Anarchs

[Theoris]

ok so i noticed something strange. damsel made a comment about communism working in vampire society and so i guessed she was for comm. but why are they called anarchs? aren't anrachy and communism two very different braches of policial party? or is it cause they start trouble? your thoughts on the mislabeling... or am i just stupid.

[Confuzzled]

You’re not wrong, anarchy and communism are potentially very different, but not necessarily. The two often worked together (especially in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries), but will not do so necessarily. See below for more explanation.

If you have not finished the game, SPOILERS follow:











The Anarchs within the game rather seem to define themselves negatively: they are a group, but neither Camarilla nor Sabbat (and definitely not Keui-Jin). They are a self-regulating society (you can see that from Nines’ and Skelter’s attitudes to what the Camarilla would consider Masquerade violations. The Anarchs see this as mere common sense). The Anarchs are really defined by being opposed to control from above. They can therefore accommodate a broad range of views: Damsel is a communist (which I think could be a hangover from her mortal coil, as Vampires have less need for economic resources, although evidently they are helpful. Damsel may of course just see communism as class conflict, rather than an economic theory. So she is simply uninformed); Nines just dislikes people (“them” as it were) telling others what to do; Isaac is opposed to people telling him what to do, because he wants the power himself, albeit only over a small domain (Isaac would seem to represent regionalism rather than the transnational nature of the Camarilla, Sabbat and Kuei-Jin). It would be interesting to see how these conflicting views would pan out if the Anarchs were able to regain control of L.A.

It is (from my perspective) unfortunate that the final ending makes the Anarchs option be that of Nines and Damsel (with whom I would not associate, and I could not see either a Tremere or Ventrue being especially keen), and that Isaac is unavailable as an option.

OT, theoretical musings.
In a theoretical Marxist approach to communism, the end result will be the same as that of anarchism: the end of the state. For Marxism this would be the result of inevitable historical determinism of class conflict, and would require no actual action. The end of the state would come about due to the end of the class system, as the state is merely an organ of the dominant class at any point in time. End the class system, and the state disappears. Anarchism might not agree with this historical approach, and might be more proactive. As such, it is quite possible for one person to believe in theoretical Marxist communism and anarchism without any contradiction. However, many (practical) communists were considerably more active, and tried to precipitate, accelerate or further class conflict (and the final victory of the workers). These “communists” (such as Leninist, Stalinists and Maoists) saw a valid role for the state in this process, and at that point would come into conflict with anarchists.

[pennypincher]

Despite all that, there is another option thats equaly as likley:

Most modern "Free Thinkers" "Rebels" "Reformers" and so on and so forth are more interested in shock value then in any kind of actual progress... More pleased with themselves when they are making trouble then if or not they are getting anything done. The Anarchs are often no exception. Mostly interested in being seen as the "Good guys" who are standing up for the "little people" and fighting "the power", they usualy offer up their opinion on problems very quickly without having any kind of real long term solution... Enjoying the chaos that their actions and acusations spread more then any kind of sweeping social change.

To that end, they often like to talk about things that.. Typical... Frighten people. Government spying on your house, nukes, global warming, riots in the streets, police states... Whatever makes people gasp in fear and become a little paranoid. I'd suggest that maybe Damsel came from that not-so-long-ago time when "Commies" were the monster under the bed and the great fear on everyones mind. It suits the Anarch mask and design to have people shocked and terrified of the brave new world... And chances are, nothing would make her happier then having someone balk at her idea of which way society would go... And presenting some withered, tired argument as to why it would be perfect.

[MalaksBane]

Not sure what your problem is with "free thinkers", thinking outside the box never hurt anyone. As for fear-mongering, it seems to me that governments and media are doing a pretty good job at it - and governments are the ones with the power to work towards their agenda's. Iraq wasn't building weapons of mass destruction and terrorism wasn't invented in the last decade.

I suppose if you look at the data you'd find that more people die or get injured in traffic accidents then from terrorists and more people die or get injured in accident at home then in traffic accidents. And even more people die from hunger, while at the same time we produce, worldwide, enough food to feed 12 billion people.

But this is getting way off topic and all.

Maybe Anarchy might work in vampire society, provided they have enough 'common sense' to stay low and follow the Masquarade. They exist on human society, they don't have to build roads and bridges and organize the society that feeds them.

[yrthwyndandfyre]

Anarchs and Outlaws

Now this is a discussion! For my money, the Anarchs are not formally about Anarchy, as mentioned above, and more about simply opposition to authority from any number of different sources. In this manner, they are very similar to those who call themselves 'outlaws' without the understanding that it *was* a punishment. By being sentenced to live outside the law, 'outlaws' also no longer enjoyed the protection of the law. Consequently, they were free game for anybody with a grudge and a weapon.

There are a number of flavors of 'outlaws' among the anarchs. Nines, while opposed to authority from the 'ruling class' as it were, nonetheless elects to lead the anarchs, possibly without his own conscious volition. Thus, he himself becomes one of the authority figures he finds so distasteful.

Jack may be closest to a true anarch, in that he's just out to 'spoil the soup', as it were, perhaps for no better reason that it can be spoiled. On the other hand, Jack may be the ultimate dictator: One who loves to run things, but wishes to protect himself by subterfuge a la an illuminatus. He appears to obey no rules except those imposed by biology and survival - and himself.

Skelter is simply anti-authoritarian. He doesn't object to the rules - he simply doesn't like them being imposed on him from an external source.

Damsel loves to have control, but doesn't like to be seen as a legitmate controlling influence, so she goes the way of the bully: enforcing her will by intimidation and brute force and probably consoling herself that she is not actually imposing an order of her own choosing.

The true anarch, though, is Bishop Vick, who, through conscious decision and act, wishes to *impose* chaos, regardless of who is affected, how, or why. He seeks no control or power and may be the one character who actually welcomes your victory over him, being as how it demonstrates that he himself is not immune to the chaos he creates. That makes him the most dangerous of the lot, of course, because he no longer has cause to fear anything.

[pennypincher]

Vick, while deadly in his view... If it is indeed a sentient choice and not just a case of madness... Is deadly in the sense of a bomb: It's chances of making long term, far reaching impact is virtually nil, but it's short term, instant damage is shocking and destructive. People who aren't smart enough/capable of fear are VERY short term citizens... But they do tend to go out in a bloody and explosive way.

For my money, there is no real risk presented in any form by Anarchs... In game or out... To any kind of society, as ultimately it's a self defeating concept. The only way the bring down an organized power is with good, hard work and organization, intelligent design, clear thinking and action that focuses on set goals... All of which are the antithesis of an Anarch cause and which, as you said, only ends up with the people who organized the groups becoming leaders... Exactly the thing they stood against. Mind you, I imagine that once they are leaders, they will roll their eyes in disgust as a new age of "Rebels" makes an effort to undermine the laws they put in place.

Out of interest, and to keep things on the topic of Vampire a little more, the book that details the efforts of Elder Vampires (Elyisum) starts off with a letter from one Elder to another, talking about how hard they worked to make Vampire society stable and fair, equal and just... And how the young vampires of today are doing everything they can to ruin it all. The letter goes on to say something along the lines of:

"They spend their unlife marching in the street, declare that I while away my hours doing everything I can to make an enemy of them, that my only love is to crush them, oppress them and quell them, and that in my old age I have become a bitter hater of their freedom. They say that my last true emotion is a twisted joy in seeing them driven under heel and making slaves of them.

Wouldn't it shock them to know they are right?"

[Theoris]

yikes

oh no what have i done?

[TonyMontana1638]

[QUOTE=yrthwyndandfyre]Now this is a discussion! For my money, the Anarchs are not formally about Anarchy, as mentioned above, and more about simply opposition to authority from any number of different sources. In this manner, they are very similar to those who call themselves 'outlaws' without the understanding that it *was* a punishment. By being sentenced to live outside the law, 'outlaws' also no longer enjoyed the protection of the law. Consequently, they were free game for anybody with a grudge and a weapon.

There are a number of flavors of 'outlaws' among the anarchs. Nines, while opposed to authority from the 'ruling class' as it were, nonetheless elects to lead the anarchs, possibly without his own conscious volition. Thus, he himself becomes one of the authority figures he finds so distasteful.

Jack may be closest to a true anarch, in that he's just out to 'spoil the soup', as it were, perhaps for no better reason that it can be spoiled. On the other hand, Jack may be the ultimate dictator: One who loves to run things, but wishes to protect himself by subterfuge a la an illuminatus. He appears to obey no rules except those imposed by biology and survival - and himself.

Skelter is simply anti-authoritarian. He doesn't object to the rules - he simply doesn't like them being imposed on him from an external source.

Damsel loves to have control, but doesn't like to be seen as a legitmate controlling influence, so she goes the way of the bully: enforcing her will by intimidation and brute force and probably consoling herself that she is not actually imposing an order of her own choosing.

The true anarch, though, is Bishop Vick, who, through conscious decision and act, wishes to *impose* chaos, regardless of who is affected, how, or why. He seeks no control or power and may be the one character who actually welcomes your victory over him, being as how it demonstrates that he himself is not immune to the chaos he creates. That makes him the most dangerous of the lot, of course, because he no longer has cause to fear anything.[/QUOTE]


Yrth I'm afraid I must disagree with you on two accounts and also feel I must clarify what 'Anarchy' truly means and what it means to be an 'Anarchist'.

Anarchy, in the strictest sense of the word, refers not to a general state of chaos and disorder, though it's a common misconception, but rather to a complete LACK of a system of government in a community of people. To exist in a state of Anarchy is to coexist with others without the presence of a government, ruling class or really any sense of organiszation amongst the community. In a utopian sense Anarchy is the state human beings would live in were we perfect beings who all shared a common sense of moral and ethical values on how one is to live life and, more importantly, coexist with other humans: we are not, however, and so governments were created in order to impose these morals and ethics on everyone, in order that we still may exist in such a way regardless of our imperfections or differences. That doesn't mean we all have to be perfectly nice and kind people, but rather that we all live together with under the same self-imposed guidelines (if it's a state of 'good' or 'evil' is irrelevant).

The definition many are giving of 'Anarchy' and 'Anarchs' is incorrect: they are not sowers of chaos, but rather believe in living their lives without the oppressive restrictions of government. The misconception lies with the fact that human beings aren't perfect and don't all live by the same moral code and so, without a government to impose these same values on all, chaos and disorder tend to run rampant. Going back to yrth's comments, in this sense Vick is far from an anarchist: he cares nothing for governments or rulers (which is the whole key to being an Anarchist is that you acknowledge their presence and choose to not believe in them) and insteads seeks only to sow disorder. He's a sociopath (also clearly insane) and, I agree, the most dangeroous of the lot.

The true anarchs of the lot are, in my opinion, Skelter and Nines. Nines is a tough call, I admit, because he has risen to power as an authority figure and, like was mentioned, thus would seem to become that which he loathes but I believe this to be not by choice but by coincidence. The rest of the anarchs chose him as their leader because he seemed to be the most powerful and the anarchs' greatest weapon against the Camarilla. He didn't seize power himself, rather it was thrust upon him and, seeing as the Anarchs need a leader, he accepts the role. He, like Yrth's description of Skelter, believes in rules but those that exist in the common sense of survival. I see him and Skelter as close to identical, but Nines is in power (whether he wants to be or not).

Skelter, because of Nines' ascent to leader is probably the ideal Anarch. He flat-out dislikes people telling him what to do because he has enough common sense of what needs to be done in terms of survival for himself and the community and doesn't need any governing power. The fact that he tends to defer to Nines shows that he has another bit common sense that only Nines seems to share with him: in order to effectively fight the Cam the Anarchs can't strictly hold true to their belief in no authority because that would entail existing disorganized and ineffective. He follows Nines out of respect and his realization that there must be A leader, and seeing as Nines is the most charismatic and powerful, he defers to him out of discipline to the cause and common sense. He believes in a lack of government and nothing else: the ideal Anarch. Yrth's description is again superb because he does believe in rules, but the rules of survival that exist in the common sense of vampires; not those of a dictator like Lacroix, the Cam or any gov for that matter.

Jack, Damsel and Isaac are not true Anarchists. Jack is the closest of the lot, and Yrth hit the description of him dead-on here (Props to you sir ) and he would seem to be an Anarchist Ideal in his belief in the laws of survival (see yrth's description here, I won't copy it). The fact that he then tries to impose these laws on others in the sense of how HE believes in them, however, makes him something else entirely. Were he to just try and survive and fight for the destruction of an external government he'd be ideal, but he is a manipulator at heart and imposes his will and morals on others using them to achieve his own ends, whether it's survival or just entertainment, and this makes him an authority figure. I wouldn't quite call him an illuminatus , but the comparison is mostly effective if somewhat exaggerated: he's simply a manipulator. Making him out to be an Anarchist be cause he wants to "spoil the soup" isn't true however.

Isaac is no Anarchist at all in that he believes in a sense of government: his own. As Yrth said he wants the power for himself, so he is a selective Anarchist (which in the strictest sense makes no sense but still fits): he doesn't want any government other than his own, so he chooses to fight and call himself an Anarch because he's rebelling against the same government as the REAL Anarchists. Were he to have it his way, however, he would be the one in charge, making him nothing more than the Strauss of the Camarilla (he's just more vocal and not a Cam).

See Yrth's description of Damsel as I believe it word for word and am tired of typing .

Sorry if not all of this is clear, but it makes sense in my head and I tried my best to convey it as throughly as I could . As for Yrth, your basic characterization of the characters was wonderful, better than I could do in fact, but you had the definition of what Anarchy is wrong (Anarchy is not chaos) and so IMO you're judgements of the character's as anarchists was a bit off.

[yrthwyndandfyre]

[QUOTE=TonyMontana1638]Sorry if not all of this is clear, but it makes sense in my head and I tried my best to convey it as throughly as I could . As for Yrth, your basic characterization of the characters was wonderful, better than I could do in fact, but you had the definition of what Anarchy is wrong (Anarchy is not chaos) and so IMO you're judgements of the character's as anarchists was a bit off.[/QUOTE]

Actually, having read your response, I tend to agree with you. Your assessments are truly on the mark. I was confusing Anarchy with, for lack of a better word, Satanism in the classic sense. That being the Wiccan doctrine of, "Do what you will, and ye harm no one", versus the Satanist doctrine of, "Do what you will." Full stop. Vick was of the latter, but your assessment that Skelter and Nines are more accurately anarchists makes perfect sense. Thanks for the insight.

[TonyMontana1638]

[QUOTE=yrthwyndandfyre]Actually, having read your response, I tend to agree with you. Your assessments are truly on the mark. I was confusing Anarchy with, for lack of a better word, Satanism in the classic sense. That being the Wiccan doctrine of, "Do what you will, and ye harm no one", versus the Satanist doctrine of, "Do what you will." Full stop. Vick was of the latter, but your assessment that Skelter and Nines are more accurately anarchists makes perfect sense. Thanks for the insight.[/QUOTE]

Perfect. A 'satanist' was the title I was looking for for Vick, and fits much better than my description. Teamwork's a good thing it seems ...

[Confuzzled]

So, ignoring Bishop Vick as simply a madman (madvampire?) we have left a rather motley collection of individuals,and the question that springs to mind is whether they are a group at all? Would Damsal and Isaac ever agree to work together really?

Possibly more importantly, who defines the Anarchs? Do they (please excuse the terrible jargon) "self-define" as Anarchs, or do they merely see themselves as not Camarilla/Sabbatt? Is is the Camarilla which defines them as "Anarchs", in which case the idea of them as anarchists in the sense of "Satanists" is much more accurate: the Camarilla see their rules as the only means by which vampires can survive, and vampires existing outside of these rules are simply undermining society (and security) for no purpose. Of course the most accurate answer is probably that originally it was the Camarilla which so defined the anarchs, but that they now use it as a badge of honour and a label themselves (suggesting that however much they protest, they still think like the Camarilla...).

[Wrath]

[QUOTE=Confuzzled]

Possibly more importantly, who defines the Anarchs? Do they (please excuse the terrible jargon) "self-define" as Anarchs, or do they merely see themselves as not Camarilla/Sabbatt? .[/QUOTE]


Well when you talk to Jack at the Last Round, specially when you arrive there for the first time one of the dialog's option is: 1. Who is "we"? (or something like that) (this option shows up when you ask him about the Anarchs and so...)
Then Jack's answer is: "The free living dead kiddo. A lot of people like to use the label 'Anarchs', whatever the hell that means.... Anarchs. Does got a nice kick to it ,though huh? Haha yeah."

ps: Everybody knows that Jack is a respected member of the 'Anarch society', so I think his description about these 'Anarchs Kindred' would be respected as well....
so I think they merely define themselves as not Camarilla/Sabbatt

[pennypincher]

Just to be clear here, there is a VAST distinction bewteen modern philosophy and it's view on political "Anarchy"... And V:TM's "Anarchs".

While only Nines and Skelt may conform to your strict defination of Anarchs, all the characters presented in the game are "Anarchs", because they have turned against their clans political affiliation in favour of an ideal of Vampire Freedom under an elected leader... Usualy a "Baron" like Issac.

Now, I understand... And did so before the debate... That this isn't the perfect ideal of Anarchy and isn't the original concept that the term stems from, however the games does go into detail covering these facts (In the books anyway) and the different factions inside the anarchs who want one of the many different kinds of society that can exist. It is covered that they never honestly strived for a "government free", and just adapte the term "Anarchs' because the Cammerilla dubbed them to be so, mocking them with the fact that if there was no Cammerilla, as they seemed to wish, they would be no order and rules at all... Just children running wild.

Obviously, in real life in the modern world there aren't many people who conform to the Anarch concept with any real seriouness... Most people recognise that people, if left to their own devices, wouldn't live in perfect harmony. Sensationalists and scare mongers try and advocate it from time to time, but anyone who is serious about it usualy tempers it with a healthy dose of logic as well.

[fable]

I'm at a loss to know whether to move this thread to the Pen 'n Paper Dicussion forum, or Speak Your Mind--our forum for non-game subjects. It's obviously no longer spending much time tied to Bloodlines. That being the case, and without the aid of the of the I Ching, we now take you to Pen 'n Paper--with a redirect from here.

[pennypincher]

I spose we deserved that...

[Hill-Shatar]

[QUOTE=pennypincher]I spose we deserved that...[/QUOTE]

Deserved what? It is clearly in the best category for the type of conversation now. Be assured that it was not meant to be disciplinary.

Oh, by the way, just a little bit on Satanism, as I saw it mentioned:

[QUOTE=Wikipedia]Although named for Satan, a name associated with evil and temptation, Satanism is more commonly the name given to certain spiritual paths which emphasize the Left-Hand Path, as opposed to the much more common Right-Hand Path. Left-Handers believe in spiritual enrichment through their own work on themselves, and that ultimately they are answerable only to themselves, while Right-Handers believe in spiritual enrichment through the dissolution or submission of the self to (or into) something greater. Many Satanists do not in fact worship a deity called Satan, or necessarily any other deity, nor do they follow a principle of evil. This aspect of their beliefs is very commonly misunderstood.[/QUOTE]

The rest of the article went on to describe Gothic Satanism. I'll post a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

[fable]

Good point, Hill-Shatar. (And you're right, no thought of disciplinary action was involved.) The "left-hand path" is seen as working towards a goal of transcendence through self-development, while the "right-hand path" de-eimphasizes the self. That said, either can be subjucated: the left-hand can become wallowing self-indulgence, and the right-hand can become an excuse for non-action and a retreat into an ivory tower.

A friend of mine leads a left-hand Welsh Craft branch, located in LA. He jokes a lot about it; and really, the Craft has some strong left-hand elements, at least, as constituted by Gerald Gardner. But that's not the same as McVey's Satanists, who deliberately invoke a Christian demon to annoy the hell (so to speak) out of monotheists. And Anarchs? They seem closer to the Iris-worshipping Crafters I know.

[TonyMontana1638]

[QUOTE=pennypincher]Just to be clear here, there is a VAST distinction bewteen modern philosophy and it's view on political "Anarchy"... And V:TM's "Anarchs".

While only Nines and Skelt may conform to your strict defination of Anarchs, all the characters presented in the game are "Anarchs", because they have turned against their clans political affiliation in favour of an ideal of Vampire Freedom under an elected leader... Usualy a "Baron" like Issac.

Now, I understand... And did so before the debate... That this isn't the perfect ideal of Anarchy and isn't the original concept that the term stems from, however the games does go into detail covering these facts (In the books anyway) and the different factions inside the anarchs who want one of the many different kinds of society that can exist. It is covered that they never honestly strived for a "government free", and just adapte the term "Anarchs' because the Cammerilla dubbed them to be so, mocking them with the fact that if there was no Cammerilla, as they seemed to wish, they would be no order and rules at all... Just children running wild.

Obviously, in real life in the modern world there aren't many people who conform to the Anarch concept with any real seriouness... Most people recognise that people, if left to their own devices, wouldn't live in perfect harmony. Sensationalists and scare mongers try and advocate it from time to time, but anyone who is serious about it usualy tempers it with a healthy dose of logic as well.[/QUOTE]

That's fine, I know next to nothing about the Pen-n-Paper V:TM and won't argue how the term "Anarch" got coined or how the group started, but this debate was about whether or not the "Anarchs" are actual "Anarchists" (which necesitates believing in the conept of "Anarchy"): we know they're "Anarchs", in the V:TM sense of the term becasue they say they are.

As for people being "Anarchists" in real life I'd argue that there are plenty of them alive today: numbers and common sense say so at least. They may be sensationalists as well, but not everyone who believes in the concept of political "Anarchy" is a scaremonger: Jean-Jacques Rousseau may very well be considered an "Anarchist" and I'd say he was a pretty rational being (not a "scaremonger" at least), a genius even. That's not to say I'd necessarily agree with that assesment, but it does at least hold some water...


@ Hill and Fable: Nothing brings me greater pleasure than seeing the two of you move a thread...

[pennypincher]

I meant "We deserved that" in the form of "Yes, I spose we should have seen that comming, given the conversation took a turn from the original point, to what modern Anarchy is."

Yeah, I was just adressing the original question of why they were called anarchs, and the most basic answer is "They kidna like it".

Meanwhile, I can't think of a single group in society that seriously advocates a world free of any kind of government... Or should I say, a single group in society that works towards that goal that is TAKEN seriously, I'm sure there are groups of people who belive a LOT of things. I'd be interested to hear what groups are comprised of honest to God, traditional Anarchs.

[TonyMontana1638]

I can't think of such a group either, but I can think of some that insist Nazism is morally right or that Black people are inferior to caucasians ... So I'm sure they have to be out there somewhere .

No, I know you were just adressing the original question: Gamebanshee needs more people like you, lest us SYMian Spammers take over the site .