liberty vs authority: a false dichotomy?

[G4b3n]

I have seen Marxists make this argument before. Is it recent or does it have historical roots in Marxist discourse with libertarians? Can someone give an in-depth explanation of this argument or link me a work that does? Thanks

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Engels's "On Authority" (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm), an often overlooked work (because it isn't really pleasing to the various self-managers etc.), is the classical treatment of the issue.

[G4b3n]

Engels's "On Authority" (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm), an often overlooked work (because it isn't really pleasing to the various self-managers etc.), is the classical treatment of the issue.

I certainly wouldn't call it overlooked, it is probably the most quoted work in rebuttals against "abolishing" the state.
However, Engels is framing the practical impossibility of anti-authoritarianism in this work, he is not addressing the argument I am looking for which is a theoretical one. I want to say it was popularized by left communists but I could be wrong.

[consuming negativity]

engels is making a stupid argument there anyway. there is a difference between trust in the authority of a person who is skilled and/or experienced and authority by force in which the will of one person/group is exerted on that of another person/group against their will

one is a voluntary agreement between individuals to recognize a person as an authority and to listen because they believe the person knows better than they do with their own knowledge, and the other is violent subjection of a person to the other's will against the will of the party

the consent or lack thereof is what distinguishes the two, and to pretend there is no difference is absurd

the proletarian revolution is not authoritarian, it is self-defense

liberty is the authority of the individual over themselves; when an individual submits to an authority because the person believes in the authoritativeness of that authority, there is no conflict between liberty and authority.

[Tim Cornelis]

Usually the argument is that libertarianism and authoritarianism is a false dichotomy. If it is a dichotomy, then indeed it is a false one. I perceive it as a spectrum, with libertarian and authoritarian on opposite ends. Engels is wrong because authority and authoritarianism is not the same thing.

Many anarchists argue that Marxism is 'authoritarian', suggesting that it is indeed a dichotomy (if not libertarian, it must use authoritarian methods). A socialist revolution is not libertarian (it uses coercion) and not authoritarian (power is not concentrated in the hands of a few).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I certainly wouldn't call it overlooked, it is probably the most quoted work in rebuttals against "abolishing" the state.
However, Engels is framing the practical impossibility of anti-authoritarianism in this work, he is not addressing the argument I am looking for which is a theoretical one. I want to say it was popularized by left communists but I could be wrong.

I would say it is often quoted (sometimes as "the work where Engels disproves anarchism", which I think is a bit preposterous), but rarely read. As for why I chose this work, I don't think it makes sense to separate practice from theory in this way. Engels's point in the first part of the piece is an extension of Marx's statement on management in Capital; that any associated mode of production requires the "labour of supervision", and this, in turn, requires "authoritarianism" in the sense in which Marxism is "authoritarian" and in the sense in which anarchism is "anti-authoritarian".

So abstract opposition to authority is impossible, nonsensical, and so is its abstract negation. "Authoritarianism" and "libertarianism", as used by anarchists, are vague and emotional terms rather than real possibilities for social development.


engels is making a stupid argument there anyway. there is a difference between trust in the authority of a person who is skilled and/or experienced and authority by force in which the will of one person/group is exerted on that of another person/group against their will

And the latter kind of authority is, again, necessary in any associated mode of production, as the actions of several producers need to be brought into accord. (As an aside, I never understood the anarchist obsession with professionals. Like listening to professionals to the exclusion of everyone else is a surefire way of making everything worse.)


the proletarian revolution is not authoritarian, it is self-defense

Another one of those statements I don't really get. When the proletariat comes and forcefully nationalises the land of the small peasantry, is that "self-defence"? No, that's absurd.

[consuming negativity]

i didn't say professionals, i said persons who know what they're talking about. moreover, i meant more than just in a singular context. reducing my points until they become straw man caricatures is a great way to dismiss them but not a great way to disprove them.

it is self-defense in the same way that a slave who kills their master is acting in self-defense. surely you can understand the difference between this and the violence used by a master to beat a slave?

[G4b3n]

i didn't say professionals, i said persons who know what they're talking about. moreover, i meant more than just in a singular context. reducing my points until they become straw man caricatures is a great way to dismiss them but not a great way to disprove them.

it is self-defense in the same way that a slave who kills their master is acting in self-defense. surely you can understand the difference between this and the violence used by a master to beat a slave?

Well I think he and Engels are correct in stating that revolution is authoritarian because the exploiters are not the only people affected by its authority. The slave is exploited on an individual level and struggles against one master and therefore his retaliation is purely self-defense, the worker struggles against material conditions the affects of which are widespread and after nearly all classes of people, even those we would not consider to be exploiters.

Though Engels is incorrect in equating the authority of a well informed individual to that of someone who forces their political authority upon others.

But this is all beyond the topic of the thread, I am looking for the false dichotomy argument, a link, or anyone is well informed enough to make the argument in-depth.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

i didn't say professionals, i said persons who know what they're talking about.

I don't think that's an important distinction in this context. The claim seems to be, as G4b3n writes, that:


Though Engels is incorrect in equating the authority of a well informed individual to that of someone who forces their political authority upon others.

But Engels never mentions "well informed individuals"; the point is not that there is some kind of special knowledge that managers and overseers. (People seem to have Bakunin's statement about the "authority" of the boot-maker in mind.) The point is that there is a need for coordination carried out at the most basic level by people specifically designated as overseers, managers and so on. The point is not any special knowledge possessed by the manager (in fact, in socialism we can suppose any role in the process of production is available to anyone), but their capacity to act as a single, unifying will.

[Blake's Baby]

The Left Comm argument is Engels' argument. 'Libertarian' and 'authoritarian' is a false dichotomy, as Engels demonstrates. Though the revolution will certainly be liberatory it will certainly not be libertarian. A libertarian revolution is a nonsensical idea. The working class will be using both armed force and economic coercion to express its power. It will be re-organising society against the wishes of a bunch of people who will find themselves ignored and coerced, and, ultimately, imprisoned and/or shot, if they take up active resitance.

communer can claim this isn't 'authoritarian'. That's fine. In that case, Marxism is no more 'authoritarian' than Anarchism, and the dichotomy collapses again.

[The Feral Underclass]

The premise of Engels' entire thesis is that anti-authoritarians (read anarchists) don't differentiate their ideas of authority, so that all authority, irrespective of any other intellectual or practical consideration is rejected in place of some principle of anti-authoritarianism -- because as we know anarchists are just foolish bourgeois idealists! Perhaps the body of work that puts forward the anti-authoritarian position on authority is not simple enough for Engels to understand, but more likely, he attempts to construct that strawman because it's a far easier thing to attack than having to actually understand the "anti-authoritarian" position on authority. And why bother trying to understand it? Writing a 1384 word unreferenced polemic is far more useful to his political objective of attempting to discredit "anti-authoritarians." The tragic thing is, people have bought it.

Even if we assume for arguments sake that these mysterious "anti-authoritarians" don't differentiate authority and that they oppose any and all authority, no matter how abstract or practical, then how does that relate to the practice of these people during the period in which Engels was alive? Certainly anarchists and nihilists of the time did proclaim things like "Against All Authority, Everywhere!" But according to Engels' thesis that would invariably preclude them from violence against the bourgeoisie. Well, that's an unusual statement to make considering the history of anarchism and nihilism in the 19th century. Consider also, on the one hand the very same people who support Engels' thesis condemn the very same "anti-authoritarian" for their actions against the bourgeoisie as terrorist. Now it turns out that they aren't violent enough. It seems that they can't win. Interestingly enough, I don't remember reading about how Engels fought on barricades and instigated insurrection, or was imprisoned for his seditious attempts to incite revolution against the bourgeoisie. I don't remember reading about the assassinations and bombings he carried out against the aristocracies and statesman of bourgeois Europe. Of course not, he would no doubt condemn such things.

When someone presents On Authority as an authority on anti-authority, one should ask themselves: What are their motives? The pamphlet is a ridiculous hack-job and is not in any way a sane characterisation of "anti-authoritarian" positions on authority. Killing the bourgeoisie and seizing their property, and being opposed to central political authority are not mutually exclusive positions.

[Tim Cornelis]

The premise of Engels' entire thesis is that anti-authoritarians (read anarchists) don't differentiate their ideas of authority, so that all authority, irrespective of any other intellectual or practical consideration is rejected in place of some principle of anti-authoritarianism -- because as we know anarchists are just foolish bourgeois idealists! Perhaps the body of work that puts forward the anti-authoritarian position on authority is not simple enough for Engels to understand, but more likely, he attempts to construct that strawman because it's a far easier thing to attack than having to actually understand the "anti-authoritarian" position on authority. And why bother trying to understand it? Writing a 1384 word unreferenced polemic is far more useful to his political objective of attempting to discredit "anti-authoritarians." The tragic thing is, people have bought it.

Even if we assume for arguments sake that these mysterious "anti-authoritarians" don't differentiate authority and that they oppose any and all authority, no matter how abstract or practical, then how does that relate to the practice of these people during the period in which Engels was alive? Certainly anarchists and nihilists of the time did proclaim things like "Against All Authority, Everywhere!" But according to Engels' thesis that would invariably preclude them from violence against the bourgeoisie. Well, that's an unusual statement to make considering the history of anarchism and nihilism in the 19th century. Consider also, on the one hand the very same people who support Engels' thesis condemn the very same "anti-authoritarian" for their actions against the bourgeoisie as terrorist. Now it turns out that they aren't violent enough. It seems that they can't win. Interestingly enough, I don't remember reading about how Engels fought on barricades and instigated insurrection, or was imprisoned for his seditious attempts to incite revolution against the bourgeoisie. I don't remember reading about the assassinations and bombings he carried out against the aristocracies and statesman of bourgeois Europe. Of course not, he would no doubt condemn such things.

When someone presents On Authority as an authority on anti-authority, one should ask themselves: What are their motives? The pamphlet is a ridiculous hack-job and is not in any way a sane characterisation of "anti-authoritarian" positions on authority. Killing the bourgeoisie and seizing their property, and being opposed to central political authority are not mutually exclusive positions.

Ironically, you are the one misinterpretinb Engels' argument. In fact, thinking that you refute his argument you in fact substantiate it. You invoke practice to prove that anarchists are not opposed to imposing authority, and therefore Engels is wrong to argue that libertarians are opposed to authority in general. But that proves his point, anarchists and libertarians do advocate authority and imposing their will on unwilling subjects, therefore it is meaningless to speak of libertarianism.

You also construe a (or another?) strawman. Opposition of Marxists is to individual terrorism, not violence per se. And Engels is not condemning them for not being violent enough, he is observing that indeed they are violent but that this contradicts the principle of opposition to authority. Violence is not the issue he objects to, it's the 'anti-authoritarianism'.

Also, what a silly argument about Engels' non-involvement in assassinations, etc. You produce a ridiculous hack job of a reply here. What are your motives, sir? No doubt a defence of libertarianism which you feel is accurate, but you don't use adequate or accurate arguments. It's more defensive than a defence.

[The Feral Underclass]

Ironically, you are the one misinterpretinb Engels' argument. In fact, thinking that you refute his argument you in fact substantiate it. You invoke practice to prove that anarchists are not opposed to imposing authority, and therefore Engels is wrong to argue that libertarians are opposed to authority in general. But that proves his point, anarchists and libertarians do advocate authority and imposing their will on unwilling subjects, therefore it is meaningless to speak of libertarianism.

The disagreements between liberatarianism and authoritarianism cannot be reduced down to whether or not libertarians advocate for revolution. "Anti-authoritarians advocate for authoritarian actions against the bourgeoisie, ergo they aren't anti-authoritarians" is a ridiculously reductive argument and doesn't actually address the core argument of anti-authoritarianism, which has nothing to do with authority generally. It conveniently skirts over the substance of the anti-authoritarians' arguments and minimises their contribution to revolutionary struggle.

If it is really the sum of Engels' "argument" that anti-authoritarians should stop calling themselves anti-authoritarian because they advocate for revolution, then that is a complete waste of Engels' time, and does absolutely nothing to engage with the arguments of anti-authoritarianism. At best it is a cosmetic argument and not remotely interesting to those who are anti-authoritarian -- because being anti-authoritarian means more than Engels' argument and exists in spite of what you say. At worst, it is a wilful attempt to belittle and dismiss an entire history and tradition for political expedience.

The term "anti-authoritarian" exists specifically to differentiate between those who object to centralised political authority and have a critique of hierarchy with those who do not. Do people who advocate for those things really have alter that identity just because Engels has pointed out that revolutions are authoritarian? Come on! What utter childish nonsense!


You also construe a (or another?) strawman. Opposition of Marxists is to individual terrorism, not violence per se. And Engels is not condemning them for not being violent enough, he is observing that indeed they are violent but that this contradicts the principle of opposition to authority. Violence is not the issue he objects to, it's the 'anti-authoritarianism'.

I didn't say that Engels was condemning anyone for anything. The point I was making is that Engels, in my view, obviously knew full well that the contradiction he presents is an inaccurate one, since the Russian anarchists at the time had no problem with using violence and put forward their ideas more than adequately.

The contradiction presented can only really exist if the opposition to authority invariably includes all authority. To claim someone cannot be opposed to authority if they are for revolution is just a petty argument and one completely divorced from the facts. People should not waste their time with such nonsense.

[consuming negativity]

The Left Comm argument is Engels' argument. 'Libertarian' and 'authoritarian' is a false dichotomy, as Engels demonstrates. Though the revolution will certainly be liberatory it will certainly not be libertarian. A libertarian revolution is a nonsensical idea. The working class will be using both armed force and economic coercion to express its power. It will be re-organising society against the wishes of a bunch of people who will find themselves ignored and coerced, and, ultimately, imprisoned and/or shot, if they take up active resitance.

communer can claim this isn't 'authoritarian'. That's fine. In that case, Marxism is no more 'authoritarian' than Anarchism, and the dichotomy collapses again.

no; that violence is not necessarily authoritarian does not mean that there are not significant differences between Marxism and anarchism

you are judging actions independent of their context and calling them authoritarian based on the fact that they are an imposition of will. I reject the idea that any action can be qualified outside of its context. to say that a liberation is authoritarian is to characterize us as murderers needlessly

[Tim Cornelis]

The disagreements between liberatarianism and authoritarianism cannot be reduced down to whether or not libertarians advocate for revolution. "Anti-authoritarians advocate for authoritarian actions against the bourgeoisie, ergo they aren't anti-authoritarians" is a ridiculously reductive argument and doesn't actually address the core argument of anti-authoritarianism, which has nothing to do with authority generally. It conveniently skirts over the substance of the anti-authoritarians' arguments and minimises their contribution to revolutionary struggle.

If it is really the sum of Engels' "argument" that anti-authoritarians should stop calling themselves anti-authoritarian because they advocate for revolution, then that is a complete waste of Engels' time, and does absolutely nothing to engage with the arguments of anti-authoritarianism. At best it is a cosmetic argument and not remotely interesting to those who are anti-authoritarian -- because being anti-authoritarian means more than Engels' argument and exists in spite of what you say. At worst, it is a wilful attempt to belittle and dismiss an entire history and tradition for political expedience.

The term "anti-authoritarian" exists specifically to differentiate between those who object to centralised political authority and have a critique of hierarchy with those who do not. Do people who advocate for those things really have alter that identity just because Engels has pointed out that revolutions are authoritarian? Come on! What utter childish nonsense!

And as Engels points out, although I suppose he misuses anti-authoritarianism (hence my use of libertarianism), that it's meaningless to identify as libertarian, defined as opposition to authority, hierarchy, and central political authority, when you advocate for authority and hierarchy. And that nonsense about this being 'belittling' is just bawling.


I didn't say that Engels was condemning anyone for anything. The point I was making is that Engels, in my view, obviously knew full well that the contradiction he presents is an inaccurate one, since the Russian anarchists at the time had no problem with using violence and put forward their ideas more than adequately.

The contradiction presented can only really exist if the opposition to authority invariably includes all authority. To claim someone cannot be opposed to authority if they are for revolution is just a petty argument and one completely divorced from the facts. People should not waste their time with such nonsense.

I don't think you addressed my point at all. Engels knew anarchists advocated violence, but this is not the crux of his argument, as I said.

But apparently, you see no problem or contradiction in an ideology based around opposition to authority while not opposing authority. This is the product of forcing a libertarian narrative on revolutionary conduct, it's meaningless to try and make them compatible. The refusal to see this, to me, signifies ideological bias and rationalisation.

But in order to move this discussion on, if libertarianism is not defined as opposition to hierarchy in general, then how is it defined? And how is the hierarchy of some institutions defended, while others aren't? And third, in what sense would this disqualify, say, liberals, minarchists, and anarcho-capitalists from the label 'anarchist' or 'libertarian'? (does the difference lie in the ends and means?)

And maybe a fourth, in rural areas, self-proclaimed anarchist used varying degrees of pressure, force, and coercion. Does this disqualify them from being anarchist or libertarian, and if not, why?

[The Feral Underclass]

And as Engels points out, although I suppose he misuses anti-authoritarianism (hence my use of libertarianism), that it's meaningless to identify as libertarian, defined as opposition to authority, hierarchy, and central political authority, when you advocate for authority and hierarchy. And that nonsense about this being 'belittling' is just bawling.

Meaningless to whom? Engels? I'm not entirely sure why libertarians should concern themselves with whether Engels or any one else should consider their views meaningless, especially when the argument is based on something so trite.

You list authority, hierarchy and then say centralised political authority. You acknowledge, therefore, that there is a difference between centralised political authority and authority (presumably meant as general). Well so do I. That's the entire point. Political authority is the key question here. How do communists respond to the centralisation of political authority and how do we combat it? That's the key issue. Having that deflected with some asinine nonsense about whether libertarians can legitimately call themselves libertarians if they advocate for revolution is something to be very suspicious of.

If there is some other term you would like libertarian communists to use then propose it and they can decide for themselves. I'm perfectly comfortable with using the term libertarian because it actively differentiates me from other tendencies of communism that do not oppose centralised political authority nor have a critique of hierarchy. Two things that I think are important and very meaningful to class struggle.


I don't think you addressed my point at all. Engels knew anarchists advocated violence, but this is not the crux of his argument, as I said.

I'm sorry that you have been given the impression that I think this is the crux of his argument. I do not think that.


But apparently, you see no problem or contradiction in an ideology based around opposition to authority while not opposing authority. This is the product of forcing a libertarian narrative on revolutionary conduct, it's meaningless to try and make them compatible. The refusal to see this, to me, signifies ideological bias and rationalisation.

I can only speak to my tendency here, others may have different conceptions of anti-authoritarianism: libertarian communism is not based around its opposition to authority. It is based around the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat. The libertarian or anti-authoritarian aspect of the tendency is its opposition to centralised political authority and criticism of hierarchy. It relates specifically to those things. This is what makes it unique from certain forms of Marxism and hence the reason it is referred to as anti-authoritarianism.

Communists who seek to centralise political authority and see the replication of bourgeois social relationships as legitimate tools for creating communism pose a very real risk to the working class. It is necessary to oppose the centralisation of political authority and to be critical of the formation of hierarchies. But those necessities do not preclude the use of "authority" to defend ourselves from the bourgeoisie. Why would it?

I see no problem or contradiction here. It is absolutely necessary to "force" the narrative of libertarian communism because our lives depend on it. Attempting to sideline that debate because of some cosmetic objection detracts from the importance of it and reduces the whole argument down to some petty dispute about terminology. Something I think Engels was perfectly aware of doing. I am not interested in that, and nor should any one else be.


But in order to move this discussion on, if libertarianism is not defined as opposition to hierarchy in general, then how is it defined? And how is the hierarchy of some institutions defended, while others aren't? And third, in what sense would this disqualify, say, liberals, minarchists, and anarcho-capitalists from the label 'anarchist' or 'libertarian'? (does the difference lie in the ends and means?)

Well, libertarian communism is predicated on the idea of revolutionary class struggle and the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. That's the fundamental difference. What these people label themselves as is not really of concern to me. What they do, however, is of concern.

Having a critique of hierarchy is not the same as opposing it. Anarchism (if we must) presented a critique of hierarchy by stating that hierarchy is a social relationship. In bourgeois society it is legitimated because of class dynamics; it's one of those engrained, unquestioned social conditions and the consequence of class society. It's considered an efficient form of organisation that adequately creates social order that benefits the class system, which is true. "The ruling ideas are in every epoch the ideas of the ruling class" and so on and so forth. That social relationship is replicated by communists without any analysis for how that affects a revolutionary society. Bakunin posited that the replication of these social relationships would invariably conflict with the establishment of a society predicated on the power of workers to determine their own affairs. Recreating social relationships that exist specifically to minimise political autonomy and strengthen minority political hegemony are not compatible with the establishment of communism.

But hierarchies form naturally in society. People have hierarchies over other people in many walks of life. Parents over their children, maths geniuses over maths novices. These can't be avoided and why would they be? The issue is how these hierarchies exist in society. I have no problem forcing a factory owner to give up his factory, because he is exploiting me. I also have no problem allowing someone with more knowledge on military tactics to determine the best possible way to make a military attack. What needs to be questioned is how those hierarchies maintain themselves, something other tendencies don't even concern themselves with.

In this respect it's not necessarily hierarchy that libertarian communists oppose, it's the institutionalisation of hierarchy, which, incidentally, centralised political authority will invariably form -- it has to do that in order for it to survive. The critique of hierarchy therefore takes into consideration these things and makes us question how they relate to our objectives and how we safeguard ourselves from them. We call that left-libertarianism, irrespective of how Engels feels about it.


And maybe a fourth, in rural areas, self-proclaimed anarchist used varying degrees of pressure, force, and coercion. Does this disqualify them from being anarchist or libertarian, and if not, why?

No. Anarchists aren't opposed to using pressure, force and coercion against their enemies.

[Blake's Baby]

no; that violence is not necessarily authoritarian does not mean that there are not significant differences between Marxism and anarchism

you are judging actions independent of their context and calling them authoritarian based on the fact that they are an imposition of will. I reject the idea that any action can be qualified outside of its context. to say that a liberation is authoritarian is to characterize us as murderers needlessly

Good, in which case I think you're agreeing with Engels.

What are these differences you seek between Anarchsim and Marxism then? Are they based in this authoritarian/libertarian dichotomy? Or do you agree that the revolution will involve the working class imposing its will over others (I don't really care if you refuse to characterise that as 'authoritarian' as I have no particular attachment or otherwise to the word)?

[consuming negativity]

Good, in which case I think you're agreeing with Engels.

What are these differences you seek between Anarchsim and Marxism then? Are they based in this authoritarian/libertarian dichotomy? Or do you agree that the revolution will involve the working class imposing its will over others (I don't really care if you refuse to characterise that as 'authoritarian' as I have no particular attachment or otherwise to the word)?

it isn't that I am seeking differences, I just don't think that the absence here proves a negative

was not trying to imply more than I said

[Blake's Baby]

You said there are differences (that, by implication, go beyond definitions). I'm trying to find out what you think they are. You're not telling me.

[Zanthorus]

It's not a false dichotomy in the sense that there aren't really people who call themselves libertarians who believe that politics can be reduced to the conflict between liberty and authority, but it is a false dichotomy in the sense that taking the side of one principle over and against the other isn't a strategy that can lead to theoretical clarity. Hegel's Philosophy of Right provides much in the way of clarification.

[cyu]

If there is a good idea, you'd like it to spread through society as quickly as possible. Sometimes people look to "leaders" for good ideas. Sometimes people look to various "authorities" for good ideas. The less people that get in the way of an authority's ideas, the quicker it spreads. The problem with this type of "authoritarian" society is that if even the pope is not infallible, no authority is infallible. If an authoritarian social structure allows good ideas to spread quickly, it also allows bad ideas to spread quickly. The more authoritarian it is, the less the masses can tell the difference between good and bad ideas - to them, it all seems good - or at least, the orders must all be obeyed. The more authoritarian a society, the more likely a mistake or ideas rooted in corruption will result in catastrophe.

In decentralized societies, good ideas don't spread nearly as fast. On the other hand, ideas must go through many more layers of "vetting" before they are able to become widespread. While this may slow the spread of good ideas, it is also more likely to filter out bad ideas (especially when compared to the unquestioning obedience of authoritarian societies). In the most decentralized societies, ideas basically have to be vetted by every individual before that person passes it on to the next person.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

It's pretty obvious that Engels wrote 'On Authority' as a short, snipe at the likes of Bakunin who wrote "The communists advocate the principle and the practices of authority; the revolutionary socialists put all their faith in liberty" and other such things whilst analysing the Paris Commune. I don't know why anyone would bring in assassinations or Russian nihilism and lump that in with Engels' critique, which amounts to pointing out that 'faith in liberty' means little in the face of reaction, as I'm sure that Engels would have challenged the futility of individual terrorism in another way.

That quote from Bakunin is probably an example of where the expression about the 'false dichotomy' comes from or, more accurately, it would have been the sort of quote that Marx and Engels would have dismissed and ridiculed that further spawned the expression. For Marx and Engels 'the proletariat using the authority of the workers' state to crush the bourgeoisie' and 'the proletariat liberating itself from the bourgeoisie' is the same thing, hence 'liberty and authority is a false dichotomy'.