> It seems you are not so much opposing what Engels says as quibbling
> with his use of the word "authoritarian," since you don't oppose the
> use of force in self-defense or to "root out wage slavery."
Force as self-defense is of course justified. It isn't authoritarian to defend yourself.
See, I believe words mean things, and that they are not endlessly elastic, to be shaped to their users' wishes as individual need dictates. Engels' essay posits there is nothing wrong with what he calls "authroritarianism" if it is in the right hands. My position is that if what he calls "authoritarianism" means the working class ending wage slavery, then this is not an "authoritarian" act at all.. It is the use of force, to be sure - but a use of force as self-defense. Corporations certainly believe that to defend oneself from them is to act "authoritarian." It isn't. Words have definitions. And Authoritarianism is an important phenomenon that should be understood well.
The danger in Engels' piece, which was quoted only in part, is that it paves the way for people to openly, and in fact proudly, act with a heavy hand over others. For ex, Lenin in "The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government," stating, ""Today, however, the same revolution demands - precisely in the interests of its development and consolidation, precisely in the interests of socialism - that the people unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of labour."
Brian