bakunin called <i>"the authoritarian
132
conception of discipline"</i> which <i>"always signifies
133
despotism on the one hand and blind automatic
134
submission to authority on the other."</i> In an anarchist
135
organisation <i>"hierarchic order and advancement do not
136
exist"</i> and there would be <i>"voluntary and thoughtful
137
discipline"</i> for <i>"collective work or action."</i>
138
This would be a new kind of discipline, one which is
139
<i>"voluntary and intelligently understood"</i> and
140
<i>"necessary whenever a greater number of individuals
141
undertake any kind of collective work or action."</i>
142
This is <i>"simply the voluntary and considered
143
co-ordination of all individual efforts for a
144
common purpose . . In such a system, power, properly
145
speaking, no longer exists. Power is diffused to the
146
collectivity and becomes the true expression of the
147
liberty of everyone, the faithful and sincere
148
realisation of the will of all . . . this is the
149
only true discipline, the discipline necessary for
150
the organisation of freedom."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 259-60]
151
<p>
152
Clearly Engels misunderstands the anarchist conception
153
of liberty. Rather than seeing it as essentially negative,
154
anarchists argue that liberty is expressed in two different,
155
but integrated, ways. Firstly, there is rebellion, the
156
expression of autonomy in the face of authority. This is
157
the negative aspect of it. Secondly, there is association,
158
the expression of autonomy by working with equals. This is
159
the positive aspect of it. As such, Engels concentrates on
160
the negative aspect of anarchist ideas, ignoring the positive,
161
and so paints a false picture of anarchism. Freedom, as
162
Bakunin argued, is a product of connection, not of isolation.
163
How a group organises itself determines whether it is
164
authoritarian or libertarian. If the individuals who take
165
part in a group manage the affairs of that group (including
166
what kinds of decisions can be delegated) then that group is
167
based on liberty. If that power is left to a few individuals
168
(whether elected or not) then that group is structured in an
169
authoritarian manner. This can be seen from Bakunin's
170
argument that power must be <i>"diffused"</i> into the collective
171
in an anarchist society. Clearly, anarchists do not
172
reject the need for organisation nor the need to make
173
and abide by collective decisions. Rather, the question
174
is how these decisions are to be made -- are they to be
175
made from below, by those affected by them, or from above,
176
imposed by a few people in authority.
177
<p>
178
Only a sophist would confuse hierarchical power with the
179
power of people managing their own affairs. It is an
180
improper use of words to denote equally as "authority"
181
two such opposed concepts as individuals subjected to
182
the autocratic power of a boss and the voluntary
183
co-operation of conscious individuals working together
184
as equals. The lifeless obedience of a governed mass
185
cannot be compared to the organised co-operation of
186
free individuals, yet this is what Engels does. The
187
former is marked by hierarchical power and the turning
188
of the subjected into automations performing mechanical
189
movements without will and thought. The latter is
190
marked by participation, discussion and agreement.
191
Both are, of course, based on co-operation but to
192
argue that latter restricts liberty as much as the
193
former simply confuses co-operation with coercion.
194
It also indicates a distinctly liberal conception
195
of liberty, seeing it restricted by association with
196
others rather than seeing association as an expression
197
of liberty. As Malatesta argued:
198
<p><blockquote><i>
199
"The basic error . . . is in believing that organisation
200
is not possible without authority.
201
<p>
202
"Now, it seems to us that organisation, that is to say,
203
association for a specific purpose and with the structure
204
and means required to attain it, is a necessary aspect of
205
social life. A man in isolation cannot even live the life
206
of a beast . . . Having therefore to join with other
207
humans . . . he must submit to the will of others (be
208
enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority)
209
or live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests
210
of the greatest good of all (be an associate). Nobody can
211
escape from this necessity."</i> [<b>Life and Ideas</b>, pp. 84-5]
212
</blockquote><p>
213
Therefore, organisation is <i>"only the practice of co-operation
214
and solidarity"</i> and is a <i>"natural and necessary condition
215
of social life."</i> [Malatesta, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 83] Clearly, the
216
question is not whether we organise, but how do we do so.
217
This means that, for anarchists, Engels confused vastly
218
different concepts: <i>"Co-ordination is dutifully confused
219
with command, organisation with hierarchy, agreement with
220
domination -- indeed, 'imperious' domination."</i> [Murray
221
Bookchin, <b>Towards an Ecological Society</b>, pp. 126-7]
222
<p>
223
Socialism will only exist when the discipline currently
224
enforced by the stick in the hand of the boss is replaced
225
by the conscious self-discipline of free individuals. It
226
is not by changing who holds the stick (from a capitalist
227
to a "socialist" boss) that socialism will be created.
228
It is only by the breaking up and uprooting of this slavish
229
spirit of discipline, and its replacement by self-management,
230
that working people will create a new discipline what will
231
be the basis of socialism (the voluntary self-discipline
232
Bakunin talked about).
233
<p>
234
Clearly, then, Engels did not refute anarchism by his essay.
235
Rather, he refuted a straw man of his own creation. The
236
question was <b>never</b> one of whether certain tasks need
237
co-operation, co-ordination, joint activity and agreement.
238
It was, in fact, a question of <b>how</b> that is achieved. As
239
such, Engels diatribe misses the point. Instead of addressing
240
the actual politics of anarchism or their actual use of the
241
word "authority," he rather addresses a series of logical
242
deductions he draws from a false assumption regarding those
243
politics. Engels essay shows the bedlam that can be created
244
when a remorseless logician deduces away from an incorrect
245
starting assumption.
246
<p>
247
For collective activity anarchists recognise the need to make
248
and stick by agreements. Collective activity of course needs
249
collective decision making and organisation. In so far as
250
Engels had a point to his diatribe (namely that group efforts
251
meant co-operating with others), Bakunin (like any anarchist)
252
would have agreed. The question was how are these decisions
253
to be made, not whether they should be or not. Ultimately,
254
Engels confused agreement with hierarchy. Anarchists do not.
255
<p>
256
<a name="sech41"><H2>H.4.1 Does organisation imply the end of liberty?</H2>
257
<p>
258
Engels argument in <i>"On Authority"</i> can be summed up as any form
259
of collective activity means co-operating with others and that
260
this means the individual subordinates themselves to others,
261
specifically the group. As such, authority cannot be abolished
262
as organisation means that <i>"the will of a single individual
263
will always have to subordinate itself, which means that
264
questions are settled in an authoritarian way."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
265
p. 731]
266
<p>
267
As such, Engels argument proves too much. As every form of
268
joint activity involves agreement and <i>"subordination,"</i> then
269
life itself becomes <i>"authoritarian."</i> The only free person,
270
according to Engels' logic, would be the hermit. As George
271
Barrett argues:
272
<p><blockquote><i>
273
"To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and
274
to co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But
275
to suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom
276
is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise
277
of our freedom.
278
<p>
279
"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is
280
to damage freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for
281
it forbids men [and women] to take the most ordinary everyday
282
pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a walk with my friend
283
because it is against the principle of Liberty that I should
284
agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him.
285
I cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself,
286
because to do so I must co-operate with someone else, and
287
co-operation implies an agreement, and that is against
288
Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is
289
absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it,
290
when I agree with my friend to go for a walk.
291
<p>
292
"If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge
293
that it is good for my friend to take exercise, and therefore
294
I attempt to compel him to go for a walk, then I begin to limit
295
freedom. This is the difference between free agreement and
296
government."</i> [<b>Objections to Anarchism</b>]
297
</blockquote><p>
298
So, if we took Engels' argument seriously, then we would have
299
to conclude that living makes freedom impossible! After all
300
by doing any joint activity you "subordinate" yourself to
301
others and, ironically, exercising your liberty by making
302
decisions and associating with others would become a denial
303
of liberty. Clearly Engels argument is lacking something!
304
<p>
305
Perhaps this paradox can be explained once we recognise
306
that Engels is using a distinctly liberal view of freedom
307
freedom as holistic -- freedom from and freedom to. This
308
means that that freedom is maintained by the kind of
309
relationships we form with others, <b>not</b> by isolation.
310
Liberty is denied when we form hierarchical relationships
311
with others not necessarily when we associate with others.
312
To combine with other individuals is an expression of
313
individual liberty, <b>not</b> its denial! We are aware that
314
freedom is impossible outside of association. Within an
315
association absolute "autonomy" cannot exist, but such
316
a concept of "autonomy" would restrict freedom to such a
317
degree that it would be so self-defeating as to make a
318
mockery of the concept of autonomy and no sane person
319
would seek it.
320
<p>
321
Clearly, Engels "critique" hides more than it explains. Yes,
322
co-operation and coercion both involve people working jointly
323
together, but they are <b>not</b> to be equated. While Bakunin
324
recognised this fundamental difference and tried, perhaps
325
incompletely, to differentiate them (by arguing against
326
"the principle of authority") and to base his politics on
327
the difference, Engels obscures the differences and muddies
328
the water by confusing the two radically different concepts
329
within the word "authority."
330
<p>
331
Any organisation or group is based on co-operation and
332
co-ordination (Engels' "principle of authority"). How
333
that co-operation is achieved is dependent on the
334
<b>type</b> of organisation in question and that, in turn,
335
specifies the <b>social</b> relationships within it. It is
336
these social relationships which determine whether
337
an organisation is authoritarian or libertarian, not the
338
universal need to make and stick by agreements. Engels is
339
simply confusing obedience with agreement, coercion with
340
co-operation, organisation with authority, objective
341
reality with despotism.
342
<p>
343
As such, rather than seeing organisation as restricting
344
freedom, anarchists argue that the <b>kind</b> of organisation
345
we create is what matters. We can form relationships with
346
others which are based on equality, not subordination. As
347
an example, we point to the differences between marriage
348
and free love (see
349
<a href="secH1.html#sech110">next section</a>). Once it is recognised
350
that decisions can be made on the basis of agreements
351
between equals, Engels essay can be seen for what it is --
352
a deeply flawed piece of cheap and inaccurate diatribe.
353
<p>
354
<a name="sech42"><H2>H.4.2 How does free love versus marriage indicate the weakness of Engels' argument?</H2>
355
<p>
356
Engels, let us not forget, argues, in effect, any activities which
357
<i>"replace isolated action by combined action of individuals"</i>
358
means <i>"the imposition of the will of another upon ours"</i> and so
359
<i>"the will of the single individual will have to subordinate itself,
360
which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian manner."</i>
361
This, for Engels, means that <i>"authority"</i> has not <i>"disappeared"</i>
362
under anarchism but rather it has only <i>"changed its form."</i>
363
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 730-1]
364
<p>
365
However, to say that authority just changes its form misses
366
the qualitative differences between authoritarian and
367
libertarian organisation. Precisely the differences which
368
Bakunin and other anarchists tried to stress by calling
369
themselves anti-authoritarians and being against the
370
<i>"principle of authority."</i> By arguing that all forms of
371
association are necessarily "authoritarian," Engels is
372
impoverishing the liberatory potential of socialism. He
373
ensures that the key question of liberty within our
374
associations is hidden behind a mass of sophistry.
375
<p>
376
As an example, look at the difference between marriage
377
and free love. Both forms necessitate two individuals
378
living together, sharing the same home, organising their
379
lives together. The same situation and the same commitments.
380
But do both imply the same social relationships? Are they
381
both <i>"authoritarian"</i>?
382
<p>
383
Traditionally, the marriage vow is based on the wife promising
384
to obey the husband. Her role is simply that of obedience (in
385
theory, at least). As Carole Pateman argues, <i>"[u]ntil late
386
into the nineteenth century the legal and civil position of
387
a wife resembled that of a slave"</i> and, in theory, <i>"became the
388
property of her husband and stood to him as a slave/servant
389
to a master."</i> [<b>The Sexual Contract</b>, p. 119 and pp. 130-1]
390
As such, an obvious social relationship exists -- an
391
authoritarian one in which the man has power over the woman.
392
We have a relationship based on domination and subordination.
393
<p>
394
In free love, the couple are equals. They decide their own affairs,
395
together. The decisions they reach are agreed between them and no
396
domination takes place (unless you think making an agreement
397
equals domination or subordination). They both agree to the
398
decisions they reach, based on mutual respect and give and take.
399
Subordination to individuals does not meaningfully exist (at
400
best, it could be argued that both parties are "dominated" by
401
their decisions, hardly a meaningful use of the word). Instead
402
of subordination, there is free agreement.
403
<p>
404
Both types of organisation apply to the same activities -- a
405
couple living together. Has "authority" just changed its form
406
as Engels argued? Of course not. There is a substantial
407
difference between the two. The former is authoritarian. One
408
part of the organisation dictates to the other. The latter is
409
libertarian as neither dominates (or they, as a couple,
410
"dominate" each other as individuals -- surely an abuse
411
of the language, we hope you agree!). Each part of the
412
organisation agrees to the decision. Do all these differences
413
just mean that we have changed name of "authority" or has
414
authority been abolished and liberty created? This was
415
the aim of Bakunin's terminology, namely to draw attention
416
to the qualitative change that has occurred in the social
417
relationships generated by the association of individuals
418
when organised in an anarchist way.
419
<p>
420
As such, Engels is confusing two radically different means
421
of decision making by arguing both involve subordination and
422
authority. The difference is clear: the former involves the
423
domination of an individual over another while the second
424
involves the "subordination" of individuals to the decisions
425
and agreements they make. The first is authority, the second
426
is liberty.
427
<p>
428
Therefore, the example of free love indicates that, for
429
anarchists, Engels arguments are simply pedantic sophistry.
430
It goes without saying that organisation involves co-operation
431
and that, by necessity, means that individuals come to agreements
432
between themselves to work together. The question is <b>how</b> do
433
they do that, not whether they do so or not. As such, Engels'
434
arguments confuse agreement with hierarchy, co-operation with
435
coercion. Simply put, the <b>way</b> people conduct joint activity
436
determines whether an organisation is libertarian or authoritarian.
437
That was why anarchists called themselves anti-authoritarians,
438
to draw attention to the different ways of organising collective
439
work.
440
<p>
441
<a name="sech43"><H2>H.4.3 How do anarchists propose to run a factory?</H2>
442
<p>
443
In his campaign against anti-authoritarian ideas within the
444
First International, Engels asks in a letter written in
445
January 1872 <i>"how do these people [the anarchists] propose
446
to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without
447
having in the last resort one deciding will, without a
448
single management."</i> [<b>The Marx-Engels Reader</b>, p. 729]
449
<p>
450
This, of course, can only be asked if Engels was totally
451
ignorant of Bakunin's ideas and his many comments supporting
452
co-operatives and workers' associations as the means by
453
which workers would <i>"organise and themselves conduct the
454
economy without guardian angels, the state or their former
455
employers."</i> Indeed, Bakunin was <i>"convinced that the co-operative
456
movement will flourish and reach its full potential only in
457
a society where the land, the instruments of production,
458
b'and hereditary property will be owned and operated by the '
459
workers themselves: by their freely organised federations
460
of industrial and agricultural workers."</i> [<b>Bakunin on
461
Anarchism</b>, p. 399 and p. 400] Which means that Bakunin,
462
like all anarchists, was well aware of how a factory or
463
other workplace would be organised:
464
<p><blockquote><i>
465
"Only associated labour, that is, labour organised upon the
466
principles of reciprocity and co-operation, is adequate to
467
the task of maintaining . . . civilised society."</i> [<b>The
468
Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 341]
469
</blockquote><p>
470
By October of that year, Engels had finally <i>"submitted arguments
471
like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians"</i> who replied to
472
run a factory, railway or ship did require organisation <i>"but here
473
it was not a case of authority which we confer on our delegates,
474
<b>but of a commission entrusted!</b>"</i> Engels commented that the
475
anarchists <i>"think that when they have changed the names of
476
things they have changed the things themselves."</i> He, therefore,
477
thinks that authority <i>"will . . . only have changed its form"</i>
478
rather than being abolished under anarchism as <i>"whoever mentions
479
combined action speaks of organisation"</i> and it is not possible
480
<i>"to have organisation without authority."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 732 and
481
p. 731]
482
<p>
483
However, Engels is simply confusing two different things,
484
authority and agreement. To make an agreement with another
485
person is an exercise of your freedom, not its restriction.
486
As Malatesta argued, <i>"the advantages which association and
487
the consequent division of labour offer"</i> meant that humanity
488
<i>"developed towards solidarity."</i> However, under class society
489
<i>"the advantages of association, the good that Man could
490
drive from the support of his fellows"</i> was distorted and
491
a few gained <i>"the advantages of co-operation by subjecting
492
other men to [their] will instead of joining with them."</i>
493
This oppression <i>"was still association and co-operation,
494
outside of which there is no possible human life; but it
495
was a way of co-operation, imposed and controlled by a few
496
for their personal interest."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, p. 28] Anarchists
497
seek to organise association to eliminate domination. This
498
would be done by workers organising themselves collectively
499
to make their own decisions about their work (workers'
500
self-management, to use modern terminology).
501
<p>
502
As such, workers would organise their tasks but this did not
503
necessitate the same authoritarian social relationships as
504
exist under capitalism:
505
<p><blockquote><i>
506
"Of course in every large collective undertaking, a division
507
of labour, technical management, administration, etc., is
508
necessary. But authoritarians clumsily play on words to
509
produce a <b>raison d'etre</b> for government out of the very
510
real need for the organisation of work. Government . . .
511
is the concourse of individuals who have had, or have
512
seized, the right and the means to make laws and to oblige
513
people to obey; the administrator, the engineer, etc.,
514
instead are people who are appointed or assume the
515
responsibility to carry out a particular job and do
516
so. Government means the delegation of power, that is
517
the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into
518
the hands of a few; administration means the delegation of
519
work, that is tasks given and received, free exchange of
520
services based on free agreement. . . Let one not confuse
521
the function of government with that of administration,
522
for they are essentially different, and if today the two
523
are often confused, it is only because of economic and
524
political privilege."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, pp. 39-40]
525
</blockquote><p>
526
For a given task, co-operation and joint activity may be
527
required by its very nature. Take, for example, a train
528
network. The joint activity of numerous workers are
529
required to ensure that it operates successfully. The
530
driver depends on the work of signal operators, for
531
example, and guards to inform them of necessary information
532
essential for the smooth running of the network. The
533
passengers are dependent on the driver and the other
534
workers to ensure their journey is safe and quick. As
535
such, there is an objective need to co-operate but this
536
need is understood and agreed to by the people involved.
537
<p>
538
If a specific activity needs the co-operation of a number of
539
people and can only be achieved if these people work together
540
as a team and, therefore, need to make and stick by agreements,
541
then this is undoubtedly a natural fact which the individual
542
can only rebel against by leaving the association. Similarly,
543
if an association considers it wise to elect a delegate whose
544
tasks have been allocated by that group then, again, this
545
is a natural fact which the individuals in question have
546
agreed to and so have not been imposed upon the individual
547
by any external will -- the individual has been convinced
548
of the need to co-operate and does so.
549
<p>
550
Engels, therefore, confuses the authority of the current system,
551
organised and imposed from the top-down, with the self-management
552
required by a free society. He attempted to apply the same word
553
"authority" to two fundamentally different concepts. However,
554
we abuse words and practice deception when we apply the same
555
term to totally different concepts. As if the hierarchical,
556
authoritarian organisation of work under capitalism, imposed
557
by the few on the many and based by the absence of thought
558
and will of the subordinated, could be compared with the
559
co-ordination of joint activities by free individuals! What
560
is there in common with the authoritarian structure of the
561
capitalist workplace or army and the libertarian organisation
562
required by workers to manage their struggle for freedom and,
563
ultimately, to manage their own working activity? Engels
564
does damage to the language by using the same word
565
("authority") to describe two so radically different things
566
as the hierarchical organisation of wage labour and the free
567
association and co-operation of equals of self-management. If
568
an activity requires the co-operation of numerous individuals
569
then, clearly, that is a natural fact and there is not much
570
the individuals involved can do about it. Anarchists are not
571
in the habit of denying common sense. The question is simply
572
<b>how</b> do these individuals co-ordinate their activities. Is
573
it by means of self-management or by hierarchy (authority)?
574
<p>
575
As such, anarchists have always been clear on how industry
576
would be run -- by the workers' themselves in their own free
577
associations. In this way the domination of the boss would be
578
replaced by agreements between equals (see also sections
579
<a href="secI3.html#seci31">I.3.1</a> and
580
<a href="secI3.html#seci32">I.3.2</a> on how anarchists think workplaces will be
581
run in a free society).
582
<p>
583
<a name="sech44"><H2>H.4.4 How does the class struggle refute Engels'
584
arguments that industry required leaving <i>"all autonomy behind"</i>?</H2>
585
<p>
586
Engels argued that large-scale industry (or, indeed, any
587
form of organisation) meant that "authority" was required.
588
He stated that factories should have <i>"Lasciate ogni autonomia,
589
voi che entrate"</i> (<i>"Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy
590
behind"</i>) written above their doors. Indeed, that is the
591
basis of capitalism, with the wage worker being paid to
592
obey. This obedience, Engels argued, was necessary even
593
under socialism, as applying the "forces of nature" meant
594
<i>"a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation."</i>
595
This meant that <i>"[w]anting to abolish authority in large-scale
596
industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself."</i>
597
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 731]
598
<p>
599
The best answer to Engels claims can be found in the class
600
struggle. Given that Engels was a capitalist (i.e. an owner
601
of a factory), he may have not been aware of the effectiveness
602
of <i>"working to rule"</i> when practised by workers. This basically
603
involves doing <b>exactly</b> what the boss tells you to do, regardless
604
of the consequences as regards efficiency, production and so on.
605
Quite simply, workers' refusing to practice autonomy can be an
606
extremely effective and powerful weapon in the class struggle.
607
<p>
608
This weapon has long been used by workers and advocated by
609
anarchists, syndicalists and wobblies. For example, the IWW
610
booklet <b>How to fire your boss</b> argues that <i>"[w]orkers often
611
violate orders, resort to their own techniques of doing things,
612
and disregard lines of authority simply to meet the goals of
613
the company. There is often a tacit understanding, even by
614
the managers whose job it is to enforce the rules, that these
615
shortcuts must be taken in order to meet production quotas
616
on time."</i> They argue, correctly, that <i>"if each of these rules
617
and regulations were followed to the letter"</i> then <i>"[c]onfusion
618
would result -- production and morale would plummet. And best
619
of all, the workers can't get in trouble with the tactic
620
because they are, after all, 'just following the rules.'"</i>
621
<p>
622
The British anarcho-syndicalists of the <b>Direct Action Movement</b>
623
agree and even quote an industrial expert on the situation:
624
<p><blockquote><i>
625
"If managers' orders were completely obeyed, confusion would
626
result and production and morale would be lowered. In order to
627
achieve the goals of the organisation workers must often violate
628
orders, resort to their own techniques of doing things, and
629
disregard lines of authority. Without this kind of systematic
630
sabotage much work could not be done. This unsolicited sabotage
631
in the form of disobedience and subterfuge is especially necessary
632
to enable large bureaucracies to function effectively."</i> [<b>Social
633
Psychology of Industry</b> by J.A.C. Brown, quoted in <b>Direct Action
634
in Industry</b>]
635
</blockquote><p>
636
Another weapon of workers' resistance is what has been called
637
<i>"Working without enthusiasm"</i> and is related to the "work to
638
rule." This tactic aims at <i>"slowing production"</i> in order to
639
win gains from management:
640
<p><blockquote><i>
641
"Even the simplest repetitive job demands a certain minimum of
642
initiative and in this case it is failing to show any non-obligatory
643
initiative . . . [This] leads to a fall in production -- above all
644
in quality. The worker carries out every operation minimally;
645
the moment there is a hitch of any kind he [or she] abandons
646
all responsibility and hands over to the next man [or woman]
647
above him [or her] in the hierarchy; he works mechanically,
648
not checking the finished object, not troubling to regulate
649
his machine. In short he gets away with as much as he can,
650
but never actually does anything positively illegal."</i> [Pierre
651
Dubois, <b>Sabotage in Industry</b>, p. 51]
652
</blockquote><p>
653
The practice of <i>"working to rule"</i> and
654
<i>"working without enthusiasm"</i>
655
shows how out of touch Engels (like any capitalist) is with
656
the realities of shop floor life. These forms of direct action
657
is extremely effective <b>because</b> the workers refuse to act
658
autonomously in industry, to work out the problems they face
659
during the working day themselves, and instead place all the
660
decisions on the authority required, according to Engels, to
661
run the factory. The factory itself quickly grinds to a halt.
662
What keeps it going is not the <i>"imperious"</i> will of authority,
663
but rather the autonomous activity of workers thinking and
664
acting for themselves to solve the numerous problems they face
665
during the working day.
666
<p>
667
As Cornelius Castoriadis argues:
668
<p><blockquote><i>
669
"Resistance to exploitation expresses itself in a drop in
670
<b>productivity as well as exertion on the workers' part</b> . . .
671
At the same time it is expressed in the disappearance of
672
the <b>minimum</b> collective and spontaneous <b>management and
673
organisation</b> of work that the workers normally and of
674
necessity puts out. No modern factory could function for
675
twenty-four hours without this spontaneous organisation of
676
work that groups of workers, independent of the official
677
business management, carry out by filling in the gaps of
678
official production directives, by preparing for the
679
unforeseen and for regular breakdowns of equipment, by
680
compensating for management's mistakes, etc.
681
<p>
682
"Under 'normal' conditions of exploitation, workers are
683
torn between the need to organise themselves in this way
684
in order to carry out their work -- otherwise there are
685
repercussions for them -- and their natural desire to
686
do their work, on the one hand, and, on the other, the
687
awareness that by doing so they only are serving the
688
boss's interests. Added to those conflicting concerns
689
are the continual efforts of factory's management
690
apparatus to 'direct' all aspects of the workers'
691
activity, which often results only in preventing them
692
from organising themselves."</i> [<b>Political and Social
693
Writings</b>, vol. 2, p. 68]
694
</blockquote><p>
695
Needless to say, co-operation and co-ordination is required in
696
any collective activity. Anarchists do not deny this fact of
697
nature, but the example Engels considered as irrefutable simply
698
shows the fallacy of his argument. If large-scale industry
699
was run along the lines argued by Engels, it would quickly
700
grind to halt.
701
<p>
702
Ironically, the example of Russia under Lenin and Trotsky
703
reinforces this fact. <i>"Administrative centralisation"</i> was
704
enforced on the railway workers which, in turn, <i>"led
705
more to ignorance of distance and the inability to
706
respond properly to local circumstances . . . 'I have no
707
instructions' became all the more effective as a defensive
708
and self-protective rationalisation as party officials vested
709
with unilateral power insisted all their orders be strictly
710
obeyed. Cheka ruthlessness instilled fear, but repression . . .
711
only impaired the exercise of initiative that daily operations
712
required."</i> [William G. Rosenberg, <i>"The Social Background to
713
Tsektran,"</i> <b>Party, State, and Society in the Russian Civil War</b>,
714
Diane P. Koenker, William G. Rosenberg and Ronald Grigor
715
Suny (eds.), p. 369] Without the autonomy required to manage
716
local problems, the operation of the railways was seriously
717
harmed and, unsurprisingly, a few months after Trotsky
718
subjected to railway workers to the <i>"militarisation of
719
labour"</i> in September 1920, there was a <i>"disastrous collapse
720
of the railway network in the winter of 1920-1."</i> [Jonathan
721
Aves, <b>Workers against Lenin</b>, p. 102]
722
<p>
723
As the experience of workers' in struggle shows, it is the
724
<b>abolition</b> of autonomy which means the abolition of
725
large-scale industry, not its exercise. This can be seen
726
from various forms of direct action such as "working to rule"
727
as well as Trotsky's attempts to impose the "militarisation
728
of labour" on the Russian workers. The conscious decision by
729
workers to <b>not</b> exercise their autonomy brings industry
730
grinding to a halt and are effective tools in the class
731
struggle. As any worker know, it is only their ability to
732
make decisions autonomously that keeps industry going.
733
<p>
734
Rather than abolishing authority making large-scale industry
735
impossible, it is the abolishing of autonomy which quickly
736
achieves this. The issue is how do we organise industry so
737
that this essential autonomy is respected and co-operation
738
between workers achieved based on it. For anarchists, this
739
is done by self-managed workers associations in which
740
hierarchical authority is replaced by collective self-discipline
741
(as discussed in <a href="append41.html#app12">section 12</a> of
742
the appendix on <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>).
743
<p>
744
<a name="sech45"><H2>H.4.5 Is the way industry operates
745
<i>"independent of all social organisation"</i>?</H2>
746
<p>
747
As noted in the
748
<a href="secH1.html#sech112">last section</a>,
749
Engels argued that applying the
750
<i>"forces of nature"</i> meant <i>"a veritable despotism independent
751
of all social organisation."</i> This meant that <i>"[w]anting to
752
abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to
753
wanting to abolish industry itself."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 731]
754
<p>
755
For anarchists, Engels' comments ignore the reality of class
756
society in an important way. Modern (<i>"large-scale"</i>) industry
757
has not developed neutrally or naturally, independently of all
758
social organisation as Engels claimed. Rather it has been
759
shaped by the class struggle. As we argued in
760
<a href="secD10.html">section D.10</a>,
761
technology is a weapon in the class struggle. As Castoriadis
762
argues:
763
<p><blockquote><i>
764
"Management organises production with a view of achieving
765
'maximum efficiency.' But the first result of this sort of
766
organisation is to stir up the workers' revolt against
767
production itself . . . To combat the resistance of the
768
workers, the management institutes an ever more minute
769
division of labour and tasks . . . Machines are invented,
770
or selected, according to one fundamental criterion: Do
771
they assist in the struggle of management against workers,
772
do they reduce yet further the worker's margin of autonomy,
773
do they assist in eventually replacing him [or her]
774
altogether? In this sense, the organisation of production
775
today . . . is <b>class organisation.</b> Technology is
776
predominantly <b>class technology.</b> No . . . manager would
777
ever introduce into his plant a machine which would
778
increase the freedom of a particular worker or of a
779
group of workers to run the job themselves, even if
780
such a machine increased production.
781
<p>
782
"The workers are by no means helpless in this struggle.
783
They constantly invent methods of self-defence. They
784
break the rules, while 'officially' keeping them. They
785
organise informally, maintain a collective solidarity
786
and discipline."</i> [<b>The Meaning of Socialism</b>, pp. 9-10]
787
</blockquote><p>
788
As such, one of the key aspects of the class struggle
789
is the conflict of workers against attempts by management
790
to eliminate their autonomy within the production process.
791
This struggle generates the machines which Engels claims
792
produce a <i>"veritable despotism independent of all social
793
organisation."</i> Regardless of what Engels implies, the way
794
industry has developed is not independent of class society
795
and its "despotism" has been engineered that way. For
796
example, it may be a fact of nature that ten people may be
797
required to operate a machine, but that machine is not
798
such a fact, it is a human invention and so can be changed.
799
Nor is it a fact of nature that work organisation should be
800
based on a manager dictating to the workers what to do --
801
rather it could be organised by the workers themselves,
802
using collective self-discipline to co-ordinate their
803
joint effort.
804
<p>
805
As one shop steward put it, workers are <i>"not automatons.
806
We have eyes to see with, ears to hear with, and mouths
807
to talk."</i> As David Noble comments, <i>"[f]or management
808
. . . that was precisely the problem. Workers controlled
809
the machines, and through their unions had real authority
810
over the division of labour and job content."</i> [<b>Forces
811
of Production</b>, p. 37] This autonomy was what managers
812
constantly struggled against and introduced technology
813
to combat. As such, Engels' notion that machinery was
814
"despotic" hide the nature of class society and the fact
815
that authority is a social relationship, a relationship
816
between people and not people and things. And, equally,
817
that different kinds of authority meant different kinds
818
of organisation and different social relationships to do
819
the collective tasks. It was precisely to draw attention
820
to this that anarchists called themselves anti-authoritarians.
821
<p>
822
Clearly, Engels is simply ignoring the actual relations
823
of authority within capitalist industry and, like the
824
capitalism he claims to oppose, is raising the needs of
825
the bosses to the plane of "natural fact." Indeed, is
826
this not the refrain of every boss or supporter of
827
capitalism? Right-libertarian guru Ludwig von Mises
828
spouted this kind of refrain when he argued that
829
<i>"[t]he root of the syndicalist idea is to be seen
830
in the belief that entrepreneurs and capitalists are
831
irresponsible autocrats who are free to conduct their
832
affairs arbitrarily. Such a dictatorship must not be
833
tolerated . . . The fundamental error of this argument
834
is obvious [sic!]. The entrepreneurs and capitalists are
835
not irresponsible autocrats. They are unconditionally
836
subject to the sovereignty of the consumers. The market
837
is a consumers' democracy."</i> [<b>Human Action</b>, p. 814] In
838
other words, it is not the bosses fault work is so hard
839
or that they dictate to the worker. No, of course not,
840
it is the despotism of the machine, of nature, of the
841
market, of the customer, anyone and anything <b>but</b>
842
the person <b>with</b> authority who is actually giving
843
the orders and punishing those who do not obey!
844
<p>
845
Needless to say, like Engels essay, von Mises' argument
846
is fundamentally flawed simply because the boss is not
847
just repeating the instructions of the market (assuming
848
that it is a "consumers' democracy," which it is not).
849
Rather, they give their own instructions based on
850
their own sovereignty over the workers. The workers could,
851
of course, manage their own affairs and meet the demands
852
of consumers directly. The "sovereignty" of the market
853
(just like the "despotism" of machines and joint action)
854
is independent of the social relationships which exist
855
within the workplace, but the social relationships themselves
856
are not predetermined by them. Thus the same workshop can
857
be organised in different ways. As such, the way industry
858
operates <b>is</b> dependent on social organisation. The workers
859
can manage their own affairs or be subjected to the rule
860
of a boss. To say that "authority" still exists simply
861
means to confuse agreement with obedience.
862
<p>
863
The importance of differentiating between types of
864
organisation and ways of making decisions can be seen from
865
the experience of the class struggle. During the Spanish
866
Revolution anarchists organised militias to fight the fascists.
867
One was lead by anarchist militant Durruti. His military adviser,
868
P�rez Farras, a professional soldier, was concerned about the
869
application of libertarian principles to military organisation.
870
Durruti replied:
871
<p><blockquote><i>
872
"I have already said and I repeat; during all my life, I have
873
acted as an anarchist. The fact of having been given political
874
responsibility for a human collective cannot change my convictions.
875
It is under these conditions that I agreed to play the role
876
given to me by the Central Committee of the Militias.
877
<p>
878
"I thought -- and what has happened confirms my belief -- that a
879
workingmen's militia cannot be led according to the same rules as
880
an army. I think that discipline, co-ordination and the fulfilment
881
of a plan are indispensable. But this idea can no longer be
882
understood in the terms of the world we have just destroyed.
883
We have new ideas. We think that solidarity among men must
884
awaken personal responsibility, which knows how to accept
885
discipline as an autonomous act.
886
<p>
887
"Necessity imposes a war on us, a struggle that differs from
888
many of those that we have carried on before. But the goal of our
889
struggle is always the triumph of the revolution. This means not
890
only victory over the enemy, but also a radical change in man.
891
For this change to occur, man must learn to live in freedom and
892
develop in himself his potentialities as a responsible individual.
893
The worker in the factory, using his tools and directing production,
894
is bringing about a change in himself. The fighter, like the
895
worker, uses his gun as a tool and his acts must lead to the
896
same goals as those of the worker.
897
<p>
898
"In the struggle he cannot act like a soldier under orders but
899
like a man who is conscious of what he is doing. I know it is not
900
easy to get such a result, but what one cannot get by reason, one
901
can never get through force. If our revolutionary army must be
902
maintained through fear, we will have changed nothing but the
903
colour of fear. It is only by freeing itself from fear that a
904
free society can be built."</i> [quoted by Abel Paz, <b>Durruti: The
905
People Armed</b>, p. 225]
906
</blockquote><p>
907
Is it really convincing to argue that the individuals who made
908
up the militia are subject to the same social relationships as
909
those in a capitalist or Leninist army? The same, surely, goes
910
for workers associations and wage labour. Ultimately, the
911
flaw in Engels' argument can be best seen simply because he
912
thinks that the <i>"automatic machinery of a big factory is much
913
more despotic than the small capitalist who employ workers ever
914
have been."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 731] Authority and liberty become
915
detached from human beings, as if authoritarian social
916
relationships can exist independently of individuals! It
917
is a <b>social</b> relationship anarchists oppose, not an
918
abstraction.
919
<p>
920
As such, Engels' argument is applicable to <b>any</b> society
921
and to <b>any</b> task which requires joint effort. If, for
922
example, a table needs four people to move it then those
923
four people are subject to the "despotism" of gravity!
924
Under such "despotism" can we say its irrelevant whether
925
these four people are slaves to a master who wants the
926
table moved or whether they agree between themselves to
927
move the table and on the best way to do it? In both
928
cases the table movers are subject to the same "despotism"
929
of gravity, yet in the latter example they are <b>not</b>
930
subject to the despotism of other human beings they
931
are subject to in the former. Clearly, Engels is playing
932
with words!
933
<p>
934
The fallacy of Engels' basic argument can be seen from
935
this simple example. He essentially uses a <b>liberal</b>
936
concept of freedom (i.e. freedom exists prior to society
937
and is reduced within it) when attacking anarchism. Rather
938
than see freedom as a product of interaction, as Bakunin
939
did, Engels sees it as a product of isolation. Collective
940
activity is seen as a realm of necessity (to use Marx's
941
phrase) and not one of freedom. Indeed, machines and the
942
forces of nature are considered by Engels' as "despots"!
943
As if despotism was not a specific set of relationships
944
between <b>humans.</b> As Bookchin argues:
945
<p><blockquote><i>
946
"To Engels, the factory is a natural fact of technics, not
947
a specifically bourgeois mode of rationalising labour;
948
hence it will exist under communism as well as capitalism.
949
It will persist 'independently of all social organisation.'
950
To co-ordinate a factory's operations requires 'imperious
951
obedience,' in which factory hands lack all 'autonomy.'
952
Class society or classless, the realm of necessity
953
is also a realm of command and obedience, of ruler and
954
ruled. In a fashion totally congruent with all class
955
ideologists from the inception of class society, Engels
956
weds Socialism to command and rule as a natural fact.
957
Domination is reworked from a social attribute into a
958
precondition for self-preservation in a technically
959
advanced society."</i> [<b>Towards an Ecological Society</b>,
960
p. 206]
961
</blockquote><p>
962
Given this, it can be argued that Engels' <i>"On Authority"</i>
963
had a significant impact in the degeneration of the
964
Russian Revolution into state capitalism. By deliberately
965
obscuring the differences between self-managed and authoritarian
966
organisation, he helped provide Bolshevism with ideological
967
justification for eliminating workers self-management in
968
production. After all, if self-management and hierarchical
969
management both involve the same <i>"principle of authority,"</i>
970
then it does not really matter how production is organised
971
and whether industry is managed by the workers or by
972
appointed managers (as Engels stressed, authority in industry
973
was independent of the social system and all forms of
974
organisation meant subordination). Murray Bookchin draws
975
the obvious conclusion from Engels' (and Marx's) position:
976
<i>"Obviously, the factory conceived of as a 'realm of necessity'
977
[as opposed to a 'realm of freedom'] requires no need
978
for self-management."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 126]
979
<p>
980
Hence the Bolsheviks need not to consider whether replacing
981
factory committees with appointed managers armed with
982
<i>"dictatorial powers"</i> would have any effect on the position
983
of workers in socialism (after all, the were subject to
984
subordination either way). Engels had used the modern
985
factory system of mass production as a direct analogy
986
to argue against the anarchist call for workers' councils,
987
for autonomy, for participation, for self-management.
988
Authority, hierarchy, and the need for submission and
989
domination is inevitable given the current mode of
990
production, both Engels and Lenin argued. Little wonder,
991
then, the worker become the serf of the state (see
992
<a href="append41.html#app11">section 11</a> of the appendix
993
on <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>
994
for more details).
995
In his own way, Engels
996
contributed to the degeneration of the Russian Revolution
997
by providing the rationale for the Bolsheviks disregard for
998
workers' self-management of production.
999
<p>
1000
Simply put, Engels was wrong. The need to co-operate and
1001
co-ordinate activity may be independent of social development,
1002
but the nature of a society does impact on how this
1003
co-operation is achieved. If it is achieved by hierarchical
1004
means, then it is a class society. If it is achieved by
1005
agreements between equals, then it is a socialist one. As
1006
such, how industry operates <b>is</b> dependent on society it
1007
is part of. An anarchist society would run industry based
1008
on the free agreement of workers united in free associations
1009
(see
1010
<a href="secH4.html#sech43">section H.4.3</a>).
1011
This would necessitate making and
1012
sticking to joint decisions but this co-ordination would be
1013
between equals, not master and servant. By not recognising
1014
this fact, Engels fatally undermined the cause of socialism.
1015
<p>
1016
<a name="sech46"><H2>H.4.6 Why does Engels' "On Authority" harm Marxism?</H2>
1017
<p>
1018
Ironically, Engels' essay <i>"On Authority"</i> also strikes at the
1019
heart of Marxism and its critique of anarchism. Forgetting
1020
what he had written in 1873, Engels argued in 1894 that
1021
for him and Marx the <i>"ultimate political aim is to overcome
1022
the whole state and therefore democracy as well."</i> [quoted
1023
by Lenin, <i>"State and Revolution"</i>, <b>Essential Works of
1024
Lenin</b>, p. 331] Lenin argued that <i>"the abolition of the
1025
state means also the abolition of democracy."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
1026
p. 332]
1027
<p>
1028
However, Lenin quoted Engels' "On Authority" which stated
1029
that any form of collective activity meant "authority" and
1030
so the subjection of the minority to the majority (<i>"if
1031
possible"</i>) and <i>"the imposition of the will of another
1032
upon ours."</i> [Engels, <b>Marx-Engels Reader</b>, p. 731 and
1033
p. 730]
1034
<p>
1035
Aware of the contradiction, Lenin stresses that
1036
<i>"someone may even begin to fear we are expecting
1037
the advent of an order of society in which the
1038
subordination of the minority to the majority will
1039
not be respected."</i> That was not the case, however.
1040
He simply rejected the idea that democracy was <i>"the
1041
recognition of this principle"</i> arguing that <i>"democracy
1042
is a <b>state</b> which recognises the subordination of
1043
the minority to the majority, i.e. an organisation
1044
for the systematic use of <b>violence</b> by one class
1045
against the other, by one section of the population
1046
against another."</i> He argued that <i>"the need for violence
1047
against people in general, the need for the <b>subjection</b>
1048
of one man to another, will vanish, since people will
1049
<b>become accustomed</b> to observing the elementary
1050
conditions of social life <b>without force</b> and <b>without
1051
subordination.</b>"</i> [Lenin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 332-3]
1052
<p>
1053
Talk about playing with words! Earlier in his work Lenin
1054
summarised Engels "On Authority" by stating that <i>"is it
1055
not clear that . . . complex technical units, based on
1056
the employment of machinery and the ordered co-operation
1057
of many people, could function without a certain amount
1058
of subordination, without some authority or power."</i> [<b>Op.
1059
Cit.</b>, p. 316] Now, however, he argues that communism
1060
would involve no <i>"subordination"</i> while, at the same time,
1061
be based on the <i>"the principle of the subordination of
1062
the minority to the majority"</i>! A contradiction? Perhaps
1063
no, as he argues that the minority would <i>"become
1064
accustomed"</i> to the conditions of <i>"social life"</i>
1065
agreements you make with others does not involve
1066
"subordination." This, ironically, would confirm
1067
anarchist ideas as we argue that making agreements
1068
with others, as equals, does not involve domination
1069
or subordination but rather is an expression of
1070
autonomy, of liberty.
1071
<p>
1072
Similarly, we find Engels arguing in <b>Anti-Duhring</b> that
1073
socialism would <i>"puts an end to the former subjection of
1074
men to their own means of production"</i> and that <i>"productive
1075
labour, instead of being a means of subjugating men, will
1076
become a means of their emancipation."</i> [<b>Marx-Engels
1077
Reader</b>, p. 720 and p. 721] This work was written in
1078
1878, six years after <i>"On Authority"</i> when he stressed
1079
that <i>"the automatic machinery of a big factory is much
1080
more despotic than the small capitalists who employ
1081
workers ever have been"</i> and <i>"subdu[ing] the forces of
1082
nature . . . avenge themselves"</i> upon <i>"man"</i> by
1083
<i>"subjecting
1084
him . . . to a veritable despotism independent of all
1085
social organisation."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 731] Engels is
1086
clearly contradicting himself. When attacking the anarchists,
1087
he argues that the <i>"subjection"</i> of people to the means of
1088
production was inevitable and utterly <i>"independent of all
1089
social organisation."</i> Six years later he argues that
1090
socialism will abolish this inescapable subjection to
1091
the <i>"veritable despotism"</i> of modern industry!
1092
<p>
1093
As can be seen from both Engels and Lenin, we have a
1094
contradiction within Marxism. On the one hand, they argue
1095
that authority ("subjection") will always be with us, no
1096
matter what, as "subordination" and "authority" is
1097
independent of the specific social society we live in. On
1098
the other, they argue that Marxist socialism will be
1099
without a state, "without subordination," "without force"
1100
and will end the "subjection of men to their own means of
1101
production." The two positions cannot be reconciled.
1102
<p>
1103
Simply put, if Engels "On Authority" is correct then,
1104
logically, it means that not only is anarchism impossible
1105
but also Marxist socialism. Lenin and Engels are trying to
1106
have it both ways. On the one hand, arguing that anarchism
1107
is impossible as any collective activity means subjection
1108
and subordination, on the other, that socialism will end
1109
that inevitable subjection. And, of course, arguing that
1110
democracy will be "overcome" while, at the same time,
1111
arguing that it can never be. Ultimately, it shows that
1112
Engels essay is little more than a cheap polemic without
1113
much merit.
1114
<p>
1115
Even worse for Marxism is Engels' comment that authority and
1116
autonomy <i>"are relative things whose spheres vary with the
1117
various phases of society"</i> and that <i>"the material conditions
1118
of production and circulation inevitably develop with
1119
large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture, and
1120
increasingly tend to enlarge the scope of this authority."</i>
1121
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 732] Given that this is <i>"a veritable
1122
despotism"</i> and Marxism aims at <i>"one single vast plan"</i>
1123
in modern industry, then the scope for autonomy, for
1124
freedom, is continually reduced during the working day.
1125
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 723 and p. 731] The only possible solution
1126
is reducing the working day to a minimum and so the time
1127
spent as a slave to the machine is reduced. The idea that
1128
work should be transformed into creative, empowering and
1129
liberating experience is automatically destroyed by Engels
1130
argument. Like capitalism, Marxist-Socialism is based on
1131
"work is hell" and the domination of the producer. Hardly
1132
an inspiring vision of the future.
1133
<p>
1134
<a name="sech47"><H2>H.4.7 Why does Engels' argument that revolution is
1135
<i>"the most authoritarian thing there is"</i> totally miss the point?</H2>
1136
<p>
1137
As well as the argument that "authority" is essential for
1138
every collective activity, Engels raises another argument
1139
against anarchism. This second argument is that revolutions
1140
are by nature authoritarian. In his words, a <i>"revolution is
1141
certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the
1142
act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon
1143
the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon --
1144
authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the
1145
victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it
1146
must maintain this rule by means of the terror its arms
1147
inspire in the reactionaries."</i> [<b>Marx-Engels Reader</b>, p. 733]
1148
<p>
1149
However, such an analysis is without class analysis and so
1150
will, by necessity, mislead the writer and the reader. Engels
1151
argues that revolution is the imposition by <i>"one part of the
1152
population"</i> on another. Very true -- but Engels fails to
1153
indicate the nature of class society and, therefore, of a
1154
social revolution. In a class society <i>"one part of the
1155
population"</i> constantly <i>"imposes its will upon the other
1156
part"</i> -- those with power imposes its decisions to those
1157
beneath them in the social hierarchy. In other words, the
1158
ruling class imposes its will on the working class everyday
1159
in work by the hierarchical structure of the workplace and
1160
in society by the state. Discussing the "population" as
1161
if it was not divided by classes and so subject to specific
1162
forms of authoritarian social relationships is liberal
1163
nonsense.
1164
<p>
1165
Once we recognise that the "population" in question is divided
1166
into classes we can easily see the fallacy of Engels argument.
1167
In a social revolution, the act of revolution is the overthrow
1168
of the power and authority of an oppressing and exploiting
1169
class by those subject to that oppression and exploitation.
1170
In other words, it is an act of <b>liberation</b> in which the
1171
hierarchical power of the few over the many is eliminated
1172
and replaced by the freedom of the many to control their
1173
own lives. It is hardly authoritarian to destroy authority!
1174
Thus a social revolution is, fundamentally, an act of
1175
liberation for the oppressed who act in their own interests
1176
to end the system in which <i>"one part of population imposes its
1177
will upon the other"</i> everyday.
1178
<p>
1179
Malatesta states the obvious:
1180
<p><blockquote><i>
1181
"To fight our enemies effectively, we do not need to deny
1182
the principle of freedom, not even for one moment: it is
1183
sufficient for us to want real freedom and to want it for
1184
all, for ourselves as well as for others.
1185
<p>
1186
"We want to expropriate the property-owning class, and with
1187
violence, since it is with violence that they hold on to
1188
social wealth and use it to exploit the working class. Not
1189
because freedom is a good thing for the future, but because
1190
it is a good thing, today as well as tomorrow, and the
1191
property owners, be denying us the means of exercising
1192
our freedom, in effect, take it away from us.
1193
<p>
1194
"We want to overthrow the government, all governments --
1195
and overthrow them with violence since it is by the use
1196
of violence that they force us into obeying -- and once
1197
again, not because we sneer at freedom when it does not
1198
serve our interests but because governments are the
1199
negation of freedom and it is not possible to be free
1200
without getting rid of them . . .
1201
<p>
1202
"The freedom to oppress, to exploit, to oblige people
1203
to take up arms [i.e. conscription], to pay taxes,
1204
etc., is the denial of freedom: and the fact that
1205
our enemies make irrelevant and hypocritical use of
1206
the word freedom is not enough to make us deny the
1207
principle of freedom which is the outstanding
1208
characteristic of our movement and a permanent,
1209
constant and necessary factor in the life and progress
1210
of humanity."</i> [<b>Life and Ideas</b>, p. 51]
1211
</blockquote><p>
1212
It seems strange that Engels, in effect, is arguing that the
1213
abolition of tyranny is tyranny against the tyrants! As
1214
Malatesta so clearly argued, anarchists <i>"recognise violence
1215
only as a means of legitimate self-defence; and if today
1216
they are in favour of violence it is because they maintain
1217
that slaves are always in a state of legitimate defence."</i>
1218
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 59] As such, Engels fails to understand the
1219
revolution from a <b>working class</b> perspective (perhaps
1220
unsurprisingly, as he was a capitalist). The "authority"
1221
of the "armed workers" over the bourgeois is, simply,
1222
the defence of the workers' freedom against those who
1223
seek to end it by exercising/recreating the very
1224
authoritarian social relationships the revolution sought
1225
to end in the first place. Ultimately, Engels is like the
1226
liberal who equates the violence of the oppressed to
1227
end oppression with that the oppressors!
1228
<p>
1229
Needless to say, this applies to the class struggle as well.
1230
Is, for example, a picket line really authoritarian because
1231
it tries to impose its will on the boss, police or scabs?
1232
Rather, is it not defending the workers' freedom against
1233
the authoritarian power of the boss and their lackeys (the
1234
police and scabs)? Is it "authoritarian" to resist authority
1235
and create a structure -- a strike assembly and picket line --
1236
which allows the formally subordinated workers to manage their
1237
own affairs directly and without bosses? Is it "authoritarian"
1238
to combat the authority of the boss, to proclaim your freedom
1239
and exercise it? Of course not. Little wonder Bakunin talked
1240
about <i>"the development and organisation"</i> of the <i>"social (and,
1241
by consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses"</i>
1242
and <i>"the revolutionary organisation of the natural power of
1243
the masses"</i>!
1244
<p>
1245
Structurally, a strikers' assembly and picket line -- which
1246
are forms of self-managed association -- cannot be compared
1247
to an "authority" (such as a state). To try and do so fails
1248
to recognise the fundamental difference. In the strikers'
1249
assembly and picket line the strikers themselves decide
1250
policy and do not delegate power away into the hands of an
1251
authority (any strike committees execute the strikers
1252
decisions or is replaced). In a state, <b>power</b> is delegated
1253
into the hands of a few who then use that power as they see
1254
fit. This by necessity disempowers those at the base, who
1255
are turned into mere electors and order takers (i.e. an
1256
authoritarian relationship is created). Such a situation
1257
can only spell death of a social revolution, which requires
1258
the active participation of all if it is to succeed. It also,
1259
incidentally, exposes a central fallacy of Marxism, namely that
1260
it claims to desire a society based on the participation of
1261
everyone yet favours a form of organisation -- centralisation
1262
<p>
1263
Georges Fontenis summarises anarchist ideas on this subject
1264
when he writes:
1265
<p><blockquote><i>
1266
"And so against the idea of State, where power is exercised by
1267
a specialised group isolated from the masses, we put the idea
1268
of direct workers power, where accountable and controlled
1269
elected delegates (who can be recalled at any time and are
1270
remunerated at the same rate as other workers) replace
1271
hierarchical, specialised and privileged bureaucracy;
1272
where militias, controlled by administrative bodies such
1273
as soviets, unions and communes, with no special privileges
1274
for military technicians, realising the idea of the armed
1275
people, replace an army cut off from the body of Society
1276
and subordinated to the arbitrary power of a State or
1277
government."</i> [<b>Manifesto of Libertarian Communism</b>, p. 24]
1278
</blockquote><p>
1279
Anarchists, therefore, are no more impressed with this aspect
1280
of Engels critique than his "organisation equals authority"
1281
argument. In summary, his argument is simply a liberal analysis
1282
of revolution, totally without a class basis or analysis and so
1283
fails to understand the anarchist case nor answer it. To argue
1284
that a revolution is made up of two groups of people, one of
1285
which "imposes its will upon the other" fails to indicate
1286
the social relations that exist between these groups (classes)
1287
and the relations of authority between them which the revolution
1288
is seeking to overthrow. As such, Engels critique totally misses
1289
the point.
1290
1291
<p>
1292
</BODY>
1293
</HTML>
1294
Loggerhead is a web-based interface for Breezy
Version: 2.0.1