What is the state of the anarchist movement in the Sixth World?

I've been combing books but I cant find more than a mouthful from Loose Alliances about groups like Black Star.

Is there any more current material? Any other material PERIOD?

The book about lawless towns (the name escapes me atm) has several bits in the Chicago section.

Feral Cities.

Neo-Anarchy's kinda faded over the past few years. It used to run through all the books, but Crash 2.0 thumped things upside the head. When the 'voice' moved from SHadowland to Jackpoint, you lost a lot of that. There're only two anarchist-flavored Jackpointers, for example, and professionalism is the order of the day. Add to that how more nd more runners and games have shifted from "Dirt poor guy" to "High-end jet-setter", and, well, Neo-Anarchy got squeezed out.

Doesn't help when Berlin got rolled, then everyone accused them of being part of the ... shoot. Geneva? Zurich? There's a city in Switzerland whose Matrix went sideways and is all chaos, and I can't for the life of me recall the right name.

At any rate, they went from being heroes to villains in the eyes of the public, and have just kinda ... vanished ... from the books.

There used to be a pretty visible "Neo-Anarchism" movement in earlier SR editions. Some of the books were written (in-game) by Neo Anarchists (Neo-Anarchist Guide to North America and Neo-Anarchist Guide to Real Life").

Neo-anarchism isn't exactly a "leftist" anarchist movement. It's a movement based on micro-economics theory (Pareto efficiency, perfect competition and welfare economics, etc.). In that theory, having a few megacorporations dominating the world (an oligopoly) leads to an ineffective economy. That's why they're against megacorporations and want a anarchist system where anybody can enter any market. For example, this means no patents, no A/AA/AAA status giving an Edge to a few corporations and so on.

Many authors probably didn't realize this and just considered that neo-anarchists were just people who rioted and listened to punk-rock in an attempt to tear down any kind of authority.

As for the rest of the anarchist movement, I don't remember reading much about it.

Wish I could say I've come across a lot of material on the Neo-As. They are one of the more prominent factions in the Manhattan season missions, but there really isn't a whole lot of detail about them. Just a few jobs you do for a Neo-A fixer and other little things you could do for them on the runs, not all quite as bad as you might expect them to be.

Jackpoint is pretty straightforward crypto-anarchism, and IMO Shadowland was not exactly a hardcore anarchist hangout. The lack of anarchism is the result of a gradual shift in tone over the course of 20 years, not something that happened overnight.


Geneva, although that seemed to be more related to TMs/Dissonants...before the whole plotline was forgotten...

I, er.. No. I'm sorry, but this is wrong.

While I haven't read the old Neo-Anarchists Guide to X, Loose Alliances and excerpts from sympathizer like Umsturz in 4E, does paint a picture of anarchist rad-groups as "classical anarchists", anti-state AND anti-capitalist market. Unless I see more to go on, I would assume Shadowrun anarcho rad-groups also are for abolishment of capitalism, and it's replacement by decentralized planned economies.

First chapter of NAGNA.
But I think no other author who wrote about neo-A ever read it, or paid attention to what it said.

If that is the case, then they should probably get someone who knows about anarchism to write about, this sort of "blackwashing" doesn't do anyone any good.

A few bloopers aside, I can recommend the write-up in Loose Alliances, it seems to be by someone who actually knew a bit about the movement as it is.

Loose Alliances, p. 23:
The libertarian “neo-anarchists” hope to transform market capitalism according to a complex (and in our humble opinion, impossible) mathematical formulae to achieve equity in a money-based economy. They play a prominent role in anticorp groups such as Equity.

I've got a pretty die-hard Neo-A from some fiction I put together for an upcoming product, but it's my understanding that the piece won't be used for word count/layout reasons -- I'll likely end up tossing it onto some forums or something, just for fun. This particular technomancer is...pretty far left. Heh.

German article about "Neo-Anarchismus" (neo-anarchism and other directions). I took every info I've found: Neo-Anarchist's Guide to North America, Corporate Shadowfiles, Feind meines Feindes (german Loose Alliances) and some historical info by wikipedia. The main part about the economics of neo-anarchism are a complete translation of NAGtNA. Still missing some information by other/newer publications and sourcebooks about germany (Deutschland in den Schatten I + II, Brennpunkt ADL, Berlin Sourcebook....).

Too bad we just established that neo-anarchism is not exactly what you'd call "far left"

*makes himself more unloved*
we got a complete german book on berlin.
it's still half corp and half experiment in anarchy.

There're more than just Neo-Anarchists in the Shadowrun Anarchist movement.

Also, Fexes, the Berlin book is almost required reading, it has some good info on (Neo-)Anarchism in practice (and it's limitations). Great writeup though. Walzer, Punks and Chrom&Dioxin also feature local Austrian and Swiss anarchist projects (and Berlin's End).

Further, some novels - Night's Pawn IIRC - have some information that might be relevant too, about the background of Europe's Anarchism movement.

The things most Neo-As fight for are much closer to leftist ideologies than right. But in this instance, I was also using the phrase as shorthand for "far out in left field," a phrase hinting that someone's no longer entirely sane.

The problem with Neo-@s is trying to find their leadership to find out what they want.

Ron Paul-style capitalism is not exactly a classic left ideology. Other schools of though like anarcho-syndicalism are closer to the common definition of "left".


...and the pun does not really work when the person in question is not "left".

I really don't feel like doing this today. So you win, okay?

With respect for your day (hope it ended better than it was at the moment you posted!), there really is something resoundingly wrong with calling anything connected to the center-right or pro-capitalism (such as Ronpaulism etc.) anarchist.

The anarchist position, as defined by the anarchist movement with roots in the socialist labour movement circa the 1860s, is both anti-statist (which is well and good, so is a lot of other things) and pro-socialist and anti-capitalist. While historians have attempted to lump in other people - like Godwin, a rationalist extremist, Stirner, a brutal sociopath, and Rothbard, Tucker and Proudhon (all pro-market ideologues) - with "real" (in my analysis) anarchists like Kropotkin or Bakunin, it simply makes no linguistic or ideogical-historical sense.

If any of this, admittedly dry, subject interests any of you, the book Black Flame: The revolutionary class politics of syndicalism and anarchism, makes this point in extremely well-researched detail. It can downloaded for free from the authors, just google the title!

Edit: To provide context, I'm sure the creators of "Neo-Anarchism" mean well, but there's just no ideological merit to the idea that anarchism is about the free market - It makes even less sense that Berlin, haven of insurrectionist social anarchism in the present day, should turn into that kind of shape.

Yeah there is that.....et Tu Canray?

As far as Murray Rothbard is concerned, I think he was the one who branded his own theories as "anarcho-capitalism". He can be denied the use of the term by historians or people who consider themselves as The True Heirs or the Founding Fathers of Anarchism, I wouldn't expect a RPG book to be the place the debate is settled.

No the scientific debate as it occurs in real life. But in the world of SR there seems to be a pretty solid definition of what constitutes neo-anarchism, which is accepted both by its proponents (NAGNA) and those trying to differentiate their beliefs from it (Loose Alliances).

I seem to remember some Shadowtalk arguments about what Neo-@ was about, and found out that Anarcho-capitalism exists!

Seems most Shadowrunners would fall into that area be default.

If the sourcebooks are a bit confused about the goals and ideologies of the neo-anarchist movement then that is completely true to he real world movements history:)
I doubt you'll find two anarchists that agrees on a definition of anarchism. This is all the more true if you try to fit it on a left to right political scale!

Its chaos man!

Anarchism means the absence of government control. While anarcho capitalists believe in a complete unregulated market (suvival of the fittest), neo-anarchists believe in in a selfregulation without a government influence. Both are no left wing opinions like socialism, but both use the basic concept of anarchism. There are also extreme right wing concepts like anarcho nationalism.

...and "Christian anarchists" who believe the Bible tells them to reject all worldly authority ("my kingdom is not of this world" and everything), both theist and philosophical satanist steams...anarchism has produced all kinds, obviously not all of them are "left" (whatever your definition of that is)

My point would be that, no matter what they call themselves, they aren't anarchists. Although the bible is obviously of socialist merit, and though Murray and Rothbard clearly were against the state, this doesn't make any of them anarchists, as anarchism is generally understood to be an anti-market and anti-state ideology with roots in the socialist labor movement circa 1860. I could go on, but I really recommend, again, Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism - it largely covers the point, in much better detail, and is free to download.

I find the neo-anarchism thing fitted in a 1980-90 view (alongside with moto-gangs and stuff).

i found the whole Berlin chapter in Germany sourcebook sucked. Not because it was anarchist but because it was hard to believe.


I don't feel nostalgia about them.

"Anarchy" in SR took a big hit in Storm Front anyway.

Still, while it certainly is not as much an issue now then it was 20 years ago I still don't want to see it completely gone.
Its simply part of the setting.

Although if we just removed everything rooted in the 80's from Shadowrun, we'd end up with d20 modern.

It isn't important for th game to make sense today, it just has to make sense in the game world. The corporations created an oppressive system, and anarchists showed up to oppose that system.

Actually, anarchism is "generally understood" to be about punks and Russian young men throwing hand grenades, because most people don't have a degree in political science.

Mikhail Bakunin did want to abolish trade and supply all people according to their needs (which, one would remark, may be different from their desires). But he labeled himself his own theory as "collectivist anarchism" as he recognized that wasn't the only true anarchism. He considered the first anarchist thinker to be Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who rejected capitalism and communism, yet accepted the idea of trade and thus market.

On the other hand, "market" is now generally understood to be about stock and commodities trading...

The question is, if actual real-world Anarchism is poorly understood by even the Above-Average Joe of today, just how poorly understood is it among the populace of 2075?

Mr. John Q. Taxpayer is basically going to have the same sort of notions about Sixth World Anarchists as today's counterpart has about Islam - that is to say, none at all except the misinformation and defamation put out by the major world powers of the opposing ideology.

~Umi

...actually, I'd say that it's coming back in it's own new way.

Mainly in the form of all the protests because of the new Matrix Policies and having GOD personally handling Matrix security.

At least, as hinted at here:

http://www.shadowrun.com/2070/2013/03/01/i...on-in-shackles/

...seriously, if this doesn't catch the attention of all the remaining Neo-A's in SR come 5th, I don't know what will...

There's a speech in the Sixth World Almanac by an Anarchist made during the conception of free Berlin. The tone seems pretty right to me.

> Was the sheep an anarchist?
> /dev/grrl

I just got a chuckle on that response made by Axis Mundi:

You still have to make it evolve. IRL, I don't see Punks anymore. Or at least, very very seldom.

More generally, you have to chose wether your game has a retro flavor (like playing Star Trek in a 70s feeling/Traveller) or be in-time (Eclipse Phase?).

I find it's good that the setting is now divided into SR 2050 and SR4A. The future seen through an 80-90 point of view can only attract mid-30 and more players and not the younger players. That way everyone can pick depending on his taste.

~But, I don't wanna play Emo-Run and Angst-Run just sounds .... well, you decide.

being a parent, "kids these days! they don't do anarchy very well, they just sit in their bedrooms wearing black and watching their fringes grow!"

this is why the 70's and 80's Keep coming back into fashion .. there was something iconic about it, the massive fluctuations in style and fashion .. it is recognisable.

Hoody-Run ? ... newp ... no thanks ... I play WoD when I want to play hoody run ... and the hoodies are running from a raging Garou !

Hey wait, I especially don't want it to pastich the current point of view.

One step further is a great thing.

In the 80s => dystopian view of future = bigger and bigger social fracture => violence and very poors vs riches and wageslaves.

Currently: alter-mondialism vs hyper capitalism. Extreme need of security.

If now I'd tried to make a step ahead considering real world + SR Setting, I would:

-Unsecurity fighted through more communotarism (peolple in the same blocks) engendering more violence.

-Scared people turning into more corporate blocks.

-Scared people turning to powerfulls to protect them (dragons maybe?).


Idk, something that extrapolates over crisis, will to split up and divide as soon as something goes wrong, violence legitimized by an ideology. That fits the setting.



Anarchism is gone. Let's come with something new.

You're right, it needs to attract a varied audience

but I don't see Anarchy as "Gone" .. Human species cannot ever get away from it, as we aim for utopia and a governmentless society, we fall into the "other" anarchy of survival of the fittest.

look anywhere in the world right now, there are masses rioting and clamouring to be free of their governmental overlords.

it's mildly repressed in most of the western world but it can boil up and over (London riots, occupy "somewhere" etc.)

so just add 60 years and extrapolate from an oppressed mass to an anarchist state, have you seen the latest Dredd ?

not the best film ever but there are some really nice touches, where one gang (i.e. corp) rules acity block and intends to rule more.. just give that 5-10 years of work and you have a drug running mega-corp and all the violence and anti-law anarchy you can handle

Oh yes, in this sense, I'm 100% with you. But not an Neo-Anarchist movement closely linked to shadowrunners like the feel 2nd edition gave me.

How did me and my group end up here, then?

And IMO the prevalence of Anarchism has less to do with the past when SR was written than with the past where everything depicted in SR (and cyberpunk in general) already existed. Corporations with unlimited power on their turf, privatized law enforcement, workers paid in corp scrip living in corp housing and sending their children to corp schools, all that did exist not too long ago, and it were these conditions which gave rise to ideologies like Communism and various flavours of Anarchism. Now the same conditions are back again, why should the answer be any different?

Which one you play 2nd ed / 2050? Or 3rd / SR4?

Because I do find that the 80s flavor is fading. I mean, it's not a topic about Sr should be more or less cyberpunk/transhumanist.
It's about Neo-Anarchy and stuff introduced long time ago in the 2050 setting that has disappeared in the 70 setting. The game evolves I find.


"these conditions which gave rise to ideologies like Communism and various flavours of Anarchism. Now the same conditions are back again, why should the answer be any different?"

But nowadays they shifted to alter-mondialism and ideologies like that.

I don't see many anarchists-ideologies anymore. Neither do I see many occidental wish to shift toward communism.


Some basics can remain. But not remain those that were developped in the 90s

The media doesn't cover them as much, but they're out there. Take a gander at any country where the IMF or the G8 meet. Guys in bandanas or gas masks, lobbing smoke bombs and trashing up store windows happens every time. There are accusations that there're "ringers" in the mix, corporate goons hired to cause trouble and make them look bad, and accusations of "professional protestors" who go from cause to cause to stir up trouble and blame it on ringers, and, of course, lots and lots of people are are mad as Hell and aren't going to take it anymore.

That's not even counting the "Fur is murder" types, the naked PETA protestors, Anonymous, gun rights people, gun control activists, and many, many, MANY others. (All topped off with Uncle Sam on stilts and unrelenting giant puppetry.)

As media lost the standing of 4th estate and became talking heads for viewpoints and corporate sponsorship, observance of uprising vanished. If a thousand people came out to protest a court ruling, but no one reported on it, did it really happen?

...

And now I have this huge desire to crack open my copy of Max Headroom for a marathon viewing. Hrm.

PETA aren't anarchists.

And I have a huge desire to PROGRAM Max Headroom and unleash him unto the world!

Mostly 4th, but the point is that we play because we like the whole cyberpunk thing, yet none of us is parst 30.


Nowadays in the western world, even the crappiest job is a far cry from turn-of-the-century Europe, or the Appalachians ca. 1930...

@Wakshaani: Which of those are Anarchists, exactly? Outside of media coverage which seems to consider "Anarchists" a shorter term for "guys in black hoodies throwing stones", obviously

Most aren't, no, but it was more that they don't get coverage but they do still exist.

So, just because there isn't much talk of 'em, it doesn't mean that they're gone. They're overly-due to come back, to be honest...

Well I wasn't arguing about Cyberpunk. I really was think of the 80s-90s feeling like Neo-Anarchist was back in 2nd ed. Be honest, if I was gamemastering you, with the 80s-90s feel, how would you feel if:

You encountered some gangers with stand that asked (forced) people to pay a "breathing tax" (from Sprawl Sites). That's a punk 80s feeling (crazyness+violence). If I make that encounter nowadays, it would raise eyebrows of my players. The mood currently is more at (violence+professionnalism). And it still mixes well Cyberpunk. To be honest, to understand what I mean, you need to read books of this era, and the obviously best ones.




agrees.

By the way, I don't say there's no anarchist left, but the strength of the movement faded. Alter-mondialism gets a strong support currently.