This is what tires me out trying to discuss the subject, trying to refute that casual, opportunistic violence, rage, and the need to smash things is a symptom of Anarchist thought and not a problem with individuals.

I'll try and paraphrase something I read some time ago that I found interesting: You are an anarchist. You don't know it because you think an anarchist is dressed all in black, tags the encircled "A" and says things like "fuck the system". But you make anarchist decisions every day. You choose to jaywalk because you determine that there are no cars coming, there is no danger and the imposed rule doesn't apply to the situation. You make an individual choice. There are many laws that we consider, analyze and disobey because we determine there is no rational or moral basis for adhering to them. For some it might be a copyright violation, for some it is certain drug use. If you make your own individual choices, and some of those fall outside the law, You are an anarchist. But some of you are hypocrites too, and you determine that choice is okay for you to make, but not for others. You think you are smart enough to think outside the box, but you don't trust others to do the same. This is why you think you need a government, to protect you from the individual autonomy of others, to violently or otherwise coerce them to follow them the arbitrary rules under every circumstance. This is why so few will say "I am an anarchist", but everyone is.

A rather simplified version, but there it is. It makes sense to me that some citizens of the sixth world would think like this. What doesn't make sense to me is that every single Shadowrunner in Black Star participated in the actions in Bogota. The three "black" groups mentioned after page 22 in Loose Alliances are presented as global networks, including Black Star. Killing them off entirely really reeks of a politically motivated and lazy disinterest in understanding them.

This might just be the biggest bullshit I've ever heard in my gorram life.

Merely being critical of an existing system of law does not make you an Anarchist. Not liking some negative aspect or flaw of the larger whole is not tantamount to desiring the entire thing be scrapped. If you wish to alter the system by means of working within the system itself, you are a Reformist. If you wish to instead alter the system from the outside or through non-participation, you are a Revolutionary. If you wish to preserve the system largely as it is, you are a Conservative (in the classical sense, not the American-Politics sense). If you wish to simply defy the system, you are a Deviant or a Rebel. And if you are indifferent to the state of the system, I honestly don't know what you'd be called, but you probably don't care either way.

I can break the law and still have respect for the legal system as a whole. If I choose to jaywalk, to use your example, and I get caught doing so, I can still respect the enforcement of the extant law, can still recognize the operation of the social contract in action, even if I personally disagree with it. Assuming I do disagree with it, I can attempt to Reform the law, or I can attempt to Revolutionize it. Or perhaps I don't disagree with it, but rather accept that my own action was wrong (people can knowingly make bad decisions? what a shock!) and in fact wish the system to remain completely unaltered - that is, to Conserve the law as it stands. Or maybe I just want to stir up trouble, to make my own choices without regard for others of the consequences of my actions - that is, to Rebel, perhaps even without a cause.

When we discuss a person's political views, we discuss their overall tendencies. A Reformist typically tries to change a legal system from within, but that doesn't exclude them from also wishing to conserve certain portions of the system they agree with. Likewise, a Conservative might typically seek to maintain the law as it stands, but might also conceivably support select revolutionary actions against particularly egregious failures of the system - for example, an otherwise entirely Conservative citizen might be motivated to Revolutionary behavior on an issue such as Abolition.

No system of law is perfect, and no citizen is either. To expect a person to agree with each and every law and to never break one of them is absurd. A law broken, knowingly or not, does not an Anarchist make. Individual choice and collective social will are neither opposites, nor mutually exclusive. A lack of an ideal system of governance does not negate any and all value and benefit of governance, and to defy the goverment in place is not to deny all goverment entirely.

~Umi

To respond to your opening tone, slow the hell down. I am providing a piece of thought-food for Shadowrun games, which I thought deserved the confronting tone in that context. I made a point that I am paraphrasing a point I found interesting, and before I go on, I will not fight you on this, I have little interest in doing so.

Can you see how muddled throwing a plethora of proper nouns at this subject makes it? Do your Revolutionary, Deviant and Rebel definitions not apply to an Anarchist too? I'd say Reformist probably wouldn't, partly due to the nature of the popular definition of Anarchy, but then again, does protest fall under reformism? I find definitive ideology to be the most reductive and pointless form of political thought. As for being indifferent to the system, I'd say that would make you Majority, as that is pretty much how the status quo is maintained.

Social contract is an interesting term to use here. Are you suggesting Anarchism precludes social contracts? The valuation of and tendency to organize such social contracts is present in the Anarchist thought I've encountered, whereas what is not is "The law is the law" arbitration and coercive enforcement (taking your freedom and/or money ie. representation of autonomy under Capitalism). Or to use your words:


Actually, I'd argue that if you break a law, then saying you have respect for the whole legal system would be exaggerating.

Are you addressing something I've said here? If so, I don't think I suggested individuals don't make bad decisions, in fact, my first line posited otherwise.

Is this you talking about Anarchism? If so, this falls into the "smash the state" rhetoric, and equates Anarchy with a lack of social conscience or moral directive. That would describe a sociopath, or to be less hyperbolic, an arsehole.


I think this is a good place to talk about Anarchism specifically within the Shadowrun setting. Describing Anarchism as denying all government entirely seems to miss the point that Anarchism is a form of mutual self governance. Consider the Anarchists of the Spanish revolutionary war. They weren't interested in taking over anything, they left at least one governor in place who said (with great political savvy) "I serve at your pleasure". They just weren't going to acquiesce to Franco's regime in the territory they held. Similarly, the Anarchist in the sixth world almanac isn't interested in smashing the corps or governments anywhere else, but in individual autonomy and collectivization.

The same goes for the three groups in Loose Alliances. The Black Crescent are a medical service who disregard the laws regarding SINs and extraterritoriality, because they decided those rules aren't relevant to provide medical care. They might shoot at corpsec, but they don't DENY say, Crashcart or Docwagon. The Anarchist Black Cross are much the same, but in regards to SINs and borders. They're not trying to remove borders, just circumvent them. Perhaps that falls outside of your definitions.

They do apply, albeit as modifiers describing methodology. Rebel Anarchism is the pursuit of Anarchy via Rebellion. Revolutionary Anarchism is the pursuit of Anarchy via Revolution. In both cases, the motivation and goal of the philosophy is still the abolition of all governance, not merely the modification or replacement of the existing government.

It would be difficult, although theoretically possible, to have a Reformist Anarchy. This would presumably involve a cultural movement which culminates in a mass voluntary surrendering of authority, similar to idealized Communism. This sound immensely implausible.


Yes, I am. An acccepted or agreed upon set of behaviors and interactions is what a government is. Social contract refers to the surrendering of individual freedoms to an authority in exchange for various protections. Anarchism is the ultimate expression of individual freedoms unfetered by authority. It is quite literally the opposite of a social contract.


It would be my assumption that such political thought you've encountered is merely Anarchist in name only, and that you are being misled by their unfortunate choice of self-labels. Modern "Anarchism" has very little to do with the classical Anarchism. A similar problem arises with how people use "Communism" and "Socialism" in the modern age.


That's like saying if you disagree with someone over a single issue or opinion, you have no respect for them as a person. Your thinking seems far too absolute, with no room for the nuance or shades of gray that exist in reality and in everyday human interactions. Perhaps this explains how you think breaking a law makes you an anarchist - you appear to be throwing out the baby with the bath water.


Yes, I am. You stated that breaking a law makes one an Anarchist - id est, that one holds a philosophical opposition to government and rule of law. I propose that it instead merely makes one human and fallible.


No, it is not me talking about Anarchism.

I will amend my statement, however, for sake of clarity. I said that to make choices without regard for others or the consequences of one's actions is to Rebel. This is inaccurate.

Rebellion is merely the refusal or disobedience of order or authority. For example, the American Civil Rights movement could be described as a Rebellion, as it involved a great deal of civic disobedience.


Anarchism, as a philosophy promoting Anarchy, is defined as opposition to all government entirely. Mutual self governance is still governance. It can take the form of a democracy, a republic, a commune, a soviet, or whatever other governmental form you desire, but none of those are Anarchies. Anarchy is an utter lack of governance. ἀν + ἀρχή = Without Authority. The moment anyone has authority, you have a form of government. Mutual self governance in any form invests authority in the community or in specific individuals. It therefor cannot be Anarchy, and vice versa.


I have considerd them. And I consider them to not be true Anarchists, and to be operating under a misnomer. I would class them as Anti-Fascists or Anti-Dictatorialists, as their primary motivation and goal was the removal of Franco. What they or anyone else called their movement is irrelevant.


As I have stated, a mere disregard for law does not make you an Anarchist. Unless their underlying political and philosophical motiviations are to undermine any and all governance, then they are not true Anarchists. Personally, I would class them as some form of Rebel capitalist or humanitarian venture, depending on whether their focus is more on making a profit or more on providing aide. Similar organizations already exist in our own world - for example, Médecins Sans Frontières is relatively comparable to such, although they attempt to conduct their work within the confines of international law rather than directly defying it.

~Umi

Some punks try to extort you, happens...

Yeah ofc.

But not with a stand. Not because they instaured a "breathing tax". <= That's 80's punk style


For "protection". Or just plain and simple "Give me your money".

Much like voting or getting elected doesn't make you a Democrat (in the original meaning, no donkey involved). Political beliefs, the political process and the advantage you derive from it are different things. Anarchy would be the regime that benefit the most to people willing to engage in the endangering activities like theft, kidnapping, blackmailing and extortion at large, hazardous waste disposal or contract killing. Besides the willingness to break the law, it also require a lack of consideration for human life and the skill to evade retaliation. It's just that the common criminal state of mind is to get advantage of the existing situation, not trying to change it (there are exceptions of course). It probably worth noting you could apply this to white-collar crime and so-called Anarcho-capitalism as well.

So, jumping into page 3 without having read any of this, and assuming this Anarchy discussion still involves in some way Shadowrun (right???), then the people that call themselves Neo-Anarchists are, much like real life anarchists, not really so. Hell, a complete absence of government has proven to be simply impossible for humans. So when they say Neo-Anarchists, they basically just mean "we don't like the governement we have in place, Boooo, we're gonna try to do what we want instead". So, not an absence of governement, just not the top-down Megacorpe style in place now. Even the Neo-Anarchists of Manhattan, probably second only in the success in their aims to the Free Berlin anarchists (and what a clusterfuck that was, by the way), have a sort of "council" "guiding" them.

Largely for that reason, I find such groups in SR to be completely lackluster and not at all compelling. Pretty much everyone already hates the system in place, but at least with things like Eco-Terrorist Shamans or Metahuman Rights conflicts you've got other sources of story value beyond just "Down with the Corps!". I'd quite literally rather have more canon material on the Church of Elvis than more Neo-Anarchist stuff. At least that'd be entertaining, if rather silly.

Now, if there was some new and actually compelling "Neo-Anarchist" group that sprung up? Maybe like... extremist Technological Singularists who believe that the Corporate system is the key obstacle to human-machine perfection, and directly oppose it via cybernetics-fueled massacres and terrorist acts designed to destabilize world governments? Or maybe... a demented cabal of Loup Garou form a cult of the Wild Hunt with the singular goal of returning the world to a pure state of uncivilized nature where only the strong survive? Or something.

Discontent with the extant world government in SR just isn't enough to be interesting on its own. Everyone is discontent. That's kind of the point of dystopia and cyberpunk. You want to have a group that's against the government and who erroneously call themselves "anarchists? That's fine. But make them interesting in some additional way, because if all they bring to the table is "Hates The Government", then they're instantly mediocre and forgettable.

~Umi

At the beginning, I think the Neo-anarchist were primary introduced in Shadowrun as a point of view for sourcebooks to look behind the curtain of corporate propaganda. Of course, now instead we got used to the idea of a Matrix node where criminals who are paid to never ask and never tell freely share information on the job they pulled out and the shenanigans behind, by writing topic surveys on demand and comment each others'.

Not to mention that throughout 4th edition, there seems to be this general feeling of apathy and reluctant acceptance towards the presence of the megas. The idea that the corps are here to stay, and that there's no way that the entire corporate scene can be completely uprooted in one fell swoop, so why the hell does it matter anymore?

At most, you could break even on sticking it to the corps. But toppling them through sheer will of the people? Not likely. Especially since a good majority of the people have already accepted the status quo, so why change it?

That's kind of why when I think "going up against the Corps" I think "batshit crazy". I can totally buy into religious cults or radical terrorists or the Infected going up against the corps and being just crazy enough to do real damage, because if anyone can topple the system as it stands now, it's people with little or nothing to lose.

So yeah, if you had an "Anarachist" faction that was legitimately nuts? That somehow had the brains and the resources and the organization to do lasting damage and shake things up and force a massive story arc confontation? I could get behind that. But I don't think your average garden variety Neo-Anarchists are going to fill that role very well. They'd need some extra driving force to make them a realistic threat.

~Umi

See page 1 of this very thread for what the core points of neo-anarchists are


See WP for why decision-making councils making are not antithetical to the ideals of Anarchism (at least according to most schools of though)

We've hashed all that out already, we can agree to disagree I'm sure, and the thread is already shifting tone and content, so please don't drag the old argument back up again Sengir.

Rather, let's keep the discussion going in terms of "Anarchist" factions in SR and what they bring to the table, ideas for making them compelling and worth including, that sort of thing.

Personally, having slept on it, I still rather like my Technological Singularists idea, but I'd definitely like to hear other people's takes on possibly interesting "Anarchist" groups in SR. Get creative and share a thought or two!

~Umi

Hmm, that's some good stuff. Fringe groups used to have more place in Shadowrun. Obviously, we had Wintermute, but terrorist group like Alamos, hand of 5, etc, used to be around more. But I really like your ideas. Maybe I can do something with that...

Meanwhile, the latest article from the JackPoint Twitter page, on the status of GeMiTo and the anarchist group Essenza Rossa! attempting to rebuild.

http://www.shadowrun.com/2070/2013/03/29/a...ath-of-dragons/

...so. What was this about neo-anarchists being dead in current SR?

I get the sense I wasn't supposed to be laughing while reading that. Just shows it's a reasonably realistic depiction, I guess.

~Umi