Chuck0 writes:
> Again, you are making an overgeneralization about
anarchists. Perhaps you knew a few anarchists whose
tatcics you didn't like.
Well, if one calls oneself an anarchist, then it is logical to presume that one's actions are a manifestation of one's anarchist beliefs. I am a Buddhist. The way I act is a manifestation of my Buddhism. If there is no connection between what one claims to be and how one behaves, then what is the sense of calling oneself an anarchist (or anything else for that natter)?
> Which destructive approach?
The destructive approach that promotes violence and that opposes government without having a solid alternative in place to provide what government today provides. Are there anarchist groups that can provide the drugs that PWA's and PHIV's need to stay alive? Are there anarchist groups doing the research necessary to produce the next generation of drugs to fight HIV as it continues to mutate?
> Most anarchists are anti-spiritual and anti-religious. That's just a
historical fact.
And that is one of my biggest problems with anarchists. Their opposition to spirituality/religion is one of their greatest weaknesses in my opinion.
Also, if anarchists can be both anti-religious and religious, what exactly are the defining qualities that distinguish anarchists from non-anarchists?
> But there are many spiritual and religious anarchists.
I know. Allen considered Nargarjuna to be the first (and best) anarchist thinker.
> Plus many anti-religious anarchists--such as myself--are open
to working with progressive religious people.
That's great.
> Hide their faces? Are you talking about the black bloc? There
are reasons why people cover their faces in the black bloc.
What are the reasons?
> I've been in black blocs and had my face in the New York Times.
Good.
> Anarchists also have a variety of views about property destruction
and violence.
Again, what are the core beliefs that define anarchists?
> I'm sure that if it wasn't the anarchists that it would have been
somebody else.
Well, it wasn't somebody else. It was the anarchists along with a coupe of people who always were trying to give their newpaper away. I think it was Workers's Party or something. I really do not remember. They thought being gay was a bourgeois perversion.
> The fact that the anarchists you knew had an opinion differing from
yours does not mean that anarchists are inherently "destructive."
Well, if people are struggling to get drugs to survive and people are opposed to the currently available mechanisms to get them and do not provide alternatives, I call that destructive.
>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.
Very ACT UP. Nice.
> 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.
Whether or not it is the best is an academic argument. For PWA's and PHIV's the need is for drugs, housing and food now. It is fine to work for a different set-up in the future, but if your future is imperiled, you also want to see people working for your welfare in the system that currently exists.
> And anarchists have fought to open up more homeless shelters,
which are very critical for homeless folks with AIDS and HIV.
And that is good and non-destructive.
> Right, but I like violence and destruction.
Why?
> I think more of both is needed to fight the rich and powerful.
What successes have violence and destruction brought about?
> I support people who use nonviolence, but I think everything
will be needed.
I do not think violence is ever needed. The problem with those who favor violence is that you can never be sure when their need for violence will be turned against you.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister