AnarWiki/markdown/On_Authority_(Book).md

160 lines
8.9 KiB
Markdown

**On Authority** is a short
[essay](List_of_Libertarian_Socialist_Books "wikilink") by [Friedrich
Engels](Friedrich_Engels "wikilink") written in 1872 that criticises
[libertarian socialist potitics](Libertarian_Socialism "wikilink") on
the ground that it is unrealistic and the abolition of authority in
modern industry would destroy it.
## Original Text
A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against
what they call the <em>principle of authority</em>. It suffices to tell
them that this or that act is <em>authoritarian</em> 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.
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.
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](Factory "wikilink") 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supervise complicated machines driven by steam, has superseded the small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](agriculture "wikilink") 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. But whoever
mentions combined action speaks of organisation; now, is it possible to
have organisation without authority?
Supposing a [social revolution](Revolution "wikilink") 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.
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: <em>Lasciate ogni
autonomia, voi che entrate\!</em> \[Leave, ye that enter in, all
autonomy behind\!\]
If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the
forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting
him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent
of all social organisation. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale
industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy
the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.
Let us take another example — the railway. Here too the co-operation of
an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this
co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no
accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a
dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will
is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the
execution of the resolutions of the majority of persona interested. In
either case there is a very pronounced authority. Moreover, what would
happen to the first train dispatched if the authority of the railway
employees over the Hon. passengers were abolished?
But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will
nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas.
There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous
and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.
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, <em>but of a commission
entrusted</em>\! 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.
We have thus seen that, on the one hand, a certain authority, no matter
how delegated, and, on the other hand, a certain subordination, are
things which, independently of all social organisation, are imposed upon
us together with the material conditions under which we produce and make
products circulate.
We have seen, besides, that the material conditions of production and
circulation inevitably develop with large-scale industry and large-scale
agriculture, and increasingly tend to enlarge the scope of this
authority. Hence it is absurd to speak of the principle of authority as
being absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being
absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose
spheres vary with the various phases of the development of society. If
the [autonomists](Autonomism "wikilink") confined themselves to saying
that the social organisation of the future would restrict authority
solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it
inevitable, we could understand each other; but they are blind to all
facts that make the thing necessary and they passionately fight the
world.
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](Paris_Commune "wikilink") 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.
## External Links
- [On
Authority](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm)
at marxists.org