The Afghan countryside is certainly a good example of an agrarian society plagued by gangsterism/warlordism. In fact I think it's safe to say that in many societies modernism's main contribution to gangsterism has been the Kalashnikov.
Because the central story of Islam is the unification of Warlord tribes, I think it's interesting that Radical Islamism has become the purveyor of a culture of warlordism.
boddi
On 12/29/05, Wojtek Sokolowski <wsokol52 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> There are many woes of the neo-liberal world order
> that various doomsayers muster to keep thier belief
> that there is, after all, a light at the end of the
> tunnel: the bursting of the bubble, economic collapse,
> energy crisis, environmental catastrophe, etc. There
> is however, one much more obvious and real woe they
> seem to miss – the rise of gangsterism.
>
> To be sure many lefties thus far tend to like
> gangsterism, because it gives them the thrill of
> throwing a monkey wrench into the mainstream society
> without threatening their own safe place in that
> society. But that may change as gangsterism become a
> more serious threat to everyone, which is likely to
> happen way before we run out of oil and the economy
> cum environment collapses upon us. Remember, you
> heard it first here.
>
> To be sure, neo-liberalism does not create
> gangsterism, which is a byproduct of modernization.
> But neo-liberalism makes it much more difficult to
> contain gangsterism, especially at the time when the
> largest parts of human population are threatened by
> it.
>
> To look at the genesis of gangsterism let's start with
> Marx's observations made in his comments on the
> British rule in India that capitalist
> industrialization dissolves the existing pre-modern
> social structures, thus creating the room for a new –
> presumably proletarian – order to emerge. The hope
> that uprooted villagers will turned into industrial
> proletarians, a progressive social force, was based on
> a heroic assumption that all the uprooted rural masses
> can be absorbed into the sphere of industrial
> production. In reality, however, only a small portion
> of the uprooted pre-modern masses become proletariat.
> The majority does not – and becomes either a reserved
> army of the unemployed or worse yet the unemployable
> lumpenproletariat.
>
> Perhaps the key outcome of such uprooting of a large
> number of people is the destruction of social norms
> and controls that governed rural and pre-modern
> societies. If those backward and oft oppressive norms
> are replaced with modern ones, e.g. socialist set of
> values, that is perfect. However, if they are
> replaced with nothing, they create a state of nihilism
> that leads to gangsterism. Gangsterism is basically
> ur-society, a primitive form of social organization
> where individualism runs amok and status and respect
> in the group is built mainly on brute force and terror
> inflicted on others.
>
> As I already said, neo-liberalism does not create
> gangsterism, modernization does. In fact gangsterism
> was a big problem in socialist countries of Eastern
> Europe, especially in the early stages of
> industrialization. The gangs of young males
> terrorizing cities were quite rampant in the early
> 1950s in Poland, and also dealt with quite brutally by
> the security forces. Similar problems existed in
> other EE countries, although the data on the
> phenomenon are quite sketchy due to the unreliability
> of statistics from that period.
>
> However, socialist countries did something very unique
> that no bourgeois country is capable of doing –
> instilling a socialist value system in the uprooted
> populace. The uniqueness of the EE socialism was that
> it was a blend of traditionalism and modernism that
> was palatable to the uprooted rural masses. By
> contrast, bourgeois modernism, emphasizing formal
> rules of governance and abstract legal principles, is
> much less palatable. The EE socialism combined
> peasant collectivism, solidarity and informal norms,
> sanctions, and problem solving, with the best elements
> of bourgeois social order: belief in scientific
> rationality and technological progress, appreciation
> of high arts and culture, equal opportunity, and
> urbanism.
>
> Of course, this solution was not perfect. Informality
> created a "shadow economy" that had a destabilizing
> effect on the legitimate social institutions – as it
> is well documented in literature. A large chunk of
> the population (difficult to judge the size, but I
> would venture to say about 10% of the total population
> of 38 million in Poland) was "left behind" and
> warehoused as laborers on state-owned farms or state
> owned enterprises. This was basically a delinquent
> group with little social or technical skills allowing
> it to function in the mainstream society. However,
> despite their delinquency, petty criminality, domestic
> violence, and rampant substance abuse (mainly alcohol)
> they seldom turned into gangsterism. The main reason,
> imho, was socialist social policy of warehousing these
> people – providing them with social minimum, in the
> form of marginal employment, disability pensions (most
> of them qualified due to alcohol abuse, violence and
> unhealthy life styles), and public housing.
>
> Of course, these socialist social policy was first to
> go after the neo-liberal "reforms" – which basically
> pushed that "warehoused" dysfunctional population into
> chronic unemployment and criminality. Today, high
> unemployment (nearly 20%) and high crime are two main
> woes that haunt the post-communist Poland. I
> understand that other "post-communist" countries have
> similar problems, especially Russia and China, and for
> the same reasons.
>
> This contrast supports my claim that socialism was
> better equipped to solve the problem of uprootedness
> and gangsterism created by modernization, than the
> neo-liberal social order is. While the socialist
> solutions were not perfect (warehousing of chronically
> delinquent elements of society is hardly a solution),
> but they at leas offered reasonable social stability
> and a prospect of gradual improvement over time.
>
> Today modernization uproots the unprecedented number
> of peoples in the Third world – the numbers that far
> exceed those of European modernization. At the same
> time, however, the neo-liberal policies eliminate and
> undercut socialist ideas, and with them socialist ways
> of dealing with uprootedness. As a result, we seen
> unprecedented explosion of gangsterism around the
> world, especially in Africa where it became a serious
> threat to social order.
>
> Threatening the social order is a serious problem, but
> not the only one created by the spread of gangsterism.
> Power abhors vacuum, and gangster groups are often
> used as tools in various power games: from
> narco-trafficking, to organized crime, to political
> insurgency, and to terrorism. As the neo-liberalism
> progresses and destroys social institutions that used
> to dampen the adverse social effects of modernization,
> the uprooted masses are more likely to turn to
> gangsterism, and drawn to organized crime and
> terrorism.
>
> As this problem starts threatening the stability of
> Western societies – the neo-liberal response to that
> threat is that aptly summarized by Adolf Hitler in the
> phrase "responsibility towards above, authority
> towards below." As the neo-liberal state becomes more
> and more deferential towards business elites, it will
> become more and more authoritarian towards the rest of
> the society. And the cherished "western democracies"
> themselves will become what is now ubiquitous in
> countries like South Africa – gated communities
> surrounded by walls and electric fences, protected by
> security guards who promise to provide "armed response
> within 10 minutes" – as the signs on the perimeter of
> these upper class encampments advertise.
>
> This is a far more real threat than a global economic
> collapse, running out of oil, or environmental
> catastrophe. However, with the dismissal of socialism
> and neo-liberal takeover of policy discourse in most
> countries our ability as a society to deal with this
> problem is rapidly diminishing. And there seems to be
> very relief on the horizon, because the economic and
> political elites that engineered the neo-liberal coup
> adopted the "after me, deluge" attitude to all social
> problems, and will embrace the fascist state and gated
> communities rather than allow to reverse the
> neo-liberal policies that gave them their wealth and
> power.
>
> Basically, we are heading toward a society of gated
> islands for the wealthy protected by super-armed
> security forces, surrounded by the sea of those "left
> behind" tormented by poverty, uncertainty and armed
> gangs. It is already happening in Africa – the
> weakest link of the neo-liberal world order, and it is
> soon coming to the theater near you. Happy new year,
> everyone.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>