Ironically, Engels' essay "On Authority" also strikes at the heart of Marxism and its critique of anarchism. Forgetting what he had written in 1873, Engels argued in 1894 that for him and Marx the "ultimate political aim is to overcome the whole state and therefore democracy as well." [quoted by Lenin, "State and Revolution", Essential Works of Lenin, p. 331] Lenin argued that "the abolition of the state means also the abolition of democracy." [Op. Cit., p. 332]
However, Lenin quoted Engels' "On Authority" which stated that any form of collective activity meant "authority" and so the subjection of the minority to the majority ("if possible") and "the imposition of the will of another upon ours." [Engels, Marx-Engels Reader, p. 731 and p. 730]
Aware of the contradiction, Lenin stresses that "someone may even begin to fear we are expecting the advent of an order of society in which the subordination of the minority to the majority will not be respected." That was not the case, however. He simply rejected the idea that democracy was "the recognition of this principle" arguing that "democracy is a state which recognises the subordination of the minority to the majority, i.e. an organisation for the systematic use of violence by one class against the other, by one section of the population against another." He argued that "the need for violence against people in general, the need for the subjection of one man to another, will vanish, since people will become accustomed to observing the elementary conditions of social life without force and without subordination." [Lenin, Op. Cit., pp. 332-3]
Talk about playing with words! Earlier in his work Lenin summarised Engels "On Authority" by stating that "is it not clear that . . . complex technical units, based on the employment of machinery and the ordered co-operation of many people, could function without a certain amount of subordination, without some authority or power." [Op. Cit., p. 316] Now, however, he argues that communism would involve no "subordination" while, at the same time, be based on the "the principle of the subordination of the minority to the majority"! A contradiction? Perhaps no, as he argues that the minority would "become accustomed" to the conditions of "social life" — in other words the recognition that sticking to your agreements you make with others does not involve "subordination." This, ironically, would confirm anarchist ideas as we argue that making agreements with others, as equals, does not involve domination or subordination but rather is an expression of autonomy, of liberty.
Similarly, we find Engels arguing in Anti-Duhring that socialism would "puts an end to the former subjection of men to their own means of production" and that "productive labour, instead of being a means of subjugating men, will become a means of their emancipation." [Marx-Engels Reader, p. 720 and p. 721] This work was written in 1878, six years after "On Authority" when he stressed that "the automatic machinery of a big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been" and "subdu[ing] the forces of nature . . . avenge themselves" upon "man" by "subjecting him . . . to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation." [Op. Cit., p. 731] Engels is clearly contradicting himself. When attacking the anarchists, he argues that the "subjection" of people to the means of production was inevitable and utterly "independent of all social organisation." Six years later he argues that socialism will abolish this inescapable subjection to the "veritable despotism" of modern industry!
As can be seen from both Engels and Lenin, we have a contradiction within Marxism. On the one hand, they argue that authority ("subjection") will always be with us, no matter what, as "subordination" and "authority" is independent of the specific social society we live in. On the other, they argue that Marxist socialism will be without a state, "without subordination," "without force" and will end the "subjection of men to their own means of production." The two positions cannot be reconciled.
Simply put, if Engels "On Authority" is correct then, logically, it means that not only is anarchism impossible but also Marxist socialism. Lenin and Engels are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, arguing that anarchism is impossible as any collective activity means subjection and subordination, on the other, that socialism will end that inevitable subjection. And, of course, arguing that democracy will be "overcome" while, at the same time, arguing that it can never be. Ultimately, it shows that Engels essay is little more than a cheap polemic without much merit.
Even worse for Marxism is Engels' comment that authority and autonomy "are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of society" and 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." [Op. Cit., p. 732] Given that this is "a veritable despotism" and Marxism aims at "one single vast plan" in modern industry, then the scope for autonomy, for freedom, is continually reduced during the working day. [Op. Cit., p. 723 and p. 731] The only possible solution is reducing the working day to a minimum and so the time spent as a slave to the machine is reduced. The idea that work should be transformed into creative, empowering and liberating experience is automatically destroyed by Engels argument. Like capitalism, Marxist-Socialism is based on "work is hell" and the domination of the producer. Hardly an inspiring vision of the future.