In his campaign against anti-authoritarian ideas within the First International, Engels asks in a letter written in January 1872 "how do these people [the anarchists] propose to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without a single management." [The Marx-Engels Reader, p. 729]

This, of course, can only be asked if Engels was totally ignorant of Bakunin's ideas and his many comments supporting co-operatives and workers' associations as the means by which workers would "organise and themselves conduct the economy without guardian angels, the state or their former employers." Indeed, Bakunin was "convinced that the co-operative movement will flourish and reach its full potential only in a society where the land, the instruments of production,

and hereditary property will be owned and operated by the workers themselves: by their freely organised federations of industrial and agricultural workers." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 399 and p. 400] Which means that Bakunin, like all anarchists, was well aware of how a factory or other workplace would be organised:

"Only associated labour, that is, labour organised upon the principles of reciprocity and co-operation, is adequate to the task of maintaining . . . civilised society." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 341]

By October of that year, Engels had finally "submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians" who replied to run a factory, railway or ship did require organisation "but here it was not a case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted!" Engels commented that the anarchists "think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves." He, therefore, thinks that authority "will . . . only have changed its form" rather than being abolished under anarchism as "whoever mentions combined action speaks of organisation" and it is not possible "to have organisation without authority." [Op. Cit., p. 732 and p. 731]

However, Engels is simply confusing two different things, authority and agreement. To make an agreement with another person is an exercise of your freedom, not its restriction. As Malatesta argued, "the advantages which association and the consequent division of labour offer" meant that humanity "developed towards solidarity." However, under class society "the advantages of association, the good that Man could drive from the support of his fellows" was distorted and a few gained "the advantages of co-operation by subjecting other men to [their] will instead of joining with them." This oppression "was still association and co-operation, outside of which there is no possible human life; but it was a way of co-operation, imposed and controlled by a few for their personal interest." [Anarchy, p. 28] Anarchists seek to organise association to eliminate domination. This would be done by workers organising themselves collectively to make their own decisions about their work (workers' self-management, to use modern terminology).

As such, workers would organise their tasks but this did not necessitate the same authoritarian social relationships as exist under capitalism:

"Of course in every large collective undertaking, a division of labour, technical management, administration, etc., is necessary. But authoritarians clumsily play on words to produce a raison d'etre for government out of the very real need for the organisation of work. Government . . . is the concourse of individuals who have had, or have seized, the right and the means to make laws and to oblige people to obey; the administrator, the engineer, etc., instead are people who are appointed or assume the responsibility to carry out a particular job and do so. Government means the delegation of power, that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the hands of a few; administration means the delegation of work, that is tasks given and received, free exchange of services based on free agreement. . . Let one not confuse the function of government with that of administration, for they are essentially different, and if today the two are often confused, it is only because of economic and political privilege." [Anarchy, pp. 39-40]

For a given task, co-operation and joint activity may be required by its very nature. Take, for example, a train network. The joint activity of numerous workers are required to ensure that it operates successfully. The driver depends on the work of signal operators, for example, and guards to inform them of necessary information essential for the smooth running of the network. The passengers are dependent on the driver and the other workers to ensure their journey is safe and quick. As such, there is an objective need to co-operate but this need is understood and agreed to by the people involved.

If a specific activity needs the co-operation of a number of people and can only be achieved if these people work together as a team and, therefore, need to make and stick by agreements, then this is undoubtedly a natural fact which the individual can only rebel against by leaving the association. Similarly, if an association considers it wise to elect a delegate whose tasks have been allocated by that group then, again, this is a natural fact which the individuals in question have agreed to and so have not been imposed upon the individual by any external will — the individual has been convinced of the need to co-operate and does so.

Engels, therefore, confuses the authority of the current system, organised and imposed from the top-down, with the self-management required by a free society. He attempted to apply the same word "authority" to two fundamentally different concepts. However, we abuse words and practice deception when we apply the same term to totally different concepts. As if the hierarchical, authoritarian organisation of work under capitalism, imposed by the few on the many and based by the absence of thought and will of the subordinated, could be compared with the co-ordination of joint activities by free individuals! What is there in common with the authoritarian structure of the capitalist workplace or army and the libertarian organisation required by workers to manage their struggle for freedom and, ultimately, to manage their own working activity? Engels does damage to the language by using the same word ("authority") to describe two so radically different things as the hierarchical organisation of wage labour and the free association and co-operation of equals of self-management. If an activity requires the co-operation of numerous individuals then, clearly, that is a natural fact and there is not much the individuals involved can do about it. Anarchists are not in the habit of denying common sense. The question is simply how do these individuals co-ordinate their activities. Is it by means of self-management or by hierarchy (authority)?

As such, anarchists have always been clear on how industry would be run — by the workers' themselves in their own free associations. In this way the domination of the boss would be replaced by agreements between equals (see also sections I.3.1 and I.3.2 on how anarchists think workplaces will be run in a free society).