You generally seem to know quite well what you're on about, which is quite impressive if you haven't read much of Marx and Engels yet. It's definitely worth doing, though, although revision for exams does perhaps come first (if I had followed that advice, it may have made my exams easier...) I suppose that having some idea of the basic ideas should help. Secondary sources on Marx often misrepresent him, but guys like Zanthorus know their stuff quite well, so you shouldn't have many problems with that. If you do have any problems reading them now, I wouldn't mind helping out a bit, and the others wouldn't either. Understanding Marx can be a bit of an involved process, involving making notes, re-reading and comparing texts, and so on, but it's really worthwhile, and a lot easier due to resources like the MIA. I mean, for me it was basically a constant process of getting things wrong and then eventually seeing my error, but you're quite far ahead of where I was when I began.
Admittedly I haven't actually read much at all. I spent nearly two years lurking on revleft before I decided my politics weren't so shit any more that I could post without embarrassing myself. I basically drew all my present views from the left communists on this forum. Around the time I labelled myself a communist and shortly before I discovered revleft, I had attempted to read the manifesto. I was like 13 or 14 and I found the language too difficult, so the idea of delving right into more of Marx and Engels' theoretical works intimidated me at the time. Now that I've basically had their views summarised for me by the leftcoms, etc. on this forum, I've decided to read Marx and Engels in their own words, but this time I'd be able to actually understand what they were saying. So no I haven't read Tansey's critique, but I'll be sure to read it when I'm done with Marx and Engel's main stuff (and who really knows when that will be, since I've got exams coming up in about a week).
God, that was old. Glad it could be of some use. My viewpoints have developed over time (I'm also probably a bit more antagonistic towards the AFAQ than I was at that point), though, so if I were to develop it I'd probably have to go over a fair bit of it for revisions, quite apart from the task of having to read through the AFAQ again. As such, while I may work on it later, right now I'm focusing on writing up a longer work based on explaining Marxism in general. If it proved of some use, though, then it may be worth going back to, so thanks for telling me.
Incidentally, have you read James Tansey's critique of Ian McKay's Proudhon book? Also, reading over the thread, it strikes me how much the conception of authority you're arguing against there resembles the Libertarian 'non-aggression principle' (aka. the 'non-initiation of force' principle) and the like, with similar contortions being made so as to justify one's own form of 'force'.