> I am arguing that the approach of ACT UP was more effective
> than the approach of anarchists.
Again, you are making an overgeneralization about anarchists. Perhaps you knew a few anarchists whose tatcics you didn't like. Those are the actions of a few anarchists, not all anarchists. As I've said before, I've known anarchists with experience in ACT-UP and many who support ACT-UP. I've even participated in a few ACT-UP marches.
> I realize that many queer anarchists and anarchist allies have
> supported queer rights. But I believe that their destructive
> approach is not the most effective one for achieving queer
> rights and equality.
Which destructive approach?
> I knew Allen and (less well) Harry. Allen considered himself a
> Buddhist anarchist. Harry's anarchism was also based in his
> intense spirituality. The anti-spirituality of some anarchists was
> alien to them.
Most anarchists are anti-spiritual and anti-religious. That's just a historical fact. But there are many spiritual and religious anarchists. Plus many anti-religious anarchists--such as myself--are open to working with progressive religious people. Hell, I was even in a church tonight here in South Kansas City, watching a presentation by Joe Carr, who was with Rachel Corrie when she was killed, and who just got back from a stint in Palestine working with the Christian Peacemaking Teams.
I should also point out the good relationship that the "black bloc" has had with the Pagan Cluster during demonstrations.
> They were completely open. They did not hide their faces (Allen
> rarely hid his body). They also both had a deep abhorence of
> violence and destruction.
Hide their faces? Are you talking about the black bloc? There are reasons why people cover their faces in the black bloc. I've been in black blocs and had my face in the New York Times.
Anarchists also have a variety of views about property destruction and violence.
> And they could be divisive in ACT UP. Many anarchists
> did not like the fact thet PHIV's and PWA's were gaining
> seats at pharmaceutical tables. They had the drugs, we needed
> them.. What were we supposed to do? Keep ourselves at a
> polite remove so that our principles remained intact while our
> bodies wasted away?
I'm sure that if it wasn't the anarchists that it would have been somebody else. Every group has its factions and differences of opinion. The fact that the anarchists you knew had an opinion differing from yours does not mean that anarchists are inherently "destructive."
> Bu I thought anarchists were against hierarchies and governments
> and all that?
Yes, we are. We live in a statist and capitalist world, where we are forced to make our compromises. I looked at my student government experience as a form of political theater and a chance to block the plans of the campus right wing.
>> Since we have problems with asking governments to fix problems,
>
> we concentrate instead on practical direct action to solve problems and
> create social change.
>
> And that is part of the problem. There is no way to get access to drugs
> without government help. We also needed government to help with
> housing. Squats are nice, but often not very practicable for PWA's and
> PHIV's.
I can understand the nervousness people with severe medical problems have about radical alternatives, but the government is not the best way to help people. Look at the U.S. government's track record in Africa. Look at how the government funds selective programs. Look at how the government protects the pharmaceutical industry. Look at the new anarchistic attempts to open science (http://science.creativecommons.org/).
Yes, squats are not the best thing for PWAs, but anarchists have also opened up co-ops and other forms of cooperative housing. And anarchists have fought to open up more homeless shelters, which are very critical for homeless folks with AIDS and HIV.
>> Our reputation for destruction is a bit overhyped. ;-)
> I hope so. Violence and destruction go against everything Allen and
> Harry stood for.
Right, but I like violence and destruction. Unfortunately, I think much more of both is needed to fight the rich and powerful. I support people who use nonviolence, but I think everything will be needed.
Chuck