4 ms·
These gangs are states. We can tell this because they have monopolies on violence.
by inigyou 3mo ago
These gangs are states. We can tell this because they have monopolies on violence.
- arjie 3mo agoThe entire reason there is any conflict there is a lack of a monopoly on violence… The monopoly part is significant. It’s not just “doing a lot of”.
- cucumber3732842 3mo agoThe conflict isn't because of the lack of monopoly. The conflict and lack of monopoly are because whoever as the closest thing to a monopoly is doing such a bad job.
- gibbitz 3mo agoIn this case it's like cable TV. Only not a monopoly if you look at the whole country...
- threatofrain 3mo agoI don't think you need total control, just enough so that you're the go-to party for diplomatic and military negotiations in the geopolitical region.
- inigyou 3mo agoSo Russia isn't a state?
- psionides 3mo agoPersonally I would prefer no violence from either side…
- ahartmetz 3mo agoThe state monopoly on violence (+ a judicial system) tends to result in a low amount of violence... at least intra-state. Wars are another matter. Notably, there is no monopoly on violence between states. States are allowed and somewhat expected to be violent psychopaths externally.
- scarecrowbob 3mo agoInternally as well, given what happens to any push back against law enforcement where I live- in the US, at least, if you try to defend yourself against state violence you'll be summarily executed in the street.
- moralestapia 3mo agoPersonally, I would prefer 10B USD liquid and tax-free
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- zhoBEENG 3mo agoYou are completely correct. As much as many people don´t want to hear it, Mexico is a failing state. It´s extremely obvious when you are there that the United Mexican States lost most of the reins some time ago. It started with the debt crisis, and its causes, but was definitively realized by 1994 when the Zapatistas took much of Chiapas. Too much emphasis is put on the drug cartels alone, when the problem is much larger. I suspect by the end of the century maps will no longer show Mexico in its current form.
- alephnerd 3mo agoIdk. I'd probably put it the other way - part of the state turned into gangs. Most of the core leadership of major cartels who haven't been arrested were mid-level officers in the DFS (Mexico's version of Italy's SID and Turkey's MIT from Operation Gladio days). And what is interesting isn't the narcos who are arrested and indicted by the DoJ, but those who are arrested and then let go. The story of Salvador Cienfuegos is a good example of that - arrested by the DEA on drug charges that were sealed while being Defense Minister, but charges were dropped for diplomatic reasons [0] or the DEA's investigation into AMLO in the 2000s and 2010s that was eventually dropped [1]. Meanwhile, giants like El Chapo or El Viceroy were successfully extradited or in the case of El Mencho killed. To me, it feels like "untouchables" like Cienfuegos, Adán Augusto López, and Marcelo Ebrard or established networks even above them are likely running the show. Sort of like how the KGB broke bad in the 90s or the Turkish military in the 1980s-2000s or the KCIA before Korea democratized in the 1990s or how leaders in the vice industry in Thailand tend to be associated with military leadership or how both the IRA and Protestant paramilitaries turned into drug cartels in North Ireland. I also don't think it's a party ideological thing - PRI, PAN, and now MORENA have the same mid- and upper-level people. [0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/magazine/mexico-general-cienfuegos.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/magazine/mexico-general-c... [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/world/americas/mexico-president-drug-cartel.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/world/americas/mexico-pre...
- ifwinterco 3mo agoReminds me of when ISIS was at its peak a few years ago and the BBC and all other news in the UK would always prefix it with “the so-called Islamic State”. Like… no, it was a state. It had borders, it had a monopoly on violence within those borders, it collected taxes, it provided some public services. Whether it offended the BBC’s sensibilities or not, it was a state
- BobaFloutist 3mo agoAre you sure that the "so-called" was addressing the claim of statehood, and not of being Muslim?
- ButlerianJihad 3mo agoThe international community does not merely use dictionary definitions. If the government of the UK, in consensus with other neighbors and member states, cannot or chooses not to recognize sovereignty of some entity, then “so-called” is the best they can do. Unfortunately this gives commoners tunnel-vision, because yes: if there are entities in Mexico that have qualities like nation-states, and even function more like this than the constitutional government, the media and the diplomatic corps are prevented from promoting the dictionary definition of “state” to apply it to unrecognized entities. As siblings point out, when the corruption and gang activity is more or less integrated into state apparatus, they are overlapping in function and identity, and so a “shadow state” status emerges with unelected leaders, unwritten laws, and street justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Declaration_of_the_Independence_of_Cyberspace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Declaration_of_the_Independe...
- ASalazarMX 3mo agoThey are not states, but a tool of regional political groups. They do the illegal things politicians in power avoid if they want to maintain the facade. They don't have the monopoly of violence, they're intentionally allowed to act without serious retaliation. Very relevant book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Cartels_Do_Not_Exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Cartels_Do_Not_Exist