Drug War Capitalism and Class Conflict in the Americas

Author(s):  
Horace A. Bartilow

This chapter argues that the drug war is a manifestation of class conflict in Latin America and the United States. The chapter is motivated by the following questions: Under what conditions is the drug war used to repress labor unions and, in the process, increase income inequality in Latin America? What political mechanisms in the United States create linkages among drug enforcement, income inequality, poverty, mass incarceration, and corporate capital accumulation? In answering these questions, the chapter discusses the relationships among U.S. counternarcotic aid, the repression of workers’ rights, and income inequality in Latin America and the relationship between drug enforcement and income inequality in the United States. The chapter estimates data for twenty-one countries from Latin America, covering 2003 to 2012 using a time-series cross section (TSCS) statistical model and estimates data for the United States, covering 2000 to 2012 using TSCS and structural equation modeling. The statistical results show that increasing levels of counternarcotic aid to Latin American governments increases income inequality when the rights of workers are increasingly repressed. And increasing levels of drug enforcement in the United States is associated with increasing levels of income inequality, poverty, mass incarceration and corporate revenues generated from prison labor.

Author(s):  
Horace A. Bartilow

This chapter is motivated by the following questions: Why do American policymakers continue to increase funding for a drug war that has failed to realize its objectives, and why do they consistently give greater priority to reducing the supply of illicit narcotics from foreign countries than reducing demand in the United States? In answering these questions, the chapter draws on theories of the state to highlight the role that corporate capital play in shaping the federal government’s budgetary allocations for drug enforcement. Congressional deliberations of Plan Colombia and the Mérida Initiative with Mexico serve as case studies to test pluralist, radical and elite theories of U.S. drug enforcement policy making. Radical and elite theories consistently explained the ways in which corporate power shaped the drug supply reduction strategies of Plan Colombia and the Mérida Initiative. Both theories also explain how these strategies justifies the provision of large government contracts to corporate members of the regime, how drug enforcement foreign aid is used to provide security for American oil companies that operate in Latin America, and how that aid is also used to market the defense industry’s military hardware to countries in the region to prosecute the drug war.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Temin ◽  

President Nixon replaced President Johnson’s War on Poverty with his War on Drugs in 1971. This new drug war was expanded by President Reagan and others to create mass incarceration. The United States currently has a higher percentage of its citizens incarcerated than any other industrial country. Although Blacks are only 13 percent of the population, they are 40 percent of the incarcerated. The literatures on the causes and effects of mass incarceration are largely distinct, and I combine them to show the effects of mass incarceration on racial integration. Racial prejudice produced mass incarceration, and mass incarceration now retards racial integration.


2020 ◽  
pp. 307-314
Author(s):  
Russell Crandall

This chapter talks about how U.S. anti-drug enforcement achieved a fully global reach in the post-9/11 “Age of Terror.” It refers to opaque anti-drug missions that first piloted in Latin America and then exported to Thailand, Canada, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East, at times without the knowledge or cooperation of the governments concerned. It also provides an overview of a landmark piece of legislation passed by the Congress in 2006 that expanded the scope of American officials' presumptive license abroad, giving U.S. counter-narcotics agents legal standing to pursue narcotics and terrorism crimes committed anywhere in the world. The chapter cites the explosion of cocaine consumption in Europe over the first fifteen years of the twenty-first century as the key motivation for the new legislation in the global war on drugs. It mentions three Malian nationals who had been arrested in their home country by U.S. federal agents and extradited to the United States under the 2006 rule.


2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Oliver

The disciplinary insurgency that created the academic field of social movement studies distinguished dissent from crime. This dichotomy has led the field to ignore the relation between the repression of dissent and the control of "ordinary" crime. There was massive repression in the wake of the Black riots of the 1960s that did not abate when the riots abated. The acceleration of the mass incarceration of African Americans in the United States after 1980 suggests the possibility that crime control and especially the drug war have had the consequence of repressing dissent among the poor. Social movement scholars have failed to recognize these trends as repression because of the theoretical turn that built too strong a conceptual wall between crime and dissent. Revisiting this dichotomy is essential for understanding repression today.


Author(s):  
Franklin E. Zimring

The phenomenal growth of penal confinement in the United States in the last quarter of the twentieth century is still a public policy mystery. Why did it happen when it happened? What explains the unprecedented magnitude of prison and jail expansion? Why are the current levels of penal confinement so very close to the all-time peak rate reached in 2007? What is the likely course of levels of penal confinement in the next generation of American life? Are there changes in government or policy that can avoid the prospect of mass incarceration as a chronic element of governance in the United States? This study is organized around four major concerns: What happened in the 33 years after 1973? Why did these extraordinary changes happen in that single generation? What is likely to happen to levels of penal confinement in the next three decades? What changes in law or practice might reduce this likely penal future?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document