Skip to content

Classics On Authority

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

Engels argues that authority — understood as the imposition of another's will and the corresponding subordination — is not a contingent feature of capitalist society that can simply be abolished, but is imposed by the material conditions of modern production itself. The central thesis is that large-scale industry, transport, and agriculture require combined, coordinated activity, and that such activity necessarily entails authoritative decision-making, whether by an individual delegate or a committee. The anti-authoritarian position, which condemns all authority as such, is therefore both utopian and reactionary: utopian because it seeks to abolish what the material conditions of production make inevitable, and reactionary because, in demanding the immediate abolition of political authority (the state), it undermines the revolutionary struggle itself. A revolution, Engels insists, is the most authoritarian act possible, and the victorious class must wield that authority ruthlessly or be defeated.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis is grounded in historical materialism's core insight that social relations — including forms of authority and subordination — are shaped by the development of the productive forces. Engels does not treat authority as a moral or philosophical abstraction to be accepted or rejected on principle, but as a practical necessity arising from the technical requirements of modern industry. This places the argument squarely within the Marxist tradition's insistence that socialism is not the negation of capitalism's productive achievements but their continuation on a new social basis. The article is a direct polemic against the anarchist currents within the First International, particularly the followers of Bakunin, who argued for the immediate abolition of all authority, including the authority of the revolutionary state. Engels draws a crucial distinction between the political authority of the state — which will indeed wither away with the abolition of classes — and the technical or administrative authority required by any complex system of production and circulation. The latter, he argues, will persist under socialism, though it will lose its class character. The article thus anticipates later Marxist debates about planning, democratic centralism, and the role of the state in the transition period.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article was written in 1872, in the immediate aftermath of the Paris Commune and at the height of the struggle between Marxists and Bakuninists within the First International. The Commune's defeat had demonstrated the catastrophic consequences of failing to wield revolutionary authority decisively — a point Engels makes explicitly. The anti-authoritarian faction, by demanding the abolition of all authority as a precondition for revolution, was in practice arguing against the very organisational and political discipline necessary to overthrow the bourgeoisie and defend a workers' state. The conjuncture was one of intense theoretical and organisational struggle over the nature of the coming revolution: would it be a spontaneous, decentralised uprising (the anarchist vision) or a centrally coordinated seizure of power by a disciplined proletarian party (the Marxist vision)? Engels's article is a decisive intervention in that struggle, arguing that the material logic of modern production itself refutes the anarchist position.

Where the Argument Continues

The article is a self-contained polemic, but its themes are developed extensively across the Marxist tradition. Engels's own Anti-Dühring (1878) expands on the distinction between the political state and the administrative functions of future society. Lenin's The State and Revolution (1917) takes up the question of the withering away of the state and the persistence of "bourgeois right" under socialism, directly engaging with the anarchist critique. Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism (1920) defends revolutionary terror and the necessity of authoritarian measures during the civil war, explicitly citing Engels's argument. Within the contemporary corpus of In Defence of Marxism, the article is regularly referenced in debates about democratic centralism, the nature of the revolutionary party, and the necessity of a workers' state. It is also a key text in the ongoing polemic against anarchist and autonomist currents on the left.

Connections

  • Engels, Anti-Dühring: Expands on the distinction between the state as a political instrument of class rule and the administrative functions that will survive its abolition.
  • Lenin, The State and Revolution: Directly engages with the anarchist critique of authority and develops the Marxist theory of the state in the transition period.
  • Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism: Defends revolutionary terror and the authoritarian character of the proletarian dictatorship, citing Engels's argument.
  • Marx, The Civil War in France: Provides the historical analysis of the Paris Commune that Engels's article presupposes.
  • Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy: The primary anarchist text against which Engels is polemicising.

Key Quotes

  1. "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?"

  2. "The automatic machinery of the big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been."

  3. "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."

  4. "These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves."

  5. "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."

  6. "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."