25 ms·

Losing Faith in the State, Some Mexican Towns Quietly Break Away

469 points by camtarn 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tomr_stargazer 9y ago
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. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_L...
- wz1000 9y ago
  Similarly, Rojava and their role in Syria are barely mentioned by Western media.
  - ChristianBundy 9y ago
    To be fair, this is true for all anarchist societies, as their stated goals are directly contrary to the goals of media conglomerates owned and managed by wealthy capitalists.
    - Danihan 9y ago
      Could you name a few of these that you're referring to? I'd love to read more.
      - Iv 9y ago
        I am not a specialist but these two (largely overlapping) lists provide a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#Lists_of_ungoverned_communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#Lists_of_ungoverned_co... There are also interesting things happening in Catalonia and the Basque country, but the limit between anarchy, direct democracy, autonomism is more blurry there. I would also add that another reason why they are not talked about too much in the media is because they keep quiet. They know that a small community has to live under the radar because a strong influx of newcomers could easily destroy them.
    - hutzlibu 9y ago
      But as far as I could see it, all anarchist society's still in effect acted as a state, no matter how much they said otherwise. And the rojava is not really anarchist afaik. (there is only a small anarchist group inside, of mostly foreigners) They are a independent Kurdish society in the first place. Then they have strong ties to marxism because of Pkk and their history, but lately more moderate federalism. But with the pressure from ISS and now turkey, they just accept any help they can get, so that's why they have hardcore marxists next to antimuslim fanatics next to regular (capitalist) american special forces. If it would not be cracy dangerous, I actually would like to see all that weird mix by myself ...
      - int_19h 9y ago
        They seem to be anarchist in a sense that they reject the notion of state as an organizational structure for their society.
  - remind_me_again 9y ago
    I agree, although there were some "leaks" like the article published in Rolling Stone some months ago. The work of US is in kind of a stealth mode in Syria. US is in the process of a huge military build up and will use Kurds as cannon fodders, once more. History repeats. Poor Kurds, they think they are in this for a good cause.
- grangerize 9y ago
  The New York Times would never mention the EZLN. =)
  - pavel_lishin 9y ago
    Why not?
  - matt4077 9y ago
    The New York Times has an archive of news and background on the Zapatista with hundreds of articles: https://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/zapatista-national-liberation-army https://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/zapatista-nationa...
    - sdenton4 9y ago
      Sure, but how many column inches did those articles occupy? And how does that compare to the number of column inches dedicated to consumer capitalist interests?! </chomsky>
      - stretchwithme 9y ago
        Probably a lot more for the general topic and very little for the very specific topic. As one would expect.
      - matt4077 9y ago
        The goalpost has now moved, and the new question is obviously impossible to answer. It's also worth noting that "consumer capitalist interests" is a term I've never heard and, more importantly, neither has Chomsky, who never used the term.
  - schoen 9y ago
    They've reported on them dozens of times https://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/zapatista-national-liberation-army https://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/zapatista-nationa... though strangely apparently not between 2005 and 2017.
- joveian 9y ago
  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 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-on-roots-of.html http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2017/11/study-sheds-new-light-...
  - saganus 9y ago
    The impression I have, coming from a host of different sources (by living here, reading newspapers, talking to people that live in those communities, etc) is that a lot of those towns do quite well thanks to their autonomy, but 1) it doesn't seem to scale past a certain community size 2) it leaves them vulnerable to aggression from rival groups that get in cahoots with narcos and other powerful people (caciques, etc), and when they ask for government help the response they get is along the lines of "well, you wanted to be autonomous, so now help yourself and don't ask for help". In many cases it's even been pretty well documented that the government itself funded these rival communities precisely to "punish them" and create conflict due to them "daring" to go independent. In any case, some communities have very interesting takes on how governance should be carried out. For example, some require people to serve in the "governance body" for a short period of time (I've read about 3-6 months in some cases) so that everyone gets to participate a few times at least and thus everyone's interests are fairly represented. Also, those positions are often unpaid as they are considered to be "your duty", i.e. it's the share of the load that you get to carry for living in such society, and so on. Unfortunately I can't link any sources since a lot of this info has been told to me in person and some I've read in obscure magazines, random blog articles or Mexican newspapers and such. I think the works of Eduardo Galeano [0], if you can find them translated, have some information on Zapatistas' government structure called "Caracoles" for example. It's an interesting topic to say the least. [0] https://ososabiouk.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/eduardo-galeano-and-the-zapatistas/ https://ososabiouk.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/eduardo-galeano-...
V2hLe0ThslzRaV2 9y ago
Anyone able to provide any context as to why the cartels would care about a town like this? 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.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  I would think laundering money through the export of avocados would be quite lucrative.
  - brixon 9y ago
    It leaves the money with a distinct smell.
- notfromhere 9y ago
  Protection money. Cartels have more revenue streams than just drug trafficking. At this point, cartels want to control territory to prevent rival cartels from controlling territory. Less drug gang more fiefdom
  - walterbell 9y ago
    How is their protection/tax rate calculated - revenue, profit, land size, number of people?
    - ptaipale 9y ago
      I'd guess more likely "pay as much as you can, and a bit more". A bit like the tax authorities in any country, but even more callous and without public scrutiny.
      - adrianratnapala 9y ago
        Pay as much as we can sustainably demand, given the political realities of this time and place. And you are right, that is exactly what all tax authorities do. It's important to get those political realities right.
javajosh 9y ago
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.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  In addition to legalizing drugs we should look to reduce drug usage itself. Nobody, period, should be doing heroin or cocaine or whatever. Legalization stops the punishment, which I am in favor of, but does not stop the underlying root cause which is the usage itself. Why do Americans seem to have a particular problem with drugs, why doesn't, Singapore, or Japan for example? Naturally they have their own issues but why don't they have an opioid or heroin crises?
- jjawssd 9y ago
  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. Source: http://www.whoismcafee.com/the-travel-guide/ http://www.whoismcafee.com/the-travel-guide/
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    I have been to enough developing countries to know that "the system" does not work. It's just a bunch of jackbooted thugs, who got lucky for some reason and somehow became police officers, extorting money from everyone because of some arbitrary state power entrusted in them. I've seen cops in Vietnam make hundreds of dollars a day in bribes, when the average Vietnamese person makes $5 per day. Sure, they're making a lot of that bribe money from tourists, but I can guarantee you that they're not reinvesting that money in the local community. There is no grace and humanity in these systems. It's greed, it's capitalism at its most pure, if you have the money, you can do whatever you want, as long as you don't draw the ire of the powers that be. It is not a fair system, the poor just get fucked over harder, why is the government worker going to process your paperwork faster when the person next to you is willing and able to pay more to get it done?
SamPutnam 9y ago
Government statistics show avocado exports now bring more money into the country than petroleum. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/06/mexico-considers-importing-avocados-as-global-demand-drives-up-prices https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/06/mexico-...
- dekhn 9y ago
  mexico nationalized its oil industry and mainly uses it for internal supply (their choice), so I don't think this is a really useful comparison.
  - mullen 9y ago
    Mexico just mismanages it. They use it for Internal Supply because they have screwed up PEMEX so much they can't product enough oil for export.
    - kilroy123 9y ago
      Yes it's pretty crazy. They ship it to the US to be refined. Then they buy it back. Sounds like a huge bloated organization with little regards to efficiency. Source: dated a woman who worked there.
  - Toast_25 9y ago
    It's recently been privatized.
    - onekorg 9y ago
      Yeah, last time I visited my hometown there were British Petroleum and Arco gas stations. They were offering slightly better prices than Pemex.
      - Toast_25 9y ago
        IME they've also been offering better quality, at least shell. Hopefully they'll also end the widespread practice of shorting customers.
known 9y ago
Reminds me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_state_petitions_for_secession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_state_petitions_for_seces...
simplicio 9y ago
Sort of similar to how the Mafia is thought to have arose from protection schemes for Sicily's valuable, but vulnerable lemon crop. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/mafia-lemons-citrus-sicily-economics https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/mafia-lemons-citrus-si...
- hashkb 9y ago
  Or, like, every paramilitary ruling a South American state.
balthasar 9y ago
Its crazy that one of the most dysfunctional third world countries borders the most powerful and prosperous. Weird huh?
- sol_remmy 9y ago
  Mexico is really not that dysfunctional. Mexico is not even third world. We just hear a disproportionate of news from Mexico because of how close it is.
  - balthasar 9y ago
    its just sensationalist nonsense.
  - always_good 9y ago
    On one side, I [selfishly, unfairly] like that Americans are conditioned by the media to be so scared of Mexico. I almost never see other Americans here. I meet a lot of people day to day who just haven't spoken to an American that wasn't a Mexican-American. Those experiences are some of the most interesting you can have when traveling. But on the other side, that's not healthy for the people of either country. For example, I regularly meet Mexicans that think Americans hate them. And comments from the people who post in /r/the_donald regularly have me shaking my head muttering "poor sheltered bastard." Even HN commenters will talk about how they want to pull the trigger on leaving their boring office job and move to Chiang Mai, but that's a pretty incredible move. It's far away and with a much different culture and language, which is a cool thing but increases the chances that you just won't do it. Meanwhile I'd say I have a pretty exotic lifestyle living on nothing and I'm just a 2 hour flight from my family in Austin.
  - nordsieck 9y ago
    Mexico, which is not part of NATO and not subject to Russian hegemony, is by definition part of the Third World [0]. Colloquially, judging by its per capita GDP [1] and intentional homicide rate [2] it seems to fit right in with what people think of when they use the term "Third World". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
dfabulich 9y ago
Nils Gilman has a great article on this phenomenon https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/06/15/the-twin-insurgency/ https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/06/15/the-twin-in... 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 9y ago
  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.
djsumdog 9y ago
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: http://fightthefuture.org/article/america-and-the-mexican-drug-trade/ http://fightthefuture.org/article/america-and-the-mexican-dr...
- mythrwy 9y ago
  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.
  - ataturk 9y ago
    Yeah, seriously. One could argue that Venezuela is actually worse off without US involvement!
- cryptonector 9y ago
  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.
mythrwy 9y ago
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.
- big_youth 9y ago
  Acapulco is a warzone. It used to be a world renown tourist area but fell into chaos. Search youtube for the video where cartels attack the police headquarters and hotel where they were staying.
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    You can't blame the people for trying to do something about corrupt government and cartel violence. Problem is the whole "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" thing.
dpflan 9y ago
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." """
- digi_owl 9y ago
  I seem to have encountered similar notions when politicians have to face the people their decisions affect on a person to person level.
  - apatters 9y ago
    Can you elaborate?
    - dpflan 9y ago
      I think this is on-topic and exemplary with regard to trust in law makers/upholders/enactor: What comes to mind is video footage from the US of local meetings of reps with constituents in the US where the meetings are filled with the frustration of the constituents at the poor and short-sighted decision making by their representatives that would significantly affect the disaffected already - e.g. any anti "Obamacare" sentiment held by and voting against such things that would benefit their communities in the long run over short-sighted possibly political corruption based / greasing the wheels of the seemingly continuous seeking re-election that officials focus on over perhaps their duties to their constituents. So those would be examples of lack of trust or dissolving of trust emerging as the reps return home from the voting grounds of the capitol(s) to meet their constituents who are questioning the motives and decisions of their representatives who should be acting in their constituents best interested (or whatever campaign promises they used to build themselves up as electable/elected). (Let me know if this became too abstract, I just did not research and pull examples.)
      - deleted 9y ago
Parcissons 9y ago
Dont forget how it all ends- every libertarian paradise ends up a italy and greek engulfed in eternal city warfare.
DubiousPusher 9y ago
There's an excellent documentary about one of the first break away parapolice forces called Cartel Land.
marcoperaza 9y ago
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.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > 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.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    My understanding is that while many federal politicians are also compromised, the army is mostly clean.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > the army is mostly clean. That’s very much at odds with most of what I've seen, which is that both regional commands and the highest levels of authority in the army have shown corruption by and, especially at the regional level, direct intervention on behalf of cartels.
jxramos 9y ago
"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.
scotty79 9y ago
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.
- kilroy123 9y ago
  Depends what part of the country you're talking about. Big cities are still strict about laws, especially Mexico City. But yes, I tell people back home all the time, in a lot of ways it feels more free here than in the US. (I'm a gringo living in Mexico)
vadimberman 9y ago
Did they really "break away"? 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 9y ago
  One relevant detail was a town driving out the police force along with cartels, and replacing them with a militia.
Iv 9y ago
Quietly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EZLN 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.
baybal2 9y ago
O Americans, I would like you to keep it in mind that the only country than shares a land border with USA and is not a NATO member is Mexico. 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.

469 points by camtarn 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

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. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_L...

wz1000 9y ago
Similarly, Rojava and their role in Syria are barely mentioned by Western media.
- ChristianBundy 9y ago
  To be fair, this is true for all anarchist societies, as their stated goals are directly contrary to the goals of media conglomerates owned and managed by wealthy capitalists.
  - Danihan 9y ago
    Could you name a few of these that you're referring to? I'd love to read more.
    - Iv 9y ago
      I am not a specialist but these two (largely overlapping) lists provide a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#Lists_of_ungoverned_communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#Lists_of_ungoverned_co... There are also interesting things happening in Catalonia and the Basque country, but the limit between anarchy, direct democracy, autonomism is more blurry there. I would also add that another reason why they are not talked about too much in the media is because they keep quiet. They know that a small community has to live under the radar because a strong influx of newcomers could easily destroy them.
  - hutzlibu 9y ago
    But as far as I could see it, all anarchist society's still in effect acted as a state, no matter how much they said otherwise. And the rojava is not really anarchist afaik. (there is only a small anarchist group inside, of mostly foreigners) They are a independent Kurdish society in the first place. Then they have strong ties to marxism because of Pkk and their history, but lately more moderate federalism. But with the pressure from ISS and now turkey, they just accept any help they can get, so that's why they have hardcore marxists next to antimuslim fanatics next to regular (capitalist) american special forces. If it would not be cracy dangerous, I actually would like to see all that weird mix by myself ...
    - int_19h 9y ago
      They seem to be anarchist in a sense that they reject the notion of state as an organizational structure for their society.
- remind_me_again 9y ago
  I agree, although there were some "leaks" like the article published in Rolling Stone some months ago. The work of US is in kind of a stealth mode in Syria. US is in the process of a huge military build up and will use Kurds as cannon fodders, once more. History repeats. Poor Kurds, they think they are in this for a good cause.
grangerize 9y ago
The New York Times would never mention the EZLN. =)
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  Why not?
- matt4077 9y ago
  The New York Times has an archive of news and background on the Zapatista with hundreds of articles: https://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/zapatista-national-liberation-army https://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/zapatista-nationa...
  - sdenton4 9y ago
    Sure, but how many column inches did those articles occupy? And how does that compare to the number of column inches dedicated to consumer capitalist interests?! </chomsky>
    - stretchwithme 9y ago
      Probably a lot more for the general topic and very little for the very specific topic. As one would expect.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      The goalpost has now moved, and the new question is obviously impossible to answer. It's also worth noting that "consumer capitalist interests" is a term I've never heard and, more importantly, neither has Chomsky, who never used the term.
- schoen 9y ago
  They've reported on them dozens of times https://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/zapatista-national-liberation-army https://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/zapatista-nationa... though strangely apparently not between 2005 and 2017.
joveian 9y ago
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 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-on-roots-of.html http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2017/11/study-sheds-new-light-...
- saganus 9y ago
  The impression I have, coming from a host of different sources (by living here, reading newspapers, talking to people that live in those communities, etc) is that a lot of those towns do quite well thanks to their autonomy, but 1) it doesn't seem to scale past a certain community size 2) it leaves them vulnerable to aggression from rival groups that get in cahoots with narcos and other powerful people (caciques, etc), and when they ask for government help the response they get is along the lines of "well, you wanted to be autonomous, so now help yourself and don't ask for help". In many cases it's even been pretty well documented that the government itself funded these rival communities precisely to "punish them" and create conflict due to them "daring" to go independent. In any case, some communities have very interesting takes on how governance should be carried out. For example, some require people to serve in the "governance body" for a short period of time (I've read about 3-6 months in some cases) so that everyone gets to participate a few times at least and thus everyone's interests are fairly represented. Also, those positions are often unpaid as they are considered to be "your duty", i.e. it's the share of the load that you get to carry for living in such society, and so on. Unfortunately I can't link any sources since a lot of this info has been told to me in person and some I've read in obscure magazines, random blog articles or Mexican newspapers and such. I think the works of Eduardo Galeano [0], if you can find them translated, have some information on Zapatistas' government structure called "Caracoles" for example. It's an interesting topic to say the least. [0] https://ososabiouk.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/eduardo-galeano-and-the-zapatistas/ https://ososabiouk.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/eduardo-galeano-...

V2hLe0ThslzRaV2 9y ago

Anyone able to provide any context as to why the cartels would care about a town like this? 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.

24gttghh 9y ago
I would think laundering money through the export of avocados would be quite lucrative.
- brixon 9y ago
  It leaves the money with a distinct smell.
notfromhere 9y ago
Protection money. Cartels have more revenue streams than just drug trafficking. At this point, cartels want to control territory to prevent rival cartels from controlling territory. Less drug gang more fiefdom
- walterbell 9y ago
  How is their protection/tax rate calculated - revenue, profit, land size, number of people?
  - ptaipale 9y ago
    I'd guess more likely "pay as much as you can, and a bit more". A bit like the tax authorities in any country, but even more callous and without public scrutiny.
    - adrianratnapala 9y ago
      Pay as much as we can sustainably demand, given the political realities of this time and place. And you are right, that is exactly what all tax authorities do. It's important to get those political realities right.

javajosh 9y ago

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.

muninn_ 9y ago
In addition to legalizing drugs we should look to reduce drug usage itself. Nobody, period, should be doing heroin or cocaine or whatever. Legalization stops the punishment, which I am in favor of, but does not stop the underlying root cause which is the usage itself. Why do Americans seem to have a particular problem with drugs, why doesn't, Singapore, or Japan for example? Naturally they have their own issues but why don't they have an opioid or heroin crises?
jjawssd 9y ago
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. Source: http://www.whoismcafee.com/the-travel-guide/ http://www.whoismcafee.com/the-travel-guide/
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  I have been to enough developing countries to know that "the system" does not work. It's just a bunch of jackbooted thugs, who got lucky for some reason and somehow became police officers, extorting money from everyone because of some arbitrary state power entrusted in them. I've seen cops in Vietnam make hundreds of dollars a day in bribes, when the average Vietnamese person makes $5 per day. Sure, they're making a lot of that bribe money from tourists, but I can guarantee you that they're not reinvesting that money in the local community. There is no grace and humanity in these systems. It's greed, it's capitalism at its most pure, if you have the money, you can do whatever you want, as long as you don't draw the ire of the powers that be. It is not a fair system, the poor just get fucked over harder, why is the government worker going to process your paperwork faster when the person next to you is willing and able to pay more to get it done?

SamPutnam 9y ago

Government statistics show avocado exports now bring more money into the country than petroleum. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/06/mexico-considers-importing-avocados-as-global-demand-drives-up-prices https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/06/mexico-...

dekhn 9y ago
mexico nationalized its oil industry and mainly uses it for internal supply (their choice), so I don't think this is a really useful comparison.
- mullen 9y ago
  Mexico just mismanages it. They use it for Internal Supply because they have screwed up PEMEX so much they can't product enough oil for export.
  - kilroy123 9y ago
    Yes it's pretty crazy. They ship it to the US to be refined. Then they buy it back. Sounds like a huge bloated organization with little regards to efficiency. Source: dated a woman who worked there.
- Toast_25 9y ago
  It's recently been privatized.
  - onekorg 9y ago
    Yeah, last time I visited my hometown there were British Petroleum and Arco gas stations. They were offering slightly better prices than Pemex.
    - Toast_25 9y ago
      IME they've also been offering better quality, at least shell. Hopefully they'll also end the widespread practice of shorting customers.

known 9y ago

Reminds me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_state_petitions_for_secession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_state_petitions_for_seces...

simplicio 9y ago

Sort of similar to how the Mafia is thought to have arose from protection schemes for Sicily's valuable, but vulnerable lemon crop. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/mafia-lemons-citrus-sicily-economics https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/mafia-lemons-citrus-si...

hashkb 9y ago
Or, like, every paramilitary ruling a South American state.

balthasar 9y ago

Its crazy that one of the most dysfunctional third world countries borders the most powerful and prosperous. Weird huh?

sol_remmy 9y ago
Mexico is really not that dysfunctional. Mexico is not even third world. We just hear a disproportionate of news from Mexico because of how close it is.
- balthasar 9y ago
  its just sensationalist nonsense.
- always_good 9y ago
  On one side, I [selfishly, unfairly] like that Americans are conditioned by the media to be so scared of Mexico. I almost never see other Americans here. I meet a lot of people day to day who just haven't spoken to an American that wasn't a Mexican-American. Those experiences are some of the most interesting you can have when traveling. But on the other side, that's not healthy for the people of either country. For example, I regularly meet Mexicans that think Americans hate them. And comments from the people who post in /r/the_donald regularly have me shaking my head muttering "poor sheltered bastard." Even HN commenters will talk about how they want to pull the trigger on leaving their boring office job and move to Chiang Mai, but that's a pretty incredible move. It's far away and with a much different culture and language, which is a cool thing but increases the chances that you just won't do it. Meanwhile I'd say I have a pretty exotic lifestyle living on nothing and I'm just a 2 hour flight from my family in Austin.
- nordsieck 9y ago
  Mexico, which is not part of NATO and not subject to Russian hegemony, is by definition part of the Third World [0]. Colloquially, judging by its per capita GDP [1] and intentional homicide rate [2] it seems to fit right in with what people think of when they use the term "Third World". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

dfabulich 9y ago

Nils Gilman has a great article on this phenomenon https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/06/15/the-twin-insurgency/ https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/06/15/the-twin-in... 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 9y ago
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.

djsumdog 9y ago

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: http://fightthefuture.org/article/america-and-the-mexican-drug-trade/ http://fightthefuture.org/article/america-and-the-mexican-dr...

mythrwy 9y ago
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.
- ataturk 9y ago
  Yeah, seriously. One could argue that Venezuela is actually worse off without US involvement!
cryptonector 9y ago
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.

mythrwy 9y ago

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.

big_youth 9y ago
Acapulco is a warzone. It used to be a world renown tourist area but fell into chaos. Search youtube for the video where cartels attack the police headquarters and hotel where they were staying.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  You can't blame the people for trying to do something about corrupt government and cartel violence. Problem is the whole "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" thing.

dpflan 9y ago

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." """

digi_owl 9y ago
I seem to have encountered similar notions when politicians have to face the people their decisions affect on a person to person level.
- apatters 9y ago
  Can you elaborate?
  - dpflan 9y ago
    I think this is on-topic and exemplary with regard to trust in law makers/upholders/enactor: What comes to mind is video footage from the US of local meetings of reps with constituents in the US where the meetings are filled with the frustration of the constituents at the poor and short-sighted decision making by their representatives that would significantly affect the disaffected already - e.g. any anti "Obamacare" sentiment held by and voting against such things that would benefit their communities in the long run over short-sighted possibly political corruption based / greasing the wheels of the seemingly continuous seeking re-election that officials focus on over perhaps their duties to their constituents. So those would be examples of lack of trust or dissolving of trust emerging as the reps return home from the voting grounds of the capitol(s) to meet their constituents who are questioning the motives and decisions of their representatives who should be acting in their constituents best interested (or whatever campaign promises they used to build themselves up as electable/elected). (Let me know if this became too abstract, I just did not research and pull examples.)
    - deleted 9y ago

Parcissons 9y ago

Dont forget how it all ends- every libertarian paradise ends up a italy and greek engulfed in eternal city warfare.

DubiousPusher 9y ago

There's an excellent documentary about one of the first break away parapolice forces called Cartel Land.

marcoperaza 9y ago

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.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> 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.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  My understanding is that while many federal politicians are also compromised, the army is mostly clean.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > the army is mostly clean. That’s very much at odds with most of what I've seen, which is that both regional commands and the highest levels of authority in the army have shown corruption by and, especially at the regional level, direct intervention on behalf of cartels.

jxramos 9y ago

"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.

scotty79 9y ago

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.

kilroy123 9y ago
Depends what part of the country you're talking about. Big cities are still strict about laws, especially Mexico City. But yes, I tell people back home all the time, in a lot of ways it feels more free here than in the US. (I'm a gringo living in Mexico)

vadimberman 9y ago

Did they really "break away"? 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 9y ago
One relevant detail was a town driving out the police force along with cartels, and replacing them with a militia.

Iv 9y ago

Quietly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EZLN 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.

baybal2 9y ago

O Americans, I would like you to keep it in mind that the only country than shares a land border with USA and is not a NATO member is Mexico. 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.