16 ms·

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/2

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.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > they bill themselves as a magazine devoted to the idea of the nation-state And, moreover, one particular nation-state. But still, the scholarship you find in American Interest tends to be high quality. I can respect a sincere concern with quality argumentation, even if the reasoning is motivated and even if I don't entirely sympathize with that motivation. > 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 The second sentence is entirely accurate. However, the article doesn't claim that communists (or capitalists) of the 20th century were trying to nurture "the middle class". Rather, the article (carefully) claims: "virtually all states—whether capitalist or communist, industrialized or developmental, great power or post-colonial—aimed to legitimate themselves by serving the interests of middle classes whose size they sought to expand... Both capitalist and communist accumulation strategies were based on the nurturing of industrial laborers". I think the article's characterization is fair, in-so-far as you can say anything at all about such a broad group of political projects as "all capitalists and also all communists"! WRT your first sentence specifically, the communist project did aim to "nurture" industrial laborers; the purported means was abolishing class, of course, but all the same.
- nyolfen 9y ago
  looking for laudatory articles about rojava in a magazine called 'the american interest' is a bizarre proposition to begin with
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  > 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. Precisely. And the Communists did one thing grossly wrong - they substituted the Capitalist class with the Communist "Elite". It was from an older owner to a newer owner. The people saw little difference in who they were required to work for. A new Communist thought is that of worker collectives. The idea is that they are better than unions, with the capitalist class continually picking and clawing at any reforms. With a worker cooperative, the owners and managers are the very workers which eliminates that avenue of strife. And it is one step closer to the proletariat owning the means to production.
narrator 9y ago
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.
- digi_owl 9y ago
  Then again the notion of religion and state as two separate entities is a fairly new one. Dig far enough back into the texts of most religions and you find that they have sections that are old laws dealing with everyday domestic quarrels.
  - bovermyer 9y ago
    Considering that religion from the relevant eras was largely a mechanism of control (or, less ominously, societal orchestration), this is not surprising. I'd very much like to read an exploration of the relationship between the rise of irreligious social constructs and the decline of the importance of religion in modern states.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    You don't need to go any further that "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." to see the principle of separation of church and state laid in a religious text. Not that it was ever followed in practice in the centuries that followed.
    - scardine 9y ago
      If I'm not mistaken this is found only in the book by the apostole who was a tax collector for Caesar. :-)
      - krapp 9y ago
        ...still canon.
frozenport 9y ago
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.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> 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.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  They've become powerful because they turned to crime, rather than starting out that way by inheritance or corporate affiliation.
ashleyn 9y ago
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.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  Selfless leaders elected by informed and educated masses, of course! And many proposed social obligations flow from the desire to create such a society
acjohnson55 9y ago
This dynamic doesn't seem particularly novel. The stable nation-state is the novel part.

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.

throwawayjava 9y ago
> they bill themselves as a magazine devoted to the idea of the nation-state And, moreover, one particular nation-state. But still, the scholarship you find in American Interest tends to be high quality. I can respect a sincere concern with quality argumentation, even if the reasoning is motivated and even if I don't entirely sympathize with that motivation. > 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 The second sentence is entirely accurate. However, the article doesn't claim that communists (or capitalists) of the 20th century were trying to nurture "the middle class". Rather, the article (carefully) claims: "virtually all states—whether capitalist or communist, industrialized or developmental, great power or post-colonial—aimed to legitimate themselves by serving the interests of middle classes whose size they sought to expand... Both capitalist and communist accumulation strategies were based on the nurturing of industrial laborers". I think the article's characterization is fair, in-so-far as you can say anything at all about such a broad group of political projects as "all capitalists and also all communists"! WRT your first sentence specifically, the communist project did aim to "nurture" industrial laborers; the purported means was abolishing class, of course, but all the same.
nyolfen 9y ago
looking for laudatory articles about rojava in a magazine called 'the american interest' is a bizarre proposition to begin with
crankylinuxuser 9y ago
> 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. Precisely. And the Communists did one thing grossly wrong - they substituted the Capitalist class with the Communist "Elite". It was from an older owner to a newer owner. The people saw little difference in who they were required to work for. A new Communist thought is that of worker collectives. The idea is that they are better than unions, with the capitalist class continually picking and clawing at any reforms. With a worker cooperative, the owners and managers are the very workers which eliminates that avenue of strife. And it is one step closer to the proletariat owning the means to production.

narrator 9y ago

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.

digi_owl 9y ago
Then again the notion of religion and state as two separate entities is a fairly new one. Dig far enough back into the texts of most religions and you find that they have sections that are old laws dealing with everyday domestic quarrels.
- bovermyer 9y ago
  Considering that religion from the relevant eras was largely a mechanism of control (or, less ominously, societal orchestration), this is not surprising. I'd very much like to read an exploration of the relationship between the rise of irreligious social constructs and the decline of the importance of religion in modern states.
- andrepd 9y ago
  You don't need to go any further that "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." to see the principle of separation of church and state laid in a religious text. Not that it was ever followed in practice in the centuries that followed.
  - scardine 9y ago
    If I'm not mistaken this is found only in the book by the apostole who was a tax collector for Caesar. :-)
    - krapp 9y ago
      ...still canon.

frozenport 9y ago

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.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

> 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.

anigbrowl 9y ago
They've become powerful because they turned to crime, rather than starting out that way by inheritance or corporate affiliation.

ashleyn 9y ago

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.

throwawayjava 9y ago
Selfless leaders elected by informed and educated masses, of course! And many proposed social obligations flow from the desire to create such a society

acjohnson55 9y ago

This dynamic doesn't seem particularly novel. The stable nation-state is the novel part.