States within the global political economy today face a twin insurgency, one from below, another from above. From below comes a series of interconnected criminal insurgencies in which the global disenfranchised resist, coopt, and route around states as they seek ways to empower and enrich themselves in the shadows of the global economy. Drug cartels, human traffickers, computer hackers, counterfeiters, arms dealers, and others exploit the loopholes, exceptions, and failures of governance institutions to build global commercial empires. These empires then deploy their resources to corrupt, coopt, or challenge incumbent political actors.
From above comes the plutocratic insurgency, in which globalized elites seek to disengage from traditional national obligations and responsibilities. From libertarian activists to tax-haven lawyers to currency speculators to mineral-extraction magnates, the new global super-rich and their hired help are waging a broad-based campaign to limit the reach and capacity of government tax-collectors and regulators, or to manipulate these functions as a tool in their own cut-throat business competition.
Unlike classic 20th-century insurgents, who sought control over the state apparatus in order to implement social reforms, criminal and plutocratic insurgents do not seek to take over the state. Nor do they wish to destroy the state, since they rely parasitically on it to provide the legacy goods of social welfare: health, education, infrastructure, and so on. Rather, their aim is simpler: to carve out de facto zones of autonomy for themselves by crippling the state’s ability to constrain their freedom of (economic) action.
I'm always a little skeptical of arguments made in the American Interest, since they bill themselves as a magazine devoted to the idea of the nation-state. Whatever I read as the reasoning, I know their bottom-line commitment was pre-written. If there was a powerful but positive movement against the nation-state (say... some form of Bookchinist libertarian municipalism), would the American Interest admit its virtues? Well no, and so it makes sense that a search for "Rojava" turns up nothing, despite it being an extent, present-day experiment in politics without the state.
Also, claiming that communists tried to nurture a middle class is just plain wrong. Communists were, at least according to Communists, trying to abolish class entirely, and initially to uplift the proletariat, the working class.
As a curious exception to the revolution from below example, the Taliban completely eliminated heroin production in Afghanistan when they were in power. Production has skyrocketed since their overthrow. There's a reason why religious fanaticism, for better or worse, is popular among the destitute. It represents an alternative to criminal gangs for dealing with government failures.
> From below comes a series of interconnected criminal insurgencies in which the global disenfranchised resist, coopt, and route around states as they seek ways to empower and enrich themselves in the shadows of the global economy. Drug cartels, human traffickers, computer hackers, counterfeiters, arms dealers, and others exploit the loopholes, exceptions, and failures of governance institutions to build global commercial empires.
I wouldn't call drug cartels, human traffickers, computer hackers, counterfeiters, and arms dealers the "global disenfranchised" at all. I'd call them very powerful, but criminal. "Criminal" is not the same as "disenfranchised"; "powerless" is.
So what the quote means to say is that there are two sets of powerful people seeking to carve out spaces for themselves. One operates totally outside the law, the other operates within the law but wants a space where fewer laws apply to them.
The question that can't seem to be answered consistently is, what are these so-called obligations and responsibilities? Who determines them? Autocratic, selfish leaders and/or misinformed and uneducated masses?
The notion of social obligation is one that is problematic from top to bottom for this precise reason.
Rage against the global elite, is misplaced. Mexico isn't safe for business and isn't safe for those elites. As the article points out Monterey is elite, but their peace is emphermal.
This article is insightful, but it's unfortunate that it does not even mention the EZLN [0] (colloquially, Zapatistas), the majority indigenous and rural breakaway communities in the southern state of Chiapas which have been autonomous since 1994.
It isn't just in Chiapas; my understanding is that many indigenous communities in Mexico are autonomous and doing relatively well because of it. Some have always been autonomous and others more recently. At the same time, many communities seem to avoid autonomy as long as they can so there are obviously down sides. I think unfair practices against indigenous communities are more likely to turn violent when the community becomes autonomous. Indigenous communities have been dealing with the worst aspects of government corruption for much longer than the current wave of violence (and not just drug issues) and they are also affected by the current issues.
However, I don't know of a great source for this type of information, it is just the impression I get from a variety of sources that I have been able to find.
In general, the best overall English language resouce on what is happening in Mexico that I've been able to find is Borderland Beat. They translate a bunch of article from Mexican newspapers and repost stuff from English language newspapers as well. http://www.borderlandbeat.com
They had an interesting article about a recent study showing that the recent increase in violence seems to be due at least in part to the weakening of the one party system in Mexico that had stabilized the cartel situation due to long term continuity of the corruption. http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2017/11/study-sheds-new-light-...
Mexico is a country at civil war and in denial about it. The cartels and affiliated corrupt public officials effectively control large swaths of the country.
Yet when the central government tries to take action against them, naive people in Mexico City take to the streets to protest over civil liberties. The cartel problem is treated as one of crime, when it is really one of insurrection.
When the US had its civil war, Lincoln did what needed to be done: civil liberties were abridged, habeas corpus was suspended, secessionist state legislators were arrested, seceding states were blockaded, and Lincoln openly violated court orders demanding otherwise. Sherman’s March to the Sea had such a devastating effect on the South’s economy that it caused mass starvation among Southern civilians. The time for magnanimity and kindness came after the war, where a blanket pardon was issued on the condition of future loyalty. But until the final victory was achieved, nothing was off the table.
Mexico needs to eradicate the cancer within. Their survival as a nation-state depends on it.
> Mexico is a country at civil war and in denial about it.
No, it's a country split into trafficking fiefdoms with some violent disputes about the divisions that's in denial about that. But there's no general civil war.
> Yet when the central government tries to take action against them
The central government sometimes rearranges which traffickers are allowed which territories, which results in an upswing in violence. It rarely moves against them generally, though it uses that as the cover for shifting arrangements.
It's funny that you recognize that public officials involved with the cartels are a major factor, but somehow seem to exempt the central government.
Mexico has no cancer within, it is the cancer. The central government is inept and corrupt, leading to the drastic measures you see here.
A revolution on the part of the Mexican people is needed, but the US will never allow such volatility so close to home. Until then, the US government is content to let the cartels and the Mexican state fight it out ad infitium.
Of the civic experiments listed, this quotation from a citizen in Neza seems to hit on a core issue - human trust and particularly in those who enforce laws:
"""
Yazmin Quroz, a longtime resident, said working with police officers, whom she now knows by name, had brought a sense of community. “We are united, which hadn’t happened before,” she said. “We’re finally all talking to each other."
The price of avocados has soared worldwide thanks to memes like avocado toast. Avocados themselves are now valuable enough for cartels. They're calling it green gold.
Well, for one thing the cartels have forced parts of the civilian population -- especially in Michoacan-- to work for them (farming poppy; processing raw opium; spies and lookouts). These people are then affected by narco inter-gang violence, since they are viewed as part of the organisation thay are forced to work for. This also explains the large number of "gang-members" killed, when the mexican state publishes numbers on the death toll of the drug war.
Another thing is a system of "taxation", narco gangs put on these people. They have to pay the taxman from the state, as well as protection money to the rackets.
For a great documentary on this topic (this and how the people are trying to defend themselvs) I can point you to "Cartel Land" -- available on Netflix.
Tancitaro produce a lot of high quality avocados. Cartels force people into paying some money or "tax" (it depends on how wealthy the person/company is) in exchange of "protection". They can punish / kill / kidnap people when they choose not to pay [1]. The problem is not only located at that town, other areas are affected and working in the same way.
The federal government do nothing to solve any of the issues, instead they pay large quantity of money for positive news [2], you don't see this kind of news on the TV. It's sad.
It is fairly famous, in anarchist circles, that half of a state of Mexico consists of anarchist communes, independent from the state. It has been that way since at least 1994.
I wonder if this has to do with article I read the other day.
(From memory) there was a shooting in Acupulco a day or so ago which left like 8 dead. A local town security force arrested a guy and it turned into a gun battle. Then the feds showed up and attempted to arrest members of the local security force who fought back and some of them were killed also. It's nuts. Hope things stabilize down there. Feel awful for the people who have to put up with it all and used to really enjoy traveling in Mexico.
"Tancítaro represents a quiet but telling trend in Mexico, where a handful of towns and cities are effectively seceding, partly or in whole. These are acts of desperation, revealing the degree to which Mexico’s police and politicians are seen as part of the threat."
Not to say this is far along the road of chaos, but chaos is always the correcting factor to things. At the end of the day people are going to look out for their best interests no matter the official state line/laws.
I skimmed through the article so I may have missed something, but what I read was about how the municipal authorities took over many of the state / federal responsibilities. The last one is engaged in a turf war with the state police.
What about the federal taxes? Infrastructure projects? Salaries of the state employees?
Thanks to weakening of the state, Mexico became in my eyes largest real world implementation of libertarian paradise where in the absence of state people are left to decide what's ok and what's not. Apparently plenty of weapons used on daily basis to resolve disputes about who has the right to what is two thumbs up ok.
I feel like a lot of Americans don't realize or chose not to acknowledge that most of the violence in the South and Central Americas is directly caused by the United States. The Bay of Pigs, the School of the Americas, the Iranian-Contras, the CIA supported coupe in Chile on September 11th, 1973, United Fruit Company, .. the list is as long as you want to make it.
It's intentional. The lower Americas are pushed into this state by various corporate interests in the US which are large enough to dictate policy. I've written about this before:
African here. Apart from the Bay of Pigs I don't know much about the events you mention. What I can tell you in Africa similar stories are shared. All coups are allegedly plotted and carried out with support from the CIA. I am not naive enough to believe that the CIA is innocent of everything but I often wonder why my fellow Africans betray us at the behest of the CIA. I get it often there is lots of money and power at stake but it saddens me to see some of the atrocities we commit against each other. There will always be a foreign power waiting to take advantage. It could be China next or Russia.
Naw, the struggle was already there. Yankee just backed a side. Which wasn't doesn't make it OK but you can't blame every problem in the world on the CIA. The CIA simply isn't that efficient.
This isn't even remotely correct. It's just a... U.S.-centric way of thinking.
Violence -- political violence -- was endemic in the 60s and 70s in Latin America, and that was not because of the U.S. The U.S. didn't get involved in, say, Chile, until 1973, and even then, while Nixon supported Pinochet at first, Kissinger did tell Pinochet to cool it. Carter did not support the Argentine "Proceso" either. You can say what you want about the School of the Americas, but the Argentines had a long long history of political violence going back to pre-WWI days. The U.S. had NOTHING to do with Perón, nor with the coup against him in 1955, nor with any of the succession of civilian governments and military coups that followed it, nor with the peronist violence.
Political violence greatly cooled off in Chile, Brazil, and Argentina after the experience of the 70s. Not -mind you- because dirty war killed the violent (dirty war was awful and a failure) but because people just got tired of the violence. For example, in 1983 Argentina had free elections again after 7 years of dirty war, and they voted for the normal guy rather than for the radical leftist put up by the peronists. Then for each successive economic crisis (they're like clockwork down there) there was... no violence -- nothing remotely like the violence of the 60s and 70s.
Now, I'm focusing on Argentina, and you might say they're unique, but I don't think so. The story is not the same throughout Latin America in terms of detail, but writ large it kinda is: the 60s and 70s were a violent time. In Central America the violence went on much longer, and in part that is because Cuba and the USSR stoked it. Now that the USSR is gone and Cuba/Venezuela on their heels, violence in Central America is down a lot -- especially in Colombia, where a clean war defeated the communist guerillas and the narcos.
It would be much more interesting to study why political violence was so endemic in Latin America in the 60s and 70s, and later still in Central America. But as it's very popular to blindly blame it all on the U.S., I fear there's too little interest -- the narrative that "the evil U.S. what done it" must be too appealing, facile though it is.
Sad to read. The US has a big problems, but nothing like the total breakdown of order that seems to have occurred in Mexico. It's an enormous humanitarian crisis, and our response is to build a wall. No, we should legalize drugs, and undermine the economic power of the cartels. I'd love it if someone more familiar with Mexican culture could explain the nature of almost universal institutional corruption.
There have been walls along the US/Mexico border for decades, not to mention other international borders.
To even implicitly imply that some causal relationship between border security (irrespective of how effective you think a wall is to this end) and Mexico's inability to govern itself is highly misleading.
Why not both? Why can't we have strong border security and legalize drugs? I'm hoping with the recent Sessions announcement that he will be enforcing federal law in states where marijuana is "legal" that will put pressure on congress to legalize it. Or at least repeal all federal laws on it and truly leave it up to the states.
In order to make the most of your travels, you need to first understand that, throughout much of the Third World, there is a smoothly functioning “system” in place that has evolved over centuries. From the First World perspective it is a “corrupt” system, and indeed, at the higher levels there is no other word for it, and this blog’s purpose is to remove the brutality and horror of such high level corruption. At the lower levels, however, the system contains an element of grace and humanity, and this lower lever is all that most people will ever encounter. You might still call this lower level “corruption”, but that’s not a helpful word if you want to acquire the most effective attitude for dancing with it. I prefer “negotiable”. It focuses the mind on the true task at hand when dealing with officialdom and removes any unpleasant subconscious connotations. So if you can view the following tools and tips as negotiation guidelines it will help bring the necessary smile to your face when the situation requires one.
[+] [-] dfabulich|8 years ago|reply
States within the global political economy today face a twin insurgency, one from below, another from above. From below comes a series of interconnected criminal insurgencies in which the global disenfranchised resist, coopt, and route around states as they seek ways to empower and enrich themselves in the shadows of the global economy. Drug cartels, human traffickers, computer hackers, counterfeiters, arms dealers, and others exploit the loopholes, exceptions, and failures of governance institutions to build global commercial empires. These empires then deploy their resources to corrupt, coopt, or challenge incumbent political actors.
From above comes the plutocratic insurgency, in which globalized elites seek to disengage from traditional national obligations and responsibilities. From libertarian activists to tax-haven lawyers to currency speculators to mineral-extraction magnates, the new global super-rich and their hired help are waging a broad-based campaign to limit the reach and capacity of government tax-collectors and regulators, or to manipulate these functions as a tool in their own cut-throat business competition.
Unlike classic 20th-century insurgents, who sought control over the state apparatus in order to implement social reforms, criminal and plutocratic insurgents do not seek to take over the state. Nor do they wish to destroy the state, since they rely parasitically on it to provide the legacy goods of social welfare: health, education, infrastructure, and so on. Rather, their aim is simpler: to carve out de facto zones of autonomy for themselves by crippling the state’s ability to constrain their freedom of (economic) action.
[+] [-] eli_gottlieb|8 years ago|reply
Also, claiming that communists tried to nurture a middle class is just plain wrong. Communists were, at least according to Communists, trying to abolish class entirely, and initially to uplift the proletariat, the working class.
[+] [-] narrator|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|8 years ago|reply
I wouldn't call drug cartels, human traffickers, computer hackers, counterfeiters, and arms dealers the "global disenfranchised" at all. I'd call them very powerful, but criminal. "Criminal" is not the same as "disenfranchised"; "powerless" is.
So what the quote means to say is that there are two sets of powerful people seeking to carve out spaces for themselves. One operates totally outside the law, the other operates within the law but wants a space where fewer laws apply to them.
[+] [-] ashleyn|8 years ago|reply
The notion of social obligation is one that is problematic from top to bottom for this precise reason.
[+] [-] frozenport|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acjohnson55|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomr_stargazer|8 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_L...
[+] [-] joveian|8 years ago|reply
However, I don't know of a great source for this type of information, it is just the impression I get from a variety of sources that I have been able to find.
In general, the best overall English language resouce on what is happening in Mexico that I've been able to find is Borderland Beat. They translate a bunch of article from Mexican newspapers and repost stuff from English language newspapers as well. http://www.borderlandbeat.com
They had an interesting article about a recent study showing that the recent increase in violence seems to be due at least in part to the weakening of the one party system in Mexico that had stabilized the cartel situation due to long term continuity of the corruption. http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2017/11/study-sheds-new-light-...
[+] [-] wz1000|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grangerize|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simplicio|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wildmusings|8 years ago|reply
Yet when the central government tries to take action against them, naive people in Mexico City take to the streets to protest over civil liberties. The cartel problem is treated as one of crime, when it is really one of insurrection.
When the US had its civil war, Lincoln did what needed to be done: civil liberties were abridged, habeas corpus was suspended, secessionist state legislators were arrested, seceding states were blockaded, and Lincoln openly violated court orders demanding otherwise. Sherman’s March to the Sea had such a devastating effect on the South’s economy that it caused mass starvation among Southern civilians. The time for magnanimity and kindness came after the war, where a blanket pardon was issued on the condition of future loyalty. But until the final victory was achieved, nothing was off the table.
Mexico needs to eradicate the cancer within. Their survival as a nation-state depends on it.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
No, it's a country split into trafficking fiefdoms with some violent disputes about the divisions that's in denial about that. But there's no general civil war.
> Yet when the central government tries to take action against them
The central government sometimes rearranges which traffickers are allowed which territories, which results in an upswing in violence. It rarely moves against them generally, though it uses that as the cover for shifting arrangements.
It's funny that you recognize that public officials involved with the cartels are a major factor, but somehow seem to exempt the central government.
[+] [-] Hasz|8 years ago|reply
A revolution on the part of the Mexican people is needed, but the US will never allow such volatility so close to home. Until then, the US government is content to let the cartels and the Mexican state fight it out ad infitium.
[+] [-] SamPutnam|8 years ago|reply
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/06/mexico-...
[+] [-] dpflan|8 years ago|reply
"""
Yazmin Quroz, a longtime resident, said working with police officers, whom she now knows by name, had brought a sense of community. “We are united, which hadn’t happened before,” she said. “We’re finally all talking to each other."
"""
[+] [-] digi_owl|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] V2hLe0ThslzRaV2|8 years ago|reply
As far as I am able to tell, the town is not: a tourist area, on a main route to anywhere, bordering the US, etc.
[+] [-] jordigh|8 years ago|reply
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-41635008
http://www.businessinsider.com/mexican-farmers-in-michoacan-...
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-01-30/news/080130007...
It has now become a joke to say "échale aguacate", (throw in some avocado) to express something like "go all out" or "be a big spender".
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmUQfURW8AAYQpY.jpg
[+] [-] maze-le|8 years ago|reply
Another thing is a system of "taxation", narco gangs put on these people. They have to pay the taxman from the state, as well as protection money to the rackets.
For a great documentary on this topic (this and how the people are trying to defend themselvs) I can point you to "Cartel Land" -- available on Netflix.
[+] [-] notfromhere|8 years ago|reply
At this point, cartels want to control territory to prevent rival cartels from controlling territory. Less drug gang more fiefdom
[+] [-] ichbinedgar|8 years ago|reply
Source: [1]My father is from the Tancitaro town area. [2]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/25/world/americas/mexico-pre...
[+] [-] 24gttghh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] methehack|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Iv|8 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EZLN
It is fairly famous, in anarchist circles, that half of a state of Mexico consists of anarchist communes, independent from the state. It has been that way since at least 1994.
[+] [-] mythrwy|8 years ago|reply
(From memory) there was a shooting in Acupulco a day or so ago which left like 8 dead. A local town security force arrested a guy and it turned into a gun battle. Then the feds showed up and attempted to arrest members of the local security force who fought back and some of them were killed also. It's nuts. Hope things stabilize down there. Feel awful for the people who have to put up with it all and used to really enjoy traveling in Mexico.
[+] [-] DubiousPusher|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jxramos|8 years ago|reply
Not to say this is far along the road of chaos, but chaos is always the correcting factor to things. At the end of the day people are going to look out for their best interests no matter the official state line/laws.
[+] [-] vadimberman|8 years ago|reply
I skimmed through the article so I may have missed something, but what I read was about how the municipal authorities took over many of the state / federal responsibilities. The last one is engaged in a turf war with the state police.
What about the federal taxes? Infrastructure projects? Salaries of the state employees?
[+] [-] Tenobrus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baybal2|8 years ago|reply
It is generally a bad idea to have a failed state on your border, but moreover to have one that will be eager to host few Russian tank regiments.
Soviet agents were all around Mexico during cold war years, there is nothing to suggest that they were recalled after the fall of USSR.
[+] [-] scotty79|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djsumdog|8 years ago|reply
It's intentional. The lower Americas are pushed into this state by various corporate interests in the US which are large enough to dictate policy. I've written about this before:
http://fightthefuture.org/article/america-and-the-mexican-dr...
[+] [-] mmsimanga|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] corpMaverick|8 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lane_Wilson
It trigger one of the most violent revolutions of the 20th century, with great loses of life and economic infrastructure.
[+] [-] gozur88|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nitwit005|8 years ago|reply
And there is no corporate interest that wants mass killings and kidnappings.
[+] [-] mythrwy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cryptonector|8 years ago|reply
Violence -- political violence -- was endemic in the 60s and 70s in Latin America, and that was not because of the U.S. The U.S. didn't get involved in, say, Chile, until 1973, and even then, while Nixon supported Pinochet at first, Kissinger did tell Pinochet to cool it. Carter did not support the Argentine "Proceso" either. You can say what you want about the School of the Americas, but the Argentines had a long long history of political violence going back to pre-WWI days. The U.S. had NOTHING to do with Perón, nor with the coup against him in 1955, nor with any of the succession of civilian governments and military coups that followed it, nor with the peronist violence.
Political violence greatly cooled off in Chile, Brazil, and Argentina after the experience of the 70s. Not -mind you- because dirty war killed the violent (dirty war was awful and a failure) but because people just got tired of the violence. For example, in 1983 Argentina had free elections again after 7 years of dirty war, and they voted for the normal guy rather than for the radical leftist put up by the peronists. Then for each successive economic crisis (they're like clockwork down there) there was... no violence -- nothing remotely like the violence of the 60s and 70s.
Now, I'm focusing on Argentina, and you might say they're unique, but I don't think so. The story is not the same throughout Latin America in terms of detail, but writ large it kinda is: the 60s and 70s were a violent time. In Central America the violence went on much longer, and in part that is because Cuba and the USSR stoked it. Now that the USSR is gone and Cuba/Venezuela on their heels, violence in Central America is down a lot -- especially in Colombia, where a clean war defeated the communist guerillas and the narcos.
It would be much more interesting to study why political violence was so endemic in Latin America in the 60s and 70s, and later still in Central America. But as it's very popular to blindly blame it all on the U.S., I fear there's too little interest -- the narrative that "the evil U.S. what done it" must be too appealing, facile though it is.
[+] [-] f4rker|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Parcissons|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] known|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] balthasar|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javajosh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayvd|8 years ago|reply
To even implicitly imply that some causal relationship between border security (irrespective of how effective you think a wall is to this end) and Mexico's inability to govern itself is highly misleading.
[+] [-] muninn_|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] supreme_sublime|8 years ago|reply
This is a pretty good short video about how building a wall can help Mexicans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLv8Z6bsI24
[+] [-] jjawssd|8 years ago|reply
Source: http://www.whoismcafee.com/the-travel-guide/