It's seriously my leasat favorite Engels piece, maybe more than dialectics of nature just because On Authority gets cited all over the place in ways it shouldn't. To understand this we have to understand that it was written in reaction to the "anti-Engels" movement of the Italian international. Engels is not arguing against "anti-authoritarian" revolutionaries who in the future imagine to not use authority to carry out their revolution. Engels was arguing against the anti-authoritarian internationalists, a tendency of the international which appeared because of the very real and present ways the General Council of the IWA was imposing its ways of political struggle onto the sections of the international (This way being, the constitution of political parties and electoralism). It's a poor commentary on political organization. On Authority was published in The Almanacco Republicano, because a large part of the anti-authoritarians came from Italy. On Authority (Dell'Autorità) was written on the demand of the editor of the socialist journal Le Plebe, Enrico Bignami. In Italy large parts of the working class had been organised into the international by Bakunin who Engels absolutely hated. As such Engels continuously attacked Bakunin in Italian newspapers, which split the workers, making them leave the international in favor of Mazzini, the republican "left". Engels did not understand the Italian situation at all, as in Italy all the working class organisation and the developing communism was seen as perfectly in harmony with what would later be called "anarchism" (from 1872). Carlo Cafiero who had been taught communism by Engels and was sent by Engels to organize the working class into the international, later sent him a letter in which he criticized Engels's writings as pushing the workers out of the international. In that letter he stated
As for me, and I do not know if you have realized it, I am nothing but a materialist rationalist; but my materialism, socialism, revolutionarism, anarchism, and all that the continued development of thought may give us in the future, that may be rationally accepted by me, can only be for me eminently subjective means to rational development.
Engels was not understanding this at all. The international had been joined by so many workers because they rejected electoralism and the international allowed them to have a political organisation outside of parties. The international got a renewed membership in Italy as Bakunin trashed Mazzini in Italian newspaper after Mazzini had attacked the Paris Commune. Bakunin writes in Réponse d'un International à Mazzini (Response of a member of the International to Mazzini), that Mazzini was a great figure of Italy but that his beliefs in the state and absolute authority slowly transformed him into a reactionary. Mazzini is an "idealist" "statesman" (homme d'état), who through the "cult of the divine and humane authority" (le culte de l’autorité divine et humaine) made his "efforts sterile" and had him join "the ranks of the reaction". Nello Rosselini writes that the writings of Bakunin are success which will be used by all the "extremists" journalists to attack Mazzini. Bakunin understood the situation, he had lived in Italy, his writings were filled with ideas found in other Italian writers which were understood already by Italians. Engels did not care, he had his view of the international, the problem was that his view was opposed by all the Italian internationalists who left the traditional left only through their agreements with Bakunin's ideas. As such Engels writes a bunch of garbage raging on internationalists who reject his view of politics and side with Bakunin. That's what "On Authority" is, there is no deeper lesson found in it, it's just a man, mad that a situation hundreds of killometers away from him is not how he envisioned it.
To really drive how bad it is if to take this piece as a criticism of anarchists, The 14th of june 1872 Engels sends a letter to Carlo Cafiero about his support of anarchism:
I can only conclude one thing: that you have let yourself be convinced to enter in the secret bakunist society, The Alliance, the one, predicating to the non-iniated, under the shadow of "autonomy", "anarchy" and "anti-authoritarianism", "the deorganisation of the international", practices with the initiated an absolute authoritarianism with the goal of taking hold of the direction of the International...
Engels main point of criticism against who he calls "bakuninists" IS their authoritarianism. He says that they use anarchism as a pretense to act as the dictators of the working class movement. So people really should stop saying ridiculous ideas such as "authority doesn't matter" or "authority is a bourgeois lie" or "authority is an empty term" as that is really not the point of the piece.
The above was copied and modified from this comment, and I went to the direct sources for verification and yeah it's right.
It's seriously my leasat favorite Engels piece, maybe more than dialectics of nature just because On Authority gets cited all over the place in ways it shouldn't. To understand this we have to understand that it was written in reaction to the "anti-Engels" movement of the Italian international. Engels is not arguing against "anti-authoritarian" revolutionaries who in the future imagine to not use authority to carry out their revolution. Engels was arguing against the anti-authoritarian internationalists, a tendency of the international which appeared because of the very real and present ways the General Council of the IWA was imposing its ways of political struggle onto the sections of the international (This way being, the constitution of political parties and electoralism). It's a poor commentary on political organization. On Authority was published in The Almanacco Republicano, because a large part of the anti-authoritarians came from Italy. On Authority (Dell'Autorità) was written on the demand of the editor of the socialist journal Le Plebe, Enrico Bignami. In Italy large parts of the working class had been organised into the international by Bakunin who Engels absolutely hated. As such Engels continuously attacked Bakunin in Italian newspapers, which split the workers, making them leave the international in favor of Mazzini, the republican "left". Engels did not understand the Italian situation at all, as in Italy all the working class organisation and the developing communism was seen as perfectly in harmony with what would later be called "anarchism" (from 1872). Carlo Cafiero who had been taught communism by Engels and was sent by Engels to organize the working class into the international, later sent him a letter in which he criticized Engels's writings as pushing the workers out of the international. In that letter he stated
Engels was not understanding this at all. The international had been joined by so many workers because they rejected electoralism and the international allowed them to have a political organisation outside of parties. The international got a renewed membership in Italy as Bakunin trashed Mazzini in Italian newspaper after Mazzini had attacked the Paris Commune. Bakunin writes in Réponse d'un International à Mazzini (Response of a member of the International to Mazzini), that Mazzini was a great figure of Italy but that his beliefs in the state and absolute authority slowly transformed him into a reactionary. Mazzini is an "idealist" "statesman" (homme d'état), who through the "cult of the divine and humane authority" (le culte de l’autorité divine et humaine) made his "efforts sterile" and had him join "the ranks of the reaction". Nello Rosselini writes that the writings of Bakunin are success which will be used by all the "extremists" journalists to attack Mazzini. Bakunin understood the situation, he had lived in Italy, his writings were filled with ideas found in other Italian writers which were understood already by Italians. Engels did not care, he had his view of the international, the problem was that his view was opposed by all the Italian internationalists who left the traditional left only through their agreements with Bakunin's ideas. As such Engels writes a bunch of garbage raging on internationalists who reject his view of politics and side with Bakunin. That's what "On Authority" is, there is no deeper lesson found in it, it's just a man, mad that a situation hundreds of killometers away from him is not how he envisioned it.
To really drive how bad it is if to take this piece as a criticism of anarchists, The 14th of june 1872 Engels sends a letter to Carlo Cafiero about his support of anarchism:
Engels main point of criticism against who he calls "bakuninists" IS their authoritarianism. He says that they use anarchism as a pretense to act as the dictators of the working class movement. So people really should stop saying ridiculous ideas such as "authority doesn't matter" or "authority is a bourgeois lie" or "authority is an empty term" as that is really not the point of the piece.
The above was copied and modified from this comment, and I went to the direct sources for verification and yeah it's right.