New Book Explores Organizing Strategies for Anarchists

“Towards Collective Liberation: Anti-Racist Organizing, Feminist Praxis and Movement Building Strategy,” may be the “Rules for Radicals” for a growing trend of anarcho-practicos who up until this point have had little literature to make their case with.

By James Tracy

Chris Crass is an anarchist organizer. For those whose perception of anarchism begins and ends with broken windows, this may seem like an oxymoron. The tradition has a tortured relationship with organizing. Anarchism’s fingerprints can be found on many of the important social movements since the late 1980s; ranging from the AIDS activism of ACT-UP to the anti-nuclear and Global Justice Movements. Other currents within the anarchist tradition hold organizing leads to hierarchy, compromise and cooptation. The anti-organizing voice of anarchism is at its most articulate in recent tracts such as “The Coming Insurrection” and a wealth of books and manifestos from the Crimethinc collective.

Crass walks anarchism down a very different road. His anarchism, and that of the political organizations he helped build, isn’t afraid of community organizing. It also isn’t afraid to reach across the radical aisle and work with marxists, feminists, liberals and just about any other category that makes it to the meeting. His new book, “Towards Collective Liberation: Anti-Racist Organizing, Feminist Praxis, and Movement Building Strategy” may be the “Rules for Radicals” for a growing trend of anarcho-practicos who up until this point have had little literature to make their case with. (In 1993, Tom Knoche formulated a case for anarchist participation in reform organizing, see Organizing Communities in the journal Social Anarchism.)

“Towards Collective Liberation” is an impressive contribution to radical thought. Crass outlines a vision of anarchism rooted deeply in the anti-racist tradition, and influenced by feminism.

He’s most at home when teasing out the lessons of his own politicization. The exploration of Food Not Bombs (FNB) is a delightful surprise—combining a sober assessment of the movement’s weaknesses with a nuanced description of their accomplishments under fire during San Francisco’s War For Space. Here, he carefully avoids demonizing FNB personalities who made destructive mistakes, but pulls no punches in the final analysis. He sets a high bar for constructive discourse without stooping to polemics.

His ability to grapple with the complexities of the Civil Rights Movement and draw implications for anti-authoritarians is unique. Instead of approaching social movements in terms of all-or-nothing reductionism Crass identifies ways for radical organizers to engage with them and think outside the Infoshop.

The book isn’t without some key weaknesses. In some essays, Crass’ over-reliance on jargon obscures his otherwise salient power of observation. He raises important points, “we need a revitalized, dynamic, and visionary Left politics that draws from many traditions, not just anarchism, but also Marxism, feminism, revolutionary nationalism and others;” then only scratches the surface of the mechanics of doing so.

Other themes left under-examined are the strengths and weaknesses of the interventions his organization, the Catalyst Project made in the name of racial justice in key moments such as the response to hurricane Katrina and the immigrant rights upsurge. I find it odd that the process of committed anarchists traveling to other cities in order to challenge “white supremacy” in the movement didn’t yield deeper reflection. What were the moments when this strategy bolstered local organizing? When was it unwelcome by locals? Did it ever feel a bit vanguardist, and if so, what was to be done?

Thankfully, Crass’ has a political vision of anti-racism, separated from individualistic notions of white guilt and “invisible back packs.” He recognizes white supremacy as a system and a historic roadblock to social transformation. While centering race and colonization, he also avoids reducing race to the only dilemma facing organizers today. In this sense, he snatches anti-racism from the jaws of the professional diversity trainers polluting today’s discourse.

Taken as a whole, the book makes the case for an anarchist practice relevant to, and a part of, the lives of everyday people, and the larger Left. With humility and optimism, Crass offers critical insights hard won through a life on the frontlines. “Towards Collective Liberation” is an important read, not just for anarchists, but anyone pondering the road forward.

James Tracy is a native of Oakland, California and a long-time economic justice organizer. He is the co-author of “Hillbilly Nationalists, Urban Race Rebels, and Black Power: Community Organizing in Radical Times” (Melville House).

Category: 

Comments

"a case for anarchist participation in reform organizing"

This is the most tired shit I've ever read. for those who forgot, the catalyst project is the cult-like 'anti-racist' training program where overwhelmingly incredibly wealthy white kids pay thousands of dollars to move to SF and take classes and become certified 'white allies' (all while also fundraising for the organization). They then learn that the best form of anarchist anti-racism is to work as an unpaid intern for a POC-lead non-profit (TM)

Notable things they've done include:
-siding with the police during the oscar grant riots by wearing orange vests and linking arms with other non-profit workers to form human shields to "protect the community" by attempting to keep people off the streets.
-wearing "white ally" arm bands and inserting themselves into the occupy oakland encampment wearing signs saying "ask me about racism"
-made a shit ton of money for their non-profit
-assuaged their white guilt?

losers.

They almost sucked me in... but then I became a manarchist instead! Feels so good!

But those phonies are manarchists!

Ah man, you got to love the irony of the front page of the catalyst project. All the academic looking "white allies" are up top holding the microphones and the banner and beneath them in hard hats and scrubs is all the people of color.

Better yet, look at his wiki, it is totally written by him and you can't help but laugh at its shameless self promotion. But to his credit, he was really involved in FNB during the 90's and wrote an essay about it.

oh you

Oh my goddd, this reviewer is a fucking idiot. The Coming Insurrection is not anti-organizing... Direct quote: "We have to get organized." TCI advises to FORM COMMUNES. This requires a fuckton of organization, duh. However the book does criticize leftist politics and the type of lowest common denominator, formal-organization based "community organizing" that identity politcians like Chris Crass usually engage in... "It’s useless to get involved in this or that citizens’ group, in this or that dead-end of the far left, or in the latest 'community effort.' Every organization that claims to contest the present order mimics the form, mores and language of miniature states. Thus far, every impulse to 'do politics differently' has only contributed to the indefinite spread of the state’s tentacles." Like, I dunno, being a member of the peace police.... ..

At least I sign my name to my posts, asshole. How many people can lay claim to the name Anonymous. But yes, I should have been more concise in describing The Coming Insurrection and Crimethinc. Actually good point, wrapped in shit.

10/10 for honesty dude. Now fuck off!

"concise"? how about not intentionally obscuring the truth and misrepresenting ideas you disagree with?

p.s. fuck your strange moralistic obsession with transparency. you sound like a liberal chastising someone for wearing a mask at a demo on streets filled with surveillance cameras and dumbasses wielding iphones.

Dude, is this article for like a high school newspaper? So much wrong in this. I especially like the comment about too much vanguardism. I can see it now, ol' Lenin sitting there, thinking, "All this Vanguardism! What is to be done?" HAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah holy shit talking about out of touch, I don't even know if I believe what may or may not actually be in this book after reading this review. If any high school kids need a book report you just got it but beware, you will more than likely get a C.

Also, when do anarchists start creating non-profits to take liberals money? Why do we always let the fucking liberals do this?????

That one collective in Minneapolis has this whole thing going where some canvassers go get money from liberals...

Ok but you gotta think harder than that. Furthermore, why does it feel like putting yourself in a beggar relationship with liberals, while you sooo immensely can pwn them from above, especially since they're craving for it!

I can foresee so many ways to rig liberal yuppies into spilling money, even having opportunities to get laid with and "corrupt" them -if you want- so they'll integrate your band... Like charging them 60 bucks each for high-concept lectures held by presumed black blocs, in art cafes, then pissing off the other black blocs out there for being such terrible reformists so they'll smash up the same cafe. See? Win-win situation.

...or why not, radical porn with them as subjects, and they have to pay for it. Porn always works, with the correct disguise.

Don't "Think different"... that's for liberals. Think Evil! :-D

*whips out dick*

Unions have a ton of dough that they have to spend in certain amount of time. If you have a leftist oriented labor union near you, good chance you can get funding for all sorts of projects, even funding for non profit status if you want to go that route. Heads up, the cushier the job and the more job security(usually for the state via universities), are often the most penny pinching and reactionary.

It might not be kosher form some "hardcore" anti-leftist, but the money is there and it's better than bumming off of each other all the fucking time.

They're doing that in France, and it's highly successful. It's called the "ZAD". ;)

Still yet most of the big money is managed by the bureaucrats, while the real occupiers get the food, drinks and weed. So yeah, it's not really anarchist self-management of the big bucks, just recirculation under Leftist control, which is ALWAYS bad news. But there's always the possibility to raid the bureaucrats offices, taken them hostage and ask for ransoms. Vive les pirates!

Right I see what you are saying, when it is under the control of the leftists it is certainly bad. Which is why I am advocating the anarchists controlling the source of the money directly instead of taking the chance of a tap getting turned off. I could easily see a cleverly orchestrated kickstarter campaign to get funding for X project, just 30k could fund small collectives in many states with a larger liberal presence. Those collectives could then be tasked with X business plan that would target liberals.

I like the idea of the not to be named Minneapolis collective, but I think they are making small beans compared to the actual possibility out there.

Eww... Can't even think of a better criticism of this piece other than just eww...

stopped reading at Chris Crass

stopped reading at Collective

vomit.

This is a fucked up nuanced leftist agenda. Read it as a parody for some laughs, then ditch it !

Stopped reading at "Chris Crass is an anarchist organizer." Anyone who knows this boob knows already that in the early 00s, he stopped doing anarchist anything, preferring to create his own activist niche within the white-guilt complex of non-profits. Fuck this asshole and anyone who still believes he has anything relevant to contribute to anti-state practices.

stopped reading after the first paragraph when it refers to the coming insurrection and crimethinc as being "anti-organizing."

^Stopped reading after this comment

Isn't Chris Crass that guy who stood arm in arm with the police during the Oscar Grant riots as peace police?

yes

is strong with this one

With every article written about anarchism, the implicit definition of anarchism seems to change. Chris Crass contends that ‘what anarchism is’ can be divined from ‘anarchist practice’;

“ ...we need to examine our practice so we can be clear about what our theory and strategy is in order to engage it and develop it. Our theory and strategy is embedded in our practice because we believe that the means lead to the ends, that how we engage in struggle is pre-figurative of the society that we want to live in. For anarchists, direct action is not just a tactic. Direct action is an expression of a deeper understanding of revolutionary transformation in which we take back our power and remake the world. Through direct struggle confronting institutions of injustice, we develop new understandings of ourselves and the world. These understandings help us build communities of empowerment, equality and mutual aid. Through communities of resistance we work to bring down systems of oppression in all their forms. By working to implement our visions of the future society into our everyday lives and in our counter institutions, we seek to build the new world in the shell of the old.” --- Chris Crass, ‘Beyond Voting’

Peter Marshall contends that anarchism is a world view that has been around for 2500 years;

“ANARCHISM IS USUALLY CONSIDERED a recent, Western phenomenon, but its roots reach deep in the ancient civilizations of the East. The first clear expression of an anarchist sensibility may be traced back to the Taoists in ancient China from about the sixth century BC. Indeed, the principal Taoist work, the Tao te ching, may be considered one of the greatest anarchist classics.
.
The Taoists at the time were living in a feudal society in which law was becoming codified and government increasingly centralized and bureaucratic. Confucius was the chief spokesman of the legalistic school supporting these developments, and called for a social hierarchy in which every citizen knew his place. The Taoists for their part rejected government and believed that all could live in natural and spontaneous harmony. The conflict between those who wish to interfere and those who believe that things flourish best when left alone has continued ever since.
.
...Like most later anarchists, the Taoists see the universe as being in a continuous state of flux. Reality is in a state of process; everything changes, nothing is constant. They also have a dialectical concept of change as a dynamic interplay as opposing forces. Energy flows continually between the poles of yin end yang. At the same time, they stress the unity and harmony of nature. Nature is self-sufficient and uncreated; there is no need to postulate a conscious creator. It is a view which not only recalls that of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus but coincides with the description of the universe presented by modern physics. Modern social ecology, which stresses unity in diversity, organic growth and natural order, further reflects the Taoist world-view.” --- Peter Marshall, ‘‘Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism’

In Marshall’s view of anarchism, anarchism is a different way of understanding the world. It is not simply a liberation strategy although it would generate liberation strategies.

But this difference is important since to define anarchism in terms of liberation strategies and practices, does not guarantee that the theory extracted from such practices will equivalence with the anarchism that peter marshall is talking about.

Who cares, you ask?

Well, this ties to the reviewer’s [Jame’s Tracy’s] own observation that;

“Other currents within the anarchist tradition hold organizing leads to hierarchy, compromise and cooptation. The anti-organizing voice of anarchism is at its most articulate in recent tracts such as “The Coming Insurrection” and a wealth of books and manifestos from the Crimethinc collective.”

The view of anarchism of Taoism and modern physics is that ‘anarchism’ is the way of nature, and that Western society works the way it does because its member have indoctrinated themselves into confusing ‘appearances’ for physical reality, and believing that the world ‘really is composed of a vast population of independently-existing ‘things-in-themselves’ from quarks and atoms up through plants, animals, humans, planets and galaxies, that move about and interact within an absolute, fixed, empty and infinite operating space.

The anarchism of Taoism and modern physics sees ‘the way of nature’ as a continually transforming relational space in which ‘things-in-themselves’ are ‘appearances.

Central hierarchical authority as the archetype for organizational architecture is thus drawn from ‘illusion’. This ‘illusion’ is otherwise known as ‘rationality’, the view in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’.

To the taoist or modern physics anarchists, then, the notion of a ‘rational anarchist’ is oxymoronic.

But, there is clearly ‘rational anarchism’ out there; i.e. rational anarchism that is defined on the basis of what anarchists do, as Chris Crass seems to be proposing; i.e. he proposes an operational definition of anarchism.

People may do things differently on the basis of rationally choosing to do things differently, or, ... they may do things differently because they live in a different reality. Taoist-anarchists and modern physicist-taoist-anarchists live in a different reality from ‘rationalists’. They do not see the world in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’. They are not ‘moralists’, they see things in a ‘beyond good and evil’ sense, as it must be in a world of flux; i.e. in a continually transforming relational spatial plenum.

The aboriginals are amongst the most active anarchist liberation fighters and they are clearly of the taoist-anarchist belief type; i.e. they see the world dynamic as ‘relational spatial’; as a web-of-life in which we are all included, thus hierarchical rankings make no sense because everyone is in the interdependent connectedness of the web, and if one person seems more powerful than others, it is not as if that power is exclusively internal to him, he can only draw it from others in the relational spatial web.

But the rational anarchist believes in ‘things-in-themselves’ and thus to be a rational anarchist, one must ‘dictate’ the fact that ‘everyone will be viewed as equals’, ‘men’, ‘women’, ‘whites’, ‘blacks’, ‘reds’, ‘yellows’ which is ridiculous.

In the aboriginal anarchist view, we are all woven into the web-of-life together, men, women, redman, whiteman, blackman, yellowman, these are all represented in the six directions of the medicine wheel. therefore, the power of men is fuelled by women and vice versa. therefore, the idea that women are inferior to men has no meaning in the aboriginal or taoist view. one can’t take apart each strand of an interdependent connectedness web one at a time and judge the behaviour of each web-strand on its own. as Emerson says; “our health and erectness consists in the fidelity with which we transmit influences from the vast and universal to the point on which our genius can act”. that is, we derive our development and behaviour from the relational spatial dynamics we are included in.

The anarchism of Emerson, Nietzsche, the taoists and the aboriginals associates with this view of interdependent connectedness.

Meanwhile, Chris Crass has a rational view towards gender bias and racism. Instead of believing that we are all woven into an interdependent connectedness web, the rational anarchist is ‘anti-racism’ on the basis of moral principle (the moral principle of equality which is tied to the capacity to suffer).

The bottom line is that the ‘rationalist anarchism’ of Chris Crass is ‘morality based’ and therefore not ‘beyond good and evil’ as in the taoist and modern physics and aboriginal worldviews [based on all of us being woven into a common web-of-life or relational space.].

One can therefore compare these two types of anarchism on the basis that rationalist anarchism is ‘morality based’ while relational anarchism [as in taoism, modern physics and aboriginal anarchism] is ‘beyond good and evil’. in relational anarchism, practices are not directed to moralist purificationism [eliminating the bad] as in rational anarchism, but to move always towards cultivating, restoring and sustaining balance and harmony in the ‘transforming relational space’ [web-of-life].

In rational anarchism, ‘retributive justice’ based on the judgement of good and bad will be a ‘keeper’ while in relational anarchism, ‘restorative’ justice based on the community assuming responsibility for emergent conflict is the ‘beyond good and evil’ justice system that prevails.

In rationalist cultures with justice systems that key to ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as applied to the behaviour of individuals seen as ‘things-in-themselves’, since there will always be disputes about judgements, the community will have to determine ‘who is deemed most capable of judging the others’. This leads to class structure and to the Gödel’s theory problem; “who will judge the judge that judges all those that cannot judge themselves”. this expresses the ‘incompleteness’ that is implicit in all finite mathematical/logical systems [truth and falsehoods are binary opposites in mathematics as 'good and evil' are binary opposites in 'morality'].

I.e. the suggestion is that rational anarchism is subject to ‘drift’ back into hierarchical structure while relational anarchism does not have this exposure.

I can see your point of view, well, to be honest, I got smashed on french brandy, was strumming on the guitar and browsing, and in a state of total yummyness and semi-utopia ACTUALLY clicked with your rant, so I take back my previous sarcastic attacks upon you.
Kiss and hugs, yours sincerely
Gary

that guy's still around? i like how he actively works on "get out the vote" campaigns and then turns around and keeps calling himself an anarchist.

fuzzy leninism he learned from' 70s marxist-leninist professors meets the fuzzy liberalism of the non-profit world.

Well, I for one am glad that he wrote this book, as the review makes clear that nobody really writes about anarchism and marxism, feminism or organizing...

I 'spose every genre has its self-declared know-all. So its come to " nobody really writes about anarchism and marxism, feminism or organizing..." for the exclusive clientelle who inhabit airport waiting lounges?

I am half way through the book, and think it's full of useful nuggets for those interested in organizing for a new world, and written with love and compassion. Which is more than I can say about some of these just nasty comments above. So much self righteousness it's nauseating.
Thanks for writing the review James tracey.

I agree with you, Marc. I've read through the book and plan on using on my next organizing campaign. I want to see more politicians on the local level represent me better, and, then, on wards to the state and federal level.

Solidarity,
Your Comrade in Organizing

if you want to hear the very best speeches on love, duty, justice, etc., listen to statesmen…and when the statesmen and lawyers and preachers of duty disappear There are no more robberies either And the world is at peace. ---Chuang Tzu

Chuang Tzu for the win! As usual.

The self-righteousness comes from those who believe that anyone who objects to the activist "community organizing" style of organizing - which means the activists (who believe themselves to be indispensible to the organization) organize others rather than helping them get organized themselves - means they are against all organization. Not just self-righteous, but also ignorant and dishonest.

chuang tzu was against moral principle based organization because it screws up natural organization. not only that, but it is designed specially for 'human things-in-themselves, notionally 'with their own locally originating, internal process driven and directed behaviour'. in other words, morality is an 'add-on' to 'rationality', it is not generalizable and makes no sense at all without assuming that space is absolute, fixed, empty and infinite.

nature’s ethics are NOT moralist but are in terms of always trying to restore balance and harmony in the face of continual relational-spatial transformation. the will to cultivate, restore and sustain balance and harmony in the relational space we all share inclusion in, is built into each of us [infants have it before they are taught 'moral law', if they are taught moral law; i.e. as they will be if brought up in 'Western civilization']..

humans, it is claimed in the Western culture, have the universal knowledge of the 'good' and 'bad' which enables them/us to rationally judge without any reasonable doubt, whether an action is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. of course, people differ and debate over this, and that is why Western civilization has constructed massive institutional infrastructure to provide answers to such questions; e.g. lower courts, middle courts and supreme courts and lawyers and judges and law enforcement services and penal institutions etc. in the end, moral judgement is determined by the principle of Lafontaine; 'la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure'. in other words, morality is a weapon the authorities use to control guilt-prone peoples ['never mind that they exploited your father and worked him into an early grave, if you break their window, you will rot in hell'].

dammit emile why weren't you there when i was called edgy for saying i didn't believed in morality ;_;

Well, even with your superior way with words, when you talk about why morality, laws, darwinism are bullshit, etc., many people still can't 'get it', at all... But said people probably just occasionally half-read your writings with a full cup of tea in hand, so that they can assure themselves that they are actually considering your arguments before dismissing them. I feel more confident in being able to explain why morality and laws are bullshit since that time, but when I've talked about similar things, say, why human rights are bullshit, people just get all emotional and dismiss your arguments and mention Somalia... That is, when they don't stop reading immediately and start calling you things. I guess it can't be helped sometimes...

Also this: http://en.touhouwiki.net/wiki/Perfect_Cherry_Blossom/Story/Prologue

everybody ‘knows it’ but people ‘don’t get it’ because that is the distinguishing feature of the globally dominant RATIONALIST culture. we have a choice; we can ‘believe in’ our sensory experience FIRST and use rational propositions as secondary support, or we can do the inverse and ‘believe in’ [our own or someone else’s] rational propositions FIRST, and let our sensory experience ‘flap like a loose sheet in the breeze’, as in sadism where following a rational program to hurt and kill, ignoring the sensory experiencing of screams and pleadings to stop [e.g. Milgram experiment], stirs sexual arousal, so there is some kinkiness that associates with this unnatural inverting that puts rationality first. we feel natural and authentic when we are attuning to the dynamics we are included in. when we go in bulldozer mode and just ride on through and over everybody, such a power trip is sexually arousing.

rational models are based on ‘what things-in-themselves do’ [this assumes absolute, fixed empty and infinite space], and moral law and civil rights are derivatives that apply to the behaviours of ‘individual things-in-themselves’ and ‘what they do’ or ‘should be able to do’.

as soon as we start playing around with the abstract notion of jumpstarted individual behaviour, we are no longer in the real-physical world. the real physical world of our sensory experiences is a dynamic continuum in which it is impossible to divide out the dynamics of the inhabitant from the dynamics of the habitat. the world of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ is nützliche Fiktion [Nietzsche], nonsense [Poincaré], ‘schaumkommen’ [Schrödinger] and Maya/illusion [Vedanta]. It is based on EITHER/OR logic; e.g. EITHER ‘is’ OR ‘is not’ [does the thing-in-itself exist or does it not?] and EITHER ‘did’ or ‘did not’ [did Jean Valjean steal the loaf of bread or did he not?].

these propositions are simply logical propositions. they do not reflect the physical dynamics of our sensory experience. they embody the assumption that ‘the present depends only on the immediate past’. but as we know from our sensory experience, RELATIONAL POTENTIALS can accumulate to the point that they reach a threshold which triggers manifest dynamics. The earthquake is the culminating ‘release’ of a long-term build-up of tensions in the relational space. the tensions are non-local, non-visible and non-material [purely relational]. who does not know about these tensions that can give long roots to current actions? everybody knows. so why accept the kinetic behaviour when the more comprehensive understanding of the sourcing of the kinetic behaviour is ‘relational-spatial’? [relational potentials sourced]

the answer to why the users of the Standard Average European languages ARE GIVEN A TENDENCY TO accept this, is because the language architecture chops things up into ‘things-in-themselves’ [nouns like ‘lightning’] and ‘what things do’ [action verbs] and predicates [results]; i.e. the language architecture and grammar ‘chops up’ the dynamic continuum of our sensory experience into terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what things do’ as in the ‘doer-deed’ nützliche Fiktion. and we know how good some people are at rationalist rhetoric [e.g. Hitler’s rationalist rhetoric in his speeches, gave women sexual arousal and gave himself orgasms]. God is the one who is the ultimate rationalist, as Pope John Paul II says in his encyclical ‘Fides et Ratio’ (Faith and Rationality). Of course, the ‘God’ of the aboriginals is the relational [beyond rational] vitalism in nature.

dead yaself liberal

This article was written for Left Eye on Books, a progressive news service. I was wondering why this review seemed pro-Democrat Party and then I found the source for the article. Why wasn't the source included in the above article ?.....Progressives talking about Anarchism is awkward.

http://www.lefteyeonbooks.com/2013/03/new-book-explores-organizing-strat...

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
3 + 15 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Subscribe to Comments for "New Book Explores Organizing Strategies for Anarchists"