> upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets, and cannon--
authoritarian
> means, if such there be at all;
Brian: Engels' apology for authority is well known and there have been countless essays about his erroneous use of the term here. It's not authoritarian to remedy what is unjustly authoritarian.
David: I don't think Engels is apologizing for authority in that passage. I think he is explaining why it exists at the time of revolution. No revolution-- or any other social movement, for that matter-- comes out of thin air, or the ether in people's brains. Actual revolutions are a stark reaction to everything the society has produced up to that point. It is unthinkable to imagine a "gentle revolution" coming out of a milieu as destructive and alienating as capitalism. But perhaps you can describe for me a real-life situation in which "the lion will lay down with the lamb", or "the swords will be beaten into ploughshares," etc.
Brian:
The Right likes to go on about the "authoritarianism" of workers or unions or community activists who attempt to make corporations more democratically accountable, i.e. to make them less autocratic and authoritarian. Doing this can only be called "authoritarian" by someone who has a unique definition of the term. If the working class were to go on the offensive to root out wage slavery, the State, capitalism, etc. , they would not br acting "authoritarian." They would be remedying the problems of authoritarianism.
David: Well, they would certainly be on their way to doing so. But the immediate goal of revolution, as Marx stated in the Communist Manifesto, is "the conquest of political power by the proletariat".
How about when Lincoln "rooted out" slavery? I am not saying that was his only aim, but, nonetheless, we have to think about this: How did he do it? Could it have been accomplished in any other way than arming people with guns and marching them down to the South? Maybe I am missing something, and if so you can tell me how.
Brian: The imagery of rifles, bayonet, and cannon - things that we cannot predict would actually ever be used in a revolutionary situation - is unwarranted.
David: How exactly would you imagine capitalists to respond the ownership of all their means of production, and all their wealth, was challenged? With those big tall puppets and djembe drums on shoulder straps?
Brian:
This is all like saying that if someone attacks you and you manage to stab him in sef-defense, you are "authoritarian."
David: Now it seems to me that you are just engaged in semantic word-play. If someone uses a weapon to assert there right to exist, then they are using a weapon to assert their right to exist. Call it "authoritarian," call it "anti-authoritarian," call it whatever you want. And are you saying the act would suddenly become "authoritarian," (i.e., "bad") if it was offensive rather than defensive? There is no real righteousness, or subjective moral judgement about who is "good" or "bad", "authoritarian" or "anti-authoritarian." In a capitalist society undergoing revolution, both the proletarian and the bourgeoisie would defend their own class interests, period.