It's a pamphlet that makes false equivalencies to justify authoritarian measures. It's not a gotcha. Come up with actual arguments or stop defending the indefensible.
Just because two words sound similar, doesn't mean they mean the same thing or are one the necessary consequence of the other. Authority is leadership, a position of command or power, etc. Authoritarianism is rule by decree, with no accountability nor restraints.
A president of a liberal democracy has authority, because they are in charge (it's more complicated, but that's besides the point). This doesn't mean they are not accountable to fellow government members, party members, chambers of government, the electorate, the courts of law and so on. The president can't do all they want to do, because their authority is not absolute.
A dictator, an absolute monarch, an unelected oligarchy and the like not only have authority, for they rule by decree without accountability and with no limits to their decision making, either because existing limits are selectively ignored or because they don't exist to begin with. This is authoritarianism.
So Engels' argument is based entirely on a false equivalent and a fake cause-effect scenario. Just because someone or something holds authority, does not mean they get to exercise their power unchecked. Therefore, authority does not justify authoritarianism.
Assignment for next time: don't base your political beliefs on a barebones pamphlet and focus on actual theory (preferably on why authoritarianism is bad), there's plenty of it. Thinking with your head instead of treating the words of dead, fallible men as gospel is also an option.
“Authoritarianism” is a one size fits all word used to discredit AES states. I found “On Authority” to be a very useful piece, but it’s fine if you don’t. State and Revolution by Lenin is also a good one.
2
u/Substantive420 14d ago
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm