samuraihelmet's review against another edition
An extremely long list of facts that are just vague and incoherent enough to avoid being wrong. At least up until Nietzsche, where I jumped off, the author manages to sell every anarchist as an enlightened, well meaning philosopher. Which, given the philosophies described, is less a reach and more an out and out deception.
This book would have worked much better had the author not clearly had an agenda.
This book would have worked much better had the author not clearly had an agenda.
nerdy_scholar's review against another edition
5.0
No other book I read gives such a detailed account of the evolution of anarchic ideas as this one does. It's a library summed up in one volume, of moderate length considering its vast subject. The book is lucid in style, well-documented, and masterly turned from one subject to the next in the simplest manner.
mattmclean's review
informative
medium-paced
4.5
Very informative. For such a broad topic, the author was able to explain the historical and philosophical context for each major movement in anarchism, tracing its ancestry through anti-consumeristic spiritual movements to the present day
emma_ireland's review against another edition
5.0
Some books change the way you see the world and Demanding the Impossible is one of them. If, like me, you've spent years wrangling with socialism/communism/other assorted left wing isms but had a vaguely uneasy feeling about all of them, then you'll probably find your spiritual home in this book. It covers too much to give comprehensive detail on everything, but it's an excellent history and a great starting point for further exploration.
sumayyah_t's review against another edition
4.0
Excellent resource for the future. Of course, this book feels alarmingly like a text book.
kmarxtheleft's review against another edition
5.0
I thought this book was fantastic. It truly helped me to expand my knowledge of anarchism. What I found truly illuminating was the author's discussion of how anarchists do not, in actuality, have the most favorable view of human nature. Personally, I had always assumed that anarchists had the MOST favorable view in this regard, given the level of solidarity required to make such a society feasible; however, what I found in reading this book is that many anarchists have a completely realistic view of human nature. They understand, probably better than any other group, what can happen when individuals are given to much power and authority. Hitler is a prominent example of this. Donald Trump would be a recent example in the United States. Conclusion: Great book, overall.
jbogerhawkins's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
fast-paced
4.5
hoggboss's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
slow-paced
0.5
- so many typos, was the book just too long for any editor to want to read it?
- marshall attempts to make it seem like anarchism has a more universal origin than it actually does by including some seriously strained interpretations of taoism and buddhism in his "pre-history" section as if these religious movements were well known enough at the time in the west when the anarchist movement really started to come into existence to have any significant impact on the development of anarchist theory. you can just be honest mr marshall. you can just admit that anarchist politics largely grew out of 18th century western europe. marxists dont feel the need to make it seem like their political beliefs have a longer history than they actually do to give themselves "legitimacy", it's ok
- for the first 100 or so pages marshall is giving us the naturalistic fallacy by trying to link anarchism to nature, and imply that it's natural and biologically driven for humans to be anarchist. he eventually makes a mention of the naturalistic fallacy later on to criticize another anarchist thinker but his criticism ultimately goes nowhere and he just keeps doing it the rest of the way through
- a not-insignificant portion of the books he namedrops he's really obviously never read at all because he completely misrepresents or misinterprets them
- eventually it just devolves into name-calling other socialists he disagrees with
sorry to all the anarchists out there, I'm sure peter marshall is just an idiot all by himself but the fact that so many online anarchist communities recommend this as "essential reading" for anybody interested in anarchy really lowers my opinion of the political movement as a whole
oh yeah and on top of that the misogynistic language he uses in the only section about a woman, and the fact that he never bothers to go outside of the sphere of europe in this book except for the really tenuous links he attempts to make to taoism and buddhism. Of the 660 page section that is actual text and not bibliography or reference, 30 pages total is dedicated to latin america (mostly attributed to european immigrants) and asia, with 0 pages mentioning anywhere else (besides europe & the US)
panashe's review
5.0
Absolutely authoritative book, I don't see how there could be a more comprehensive history of the subject. I learnt so much, and it was certainly an engaging read.