Socialism

My ideology is Marxist-Leninist, the list I made reflects that. I agree with Engels with respect to "authoritarianism" as a concept, elaborated on in On Authority. Generally, it isn't a useful descriptor for many things, or rather it is so overused and under-examined that it ends up simplifying concepts to the point that they become more confusing.

For what it's worth, I used to be an Anarchist, so it's easier for me to see why Anarchists think the way they do and point out misconceptions about Marxism I had before really diving into theory. I hope you'll see that this is out of a place of trying to correct misconceptions, and not some smug "I've read more than you so my power level is higher" nonsense. Additionally, the jab at MLs is unnecessary in my opinion, and inaccurate.

First, Communism. Marxists and Anarchists have a fundamentally different view of what the State is, and therefore what Communism looks like. For Marxists, the State is an instrument of class oppression, while for Anarchists its a monopoly on violence and a tool of hierarchy. The conclusions are that Marxists seek a global Socialist republic with full public ownership and central planning, and Anarchists seek a horizontal, decentralized network of communes. This fundamental difference in class analysis drives the real material differences between Marxism and Anarchism, so when you say we want the same thing, that's not accurate, and makes Marxism seem nonsensical (why would a system trying to reach horizontal communes work through central planning and public ownership if only to dissolve itself later). If you have an inaccurate view of Marxism, Anarchism seems like a much better way to reach what this faux-Marxism seeks, but that's all it is, faux-Marxism.

Furthermore, the Marxist argument against such a commune-focused system is that such a system would have fundamental inequality in rates of progression, which would work to reintroduce Private Property and thus Capitalism over time (elaborated on in Anti-Duhring).

For your second point, the role of a Party and its position within a society. This is... confused on your part. A party can be better described as "top-down, from the bottom-up." When you say that the party is "master," this is just wrong. Parties rely on democratic infrastructure, like Democratic Centralism, and an adherance to the Mass Line. Much of org theory is based on effectiveness and maintaining connection to the masses, simplifying it as an "exploitative master" is false thinking.

The fact that you concede that some hierarchy is necessary (say, the QA worker should be able to halt production and stop unqualified products from shipping even against democratic consensus) means you can understand how direction can be necessary. A QA worker informing others that the products are dangerous, without authority, can be ignored entirely, you assume that everyone without fail will "do the right thing." Moreover, by stating that this hierarchy must be accountable from the bottom-up, you agree with Marxist-Leninists. I think if you read The State and Revolution, you'd fundamentally agree with Lenin the whole way through. The major difference is largely language. To quote Engels,

But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.

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 delegates, 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 at the whole world.

The author has clear intent to discredit Engels, not to discern if he may have a point or not, leading to absurdity like the breathing comparison. You don't need a manager or director to tell you to breathe, but you need one to tell you that the latent chemicals within the products you are producing are toxic, as found by the QA worker, and production and shipping are to cease immediately, and to deny the necessity of this authority is to place the trust and safety of humanity purely in the good will of unaccountable individuals.

Overall, I hope you can walk away with a bit of a better understanding of what Marxists even want in the first place. I'd ask you how Anarchists would produce a smartphone, and how you think Marxists would produce a smartphone, and to see where the legitimate differences lie, not just language.