DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

From Russia with revolutionary greetings

43 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jamao's picture
Jamao
Offline
Joined: 21-05-07
Mar 3 2009 21:53
From Russia with revolutionary greetings

Dear comrades!

We are activists of social-revolutionary group in Russia, Alliance of Revolutionary Socialists (ARS). Recently we had organized our conference, where adopted our program declaration, “Who are we (Thesis of ARS)” (watch our site). It seems, it is the most consequent social-revolutionary document of such kind in ex-USSR.

Modern Russia is a country, where decadence and decay of capitalism is in the sharpest form, country of total economic degradation, political reaction and spiritual idiotism. Revolutionary proletarian traditions was destroyed by Stalinist terror, proletarian class was atomized by it. In 1990-s years between protesting proletarian and semi-proletarian elements had dominate Stalinist organizations. Today they are in situation of semi-collapse. Now different Trots are active and trying to work – in reality, to work as supporters of bureaucracy of small trade-unions. Most of so called anarchists aren’t anarchists of class struggle, they deeply sank in swamp of counter-culture, and for them the question is “how to defend animal rights in courts”…

In such situation to struggle for total social revolution, for destruction of state and capital, for revolutionary power of general assemblies of laborers – is quite difficult thing. But we try to do it.
In reality we are quite small group, and our main work is propaganda work. Recently we had publish first number of our magazine “Maximalist” with some our articles about economic crisis and proletarian struggle in ex-USSR plus translations from Canne-Meyer, Ruhle and Pannekoek.

We are glad to have contacts with revolutionary groups abroad, who are stands upon positions of revolutionary struggle of the proletarian class. If somebody in social-revolutionary milieu abroad know Russian and can translate some our works into other languages, it will be excellent. We, in our turn, can translate some works into Russian.

Our site is www.revolt.anho.org (almost all – in Russian). At this forum you can see article of one our activist “Three stages of the proletarian struggle” and short note of other our comrade Kotob - http://libcom.org/forums/news/ukrainian-factory-occupied-12022009

Last article on our site (“Requiem for a nationalization”) is about workers protest at Kherson Machine-building plant (Ukraine) and against slogan of nationalization, all Russian and Ukrainian Trots now hate us for it. If some comrade can translate it, it will be very useful.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Mar 3 2009 23:02

I'll read it. If I like it smile and I have time, I can translate it.

Russian anarchists were also divided on the issue but there wasn't much public discussion.

Jamao's picture
Jamao
Offline
Joined: 21-05-07
Mar 3 2009 23:06
Quote:
Russian anarchists were also divided on the issue but there wasn't much public discussion.

Do u mean Kherson?

What russian anarcho-groups do u know?

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Mar 3 2009 23:27

All except you. smile))

Jamao's picture
Jamao
Offline
Joined: 21-05-07
Mar 3 2009 23:33

We don't identify ourselves as anarchists.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Mar 4 2009 00:01

Yes, sorry, can see this from your page.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Mar 4 2009 09:13

Read the article. Interesting enough but a bit long for me to handle in the next few days. As a large part of the beginning is actually about CWI and people's reaction to something written earlier, I selected a fragment relating to your criticism of the demands at Kherson. I can so that part today or tomorrow - then maybe somebody could do the rest - unless somebody has time to do the whole thing right away.

posi
Offline
Joined: 24-09-05
Mar 4 2009 09:31

Hi Jamao, your platform seems very close to that of the ICC. Do you have any disagreements (or contact) with the ICC's Russian section -http://ru.internationalism.org/?

posi
Offline
Joined: 24-09-05
Mar 4 2009 09:31

double post.

Jamao's picture
Jamao
Offline
Joined: 21-05-07
Mar 4 2009 11:41

As i know, there is no ICC's section in Russia. They just translate some articles in Russian. Some of ICC materials was translated by our members, by the way.

Anyway, we actually have rather large number od disagreements with ICC views.

Rojillo Ibérico's picture
Rojillo Ibérico
Offline
Joined: 3-03-09
Mar 4 2009 11:53

Hello, comrades. I've in contact with you (antorchasocialista). I don't know exactly if there are continuity with International Union of Proletarian Revolutionary-Collectivits or are only a change of name.

Efectivelly, you no define yourselves as anarchist: you have links with left communist organizations, but I think anarchism is an influence in your program.

On another hand, there are two sections of IWA at Russia, one of them KRASS, also consequent internationalist.

Jamao's picture
Jamao
Offline
Joined: 21-05-07
Mar 4 2009 11:56

More concretely, we disagree with ICC in question of proletarian riots as in Paris suburbs, Albania, Argentina, Kirgizia, more recenttly - in Latvia, Lethonia, Greece.

For ICC, as we know, it is cross-class, petty-bourgeois etc. movement, for us - spontaneous proletarian protest, beginning of new stage of revolutionary proletarian struggle (as was first Lyonnais uprising in 1831, for example).

For ICC proletarians are first of all industrial workers, for us - all, deprived of political and economic power in capitalist society.

Jamao's picture
Jamao
Offline
Joined: 21-05-07
Mar 4 2009 12:03
Quote:
Hello, comrades. I've in contact with you (antorchasocialista).

Good day!

We glad, all is good with you. We was worried, you didn't answer.

We have direct continuity with IUPRC, but it was some split, we had adopted more consequent left communist program declaration, comrades, who preserved name of IUPRC, had preserved old declaration.

It is possible to speak about influence of Bakunin or FORA upon us, but it is not only influence, generally we think, it is necessary to begin new revolutionary movement, not only to continue traditions of all.

We had gave to you e-mails of "two sections of IWA". Did you write to it?

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Mar 4 2009 12:38
Quote:
More concretely, we disagree with ICC in question of proletarian riots as in Paris suburbs, Albania, Argentina, Kirgizia, more recenttly - in Latvia, Lethonia, Greece.

For ICC, as we know, it is cross-class, petty-bourgeois etc. movement, for us - spontaneous proletarian protest, beginning of new stage of revolutionary proletarian struggle (as was first Lyonnais uprising in 1831, for example).

I was under the impression that the ICC saw the Greek movement as a proletarian one organised - at least in part - through mass assemblies: "One of the clearest signs that these were indeed movements of the working class and not a series of headless riots was the tendency towards self-organisation which they brought to the surface."

Quote:
For ICC proletarians are first of all industrial workers, for us - all, deprived of political and economic power in capitalist society.

Certainly, the ICC - as Marxists - identify the proletariat as the unique agent of social change. But they don't limit the definition of proletariat to just "industrial workers" or factory workers. The proletariat would also include workers in the service industry and others, e.g. most office workers, shop assistants, teachers, etc.

On the other hand, the formulation "deprived of political and economic power in capitalist society" seems weak to me. This could also include the petty-bourgeoisie, peasantry, and all sorts of other disparate social strata. It's true many of these strata are victims of capitalism, but that's not the same as having an interest in building communism.

Rojillo Ibérico's picture
Rojillo Ibérico
Offline
Joined: 3-03-09
Mar 4 2009 18:22

Hi, Jamao. I've answered your mail.

By the way, Demogorgon is true, these are the possitions of ICC. Moreover, they also include unenployed workers, large part of university students that see a future of proletarization, pensioner, precarious young workers, etc. And about another social strata, they can unite to the fight agaisnt capital, as they tend to proletarian. But it's necessary to proletarian to build its own organization and program.

And about Greece ICC has supported all the movilizations entusiasthicly. Also Latvia and Letonia. About Argentina there was a difference about the nature of "piquetero" movement.

But, well I think we are at the same side of the barricade.

And this website "libcom" is extraordinary. ¡If libertarian communism at Spain would have this level!

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Mar 4 2009 20:01

Hello Jamao
maybe we met in Moscow, or perhaps I met another comrade? I was the ICC comrade from the UK at the Praxis conference in 2002.
Have you split from the people in the Ukraine who were at the Kiev conference just after the 'Orange revolution'? (I think it was orange and not some other colour)
Regards, Alf

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Mar 4 2009 20:18

Jamao is correct, we do not have a section in Russia, although quite a lot of good discussions with different groups and individuals. We produce the paper (a two-sided A3 sheet) to help make our positions on current events better known.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Mar 4 2009 21:15

The comrades wanted to send a shortened 7-page version of the text but no time today. sad I selected one page to start; hopefully it will be understandable out of context. I thought it gives a good idea of the arguments presented. More tomorrow.

......
What in fact is the principle difference between the slogan of nationalization, from the one side, and the struggle for concrete material demands from the other? Nationalization, that is the transfer of an enterprise into the hands of the state (of the bourgeois state - there is no other). This means a struggle for an alternative strategy of capitalism, for the strengthening of state capital and counterbalance against private capital. Those who give such advice to the bourgeoisie themselves turn into the advisers of capital and nothing else.

They say to us, why not fight for a more beneficial variant of capitalism for the working masses? Should one really remain so doctrinaire and out of commitment to the utopian global social revolution spit on the suffering of living people?

We aren't doctrinaire. We are against reformism not because of some commitment to a utopia but because we know that in the modern world the most utopian of all utopias is the possibility of a variant of capitalism being beneficial for the workers.

In order to be convinced that no nationalization measures on the part of the bourgeois state can relieve the situation of the working masses, it's enough to look a Russian in the 2000's. Under Putin there was more state interference in economics and the bureucrats were on the heels of the pseudo-oligarchs. Corporations with a dominant stake held by the government began to dominate the most profitable segments of the economy. There bureaucrats and business profited together on the poverty of the people. None of this made the lives of the working masses any easier and it didn't even lead to the progress of the bourgeoisie. (The economy of Russia despite 8 years of uninterrupted growth could even return to the level of 1990.) The state regulatory measures of the Putin regime turned out not to serve the interests of the workers nor even to help the progressive bourgeoisie to implement the modernization of the Russian economy, but instead seved the interests of the exclusively parasitical use of the exploiter class - the two-headedhydra of bureaucrats and businessmen.

Morever, as even Razumovski* may know, we can see from the example of modern Belarus how effectively intertwined are the elements of private and state capitalism in the exploitation of the proletariat. The vast state sector did not bother the government of Belarus in its transformation to neoliberal reforms. (See the article by F. Sancheni "Expulsion from the Socialist Heaven".)

In reality, in contrary to traditional Marxist perceptions, the state is not a neutral instrument. It is not an arena for the struggle of between the oppressed and the ruling classes. By its very nature it realizes exploitation and oppression. Government is not a barren soul standing in defense of social interests. It is full of bosses, bureaucrats and gendarmes who are themselves exploiters and enslavers who have a common interest with other exploiters and enslavers, that is with private capitalists. ........

*guy they're arguing with

Jamao's picture
Jamao
Offline
Joined: 21-05-07
Mar 4 2009 22:10
Demogorgon303 wrote:
Quote:
More concretely, we disagree with ICC in question of proletarian riots as in Paris suburbs, Albania, Argentina, Kirgizia, more recenttly - in Latvia, Lethonia, Greece.

For ICC, as we know, it is cross-class, petty-bourgeois etc. movement, for us - spontaneous proletarian protest, beginning of new stage of revolutionary proletarian struggle (as was first Lyonnais uprising in 1831, for example).

I was under the impression that the ICC saw the Greek movement as a proletarian one organised - at least in part - through mass assemblies: "One of the clearest signs that these were indeed movements of the working class and not a series of headless riots was the tendency towards self-organisation which they brought to the surface."

Quote:
For ICC proletarians are first of all industrial workers, for us - all, deprived of political and economic power in capitalist society.

Certainly, the ICC - as Marxists - identify the proletariat as the unique agent of social change. But they don't limit the definition of proletariat to just "industrial workers" or factory workers. The proletariat would also include workers in the service industry and others, e.g. most office workers, shop assistants, teachers, etc.

On the other hand, the formulation "deprived of political and economic power in capitalist society" seems weak to me. This could also include the petty-bourgeoisie, peasantry, and all sorts of other disparate social strata. It's true many of these strata are victims of capitalism, but that's not the same as having an interest in building communism.

If we did mistake about position of ICC about Greece, Litva and Lethonia, we ask excuse us. But we think, position of ICC about proletarian riots in Albania, Argentina, Paris suburbs etc was mistake.

For us petty bourgeoisie is small bourgeoisie - bourgeois, who are small. If somebody has one-two-five wage laborers, he is petty bourgeois. If not - not.

Real question is about so called self-employed, who are in reality exploited but, indirectly (right word?) because he sell his products by price lower than its value, because most of products of this type are made by capitalist system with expluatation of wage labours and he have to exploit himself to be competiteble, and who has NO wage laborers.

For us they are proletarians. Also for us proletarians are miserables, deprived from Paris suburbs, jobless from Piquetero movement etc.

Generally to speak, we are against idealization of proletarian conditions. People rebels don't because they are proletarians, but because they refuse to be a proletarians, deprived, miserables. Victory of communism is not immanent proletarian interest, but human interest, communism is victory of classless humanity over proletarian conditions.

Jamao's picture
Jamao
Offline
Joined: 21-05-07
Mar 4 2009 22:19
Alf wrote:
Hello Jamao
maybe we met in Moscow, or perhaps I met another comrade? I was the ICC comrade from the UK at the Praxis conference in 2002.
Have you split from the people in the Ukraine who were at the Kiev conference just after the 'Orange revolution'? (I think it was orange and not some other colour)
Regards, Alf

Hello, Alf!

At Moscow in 2002 year your had meet not with me, but with our other cde.
We don't remember, with whom you had meet at Kiev in 2005 year.
We think, so called "orange revolution" was unfinished revolution, attempt of bourgeois democratic revolution in epoch of decay and decadence of capitalism, when bourgeois-democratic revolution is impossible.

But even in such situation after big mass movement of this time Ukraine today is more living country, than Russia today with its czarist regime. Political experince is very important thing. About all it you can see our aticle "Ukraine: unfinished revolution" (may be, soon we will translate it into English).

Jamao's picture
Jamao
Offline
Joined: 21-05-07
Mar 4 2009 22:20
akai wrote:
The comrades wanted to send a shortened 7-page version of the text but no time today. sad I selected one page to start; hopefully it will be understandable out of context. I thought it gives a good idea of the arguments presented. More tomorrow.

Thank u very much )

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Mar 5 2009 08:39

Jamao - thanks for your reply. Pass on my greetings to your comrade.

In Kiev 2005 we met one or two people who introduced themselves as the western bureau of the Group of Proletarian Revolutionary Collectivists. We had some short discussions with them but we thought that they did not really agree with some of the key positions of the GPRC, particularly on the national question.

Position on the Greek events, which we certainly analysed as a proletarian movement:
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/12/solidarity-with-students-in-Greece

We agree that the majority of the people taking part in the Paris suburbs riots were proletarians but we don't think the methods and dynamic of the movement was proletarian. I don't think we ever described it as petty bourgeois, however. On Argentina, Albania etc there were other factors as work but I don't have time to go into this at the moment. The main point is that not all revolts and riots are expressions of the working class even when proletarians take part in them. We can take this up in further discussions.

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Mar 5 2009 08:56
Quote:
If we did mistake about position of ICC about Greece, Litva and Lethonia, we ask excuse us. But we think, position of ICC about proletarian riots in Albania, Argentina, Paris suburbs etc was mistake.

It's true the ICC said the riots in the Paris suburbs weren't proletarian but rather a self-destructive expression of despair, but they enthusiastically supported the movement of the French students which was going on at the same time and the efforts the students made to draw in the suburban youth (some of whom unfortunately attacked the students at demonstrations).

I happen to agree with the ICC on this, but you don't and that's fine.

Quote:
Generally to speak, we are against idealization of proletarian conditions. People rebels don't because they are proletarians, but because they refuse to be a proletarians, deprived, miserables. Victory of communism is not immanent proletarian interest, but human interest, communism is victory of classless humanity over proletarian conditions.

It's not a question of idealising proletarian conditions, it's a question of why they make the proletariat a revolutionary class. The collective nature of production makes the proletariat a collective class - in order to produce anything of use they have to work on together on a mass scale. The centralisation and discipline of the capitalist workplace results directly in the centralised, disciplined way that the proletariat carries out its struggles: mass assemblies regrouping workers from many workplaces, conscious discussions on the issues of the movement, concrete decisions made and carried out in a coherent disciplined manner. The difference is that this unity of struggle, centralisation and discipline is accepted freely in the interest of the proletariat rather than being imposed by the capitalist as it is in the process of capitalist production. Similarly, communism, will be built on the principle of a unified world community.

It's obvious that the other strata in society which do not share these conditions of production, cannot generally share this vision of communism or have the ability to create it. They can participate in the movement towards communism, under the general leadership of the proletariat but they can't lead it or drive it themselves. And when things turn bad, they very quickly abandon the proletariat - this is one of the reasons why the alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry fell apart after the Russian Revolution began to degenerate.

As for who belongs to the proletariat, as Jamao said "Moreover, they also include unenployed workers, large part of university students that see a future of proletarization, pensioner, precarious young workers, etc" can also be a part of it. They represent the proletarian in various stages of his life-cycle (education, retirement, temporarily ejected from the production process) but share the same fundamental conditions. However, it must be remembered that these groups can also include members of other social strata as well.

The unemployed are a particular case because although they can be proletarians temporarily ejected from the production process with the appearance of mass, permanent unemployment there are many "workers" who have never worked and probably will never work. Living on the fringes of society, condemned to a life on benefits or scratching a living from petty crime, etc. they constitute a "lumpen proletariat" which is usually too degenerated to act in a positive fashion without the leadership of the proletariat proper.

Riots are the natural expression of this sub-strata - violence which is either directionless or directed at neighbours (usually workers) who they see as being better off than them, often without real demands, etc. The riots in Paris attacked buses, burned out their neighbours cars, and attacked students and workers at the mass demonstrations (ably assisted by the riot police, of course!).

The problem, of course, is that many genuine proletarian movements are presented as riots by the bourgeois media. This was certainly the case in Greece where the positive aspects of the movement where totally obscured by the media obsession for showing pitched battles with the police (largely provoked by latter I believe).

Marlen_Insarov's picture
Marlen_Insarov
Offline
Joined: 7-03-09
Mar 7 2009 20:09

Yes, we had understood, in Kiyv you had meet comrades, who after our split had preserved old name IUPRC.

We agree, at proletarian riots at Paris suburbs, Albania, Argentina etc was was made many mistakes, illusions, naivete etc., but as science had demonstrate, God at hevens, which can to send for us ideally conscious proletarians, is absent.

Marlen_Insarov's picture
Marlen_Insarov
Offline
Joined: 7-03-09
Mar 7 2009 20:40

Hello, I am from ARS too.

Some moments.

You wrote:

Quote:
It's not a question of idealising proletarian conditions, it's a question of why they make the proletariat a revolutionary class. The collective nature of production makes the proletariat a collective class - in order to produce anything of use they have to work on together on a mass scale. The centralisation and discipline of the capitalist workplace results directly in the centralised, disciplined way that the proletariat carries out its struggles: mass assemblies regrouping workers from many workplaces, conscious discussions on the issues of the movement, concrete decisions made and carried out in a coherent disciplined manner. The difference is that this unity of struggle, centralisation and discipline is accepted freely in the interest of the proletariat rather than being imposed by the capitalist as it is in the process of capitalist production. Similarly, communism, will be built on the principle of a unified world community.

For us - it is one of the main mistakes of all Marxism. In time of Marx or even at the beginning of twentieh century such mistake was possible, today it is only a pure illusion.

Today capitalist production is more and more centralized, then in19 century, when real proletarian strugle was more revolutionary; in19 century (When was Paris Comune) or today?

One of lefcom critician of Lenin had wrote something like - capitalist production not simply organize workers, but organize them by consequent capitalist way, organize them as oppressed and subjugated class - and only. Revolutionary struggle is not completion of capitalist tendencies, but break with this tendencies.

We disagree with marxist idea about progressive role of capitalist progress for revolutionary self-organization of proletarian class, we think, narodnicks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodnik) were correct in this question, marxists - not.

About peasantry in Rissian Revolution.

Quote:
It's obvious that the other strata in society which do not share these conditions of production, cannot generally share this vision of communism or have the ability to create it. They can participate in the movement towards communism, under the general leadership of the proletariat but they can't lead it or drive it themselves. And when things turn bad, they very quickly abandon the proletariat - this is one of the reasons why the alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry fell apart after the Russian Revolution began to degenerate.

Do you know, majority of peasant's antibolshevist uprisings was for free Soviet power, do you know about uprising of peasants-Red army men in 1920 year with their declaration "By our uprising we demonstrate our protest against new ruling class, against new "soviet" bourgeoisie". Real history of peasant movement in 1918-1921 is in contradiction with old marxist myths about Russian communal peasantry as petty bourgeoisie, They was proletarian of capitalist society, they was exploted by state and capital, because of it they struggled not for free property, but for free Soviets.

Quote:
Riots are the natural expression of this sub-strata - violence which is either directionless or directed at neighbours (usually workers) who they see as being better off than them, often without real demands, etc. The riots in Paris attacked buses, burned out their neighbours cars, and attacked students and workers at the mass demonstrations (ably assisted by the riot police, of course!).

Do you now, what was plebeian terror in Great French Revolution, "september massacres" etc? All it may be idiotic, ugly, horrible etc. etc., but THIS IS a revolution, class struggle, not arcadic idyllis about ideally conscious proletarian struggle. Only in struggle, only through many mistakes and defeats proletarians can became grave-diggers of monstruous capitalist system, not through educative mechanism of capitalist centalized factory...

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Mar 8 2009 15:41
Quote:
And when things turn bad, they very quickly abandon the proletariat - this is one of the reasons why the alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry fell apart after the Russian Revolution began to degenerate

Thats a pretty leninist understanding of revolution and class composition in 1917.
After most of the kronstadt sailors came stright from peasant families, as did large numbers of the urban/industrial proletariat. In a lot of cases there was just o generational gap and people had just come into the cities for work or were sending money back home.

Also http://libcom.org/library/third-revolution-nick-heath demonstrates quite aptly that many if not most of the peasant uprisngs were for soviet power and against war communism and the cheka.

Jamao's picture
Jamao
Offline
Joined: 21-05-07
Mar 8 2009 16:07
Quote:
many if not most of the peasant uprisngs were for soviet power and against war communism and the cheka.

Yes, totally agree!

Jamao's picture
Jamao
Offline
Joined: 21-05-07
Mar 8 2009 23:07

More detail about left narodnichestvo.

Alliance of S -R-Maximalists (SSRM) it is left split from PSR in 1906 year. They stood for dual revolution, for socialization of means of production, for Soviet power (already in time of revolution of 1905 year), was strongly against parliamentarism, trade-unionism and nationalism. Their concept of role of revolutionary organization was close to future KAPD and AAU-E. They had wage armed struggle against czarism and capitalism, majority of their best militants had died in this struggle, because all of it in 1917 year they was quite small group (strong in 1917 year only in few towns - Kronstadt, Samara, Izhevsk some regions of Siberia).

About PLSR Spartacus editions in France had edited brochure with two texts of PLSR (in French). In reality in PLSR was different currents (despite nationalist current was absent), they had mistakes etc., but generally they was first criticians of state-capitalist degeneration of revolution. If R. Luxemburg had argue against bolshevicks, they dissolved Constituante, Maria Spiridonova in her "Open letter to CC RCP(b)" had wrote, bolshevicks had suppressed Soviet Power, they are building state capitalism, they betrayed in Brest - Litovsk world proletariat etc. It was opposition from left.

yoshomon
Offline
Joined: 19-06-07
Mar 8 2009 23:31

Are there any histories (in english) of the SR Maximalists?

Anarchia's picture
Anarchia
Offline
Joined: 18-03-06
Mar 9 2009 00:06

There's a 5 & 1/2 page interview with Clara Halpern, called "the last surviving maximalist", in Paul Avrich's Anarchist Voices. He interviewed her in the early 1970s.

Jamao's picture
Jamao
Offline
Joined: 21-05-07
Mar 9 2009 01:50

Sorry, don't know about english sources.

If somebody, for ocassion, knows Russian u can read our materials:

http://revolt.anho.org/archives/1138

http://revolt.anho.org/archives/6

http://revolt.anho.org/archives/7

Last one is rather short, maybe someone can translate? )