> 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)?
Because we are all humans trying to make the best of living in a fucked-up capitalist society. If you did something that I didn't like, I wouldn't attribute it automatically to your buddhism. We all try to practice what we preach, but anarchism is not a code of utopian behavior and conduct. Anarchists do try to live their beliefs, but I think that you should cut us some slack. ;-)
> 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?
These are silly questions. The use of violence is a constructive way to solve a problem. If you use violence to stop a greater evil from happening, than isn't that better than simply adhering to some purist idea of nonviolence and letting something bad happen?
No, anarchist groups cannot provide any drugs at this time. This is an unreasonable expectation of a movement which is few in numbers at this point. Besides, that misses the point of anarchism. We aren't positing ourselves as the salvation of people. We do not seek to take over government. Anarchists would rather empower people to take over their own lives, rather than pretend that we have all the answer.
Go check out that Science Commons link. That is something anarchistic which I think answers your questions better.
> And that is one of my biggest problems with anarchists. Their
> opposition to spirituality/religion is one of their greatest weaknesses
> in my opinion.
Most anarchists, including myself, would vehemently disagree. History shows that religion is a powerful force for ignorance, violence, and many other problems. Religious people support governments. Religious hypocrites support government violence and wars. They preach peace and nonviolence, yet give money to the government to run armies and polcie departments. And there is no empirical evidence to support religious claims, especially all of that nonsense abot an "afterlife".
> Also, if anarchists can be both anti-religious and religious, what
> exactly are the defining qualities that distinguish anarchists from
> non-anarchists?
There are many qualities and political differences, but religion is not a significant player. The chief difference between anarchists and non-anarchists is that anarchists oppose the state. We favor direct action as one of many methods of empowering the individual. Individuals work together in cooperation, forming groups to do things, such as a union or a food co-op or a drug-buying co-op.
Hey, there's something anarchist that relates to PWAs.
> What are the reasons?
The black bloc masks up for the following reasons:
1) To protect our identities from state repression. The police always film everybody who attends any kind of protest. 2) As an act of solidarity. 3) As a form of leaderless resistance. Masks and black clothes encourage egalitarianism among people in the bloc.
> Again, what are the core beliefs that define anarchists?
See http://www.infoshop.org/faq/
> 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.
I agree.
> 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.
I disagree.
Chuck