WhyAnarchist.html


Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:38:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Jamal Hannah
To: anarchy-list@lists.village.virginia.edu,
        aut-op-sy@lists.village.virginia.edu, a-act@egroups.com,
        ait-iwa-talk@list.uncanny.net, solidarity@flag.blackened.net,
        black-libertarians@flag.blackened.net, anarchoprop@cat.org.au
Subject: Why Anarchists Shouldn't Trust Statist Leftists [Article]


[note - please distribute this article widely if you like it]
-------------------------------------------------------------

Anarchists, Don't let the Left(overs) Ruin your Appetite

by Lawrence Jarach


Introduction

 An uneasy relationship has existed between anarchists and
leftists from the time Proudhon positively proclaimed him
self an anarchist 150 years ago. From the 1860s through the
1930s most anarchists considered themselves to be an integral
part of the international labor movement, even if there
were moments of extreme conflict within it; leftist anarchists
saw themselves as the radical conscience of the Left - the left of
the Left, as it were. But since the death of 19th century
anarchism on the barricades of Barcelona in May 1937,
anarchists haven't had a movement to call their own. As a
result, many anarchists trail after leftist projects, seemingly
oblivious to the sometimes fatal historical rivalry that has
existed between the two tendencies. They get seduced either
by the seemingly antiauthoritarian characteristics of such
groups (like decentralization), or by the use of some anarchic
vocabulary (direct action for example).

 The most notable recent example is the widespread
uncritical anarchist support for and solidarity with the EZLN
(Zapatista National Liberation Army). The name of the
organization should be enough to cause anarchists to pause:
national liberation has never been part of the anarchist
agenda. The use of the Mexican flag at EZLN conventions
makes it clear that the EZLN is a Mexican-identified
movement, not an international one. Their calls for fair
elections within the context of Mexican history is quite
radical, but it remains a statist demand, and as such cannot
be anarchist by any stretch of the imagination. The EZLN,
for all its revolutionary posturing, is a broad-based democratic
movement for progressive social change within the fabric
of the Mexican state; it is leftist, liberal, social democratic,
postmodern, courageous in the face of overwhelming odds
and official repression... you name it, but it is not anarchist.
The zapatistas don't refuse solidarity from anarchists, but to
extrapolate from this fact that they themselves are
anarchists - or even antiauthoritarians - is wishful
thinking at best. Characteristics are not the same thing
as definitions.

Anarchists and the International Labor Movement, Part I

 The initial place where the rivalry between leftists and
anarchists occurred was the First International (1864-76).
Besides the well-known personal animosity between Marx and
Bakunin, conflicts arose between the libertarian socialists and
the authoritarian socialists over the ostensible goal of the
International: how best to work for the emancipation of the
working class. Using parliamentary procedures (voting for
representatives) within a framework that accepted the
existence of the state was the main tactic supported by the
authoritarians. In the non-electoral arena, but remaining
firmly within a statist agenda, was the demand of the right of
workers to form legal trade unions. In contrast, direct action
(any activity that takes place without the permission, aid, or
support of politicians or other elected officials) was promoted
by the libertarians. Strikes and workplace occupations are the
best examples of this method. The leftists preferred persuasion
and the petitioning of the ruling class while the anarchists,
recognizing the futility of this approach, preferred to
take matters into their own hands: peacefully if possible,
more insistently if necessary.

 Another rift had to do with the issue of nationalism, which
was a reflection of the tension between centralization and
decentralization. For a majority of Internationalists, nationalism
was seen as a progressive force because it led to the
consolidation and further industrialization of natural resources
and the means of production. This in turn created a larger
proletariat, and a larger proletariat meant a better chance of
successful revolution. Most anarchists correctly saw nationalism
as a force opposed to federalism, a basic organizing
method of libertarians. These and other irreconcilable
conflicts between the two tendencies (such as the place of the
individual in the class struggle) led to the decline of the
International. This dissolution began in the wake of the Paris
Commune in 1871; by the time Marx was able to relocate the
General Council to New York in 1872 (far from the libertarian
influence of the Spanish, French, and Italian sections),
Bakunin and other leading anarchist activists had already
been expelled from the organization. Individual anarchists
were welcome to remain in the International, provided they
dispensed with their antiauthoritarian principles. The First
International became an anarchist-free zone for the last four
years of its existence.

 The social democrats (marxist or non-marxist, but always
anti-revolutionary) who began the work of creating the
Second International (1889-1914), already agreed (by the
mere fact that most were members of legal socialist parties)
that its methods were to be peaceful and lawful. They
promoted universal male suffrage, with the program of getting
their members elected to legislative bodies in order to
enact pro-union laws, eventually legislating socialism into
existence. Despite the total absence of any discussion of
direct action, federalism, or revolution there were some
anarchists (mostly syndicalists yearning for a big organization
to join) who wanted to participate. They were rebuffed; the
Second International was anarchist-free from the beginning.

Interlude:

Anarchists in the Mexican and Russian Revolutions

 The Mexican Revolution began in 1910, primarily as a
middle-class rebellion against the corrupt and ultra-conservative
porfiriato (the years of the rule of Profirio Diaz).
Anarchists were involved in the agitation to get rid of Diaz,
most notably members of the PLM (Mexican Liberal Party),
whose main theoretician was Ricardo Flores Magon. The
PLM remained active throughout the revolutionary period.
They tried to gain allies and supporters for radical land
redistribution programs among the peasant armies of Villa
and Zapata, and to a large degree were successful.

 Another arena of anarchist agitation was the Casa Del
Obrero Mundial (House of the World Worker) in Mexico
City. The Casa was the place where anarcho-syndicalists,
revolutionary unionists, and socialists congregated. Their
focus was on legalizing unions and other aspects of industrial
relations rather than on the agrarian question, even though
the majority of Mexico's poor and working people were
landless peasants. A majority of those involved in the Casa
were adherents of a philosophical tendency that defined its
members by the term cientificos (more or less "scientists"):
rational, urban, civilized. As such, they were appalled by the
use of the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe on the banners
of the original zapatistas. In addition, their constant
collaborations with authoritarian socialists seems to have weakened
their adherence to libertarian principles; so much so that they
became partners in the Red Battalions, which were organized
by the center-left Constitutionalists to fight against the
Zapatistas. This was the first (but unfortunately not the last)
seriously embarrassing and shameful episode of anarchist
history, when authoritarians took advantage of the gullibility
of anarchists for their own benefit.

 Rather than uniting with the radical peasants in the
countryside around a truly revolutionary program of total
expropriation of landed estates and industries (in keeping
with their pronouncements), the syndicalists of the Casa
preferred to make common cause with their anti-radical
legalistic leftist rivals to kill and be killed by peasant
revolutionaries. Later, as the result of a general strike in 1916,
the Casa and all unions were outlawed, their more radical leaders
were assassinated or imprisoned, and almost all urban
revolutionary activity ceased. The new Constitutionalist rulers
understood that anarcho-syndicalists, the erstwhile allies of
progressive leftists, could not be mollified as easily with
promises of legal status as the authoritarian socialists, and
the leftists didn't seem to mind too much that their libertarian
rivals were out of the picture.

 The overthrow of the czarist regime in Russia in February
1917 was the defining moment of 20th century leftism.
Suddenly political parties were decriminalized, political
prisoners were amnestied, the death penalty was abolished.
Revolutionary activity mushroomed, dominated by the Social
Revolutionaries (SRs) in the countryside, the Bolsheviks (the
left wing of the Russian Social Democratic Party) in the cities
and the armed forces, and anarchists all over (their influence
far out of proportion to their actual numbers). In the early
months of the Russian Revolution, the SRs and the anarchists
supported the slogan: "The land to the peasants; the
factories to the workers"; the Bolsheviks were hesitant about
the slogan as a program since they were the heirs of the
more cautious notion that the masses still needed to be led
by technocrats and other smart people like themselves. But
as the momentum and enthusiasm of revolutionary self-activity
continued (in the form of councils - soviet in
Russian - and factory committees), Lenin and the Bolshevik
leadership adopted the slogan as well. Another slogan soon
appeared: "All power to the soviets."

 Each of the slogans was interpreted differently by the
different revolutionary tendencies. For anarchists and left
SRs (the right SRs had previously split away from the revolutionary
aspects of the SR program in favor of strictly parliamentary
activity) the slogan "The land to the peasants; the
factories to the workers" meant just that: the peasants and
workers would have total control over what was produced,
how it would be produced, and how, when, and where it
would be distributed. Federalism was the preferred method
of organizing such a situation. For the Bolsheviks, however,
such independent and decentralized self-activity was
unthinkable; the State should decide how and when and where
commodities were to be produced and distributed. Centralized
planning was promoted as the only efficient and just way
to control production and distribution. After the Bolshevik
seizure of state power in October 1917, the approved
revolutionary slogan became "All power to the soviets," and
that bothersome business about the land and the peasants
and the factories and the workers was phased out.

 Similarly there were unique interpretations of "All power
to the soviets," depending on party affiliation. To the Bolsheviks
this was a call for a government of representatives from
the soviets of workers, peasants, and soldiers with the
addition of party members who, together, would implement
and guide the dictatorship of the proletariat. To the left SRs
and the anarchists, the slogan meant a federation of soviets
and factory committees with or without delegates; for the
anarchists this also meant no state at all.

 The differences of interpretation turned into armed
confrontations within six months of Bolshevik rule. The
soviets began to be turned into organs that merely ratified
Bolshevik executive decisions, while the more independent
factory committees were abolished. Anarchists and left SRs
who pointed out this anti-revolutionary tactic were arrested
by the Cheka and were imprisoned - and sometimes executed -
with counter-revolutionaries. In April 1918, the Cheka
and regular police forces carried out simultaneous raids on
anarchist centers in Petrograd and Moscow; the anarchists
returned fire but eventually surrendered. The surviving
arrested anarchists were deported the following year.

 Meanwhile in the Ukraine from 1918-21, the Makhnovist
Insurgent Army was creating liberated zones for workers and
peasants by encouraging and facilitating the expropriation of
landed estates and factories while carrying out a total war
against the Whites (monarchist counter-revolutionaries),
Ukrainian nationalists (republicans and socialists), and, on
occasion, Trotsky's Red Army. Twice there were formal
treaties made between the Red Army and the Insurgent
Army, and twice the Bolsheviks broke their agreements when
it suited their military and state policy, arresting - but most
often executing - the insurgent anarchists. For the Russian
anarchists who supported the Makhnovists (there were many
who didn't, believing that a military structure was incompatible
with true anarchist goals), this was the definitive end of
their honeymoon with the Bolsheviks.

 In the spring of 1921, the Bolsheviks faced the most serious
threat to their retention of state power and their pretense of
being the party of the proletariat. There was a rebellion at
the island naval fortress of Kronstadt, just off the coast from
Petrograd. The sailors, soldiers, and workers, frustrated with
the intensely destructive policies of War Communism as well
as the heavy-handed response of the Bolsheviks to a strike of
factory workers in Petrograd, began a protest movement
against government injustice. Their demands included an end
to forced grain requisitions in the countryside, abolition of
the death penalty, freedom of speech and press for all socialist
groups (including anarchists), and open (that is, not
dominated by the Communist Party) elections in the soviets.
Hardly any anarchists were involved in the rebellion (most
had already been arrested or killed, and Kronstadt was a
Bolshevik stronghold), but the complaints and demands of
the Kronstadters fell in line with the anarchist critiques
of the Soviet regime.

 Lenin and Trotsky issued many misleading denunciations
of the rebels, often resorting to outright fabrications in
their characterizations of its leaders. They were afraid of the
appeal (coming, as it did, from a bastion of approved
revolutionary activity) such a call for a decentralized, directly
democratic program would have on a population weary of
War Communism (since the civil war had been officially over
for several months) yet still committed to the revolutionary
slogans of "All power to the soviets," and "The land to the
peasants; the factories to the workers." The Bolsheviks,
preferring the methods of statecraft over revolutionary
solidarity and compromise, attacked the island and massacred
the rebels who survived the military suppression. Even for
the anarchists who were willing to excuse the excesses of
authoritarianism in the Bolshevik government, this was too much.
Many left Russia voluntarily at around the same time that the
dissident anarchists were deported, ridding the Communist
Party of its most radical opponents. The Soviet Union was
subsequently unencumbered by the influence of anarchists.

Anarchists in the International Labor Movement, Part II

 In the aftermath of the consolidation of Bolshevik rule in
Russia, the Third - or Communist - International was formed
in 1919. Non-Russian anarchists, excited about the real
possibility of revolution spreading around the world in the
wake of the Russian Revolution, initially tended to overlook
the centralized and authoritarian nature of the organization
(much as their Russian counterparts had overlooked the
same aspects of the Bolshevik state for the early years of its
existence). At the time of the first conference of the Comintern,
the majority of Russian anarchists were either dead or
in prison (despite Lenin's assurances that there were no real
anarchists in his jails - only criminals). Alexander Berkman,
Emma Goldman, and anarcho-syndicalists from around the
world who were attending lobbied the Soviet government to
release these so-called criminals from jail; the Russians
were quietly released and expelled. Members of the American
IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) and the Spanish
CNT (National Confederation of Labor) declined to affiliate
to the Comintern.

 Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism - An Infantile Disorder"
was published in 1921, the same year of the suppression of
the Kronstadt uprising, the final destruction of the
Makhnovist Insurgent Army and the libertarian communes of
the Ukraine, and the adoption of the neo-capitalist New
Economic Policy. This screed was aimed primarily at council
communists and other independent revolutionary socialists,
but charges of "anarcho-syndicalist deviationism" were
thrown at all of Lenin's opponents. All those not uncritically
supportive of the policies of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union and its methodology of democratic centralism
were declared to be objectively counter-revolutionary. The
attempt to keep the international labor movement subservient
to the orders of the headquarters in Moscow, of which
Lenin's tract was the most public aspect, was nearly totally
successful. The strategy of socialism in one country was
promulgated and with centralized hierarchical discipline in
place, the Comintern could be used to further Soviet foreign
policy goals.

Spain

 The revolutionary response to the attempted military coup
in Spain in July 1936 resulted in a protracted civil war
between the defenders of the old monarchist order and the
upholders of the five year old parliamentary democracy.
Members of the large anarcho-syndicalist CNT were put in
an awkward position: supporting one form of government
over another. Some chose to pursue revolutionary goals
rather than become government anarchists, but the majority
went for collaboration with the forces of legalism - some even
entering the government by becoming Cabinet Ministers.

 By that time the Comintern had adopted the anti-revolutionary
policy of the Popular Front, promoting parliamentary
democracy in opposition to fascism through an alliance of
republicans, middle-class progressives, social democrats, and
Communists. This final abandonment of class struggle led
directly to the May '37 Communist-dominated Popular Front's
armed suppression of the CNT and the anti-stalinist POUM
(Worker's Party of Marxist Unification), the two mass organizations
in Spain at least nominally committed to some sort of revolution.
The international labor movement was in the control of stalinists
for the next decade.

The Left

 The Left has consistently been identified with the international
labor movement from the time of the First International;
with the shift of focus from western Europe toward Russia
beginning in 1917 and continuing into the 1960s, leftists have
identified themselves in relation to events that occurred in
the workers' paradise. Whether a leninist, trotskyist, stalinist,
or non-leninist communist, each variety of leftist has a
particular view of when things went wrong (or not) with the
Russian revolutionary experiment.

 For anarchists who considered themselves part of the Left
even after the debacles of the Internationals, this method of
self-identification created a crisis: whether to make accommodations
to the politics of leninism or to dispense with any and
all hints of vanguardism. Most opted for the latter, but some
(including the former Makhnovist Arshinov and Makhno
himself) favored the militaristic vanguardism of the "Anarchist
Platform." Their more principled anarchist opponents
called the Platformists "anarcho-bolsheviks," for whom it was
merely a case of the unchecked authoritarian behavior of the
Bolsheviks that led them to abandon the true revolution; the
necessary existence, goals, and methods of a self-conscious
militarized revolutionary vanguard were accepted in full. Such
an analysis dispensed with the idea of a mass-based self-organized
revolution and substituted the armed action of a minority; this
put the Platformists firmly within a tactical framework of leninism.
This was not the first - or last - time that anarchists would flirt
with the more authoritarian aspects of radical theory and practice.
[Many anarchists would disagree with this assessment of the Platform.
-Internet ed.]

 The main lesson of the anarchist presence in relation to the
first two Internationals is that socialists prefer anarchists to
be invisible and silent. That of the revolutionary experiences
of Mexico, Russia, and Spain shows that for socialists, the
only good anarchist is pro-government or dead. Loyally
fighting for a Mexican Constitution didn't slacken the resolve
of Mexico's rulers in outlawing and repressing anarcho-syndicalists
who insisted on exercising their legal rights to organize radical
trade unions. Helping to make revolutionary changes in cooperation
with the Bolsheviks didn't protect the anarchists from the wrath
of Lenin and his cohorts when the anarchists insisted on remaining
attached to libertarian principles and tactics. Neither did being
part of a coalition of leftists and liberals in opposition to
fascism shelter anarchists from the homicidal rivalry of stalinists
and social democrats twenty years later.

The '60s and '70s

 The social upheavals beginning in 1968 ended the near
total eclipse of anarchism in the years following the Spanish
experience. The formation of the New Left in the preceding
few years, precipitated by examples of non-Soviet socialist
alternatives (the Chinese, Cuban, Yugoslavian, Albanian,
Korean, or Vietnamese models) resurrected an interest in
unconventional and non-conformist aspects of political
theory, which led to a renewed study of anarchist and
non-leninist revolutionary history. Tactics of anarchist
organizing were adopted by non-anarchists because of their assumed
inherent anti-hierarchical nature (in keeping with egalitarian
presumptions, as was the trend of those early days): consensus
decision-making, affinity groups, rotating leadership or
the lack of any and all formal leaders.

 These outward forms (characteristics) of quasi-egalitarianism
were usually accompanied by the celebration of various
nationalist movements that had emerged in the context of
global anti-colonial struggles, giving birth to an odd hybrid:
pseudo-anarchic nationalist revolutionaries - activists who
adopted the anarchist slogan "smash the state" while at the
same time carrying the flag of the NLF (National Liberation
Front, or "Viet Cong"), a stalinist popular front whose
declared aim was the consolidation and centralization of the
Vietnamese state. To anti-imperialists, some states are better
than others, especially if they are in conflict with the
United States. The problem, from an anarchist perspective,
is that the goal of this strategy is to smash a particular state,
not statism or government in general.

 The response of '60s militants to legal repression and
the rise of third worldism contributed to the disintegration of
the New Left, which began in earnest when the revolutionary
potential of the working classes in imperialist countries was
played down and eventually dismissed. This theoretical
innovation was accompanied by the rise of urban guerrilla
groups; the military actions of an elitist anti-imperialist
vanguard were substituted for the self-activity of "the masses,"
especially the working masses. The exploits of these violent
militants superficially hearkened back to the years of
anarchist propaganda by the deed: bank robberies, bombings,
assassinations. From the mid-1880s through the 1920s,
some anarchists engaged in spectacular violent and illegal
actions. The idea behind this unorganized but widespread strategy
was to prod normally complacent workers into mass revolutionary
activity by showing the vulnerability of bourgeois society and of
individual political and economic leaders in particular. It didn't
work, and was largely abandoned as counterproductive, but
the popular association of anarchism with violence and
mayhem was cemented.

 The similar tactics of armed struggle groups and anarchists
of the previous century led to the equation of the two
tendencies in the analyses of many observers. As often as the
media and various officials portrayed all violent political
groups as "anarchist," the groups themselves never tired of
pointing out (to anyone who would listen) that they were not
anarchists at all, but communists or socialists or progressives
or nationalists or leftists.

 Having the actions of urban guerrillas (fighting the imperialist
state in solidarity with third world national liberationists)
equated with those of armed anarchists (combating the state
in solidarity with anyone - including themselves - who is
oppressed by authoritarian social relations regardless of the
political ideology of their rulers) must have been maddening
to the leftists of the '70s. Their ideological forebears had
been struggling for the previous 150 years to be rid of the
stigma of anarchism, only to have it foisted on them again
because of a similarity of tactics. But the leftists had only
themselves to blame for this confusion since they had already
appropriated an important term from the vocabulary of
anarchism: direct action.

Characteristics Vs. Definitions

 In the anarchist tradition the term direct action was never
used as a euphemism for violence, unlike propaganda by the
deed. It simply referred to any consciously political act that
took place outside the realm of electoralism and other forms
of statecraft: decision-making that uses mandated and
revocable delegates instead of representatives, and creating
mutual-aid networks instead of relying on welfare are two
examples. In a general sense then, direct action refers to
actions that encourage and expand the self-activity of any
person or group without resorting to the institutions of the
state. Polite or violent public protests, on the other hand, are
undertaken in the hopes that policy makers can be influenced
to implement legislative reform; this is the liberal (/conservative)
or leftist (/rightist) strategy of appealing to political
leaders' good will and/or fear. Since this strategy relies on the
actions of people not directly involved, it has nothing to do
with an anarchist understanding of direct action.

 Registering public dissatisfaction with government policies
(by marching, demonstrating, fighting cops, destroying
property, expropriating banks, liberating prisoners, assassinating
political/industrial leaders) is agitation and propaganda,
not direct action. The effects of such activity on creating and
sustaining anti-hierarchical communities beyond the clutches
of politicians are extremely limited. It may make anarchism
attractive to some people - which is exactly the point of
propaganda (by the deed or idea) - but the point of direct
action is to become accustomed to making decisions using
anti-hierarchical methods, and then implementing positive
egalitarian alternatives to statist ways of living. Unfortunately,
most activist anarchists have adopted the leftist usage of
direct action, meaning any angry confrontation with the state,
rather than the traditional anarchist definition: ignoring the
state.

 This confusion is the result of substituting characteristics
for definitions. Anarchism has a definition. It is a discrete
political theory and practice; to be an anarchist means to be
against all government. A social change movement might be
decentralized, use some form of direct democracy (the
mandated delegate model, for example), call for international
solidarity, and use non-anarchist direct action (in the leftist
sense of using limited violence or property destruction to
further their programs), but these are characteristics of
antiauthoritarian methods, not a definition of anarchism. If
these tactics are used as part of a strategy for gaining legal
recognition or influencing and/or implementing legislation,
then those who use them cannot be anarchists; not because
some self-appointed guardian of the ideology says so, but
because anarchism is anti-legislative by definition. Anarchists
are not frustrated liberals with an attitude, nor are they
impatient authoritarian socialists unafraid to pick up a gun.

Conclusions

 Maintaining a minority position of principled
antiauthoritarianism within a larger authoritarian framework,
as anarcho-leftists insist upon doing in relation to the Left,
is naive at best. This brief historical survey has hopefully
provided ample examples of the suicidal nature of such a
project. Leftists want neither a loyal opposition nor a radical
conscience, and they have made it abundantly clear over the
last 150 years that they don't like anarchists and prefer not
to have them around, cluttering up their moves for polite and
safely legislated social change or sudden military coups d'etat.
Leftist anarchists consistently refuse to learn from the history
of the interactions between their ideological predecessors and
their desperately desired contemporary anti-anarchist allies.
Involvement in non- (and anti-) anarchist fronts and alliances
tends to make anarchists suspend the pursuit of their unique
goals.

 The conflicts that have existed between authoritarian
socialists and anarchists have not gone away. Whether it's the
tension between centralization and federalism, nationalism and
internationalism, the role of the individual in relation to
society and the state, or the more fundamental issue of
statecraft (electoralism, agitating for legislative reform, etc)
versus direct action, anarchists stand in opposition to the
issues and programs of all kinds of leftists. The leftist agenda
is predicated on the use of legislation, representative government
and all of its coercive institutions, centralized economic
planning by technocrats and other experts, and a commitment
to hierarchical social relations.

 Promoting self-activity, egalitarian interpersonal and social
relations, and cultivating a critical perspective are among the
best aspects of anarchism. As such, they are worth extending.
Accepting spoon-fed solutions and programs, engaging in
non-reciprocal solidarity with leftists, and other characteristics
of ideological myopia need to be discarded. Anarchists, with
their emphasis on the principles of mutual aid, voluntary
cooperation, and direct action, cannot share a common
agenda with contemporary leftists any more than they could
150 years ago.

 A return to authentically anarchist principles, coupled with
some understanding of the troubled history of the relationship
between leftists and anarchists, can go a long way toward
reinvigorating antiauthoritarian theory and practice. At the
same time, moving beyond the melioristic beliefs (especially
about western European technology, culture, and science) of
19th century anarchism, which have made the programs of
anarchists and leftists seem similar, is crucial. The relevance
of anarchist self-activity can only increase when the vestiges
of authoritarian leftist assumptions and distortions are
discarded from the words and behavior of antiauthoritarian
activists, critics, and theorists.

**************************************************************************
* From "Anarchy - A Journal of Desire Armed" #48 (Fall/Winter 1999-2000) *
**************************************************************************