Remix.run Logo
inigyou 2 hours ago

These gangs are states. We can tell this because they have monopolies on violence.

arjie 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The 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”.

threatofrain an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I 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.

gibbitz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In this case it's like cable TV. Only not a monopoly if you look at the whole country...

psionides 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Personally I would prefer no violence from either side…

ahartmetz 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The 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.

moralestapia 21 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Personally, I would prefer 10B USD liquid and tax-free

cucumber3732842 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The 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.

inigyou an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

So Russia isn't a state?

ifwinterco 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Reminds 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

zhoBEENG an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You 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 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'd put it the other way - 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]. 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.

[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/magazine/mexico-general-c...

an hour ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]