Demanding the impossible: A history of anarchism - Peter Marshall

Demanding the impossible: A history of anarchism - Peter Marshall

Navigating the broad 'river of anarchy', from Taoism to Situationism, from Ranters to Punk rockers, from individualists to communists, from anarcho-syndicalists to anarcha-feminists, Demanding the Impossible is an authoritative and lively study. It explores the key anarchist concepts of society and the state, freedom and equality, authority and power and investigates the successes and failure of the anarchist movements throughout the world.

When opening the document you will notice that all pages apart from the title page are small. If you zoom in to 100%, the text will be the correct size. you will then need to scroll all the way to the right to see it.

AttachmentSize
Marshall - Demanding the Impossible - A History of Anarchism.pdf40.18 MB
Demanding the Impossible_ A His - Marshall, Peter.mobi2.08 MB

Comments

working class s...
Oct 23 2012 00:50

I have tried to work out how to make the pages the correct size when it opens, but I haven't managed it. If anyone has any suggestions, let me know, and I will alter it.

Network
Oct 23 2012 10:28

Thanks for uploading this!

Harrison
Oct 23 2012 18:53

this text first introduced me to anarchism

NannerNannerNan...
Mar 26 2013 02:26

I suggest everyone passes on this tripe and reads Black Flame. It's probably one of the greatest books on the real history of actual anarchism. It's probably one of the greatest books I've ever read, it's excellent!

This book, meanwhile, is a bunch of nonsense.

Black Badger
Mar 26 2013 04:45

Black Flame? Seriously? That's some delusional shit. For all Marshall's failings as a historian, at least he didn't try to say that pro-state socialists were anarchists.

NannerNannerNan...
Mar 27 2013 02:50

Way to misrepresent such an excellent work - Black Flame is the only history of anarchism good enough for us. Marshall's work is a tome of nonsense compared to Black Flame.

Nowhere do they say that some "pro-state" socialists were anarchists, they merely say that they belong in a wider anarchist paradigim. People like Big Bill Haywood, Daniel Deleon, William Foster, Augusto Sandino, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn,Thomas Mann, syndicalists, and the like. I'd rather have them over a fucking reprobate like Stirner or a disgusting bastard fascist like Nietzsche!

In fact, talking about this amazing book makes me want to read it again.

Malva
Mar 27 2013 09:22
Quote:
a disgusting bastard fascist like Nietzsche!

What the actual fuck. You are exposing some serious ignorance here. Nietzsche was not a fascist in any way shape or form. Far from it. He hated bourgeois Germany with its nationalism and Christianity. At the most one can say that the Nazis liked the version of Nietzsche put forward by his fascist sister, which was very different from what Nietzsche actually wrote, said or thought. You should try reading some Nietzsche rather than repeating these received ideas about him. There are serious problems with him, his belief in the transhistorical nature of hierarchical struggle being the most important, but he was a huge influence on anarchism and the libertarian left from Emma Goldmann to Guy Debord for good reasons.

Battlescarred
Mar 27 2013 09:46

I have to agree with Malva on this. I do not in the least agree with the ideas of Nietzsche but to call him a fascist is ludicrous. He specifically pointed out that he was not an anti-Semite and he broke with Richard Wagner over this. As to Black Flame, Black Badger is correct. Trying to include Tom Mann( not Thomas Mann, who was a novelist) Haywood, Foster, Sandino, GurleyFlynn etc in a "wider anarchist paradigm" is a major flaw in the book, as well as the depiction of anarcho-syndicalism as THE main current within class struggle anarchism.

Black Badger
Mar 27 2013 15:19

And don't forget that they explicitly exclude Proudhon from "the wider anarchist paradigm" even though he was the first person to call himself an anarchist and mean it in a positive and descriptive sense. Despite my lack of appreciation for most of his economic and philosophical ideas, the fact remains that his explication of federalism remains the among the best (Bakunin's was probably better) outlines of a fundamental anarchist organizational principle.

Put that up against the forced inclusion of James Connolly, Daniel De Leon, and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn (all of whom declared themselves Marxists, and all of whom were explicitly in favor of states) in "the wider anarchist paradigm," and you have a rather shoddy and insulting "paradigm."

Battlescarred
Mar 27 2013 17:42

Yes, totally agree.