Frederick Engels’, On Authority — Part 1
A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the ‘principle of authority.’ It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned. This summary mode of procedure is being abused to such an extent that it has become necessary to look into the matter somewhat more closely.
Mr. Engels noticed in his reading of socialist academic works, during his time, that people were sometimes much to quick to call something authoritarian; thus, he felt it necessary to clarify the meaning of the term authority.
Authority, in the sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. Now, since these two words sound bad, and the relationship which they represent is disagreeable to the subordinated party, the question is to ascertain whether there is any way of dispensing with it, whether — given the conditions of present-day society — we could not create another social system, in which this authority would be given no scope any longer, and would consequently have to disappear.
Authority is the imposition of one’s will over another person, and this presupposes subordination, in that one person is subject to the will of another. The question that Engels presents is here, is can this negative nature of authority be somehow changed or replaced with something better?
On examining the economic, industrial and agricultural conditions which form the basis of present-day bourgeois society, we find that they tend more and more to replace isolated action by combined action of individuals. Modern industry, with its big factories and mills, where hundreds of workers supervise complicated machines driven by steam, has superseded the small workshops of the separate producers; the carriages and wagons of the highways have become substituted by railway trains, just as the small schooners and sailing feluccas have been by steam-boats. Even agriculture falls increasingly under the dominion of the machine and of steam, which slowly but relentlessly put in the place of the small proprietors big capitalists, who with the aid of hired workers cultivate vast stretches of land.
Everywhere, combined action, the complication of processes dependent upon each other, displaces independent action by individuals. Now, whoever mentions combined action speaks of organization; now, is it possible to have organization without authority?
Supposing a social revolution dethroned the capitalists, who now exercise their authority over the production and circulation of wealth. Supposing, to adopt entirely the point of view of the anti-authoritarians, that the land and the instruments of labour had become the collective property of the workers who use them. Will authority have disappeared, or will it only have changed its form? Let us see.
Given then that a social revolution overthrows capitalism, who is to exercise authority over the production and circulation of wealth? Will collective ownership have eliminated the need for authority, or will it have just changed form?
Let us take by way if example a cotton spinning mill. The cotton must pass through at least six successive operations before it is reduced to the state of thread, and these operations take place for the most part in different rooms. Furthermore, keeping the machines going requires an engineer to look after the steam engine, mechanics to make the current repairs, and many other labourers whose business it is to transfer the products from one room to another, and so forth. All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy. The workers must, therefore, first come to an understanding on the hours of work; and these hours, once they are fixed, must be observed by all, without any exception. Thereafter particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of material, etc., which must be settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote, the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way. The automatic machinery of the big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been. At least with regard to the hours of work one may write upon the portals of these factories: Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate! [Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy behind!]
If no authority is to be exercised by the workers in a factory, then the workers must submit to the will of the machinery that produces the products in that factory. The machinery must move at a specific pace, produce a specific amount of product, and prepare that product for a specific distribution time. Either way, there is some form of authority being exercised.
For further reading on this topic visit…..https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm.