Như Nhân Chủ đã giới thiệu từng mảng bài vở, nhận định về phi quyền chính, xuyên suốt trong Trang.  Nhân Chủ xin giới thiệu thêm tác phẩm tổng quan về lịch sử ý tưởng hay nguyên lý phi quyền chính của triết gia Peter Marshall.

Phi quyền chính lá ý tưởng tự do vượt thoát ràng buộc áp chế phi lý rất tự nhiên của mỗi con người trong tương tác hành xử với nhân quần và thăng hoa cá tính bản thân, gọi là nền nhân chủ.

Phi quyền chính rất đơn giản và xuôi chảy tự nhiên trong mỗi cá nhân con người xã hội như giòng nước của Đạo, nó không chắc nịch cứng ngắc đồ sộ giáo điều khiên cưỡng như các chủ thuyết khác, nó chỉ là một nguyên lý không lãnh đạo không quyền hạn và tự nguyện. Nó chính là những hành xử thường ngày của mỗi chúng ta trong nhu cầu sinh tồn tương tác và tự vệ chính đáng với nhau, đặc biệt khi bị áp chế dưới bất cứ hình thức mô thức quyền lực nào, dù là trong gia đình, trường học, công sở hay ngoài đời.

Sự  việc người Việt thường  gọi những hành xử này là “buôn chui, bán lủi” chính là hành xử chính đáng phi quyền chính tự nhiên khi bị ngăn cấm áp chế bởi quyền lực và quyền hạn phi lý, bạo ngược của nhà nước chính phủ. “Buôn chui, bán lủi” đã giúp con người không chỉ tồn tại tươm tất cho bản thân gia đình, mà còn cung cấp cúu giúp những người khác trong một thị trường tự do lặng lẽ sinh hoạt ngoài “pháp luật” do họ hình thành, nó làm tốt cho xã hội và cung cấp thêm sản phẩm dịch vụ cho xã hội bị khan hiếm do nhà nước cấm đoán. Điển hình là cuộc đời của nhà thơ Hữu Loan và những người tương tác liên hệ vôi ông trong cuộc sống trao đổi  hàng ngày. Hoặc những người đối kháng bị nhà nước trù ếm loại bỏ “ngoài vòng bao cấp”; và TẤT CẢ NHỮNG CON NGƯỜI BUÔN BÁN “NGOÀI VÒNG” với nhữnng “móc ngoặc” và ngay chính với những “tham ô” của các nhân viên cấp nhỏ khốn khó không đủ sống.  Chính cuộc sống của mỗi cá nhân người Việt đã chứng nghiệm hành xử tự nhiên của con người xã hội không thể triệt tiêu này dù dưới bất cứ hình thức chế độ nào từ Đông qua Tây và tự cổ chí kim.

Mời quí vị tham khảo, suy ngẫm, thành thật qui chiếu vào bản thân, hàng xóm chung quanh, và tự quyết định.

=

Quí vị có khả năng Anh ngữ muốn đọc xin tải về từ đây: 
PDF]Demanding the Impossible – A History of Anarchism.pdf

Hoặc lắng nghe hồ sơ âm thanh Anh ngữ dưới đây.

Có rất nhiều, chưa nói là quá nhiều tài liệu lịch sử và kiến thức chúng ta cần  biết, hầu hết nằm trong khối sách vở tài liệu Anh ngữ mà Nhân Chủ cố gắng gom ý hoặc chuyển dịch khi có đủ tài nguyên. Nhân Chủ, tất tiếm, cho đến nay vẫn chưa đủ tài nguyên nhân lực để Việt hóa những tác phẩm nền tảng quan trọng đến độc giả. Hy vọng trong tương lai công việc cần thiết này sẽ được thực hiện.

Cách tốt nhất và ngắn nhất, hữu hiệu nhất để tiếp cận kiến thức, vẫn là tự quí vị trau dồi khả năng Anh ngữ để tự trách nhiệm và làm chủ tiến trình thông tin học hỏi của chính mình.

Nhân Chủ
===

A HISTORY OF ANARCHISM
(London: HarperCollins, 1992), hdbk pp.767; (London: Fontana Press, 1992, 1993), pbk.,pp.767 ; (London: Harper Perennial, 2008), pbk.,pp. 818, ISBN 978-0-00-686245-1 (Oakland,CA: PM Press, 2010), pbk.,pp. 818, ISBN 978-1-60486-064-1

INTRODUCTION

ANARCHY IS TERROR,  the creed of  bomb-throwing desperadoes wishing to pull down civilization.Anarchyis chaos, when law and order collapse and thedestructivepassions of man
runriot. Anarchy is nihilism, the abandonment of al moralvalues and the twilight of reason. This is the spectre of anarchythat hauntsthejudge’s bench 3{ldthegovernmentcabi­  net. In the popular
imagination,in our everydaylanguage,anarchy is associ­ ated with destructionand disobedience but also with relaxationand freedom. Theanarchist finds good company, it seems,  with thevandal,
iconoclast,savage, brute, ruffian,hornet,viper, ogre,ghoul, wild beast,fiend, harpyand siren.’ He has been immortalizedfor posterityin Joseph Conrad’s novel
TheSecretAgent(1907) as a fanaticintent on bringing down governmentsand   civilizedsociety.

Not surprisingly, anarchism has had a bad press. It is usual  to dismiss its ideal of pure libertyat best as utopian, at worst, as a dangerouschimera. Anarchistsare dismissed as
subversivemadmen, inflexibleextremists, dangerous terroristson theone hand, or as naive dreamers and gentle saints on  the other. President Theodore Rooseveltdeclaredat the  end of  thelast
century:’Anarchism is a crimeagainst the whole human race and al man­kind should band against anarchists.’2

In fact, only a tiny minorityof anarchists have practisedterror as  a revolutionarystrategy,and then chieflyin the 1890S when there was a spate  of spectacular bombings and
politicalassassinations during a period of complete despair. Although oftenassociatedwithviolence, historically anarchism has been far less violent than·other politicalcreeds, and appears
as a feeble youth pushed out of theway by the marching hordes of fascists and authoritarian communists. It has no monopolyon violence, and com­ pared to nationalists,populists, and
monarchistshas been comparatively peaceful.Moreover, a tradition which encompasses such thoughtfuland peaceable men as Godwin, Proudhon, Kropotkio, andTolstoy can hardly be dismissed as
inherently terroristicandnihilistic.Of theclassic anarchist thinkers,onlyBakunin celebrated the poetry of  destructionin  his  early work, and that because like many thinkers and artistshe felt
it was first neces to destroythe old in order to create the new.

The  dominant  language  and culture in a societytend to reflectthe values and ideasof those in power. Anarchistsmore than most have been victimsof the tyrany of fixed
meanings, and have been caught up in what Thomas Paine  called  the’Bastilleof theword’. But it is easy  to  see  why rulers should fear anarchy and wish to label anarchists as destructivefanatics
for they questionthe  very  foundationsof  their  rule.  The  word  ‘anarchy’ comes from the ancient Greek avaQXta meaning the conditionof  being ‘without a leader’ but usually translated and
interpretedas ‘withouta ruler’. From the beginning, it made sense for rulers  to  tell  their subjectsthat without their rule there would be tumult and mayhem; as Yeats wrote: ‘Thingsfall 
apart;  the  centrecannot  hold;lMere  anarchy  is  loosed  upon the world.’3 In thesame way, upholders of law argued that a state of ‘lawlessness’ would mean tunnoll, licence and violence.
Governmentswith known  laws are therefore  necessaryto maintain  order  and calm. But it became iHcreasingly clear to bold and independent reasoners that while States and
governmentswere theoreticallyintended to prevent injustice,they had in fact only perpetuated oppression and inequality. The State with its coercive apparatus of law, courts, prisons and
annycameto be seen not as the remedy for but rather the principal cause of social disorder. Such unorthodox thinkers went stillfurther to make theoudandish suggestion that a societywithout rulers
would not fall into a conditionof chaoticunruliness, but might produce the most desirable form of ordered human existence.

The ‘state of nature’, or society without government, need not after al be Hobbes’ nightmare of
pennanent war of all against all, but rather a conditionof peaceful and productiveliving. Indeed,
it would seem closer  to Locke’s state of nature in which people live together in a state of ‘perfect freedom to order their actions’, within the bounds of the law of nature, and live
‘according to reason, without a common superior on earth,with auth­ ority to judge between them’.4

Anarchists merely reject Locke’s suggestion that in such a conditionthe enjoyment of life and property would be neces­ sarily uncertain or inconvenient.
For this reason, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first self-styled anarchist, writingin the nineteenthcentury, launched the apparent paradox: ‘Anarchy  is Order.’ Its revolutionaryimport has
echoed ever since, filling rulers with fear, since they might be made obsolete, and inspiring the dispossessed and thethoughtful with hope,  since they  can imagine a time  when  they  might be
free to governthemselves.

The historic anarchist movement reached its highest point to date in two of the major revolutions
of the twentiethcentury- the Russian and the Spanish. In the Russian Revolution,anarchiststried to
give real meaning to the slogan ‘All Power to the Soviets’,and in many parts, particularly in  the 
Ukraine,  they  established  free  communes.  But  as  the  Bolsheviks concentrated their power, the anarchists began to lose ground. Trotsky, as head of the Red Army,
crushed the anarchist movement led by Nestor Makhno in the Ukraine, and then put down the last
great libertarian uprising of sailors and workers known as the Kronstadt Mutiny in 192 I.

By far the greatest anarchist experiment took place in Spain in the 1930S. At the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, peasants, especially in Andalucia, Aragon and
Valencia, set up with fervour a network ofcollectives in thousands of villages. In Catalunya, the most highly developed industrial part of Spain, anarchists managed the industries through workers’
collec­ tives based on the principles of self-management. George Orwell has left a remarkable
account of the revolutionary atmosphere in his Homage to Catalonia (1938). But the intervention of
fascist Italy and Germany on the side of Franco and his rebels, and the policy of the Soviet Union
to funnel its limited supply of arms through the Communists, meant that the experi­ ment was
doomed. Communists and anarchists fought each other in Barcelona in 1937, and Franco triumphed soon
after. Millions of Spanish anarchists went underground or lost their way.
The Second World War which followed shattered the international anarchist movement, and the most
dedicated  were  reduced  to  running small magazines and recording past glories. Only Gandhi’s
strategy of civil disobedience used to oust the British from India and his vision ofa decentra­
lized society based on autonomous villages seemed to show a libertarian
glimmer. When George Woodcock wrote his history of anarchism at the beginning of the 1960s, he
sadly concluded that the anarchist movement was a lost cause and that the anarchist ideal could
principally help us ‘to judge our conditionand see our aims’.5 The historian James Joll also struck
an elegiac note soon after and announced the failure· of anarchism as ‘a serious  politicaland 
social  force’,  while  the  sociologist  Irving  Horowitz
argued that it was ‘foredoomed to failure’.6
Events soon proved them wrong. Anarchism as a volcano of values and ideas was dormant, not extinct.
The sixties saw a remarkable revival, although in an unprecedented and more diffuse form. Many of
the themes of the New Left – decentralization, workers’ control, participatory democ­ racy – were
central anarchist concerns. Thoughtful Marxists like E. P.
Thompson began to call themselves ‘libertarian’ socialists in order to dis?
tance themselves from the authoritarian tactics of vanguard parties. The growth of the
counter-culture, based on individuality, community, and joy, expressed a profound anarchist
sensibility, if not a self-conscious know­ ledge. Once again, it became realistic to demand the
impossible.

Tired of the impersonality of monolithic institutions, the hollow trickery of careerist politics,
and the grey monotony of work, disaffected middle­ class youth raised the black flag of anarchy in
London, Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Chicago, MexicoCity,Buenos Aires, and Tokyo.In 1968 the stU­ dent rebellions were  of 
libertarianinspiration.In  Parisstreet  posters declared paradoxically’Be realistic:Demand the 
impossible’,  ‘It is  for­ bidden to forbid’ and ‘Imaginationis  seizing  power’.  The 
Situationists called for a thorough transformationof everyday life. The Provos and then the
Kabouters in Holland carried on the tradition of creativeconfrontation. Thespontaneous uprisings
and confrontations at this time showed how vulnerable moderncentralized States could be.
The historians took note. Daniel Guerin’s lively L’Anarchisme: de fa doctrine a [‘action (1965)
both reflected and helped develop  the growing. libertarian sensibility of the I 960s: it became a
best-seller and was translated into many languages. Guerin concluded that it might well be State
commu­ nism, and not  anarchism, which was out of step with the needs  of the contemporary world,
and felt his predictionfully vindicated by the events  of 1968 in Prague and Paris.7 Joll was
obliged to acknowledge that anarch­ ism was still a living tradition and not merely of
psychological or historical interest.s Woodcock too confessed that he had been too hasty in
pronounc­ ing anarchism to be moribund. Indeed, far from being in itsdeath throes,
it had become ‘a phoenix in an awakening desert’.9

The hoped-for transformation of everyday life did not occur in the seventies,but theanarchist
influence continuedto reveal itself in the many experiments in communal living in Europe and
NorthAmerica which attempted to create free zones within the Corporate State. The movement for
workers’ control and self-management echoed the principles ofearly anarcho-syndicalism. The peace
and women’s movements have all  been impressed by the anarchist critiqueof dominationand hierarchy,
and have adopted to different degrees the anarchist emphasis on direct actionand participatory
democracy. The Green movement is anarchist in itsdesire to decentralize the economy and to dissolve
personal and politicalpower. Anarchists are influentialin the fields of education,trade unions,
com­ munity planning and culture. The recent trend towards more militarized, centralized and
secretivegovernments has created a counter-movement of people who challenge  authority and insist 
on  thinking for themselves.
In theremaining authoritarian socialist regimes, there is a widespread demand  for  more 
self-determinationand  fundamental  freedoms.  In  the
independent republics of the former Soviet Union, the role of theState is once again back on the
agenda, and young radicals are reading Bakunin and Kropotkin for the first time. Before the tanks
rolled in, the student-inspired demonstrationsin China in May 1989 showed the creativepossibilities
  of non-violent direct actionand led to calls for autonomous unions and self-management on
anarchist lines.
In the West, many on the Right have also turnedto anarchist thinkersfor inspiration. A new movement in favour of ‘anarcho-capitalism
has emerged which would like to deregulate the economy and eradicate govern­ mental interference.
Although in practice they did the opposite, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Britain tried ‘to
roll back the frontiers ofthe State’, while in the USA President Ronald Reagan wanted to be remem­
bered principally for getting ‘government off people’s backs’. The Libertarian Party, which pushes
these ideas further, became the third largest party in the United States in the 1980s.
It is the express aim of this book to show that there is a profound anarchist tradition which
offers many ideas and values that are relevant to contemporary problems and issues. It is not
intended, like many studies of anarchism, to be a disguised form of propaganda, attacking Marxist
and liberal critics alike, in order simply to establish the historical importance and   relevance
of anarchism. Nor does it offer, as David Miller’s recent
work does, an account of anarchism as an ideology, that is to say, as a comprehensive doctrine
expressing the interests of a social group. lO
Demanding the Impassible is primarily a critical history of anarchist ideas and movements, tracing
their origins and development from ancient civiliza­ tions to the present day. It looks at
specificthinkers but it does not consider their works merely as self-contained texts. It tries to
place the thinkers and their works in their specifichistorical and personal context as well as in
their broader traditions.
Where one begins and who one includes in such a study is of course
debatable. It could be argued that a study of anarchism should begin with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,
the first self-styled anarchist, and be confined only.to those subsequent thinkers who called
themselves anarchists. Such a study would presumably exclude Godwin, who is usually considered the
first great anarchist thinker, as well as Tolstoy, who was reluctant to call himself an anarchist
because of the word’s violent associations in his day. It would also restrict itself to certain
periods of the lives of key individual thinkers:  Proudhon, for instance, lapsed from anarchism
towards the end of his life, and Bakunin and Kropotkin only took up  the anarchist banner in their
maturity.
In general, I definean anarchist as one who rejects all forms of external
government and the State and believes that society and individuals would function well without
them. A libertarian on the other hand is one who takes liberty to be a supreme value and would like
to limit the powers ofgovernment to a minimum compatible withsecurity. The line between anarchist
and liber­ tarian is thin, and in the past the terms have often been used interchangeably. But
while all anarchists are libertarians, not all libertarians are anarchists. Even so, they are
members of the same clan, share the same ancestors and bear resemblances. They also sometimes form
creative unions.

I have followed in this study the example of Kropotkin who, in his famous article on anarchism for
the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1910), traced the anarchist ‘tendency’ as  far back as  Lao Tzu in
the ancient world.II I am keen to establish the legitimate claims of an anarchist traditionsince anarchism did not
suddenly appear in thenineteenth centuryonly when someone decided to call himself an anarchist. I
would also like to uncover what Murray Bookchin has called a ‘legacyof freedom’ and to reconstruct
a strand of libertarian thinking which has been covered or disguised by the dominant authoritarian
culture in the past.12 I have primarily restricted myself to thinkers; poets like Shelley and
novelists like Franz Kafka,B. Traven and Ursula K. LeGuin who express a profound anarchist sensi­
bilityhave been reluctandy left out; and the rich vein of anarchist art is only touched upon.13 I
have been chiefly motivated in my choice to show the range and depth of anarchist philosophy and to
dispel the popular prejudice that the anarchist traditionhas not produced any thinkers of the first order.

Demanding the Impossible is therefore intended as a historyof anarchist
thought and action. While it attempts to place thinkers and ideas in their historical and social
context, the emphasis will be on the development of anarchism as a rich, profound and original body
of ideas and values. It should therefore be of both historical and philosophical interest. It is
not written with any propagandist intentions,but my own sympathies will no doubt  shine through.
A study of anarchism will show that the drive for freedom is not only a centralpart of our
collectiveexperience but responds to a deeply felt human need. Freedom is necessaryfor original
thought and creativity.It is also a natural desire for we can see that no animal likes to be caged
and all conscious beings enjoy the free satisfactionof their desires. Anarchism further seeks in 
social  life  what  appears  to  operate  in  nature:  the  call for self-management in society
mirrors the self-regulationand self­ organizationof  nature  itself.

Anarchism has been dismissed by its opponentsas puerile and absuru. Authoritarian Marxists echo
Lenin and dismiss it with other forms of ‘Ieft­ wing’ communism as an ‘infantile disorder’. 14 In
this respect, they find company with orthodox Freudians who believe that civilization can only
existon the basis of severe repression of instinctual drives. Anarchists, it is suggested, project
on to the State all the hatred they felt for parental authority. A serious moral and social
philosophy is thus reduced to a badly resolved parricide wish or dismissed as a form of therapy for
an infantile neurosis. It is further claimed that anarchism lacks philosophical rigour and that its  appeal is fundamentally emotional..
If these criticisms were accurate, it would be difficult to explain why some of thebest minds of this century,such as BertrandRussell and Noam Chomsky,have taken anarchist
philosophy so seriously, even if they have not unreservedlyendorsed its conclusions. It would also
prove hard to account for the widespread influence of  anarchism  as a  social  movement this
century,especially in Spain, if it did not offer a rational and meaningful response to
specifichistorical conditions.Far from being utopian or ata­ vistic,anarchism grapples rl.irecdy 
with the problems faced by  individuals and communitiesin advanced industrialsocietiesas well as in
predominandy agricultural  ones.
The continuedappeal of anarchism can probably be attributed to its enduring affinitywith both the
rational and emotionalimpulses lying deep within us. It is an attitude, a way of life as well as a
social philosophy. It presents a telling analysis of existinginstitutionsand practices,and at the
same time offers the prospect of a radically transformed society.Above al, it holds up the
bewitching ideal of personal and social freedom, both in the negativesense of being free from all
externalrestraint and imposed auth­ ority,and in the positivesense of being free to celebrate
thefull harmony   of being. Whatever its future success as a historical movement, anarchism will
remain a fundamental part of human experience, for the drive for freedom is one of our deepest
needs and the vision of a free societyis one of our oldest dreams. Neithercan ever be fully
repressed; both will outlive all rulers and their States.

==

An updated edition of this book was published by Harper Perennial in January 2008 with a new epilogue. A corrected American edition was further published by PM Press in January 2010.

Rights sold: Indonesia and Turkey.

Demanding the Impossible is the book I always recommend when asked – as I often am – for something on the history and ideas of anarchism.”
Noam Chomsky
˜Marshall’s comprehensive treatment [is] a timely read. Newly revised and updated, this indispensable history of social libertarian thought now reaches into the 21st century. Readers will be repeatedly rewarded by Marshall’s judiciousness and close readings.Blowing away cobwebs of misunderstanding and misrepresentation, this is a stimulating portrait of a highly varied but distinctive political ideal, tradition, and practice arising from the enduring human impulse to be free.”
Publishers’ Weekly
“Interest in anarchy … was reawakened by the publication of Peter Marshall’s massively comprehensive Demanding the Impossible, a brick-sized history that received rave reviews.” Peter Beaumont, Observer
“Reading about anarchism is stimulating and funny and sad. What more can you ask of a book?”
Isabel Colegate The Times
“I trust that Marshall’s survey of the whole heart-warming, head-challenging subject will have a wide circulation … It is a handbook of real history, which should make it more valuable in the long run than all the mighty textbooks on market economics and such-like ephemeral topics.”
Michael Foot Evening Standard
“The most comprehensive account of anarchist thought ever written. Marshall’s knowledge is formidable and his enthusiasm engaging …”
JB Pick Scotsman
“Infectious in its enthusiasm, attractive to read … there is more information about anarchism in this than any other single volume. It was well worth writing and well worth reading.’
Nicholas Walter London Review of Books
“The standard work of reference until well into the 21st century.’
Colin Ward New Statesman and Society
“Essential reading…The whole is a rich tapestry… Peter Marshall has dignified anarchism with his widespread scholarship and, in doing so, has essentially set the rest of us a challenge of emulating his commitment. If you can afford to buy this book, treat yourself.”
John Desmond,Freedom

As the reviews make clear, too many to quote, Demanding the Impossible is a genuinely internationalist and highly enjoyable history of anarchist thought and action.It is divided into seven parts: Anarchism in Theory, Forerunners of Anarchism, Great Libertarians, Classic Anarchist Thinkers, Anarchism in Action, Modern Anarchism, the Legacy of Anarchism.

Marshall explores the emergence of an anarchist tendency in ancient civilizations and religious traditions, examines the deepest thinkers of anarchism, and studies the main social movements and the most important revolutions which have embraced anarchist and libertarian ideas and values. In this world-wide survey, he travels through France, Italy, Spain, Russian, Ukraine, Northern Europe, United States, Latin America and Asia. He considers, among many other colourful and influential characters, William Godwin, Max Stirner, Michael Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Tolstoy, Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Gandhi and Murray Bookchin.
At the end of this compelling study from the earliest times to the present day, Marshall concludes:
“Far from being the puerile, naive, utopian fantasy imagined by superficial observers, anarchist thought … is profound, complex and subtle. It is more than a doctrine of personal living. It questions and has answers for many of the fundamental concerns of moral and political philosophy. It addresses itself to many of the burning issues of the day. As result, it remains one of the most important and stimulating intellectual currents in the modern era … Anarchism remains not only an ultimate ideal, but increasingly a real practical possibility.”
See also LIBERATION ECOLOGY