Introduction#

In 1872, Friedrich Engels wrote On Authority in response to the downfall of the Paris Commune, and to the criticisms given towards it by the social-democrats and anarchists. Here’s the thing: it seems that anarchists think this is one of Engels’ more important works, and that it was his entire argument against anar-chism! This couldn’t be further from the truth, notably because this is an incredibly short paper that he didn’t spend much time or thought on, being that dialectical materialism was already a framework that rebukes anarchism. Let’s dive into this text and expand on it.

“A number of Socialists have lately launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that the act is authoritarian 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.” Engels starts with context. There has always been a substantial number of so-called anti-authoritarians, anarchists and to an extent even certain so-called so-cialists who reject any “unjust” — in their own eyes — hierarchy, vanguard party or transitional state in a worker’s movement. Engels thought it was worth inves-tigating the matter, since it could be a problem later, with opportunism and re-action taking hold of the movement. This first paragraph is still true nearly 150 years later, with a growing trend of the western left being a strong denunciation of all previous socialist experiments as authoritarian, unpure socialism or utter failures, disregarding all the progress these movements made to improve the material conditions of millions of people and threaten western hegemony and imperialism. This leftist ideology of puritanism is incredibly revisionist and idealist, failing to consider any and all material conditions, foreign intervention, still existing class relations during the revolution that bring the bourgeoisie to do everything pos-sible to preserve their class interests, necessity to build productive forces and centralize the means of production through a planned economy, and so, so much more. Lenin spoke about this kind of thinking in his 1917 work State and Revolution, citing Marx and Engel’s 1873 controversy with the anarchists: “To prevent the true meaning of his struggle against anarchism from being dis-torted, Marx expressly emphasized the “revolutionary and transient form” of the state which the proletariat needs. The proletariat needs the state only tem-porarily. We do not after all differ with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as the aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, we must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources, and methods of state pow-er against the exploiters, just as the temporary dictatorship of the oppressed class is necessary for the abolition of classes. Marx chooses the sharpest and clearest way of stating his case against the anarchists: After overthrowing the yoke of the capitalists, should the workers “lay down their arms”, or use them against the capitalists to crush their resistance? But what is the systematic use of arms by one class against another if not a “transient form” of state?” (V.I. Lenin, 1917, Chapter IV) This is very well put and explains the main issue that anarchists have with their own misconception of Marxism: the relation between the revolution and the state. If we’re to crush the bourgeois state and “achieve communism” over night, how does that happen? How do we ensure worker control of all factories and enterprises and coordinate that production without reproducing market relations? How do we prevent the national bourgeoisie from screwing up all the progress we made? Radio silence. As Lenin further expanded in the same work: “And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the free-dom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence.” (V.I. Lenin, 1917, Chapter V) Back to the main text. “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 sub-ordination.” Anarchists use the concept of authority in the sense of a dreadful entity, some-thing to avoid at all costs, which against natural law subordinates a group to an-other, be it a class to another, no matter which way it is. Their definition of au-thority presupposes oppression, which is a subordination like capitalism, colo-nialism, misogyny, and other rightfully denounced systems of oppression. They oppose the concept, forgetting the idea itself of the vanguard party, in favour of immediate abolition of the state, without meeting any of the necessary condi-tions for the withering away of the state illustrated by Marx. Have these people read Marx or Lenin? Do they not realize that the substitution of the capitalist state for a state defined as the ‘organized proletariat’ is precisely the anti-authoritarian tool they claim to be against? How do they expect the revolution to defend itself against the imperialists and the reactionaries? It seems to me they are either ignorant on the matter or don’t want to get anything done outside of the current state of affairs. To be perfectly clear: anarchism is individualistic in nature: don’t touch my homestead, leave everyone alone! Now I really don’t mean to denounce all anar-chists as reactionaries and enemies of the worker’s movements like Stalin did in Anarchism or Socialism. I have had experience in popular movements with an-archists, with their incredible mutual aid organizations that provide free food and shelter for the communities. Lots of them genuinely care about helping others and opposing the current sta-tus quo. Yet they don’t pose a threat to the capitalist order, they don’t believe in the stages of development theorized by Marx. Everything is pragmatic. It’s to no surprise that the establishment has no issues promoting anarchism and its pro-ponents like Noam Chomsky: their bottom-line isn’t challenged by it. All this is quite an idealist view, considering all hitherto existing proletarian movements in their way to freedom, to liberation, have had a sort of vanguard and transitional ‘state’. There has, there needs to be at least some sense of au-thority, of hierarchical organization – usually in the form of councils, take the Supreme soviet of the USSR! Lenin and the Bolsheviks decided collectively of the correct and reasonable positions to hold and actions to take, and the rest of the party followed I concordance with democratic centralism. This ‘hierarchy’ doesn’t entail oppression, rather coordination between the local and national organs of worker democracy. Authority in the soviets at the beginning was not really an authoritarian system, it just had someone pointing the movement in a given direction, to prevent con-tradictory or harmful decisions from being made. It then degenerated for vari-ous reasons, mainly because the framework to contain power in the hands of the majority was not in place at the time, because of the second world war, and be-cause of massive instability during dekulakization of the agriculture sector. Man, Trotsky might have had a point. Back to Engels. “Now, since these two words sound bad, and the relationship which they repre-sent 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 in-dustry, with its big factories 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 falls increasingly under the domin-ion 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?” Here, Engels points out that it is quite hard to organize a party, an administra-tive system without any authority. There needs to be a hierarchy of knowledge, of education. Someone who takes the lead and directs the masses towards common good, towards the most rational decision. This could be in the form of a ‘director’, a member of the worker council who has more experience than a lot of people, and who can advise his team on the best possible solutions to a problem - or as a generally liked and knowledgeable - in matter of theory and practice - member of the council who gets elected secretary at the beginning of every meeting, or for a given period of time. In no way shape or form are people sub-ordinate to this orator, they can voice their disagreements if they please, but once the soviet comes to an majority decision on an important matter, the prin-ciples of democratic centralism apply. It’s simply a question of not letting just anyone cause a trainwreck in an assembly. But this authority does not presuppose subordination, the other ‘subordinated’ members of the group of workers can still give their input and advance the deci-sion making. There might still be things this leader forgot to consider, or he can better explain his decision to the people who don’t necessarily understand it. This ‘leader’ absolutely can be held accountable and opposed, in the framework of democratic centralism. Back to the Engels. “Supposing a social revolution 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 in-struments 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 of 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 fin-ish 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, distri-bution 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 tyrannical than the small capitalists who employ work-ers ever have been. At least with regard to the hours of work one may write up-on the portals of these factories: “Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate!” Here, Engels argues that the workers are subordinated to the authority of the steam and production process for use, just like they are subordinated to the capitalists. This is because in his time production used steam machines, which needed constant supervision. The collective is subordinated to the socially nec-essary labor time needed to produce a consumption good or service. So accord-ing to an anarchist definition of authority, production itself is authoritative. This is more or less relevant in our epoch, where machines are robotized and steam isn’t used as much. It is also possible to hire more people and supervise the machines for shorter periods of time. Though there is still a quota to be met every day to ensure a steady consumption for use, workers cannot expect to find a job just to not work at all, every able person should be able to give to soci-ety what they can give, or at least part of it. With time, from each according to his ability, to each according to his work becomes from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Back to Engels. “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 organisa-tion. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to want-ing to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom to return to the spin-ning wheel.”

In short, there needs to be leadership to ensure good assignment of productive resources. The labour day can still be shortened significantly in the abolition of production for profit. However, it still needs to be organized to meet certain quotas, and to ensure the production process goes smoothly. This might at first glance seem like a strawman on Engels’ end, but it has some truth to it. Anarchy in production would be the death of the latter. This authority in production is only the quotas needed to be met. Workers can be in a greater number, and work less hours, if the production is done to ensure there is not unnecessary scarcity. In some way ‘societal needs’ are authoritarian according to those anti-authoritarians. But I think Engel’s broader point is that this organisation can be done by a council, but it will itself be an authority on the individuals who voted for a different decision. The collective project is more important than individual ‘feelings.

“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 hap-pen. 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 per-sons 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?”

Let’s deconstruct his argument: a) The cooperation of an infinite number of individuals is necessary during fixed hours to prevent accidents; b) This organisation presupposes authority, a very pronounced one, to exe-cute that organization.

But where does he go with this? “But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will no-where be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in times of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obe-dience of all to the will of one.” Commenting:

c) There is a necessity for authority.

As he says, this is just like in ships on the high seas, people need to follow orders of someone who has more experience in dire circumstances. One of those dire circumstances might probably be, I don’t know, a violent armed revolution that overthrows the oppressors and seizes all private property. There is a ne-cessity for a more well knowledgeable person to take the lead and organize pro-duction without possibility of debate, in certain scenarios. Though during the October revolution, it was democratic, surprisingly enough for wartime measures. Here Engels argues for some kind of ‘technocracy’, something which ensures the most rational decision taking. Back to Engels. “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 dele-gates, but of a commission entrusted! 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 the whole world.”

Commenting. This is something which I certainly partly agree with, anar-chists lack acceptance of the need for a technocratic order in certain circum-stances, like in the USSR where there was a need to rapidly industrialize a backwards feudal country to build productive forces, fight reaction and from the 1930s onwards fight off the nazi aggressors. - Here there was a possibility of de-bate on the most rational decision to take, but a leader directed the group to-wards that decision. The Bolsheviks went beyond necessary with war com-munism, and had to roll out the NEP to build productive forces while appeasing the peasantry. Wanting collectivization at all costs, without a transitional peri-od, is as bad as wanting to instantly abolish the political state - they basically go hand-in-hand, one relies on the other - there needs to be a sector of worker en-terprises, coordinated by the transitional state, that evolve through the eco-nomic conditions for the withering away of the state. Though I feel like I might be overreaching.

Back to Engels. “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 circu-lation 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 princi-ple of autonomy as being absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of the development of socie-ty.”

Here Engels makes an interesting point: a) The material conditions of the production process develop the necessity for a certain authority b) It is therefore idiotic to assume that the principle of self-management and autonomy is in all circumstances, inherently a good principle to follow. c) Freedom from authority, of self-management, is something that varies, that is relative and which cannot be absolute. Just like freedom of speech, which should end where other people’s right to respect and integrity be-gins. d) Therefore, self-management can be a good thing, but it needs directions, a council of workers who can give directions to the individuals – that con-stitute THE COUNCIL.

Back to Engels. “If the autonomists confined themselves to saying that the social organisa-tion 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 passion-ately fight the world. Here he argues his position on the matter, something he would agree with if it was pushed for by anarchists: a) The social organisation of the future could be different (ie our current in-dustrialized and mechanized production) b) In this scenario authority could be restricted within the limits of the con-ditions of production c) That would be someone taking the lead and giving directions to organize production, within the framework which ensures possibility of self-criticism and stays efficient. Back to Engels. “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 condi-tions 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 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?”

Commenting. Let’s analyse this paragraph. Here he starts by reminding us of what Socialists have agreed on: a) Socialists agree that the political state will disappear following the social revolution b) Public functions will lose political character and become solely adminis-trative functions that ensure production and the planning process are done efficiently, as well as watching over the interests of society

This is something anarchists lack understanding of, they want a revolution which instantly abolishes the state, before the social conditions that gave birth to it - a dichotomy, a contradiction of class antagonisms- have been destroyed. They want abolition of all authority. There thus needs to be a certain authority, acts of violent struggle from the dictatorship of the proletariat, over the bour-geoisie, to impose its will upon them and ensure these social conditions are de-stroyed, for the state to then wither away, in favour of public militias and of those ‘administrative functions that ensure the wellbeing of society as a whole.’

Back to Engels. “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 confu-sion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.”

This last paragraph I have mixed feelings about but they’re only feelings. It is true that as a group they serve reaction. However, individually I think we can have conversations with anarchists, come to an arrangement/consensus with on certain issues and convince them of the eternal science of Marxism-Leninism! People learn! But they under no circumstance should be allowed as is in the vanguard without renouncing their reactionary tendencies.

So, to put it simply: Engels divides authority into three types: physical force, the authority of knowledge, and the authority of character. Physical force is the most primitive form of authority, and it is based on the ability to use violence to impose one’s will on others. The authority of knowledge is based on the posses-sion of specialized knowledge or skills that are needed to perform specific tasks. The authority of character is based on the trust and respect that individuals have for a particular person. Engels also argues that authority should be based on the principle of democratic control. He suggests that the people should have the right to elect their leaders, and that leaders should be accountable to the people. He also contends that leaders should be subject to recall, so that they can be removed from office if they fail to perform their duties. I mean, duh! The goal of socialism is the ad-vancement of history beyond capitalism, the transfer of power into the hands of the masses! Having read and annotated this essay, I must now look at some critiques of it written by opponents of Marxism. Here is part of one written by user Phal-gun on the essay’s Goodreads page (I removed a few parts, only to keep the ac-tual arguments made, and none of his impertinent ad hominems as I don’t want to turn this whole thing into a fallacy fallacy):

“However, his proof in reality is chock full of mistakes, most of them essential for the deduction of the conclusion. Some of them are as follows,

  1. Anarchists do not oppose the kind of ‘authority’ displayed in the first exam-ple. A collective making a decision based on a fair and mutual democratic sys-tem which is devoid of hierarchy or a centralized power, is not the ‘authority’ that anarchists despise. Bakunin, the person in the forefront of the movement that Engels is addressing, makes that abundantly clear in his writings.
  2. Anarchists do not oppose the kind of ‘authority’ displayed in the third exam-ple. Anarchists make a clear distinction between delegating work to an authority of something and being held dominion by authority. A doctor is an authority on medicine. Their suggestions and general advice on illness are in most part to be trusted and we delegate the treatment of our bodies to them in times of poor health. The Bolsheviks held the people they were supposed to represent under their undue and centralized authority. People of their ilk must be opposed. There’s a clear difference between the two kinds which seems to be lost on En-gels.”

This seems like a half-tried attempt at refuting Engels’ argument by ignoring the bigger picture. This applies not only to the labor process, railways and ‘ships in the high seas’, but also to decision making. This person claims that the Bolshe-viks held ‘people they were supposed to represent under their undue and cen-tralized authority’. This couldn’t really be further from the truth. What the Bol-sheviks did was centralize power in the hands of the vanguard party, seeing as the masses were mostly uneducated and lacked organizational skills. There needed to be a way in which the interests of the working class and revolutionary peasantry were strived for. Democratic centralism made sure reaction didn’t infect the party. Hell, we can even go further back and talk about the constitu-tive assembly where the Bolsheviks won the battle of bourgeois democracy!

Lenin and the Bolsheviks understood that, making worker councils the basis of soviet political organization. What needed to be done was subordinate the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois counterrevolutionaries to the will of the people, of the . This couldn’t really be done without centralising power in the hands of a transitional worker state, to organise what needed to be done and ensure effi-ciency in the transition to the socialist state, which would be necessary to elimi-nate bourgeois interests -social conditions which were the basis of capitalist so-ciety and that needed to be ‘repressed’ by strong means - to then achieve com-munism, the final stage of historical development.

There was still a foundational principle of organisation, soviets. These councils were worker democracy, and they worked well for a while, until that authority could not be further contained, and their power diminished to the point of near abstention from politics for most of the otherwise politically active population. Here I concede to an extent, I agree that there needed to be a stronger demo-cratic framework to ensure a pure democracy where the chairman only pointed the assemblies toward a direction. Let’s not have millions die in a world war with a looming famine from land owning holding the grain next time! Material conditions, people, material conditions!

This would however still be an ‘authority’, someone who understands their the-ory and practice and corrects mistakes. Soviets should have been better consol-idated, and anarchists have an almost correct analysis of that - if we ignore the deeply flawed and idealist conception of all authority as equally bad. This au-thority also brought significant social and material progress, so I struggle to find a point to vehemently opposing it. It is not ‘inherently bad’, it just needs a more democratic framework to work better and for a longer time.

Back to Phalgun. “3) The second example presupposes a conflict between the ‘authority’ of the passengers and the ‘authority’ of the workers. Furthermore, it lacks specificity in its claim and reason for a need of a strong hand to put the workers in line. For his next argument, Engels accuses anarchists of arguing in terms of seman-tics to advance their causes. He equates delegates of the people to envoys of au-thority and proclaims that changing names does not alter the truth. But by defi-nition, anarchist delegates differ from autonomous representatives who hold power. Delegates can be recalled at any moment and in many traditions of anar-chy are limited in their ability to make decisions without the voice of the majori-ty on their side. Rep resentatives, in most cases, can make decisions with impu-nity with only the fear of reelection and greater authoritative bodies to hold them back. His next argument against Anarchism comes in form of the support of the tran-sition state, and also by reflection, an attack on the anarchists belief that there shouldn’t be one. That is a core point of contention between Marxism-Leninism and all forms of Anarchism. A difference in ideology which cannot be explained in a review which is already way too long. Finally, He says that a revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is, A part of the society forcing its ‘authority’ on another, thus implying that the anti-authoritarian Anarchists are not revolutionaries. Here Engel discards his own definition of authority, the one which requires authority to be defined from a dominant position to a subjugated position, and just uses it as a synonym for will. How is a subjugated class fighting for its rights for self-determination a per-fect demonstration of ‘authority’? Is a man who defends himself out of necessity also imposing his ‘authority’ over the attacker? And even if it was taken to be an abstract version of authority, whose only prerequisite for existence is an imposi-tion of force, how is it related to the hierarchical authority that anarchists op-pose? Engels ends the essay by denouncing anarchists, proclaiming that they are ei-ther confused or counter-revolutionaries thus setting the stage for the actions of the Bolsheviks against the Makhnovist and the Russian Anarchists.” This really shows a lack of self-awareness from anarchists, this person does not try to make a counterargument, rather pointing a difference in ideolo-gy between MLs and anarcho-communists, without substantiation, and then following by claiming that Engels uses a flawed definition of authority. Further-more, this doesn’t really set the stage for any significant action against anar-chists as individuals — something these individualists don’t understand — ra-ther an ideological struggle against anarchism. They are reactionary and part of their ideas should not be listened to. Ignoring the petit bourgeois among them, the workers amongst them are still comrades after all, and they can give valua-ble input. They just need to understand the need for transition between histori-cal phases of society. To reject individualism. To embrace a scientific method for advancing the proletarian struggle. The critique only assumes a smaller picture, ‘rebutting’ some arguments of En-gels and forgetting that the bigger argument is that there needs to be some leadership in social and labour organisations in order to ensure order. Engels wasn’t arguing for ‘totalitarianism’, just in letting a leading vanguard direct the majority towards the common good and to following the core principles of Marxism. This authority needed to be constrained under the framework of worker soviets. That’s all there is to it. There’s no need to strawman their own historical revisionism. And I do have a few more things to say about authoritarianism, to rebuke revi-sionist tendencies and western Marxism. Historically, the developed socialist republics we saw arose from a Marxist-Leninist, uninterrupted revolution, as the material conditions of the proletariat were too poor to develop the class consciousness necessary to have an ‘anarchist’ revolution that started with the abolition of the state in favour of an instant, horizontal structure. They were al-so victims of imperialism and under the constant threat of western intervention. In the case of the USSR, the Bolsheviks took on that role, leading a Vanguard party that followed through with a revolution. They then industrialised the country and achieved lower-stage communism (socialism), but the problem came with the class of bureaucrats that arose from that lack of constriction of authority. What was lacking was a framework. It can also be argued that this class of bureaucrats arose from being planners, which would not be a problem in our days, considering cybernetics. We don’t need to have highly paid bureau-crats that manually calculate inputs. Kantorovich proved that computers could automate this for us. Then again, we also have to account for western imperialism and counter-revolution: the country had to centralise power and create a powerful organized military to hold back from it. And in the case of the USSR, distribute resources to underdeveloped republics within the union. We can also go deeper by analyz-ing Stalin’s forced leadership by the assembly through decades including a world war that would’ve given Lenin three more strokes. The people in power after Stalin, aka Kruschev and the other revisionists were also insanely harmful to the revolution, and the development of a computer-based system that took power away from the bureaucrats in Moscow would have greatly impacted the level of ‘authoritarianism’ in the union. This is basic analysis of the Paris Com-mune that wasn’t understood in the USSR for some reason. Despite these outcomes, is state socialism (AKA the siege socialism that worker movements are forced into by foreign intervention and sanctions) inherently bad and wrongly authoritarian and will another form of authority replace the proletarian state apparatus? To arrive at an answer, we follow the logic of how common ownership of the means of living works out in praxis. Common owner-ship presupposes the decision-making process is under the democratic control of society. In short, a process for the distribution of human needs at a local, re-gional and global level on the basis of free access and the production for use. The concept of democracy is essential to socialism, as without democracy social-ism is unworkable. But there are a few factors needed to understand. The first one being that edu-cated decisions need to be made, as one of the reasons socialism is preferable to capitalism is the better allocation of resources and preservation of the environ-ment. Here an intellectual hierarchy, where experts decide how to approach the distribution or production of certain things is much preferable to just direct democracy. This doesn’t make the system ‘authoritarian’, it just makes it work in the first place. In short, depending on how socialism is approached, imperial-ism, material conditions, it will always have different outcomes, but historically the ‘authoritarianism’ that was described in western media was way too exag-gerated and left out very important factors. Tho it is always flawed to make bold claims about socialism doing anything bet-ter than capitalism, as the materialist analysis is that capitalism has achieved what it could to build productive forces and that it is no longer viable for the masses of proletarians. In conclusion, I ultimately believe councils should be the basis of political or-ganisation and should always be subject to criticism, to keep a democratic order and prevent mistakes of the past, whatever they may be. Democratic centralism is at the center of Marxism-Leninism after all. The big bad boogieman of author-ity, however, needs to exist in order to maintain order up until the social condi-tions for the emergence of high-stage communism are met. It is foolish to ve-hemently oppose any authority like a teenager who flees his ‘somewhat strict’ parents. There might be a time in the future where the social conditions make it possible for a transition to the final stage of communism, free of authority. But for the time being, we need to stay rational and materialist with our theory, the national bourgeoisies, the United States and the Zionist entity will do every-thing in their power to make sure the workers fail in meeting their ends.

  Works Cited Engels, F. (1873). On Authority. From https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm Lenin, V. I. (1917). The State and Revolution. From https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/