Coherent Gibberish
by tdaxp ~ January 21st, 2007
Robb, J. (2007). Davos Irrelevant? John Robb’s Weblog. January 17, 2007. Available online: http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/johnrobb/2007/01/davos_irrelevan.html [also at Davos Conversation and Free Press].
Nothing sums of the internally-consistent nonsense of Global Guerrillas and John Robb (the blogs) more than this post:
With global economy running itself (where it is going, nobody has a clue), bottoms up organizations are forming to solve local and global needs, and states being pushed to margins, you can’t help but get the sense that Davos is hideously anachronistic — from a seemingly long ago time when big ideas, big people, and big states ruled the world.
Like most of the rest of what John Robb writes, this is fourth-rate gibberish.
Consistency is a virtue, and Robb (the theorist) should be praised for it. While other writers might be tempted to change what they write to reflect something of what goes on in the world, global guerrillas (the theory) betrays no such reflex. Global Gorrillas Theory, like Aristotle’s theories, are completely free from worldly matters like observation, explanatory power, and falsification. Like some ancient philosophy free of empirical observations, Global Gorillas is a gift to the ages, because it remains equally worthless in all times in all places.
To go back to the post mentioned above: the World Economic Forum typically held in Davos, Switzerland, is a yearly gathering of influential and powerful people, and the obligatory hangers-on. It may be as benign as an place for debate and discussion among people who can operationalize ideas in the real world, or as hideous as a kleptocratic conclave of the rich and powerful. A basic understanding of human nature implies it is probably both.
In the real world, people can be motivated by learned goals. But not in Robb’s. After all, big ideas are hideously anachronistic. In the real world, some people are supernodes who hold greater influence than others. But not in Robb’s. After all, big people are hideously anarchistic. In the real world, the actions of powerful countries can set regional and system-level rules. But not in Robb’s. After all, big states are hideously anachronistic.
Again, such gibberish is perfectly consistent with the rest of what Robb has written. His “global guerrillas” exist entirely free of motivation and economics, altruistically sacrifice their lives, times, and materials to wear down the economies of big states. Why would they do this? How can they succeed, as they are putting their west point (lack of resources) against the strongest point of their enemies (the wealth of resources owned by the now-anachronistic big ideas, big states, and big actors). It doesn’t matter.
This is fully consistent with other aspects of “global guerrillas theory.” In scientific usage, “theory” implies some prediction should be made. But GGT doesn’t make predictions. In regular usage, “theory” implies the ability to explain something that has already happened. But GGT doesn’t explain the past. A full and complete understand of global guerrillas theory neither explains the past nor predicts the future. Global Guerrilla theory is, in the truest sense of the word, useless.
I have never read anything that implies that Global Guerrillas Theory is anything other than coherent gibberish. Perhaps Robb’s book will begin the process of matching his theorizing with real events in the real world. But I doubt it.
January 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Robb's theories are an interesting way to view the world, just as cyberpunk novels and Brithpop lyrics [1] are. That doesn't mean they have any predictive power, or that are Global Guerrillas the theory or Gorillaz the band is intself part of serious discourse. If Robb's sole goal is write blank verse that will be of cryptic use in the future, then he's succeeded. But if his goal is to be a Barnett, or a Richards, or a Boyd, or a Lawrence, or someone of that caliber — if he wants to be useful — he has some distance to go.
Perhaps his blog posts are an accurate reflection of a coherent theory, and his (relative) unwillingness to engage in conversation merely limits the intelligibility of his ideas.
Perhaps he's holding back, and our questions will be answered in his upcoming book
Perhaps there is nothing there.
What strikes me, though, is considering that Britpop and cyberpunk novels seems to have just as many “interesting” ideas as Robb's theory, why are Robb's theories taken seriously while cyberpunk rarely is?
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/02/25/guerrillaz-a-tdaxp-series.html
January 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
On second thought: Although metaphorizing comes naturally to me, I'm not really all that happy with my characterizations of Robb — puppetmaster, prophet — since, although they do express accurately my thoughts about the way GG theory has been presented on his website, and they point at whatever sort of guesswork I can make of the Mover behind those blogs, they are by no means the whole picture, or the whole guess.
I'll be buying the book, for sure. Perhaps he doesn't want to preempt it on his blogs. What he needs to do on his blogs eventually, whether he's done so in the book or not, is begin to address what can be done to preempt the widespread emergence of GG he appears to predict. Else, his whole theory comes off as some sort of 4GW effort, itself: “Just give up; it's useless!” Perhaps even a self-fulfilling prophecy, since he is delivering a strategy to would-be GGs. But he tends to talk only about emergence — GG's will emerge, black globalization will emerge, local self-sufficient and self-securing city-states will emerge, and so forth. When he introduces an idea of something to be done, and willfully done, to fight the Great Collapse, it is in the abstract; such as, 'radical transparency.' He gives a great vision of Doom; but to prescribe Salvation he would need to begin considering the weaknesses of Global Guerrillas — something I don't think he's willing to do, by all evidence currently available — and how those weaknesses can be exploited.
Until he does, others across the Blogosphere will continue to try to to fill that void — either to fight the “GG” 4GW Robb is waging, or to fight a very real threat he is trying to describe.
January 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
OK, Curtis
I understand what you're saying. Like I said earlier, I think most of the anti Robb criticism is motivated by people who don't like the conclusion rather than by people who are seeing contradictory evidence appearing.
I, personally, don't see Robb as all that pessimistic. I don't think he believes that order in general is doomed. He just doesn't believe in a particular kind of order : that which is that imposed from another country, top-down, by military and other bureaucratic means. (In other words, interventionist projects of both the neocon and Barnettist flavour.)
In fact, I think the best way to read Robb is as a kind of libertarian “minarchist” without the naivity. He thinks a minarchy (or market state) is coming, (inevitably), and probably approves in principle, but he can see that there's going to be suffering on the way and people who will lose out by it.
As to your other questions, I imagine the reason that a religious fundamentalist faction believe that their kind of order will have more stability than the nation-state system is that they believe it's ordained by God. I'm not saying that GGs are *smart* or necessarily thinking the whole thing through. I'm just saying that they have a world view with absolutely does NOT require that they eventually realize that they're better off with the kind of nation-state that we'd like to put into Iraq. Which still seems to me to be what the argument against Robb seems to be based on.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“Curious that people are attacking Robb for sounding like 80s cyberpunk”
That was not a criticism, let alone an attack. It is part of what makes Robb a gripping writer, even when I don't agree with him.
January 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“The world is undergoing mass extinctions, deforestation, climate change and a dozen other global catastrophes that are directly caused by the way we organize modern life.”
I once pondered [1],
“What I wonder, though, is this: Why is it that Robb and so many of the believers in GG can see clearly that 'order' is doomed or at least quite disadvantaged in that future World of Unending Chaos, but his GG's will still have enough faith in their ability to establish their own precious rule-sets that they actually get out of bed early to go out and fight?”
If GG's are only concerned with local “success”, how are you going to narrow down success to include no need for oil/gasoline, electricity and refrigeration, food, clean water, and so forth? Or will all that drop as manna from the sky, abundantly available on the local scale and not likely to be threatened by large systems disruptions globally? — even given the Doom and Gloom of Approaching Global Warming Catastrophe ™?
You seem to be arguing that we are reaching Doomsday, that so many ignorant people (unlike JR, who like a prophet of old can see all that occurs and will occur), will sit around playing their Playstation 3's — and, shadow-playing once mass electrical outages start happinging — until a pivot is reached and “It's too late!”
On what basis would you make that claim, that such a thing as “too late” is inevitable, a singularity after which order is forever banished from the Earth?
[1] http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/10/barnett_and_robb.php#comment-1472
January 28th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
“I disagree. Robb's theory falls apart if one believes in emergent systems. Or rather, Global Guerrilla Theory stops being effective if one believes that order scales (emerges) well.”
Well, I may have to choose my words better, but I'll disagree with this. I may have been using the word “emergent” a bit loosely, but the general phenomena which people are interested in under whatever name you like : “emergence”, “non-linear dynamics” “complex systems” takes account of both spontaneous order *and* spontaneous disorder. They are two sides of the same coin. Phase transitions between more and less ordered states happen due to tiny fluctuations at the microscopic level. And they can go both ways : nuclear explosions, sudden traffic jams, mass extinctions etc. are all examples of complex systems going over a threshold and becoming spectacularly less ordered. Sure there's a lot of spontaneous order in nature and human institutions. It's beautiful and intriguing, but it doesn't somehow protect us from disorder.
“Global guerrillas are defined not for a desire for victory but by a desire for state-defeat.”
I think we need Robb's own position on this. It's not how I read him.
In the story you link to he doesn't say that they don't want victory, he says that they don't want to take over and become the Iraqi state. They may still want victory for their kind of order. Which just happens to be a non-state network.
It sounds like you are saying that GGs have to recognise that they are symbiotically dependent on a nation-state and so, at the end, they won't destroy the state entirely. To which there are two obvious responses :
1) do they need to be symbiotic with a state? I don't think the Caliphate needs to be. And we may have to look for evidence from Somalia etc. for whether criminal gangs can survive without states. I'd have thought some kinds can survive as parasites on types of order which are very different from our current one.
2) Even if they do need a nation-state, I'm not sure why you think they will necessarily be *aware* of this. Or where you get your optimistic : “GG theory is wrong because obviously people will not fall asleep and dream that the destruction of the state is more important than their local gains.”
The world is undergoing mass extinctions, deforestation, climate change and a dozen other global catastrophes that are directly caused by the way we organize modern life. And I see plenty of people sleeping on those facts. (Or misleading themselves and each other about them.) It's just “tragedy of the commons”. Humans are dumb enough to fall for them all the time.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
“The things that you say are occurring in other domains cannot be translated to GG theory; violence & destruction cannot be equated to creativity & building as motivators and a foundation for viable open-source initiatives, markets (black or otherwise), and so forth.”
Exactly right. Nihlism is not a grand organizing principle. Global guerillaism will not work if its goal is state-collapse. Which leads to me Mr. Jones' comment…
Phil,
“All Robb needs is a) a belief in “emergence” : ie. that the sum of small actions add up to a whole greater or different from the intentions of the individuals”
I disagree. Robb's theory falls apart if one believes in emergent systems. Or rather, Global Guerrilla Theory stops being effective if one believes that order scales (emerges) well. His theory that the bazaar of violence is stable, for example, would be invalid if order emerges out of complex social interactions. See my reply to TDL on the subject [1]
“b) an assumption of “primary loyalties” that people are more concerned with the local victory of their gang or tribe or religious group than with their nation state.”
Incomplete. If a group wishes victory for their primary loyalty they cannot be a global guerrilla. Global guerrillas are defined not for a desire for victory but by a desire for state-defeat. This requires a large degree of negative altruism that simply doesn't exist.
Because Robb mentions that “Some of these networks would focus on the development of a feudal Caliphate while others would emphasis criminal enterprise,” [3] take each of these in turn. Is the Sicilian Mafia or the Japanese Yakuza, or the Chinese Triads, primarily concerned with the collapse of New York, Osaka, and Hong Kong police forces? Of course not! They are primarily concerned with their own success. Organized crime operates as an arm of the greater State, where the criminal network insources certain market niches (from prostitution and gambling to local patrol). Those rare attempts where organized gangs directly attack the state are examples where the organized gangs attempt to become the state. Organized crime is not interested in state takedown, only state subversion (to redirect some rents from the state to thsemelves) to state take-over
But there are also ideological groups, such as the violent Islamists. While these group locally attack a state (for example, the war in Iraq) their greater goal is the establishment of an extremely strong state. Islamist victories in Afghanistan and Somalia saw the rapid development of a totalitarian infrastructure which exceeded the order the previous government was able to provide. Every previous radical organization (the Communists, the fascists, and even the supposed Anarchists) follow the same structure.
“It seems you think that GG theory is wrong because *obviously* people will wake up and see that the wider costs outweigh the local gains.”
GG theory is wrong because obviously people will not fall asleep and dream that the destruction of the state is more important than their local gains.
PS: How about links to this thread on Phatic Communion or Platform Wars? :-p
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/01/27/elements-of-global-guerrilla-theory.html
[2] http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2005/11/journal_insurge.html
January 28th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Hmmm,
I don't see how the situation in Nigeria is solely about “cash, pride and women” – there is an openly made claim to want to reap a fairer share of the benefits from the oil industry (and resources) in the area and to end, or at least lessen, the destruction to the environment and food/water sources. I see a larger motivation than just the 'me, me, me' of a common thug. That said, of course they aren't insurgents either. They seem to have only a secondary grievance with the Nigerian government – complicity with the large multi-national oil companies which are the main target of their disaffection and violence.
The bunkering going on is a cash-cow enterprise, but, thus far it seems to have financed speed boats and weapons and such rather than better housing or water purification. The former are tools to cause the eventuality of the latter. Bunkering seems to be a means to a larger end – not something they see as that great in itself. Indeed, it's bad for their environment and food supply – something they seek to better. If it were just a case of pride, cash and women, MEND would just perfect and expand bunkering operations and not invite trouble by getting involved with any other aims or ideas.
I don't see that GGs must have state defeat as their ultimate goal. If we accept that some GG theory is going on here, it looks like they're more against Shell and Exxon-Mobil and only secondarily against the government.
As to the systempunkt attack idea… Could happen. MEND is planning for it. I think it's just a matter of time until the scale of attacks enters the horribly disruptive. Hopefully not. We'll see.
More generally, I see value in Robb's GG theory. I don't think it's perfect, but I do see it as a way to define and discuss phenomena peculiar to our world right now in an interesting way. I look forward to his book as well. As to how well he fleshes things out, we'll see. It helps me to remember that 'a rose by any other name…' and that even the 'experts' have trouble with basic 'definitions' sometimes. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/display-papers.cfm?q=234
Isaac
January 28th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis, thanks for the clarification. But I really don't see 'the diference” as being all that great. If a bunch of bloggers co-ordinate to expose Trent Lott or Dan Rather, then they create one kind of order : hopefully a more civilized society or honest media, but they destroy another : the careers and reputation of those individuals. A great, free operating system smashes Microsoft's hegemony on the desktop and may create a chaos of competing standards.
Creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin.
I think we're falling for our own caractature of Iraqi “insurgents” if we believe they are nihilistic and have no constructive hopes (even if misguided ones) behind their destructive actions. And that's certainly not required for GG theory. Robb describes techniques of destruction but doesn't need nihilism. All Robb needs is a) a belief in “emergence” : ie. that the sum of small actions add up to a whole greater or different from the intentions of the individuals, and b) an assumption of “primary loyalties” that people are more concerned with the local victory of their gang or tribe or religious group than with their nation state.
I don't have to be nihilist to make a perfectly rational decision that siding with the local militia from our mosque (and helping to kill national police) gives my family more status and security in our neighbourhood over the next few months than if I tried to join the national police, risked getting blown up at the recruitment office, and tried to help crack down on that same local militia.
It seems you think that GG theory is wrong because *obviously* people will wake up and see that the wider costs outweigh the local gains. But equally obviously, we in the core ought to wake up and see that rampant consumerism is leading us to environmental destruction, or that driving our car today will lead to urban congestion. The truth is that humans always and everywhere are pretty *bad* at recognising the negative global consequences of their local actions. I wouldn't bet against Global Guerrillas on those grounds.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Phil,
I began a comment quoting several sections of yours, but the number of quotes grew too long, and I realized that I'd respond better if I summarized “The Difference” you do not see. All the examples you give, from business to open-source software to blogs and so forth, are examples of various groups and/or individuals attempting to **build order**. The order may be a different order than previously existed, the order may be different for each individual, but at the end of the day, it's all about building order. While competition occurs and attacks between individuals and groups may occur, these fighters in the business and social sphere finish their days by seeing if they are any closer to the order for which they are aiming; increasing chaos which threatens to spin out of control and totally destroy any chance for building a resilient order would inspire a revision of activities — for all but those psychopaths who only care about destruction, i.e., for all but a very small minority — which would require scaling back aggressions, working harmoniously even with many former enemies, helping complete strangers, building alliances, protecting previous gains and reducing risk, and so forth. Escalations may occur, but as they prove futile (i.e., more chaos results or in fact the opposing orders gain by it, rather than a desired re-ordering), most people will not fight 'to the death' merely to prove a point.
The things that you say are occurring in other domains cannot be translated to GG theory; violence & destruction cannot be equated to creativity & building as motivators and a foundation for viable open-source initiatives, markets (black or otherwise), and so forth. Not even if you look only on the individual level of the players involved. Robb's assumptions behind GG require believing that none of the GGs nor anyone else will see what's happening (increasing chaos, loss of beneficial systems and networks, and so forth.) He requires mindless things to conduct his warfare. Sometimes, I think he wants them to be puppets while he is the puppetmaster, who assures them that if they only blindly follow his prescriptions they can't help but 'win' — and for others, that they should just give up and let his puppet GG win. But I suspect such blind faith in sufficient numbers of GG will not unfold, and Robb will be left holding so many baseless strings.
January 27th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
I honestly don't see why you have so much trouble with this. What Robb is doing is taking a discourse which is common and widely accepted (almost a truism) in other spheres such as business and sociology and applying it to the sphere of war. Everywhere from the Economist to Tom Peters to John Hagel talking about global process networks to Manuel Castells you find a agreement that new technologies (particularly communication technologies) allow new flexible organizational structures, more fluid alliances, smaller entrepreneurial groups able to achieve more with fewer resources, and smaller companies able to compete with and disrupt, larger, slower, more rigid hierarchical organizations.
You also find that motivations start to become more diverse and that assertions of personal identity and self-actualization start to substitute money and hierarchy as stimuli to action. So people write open-source software or blogs because it wins them approval with their self-defined peer-group rather than because they get paid or because their boss demands it. Different contributors can have different motivations / looser co-ordination and YET the whole can be effective.
So if that's a wide-spread, general and quite plausible phenomenon, then there's no reason to think it won't affect the way violence is organized too. And, if so, what does that mean for nation-states with their hierarchical armed forces and traditional monopoly on violence?
We *ought* to expect that smaller, loosely coupled, more entrepreneurial groups with diverse motivations can succesfully challenge the incumbents. To expect that *not* to happen you either have to assume that the general phenomenon isn't true (in which case, where are all the hyper-succesful large hierarchical companies who are beating the more flexible upstarts by becoming more disciplined, rigid and focussed?) or you have to assume that war is an exceptional sphere where somehow the general trend is invalid.
My suspicion is that your main quarrel with Robb is that you don't like his conclusions and so you don't want to believe him. I honestly don't see much in the way of real evidence or arguments to show that he's wrong.
Insead it looks to me that what's mainly going on here is *quibbling* : for example, lot's of people disingenuously complain that Robb can't explain the motivations for these crazy GGs wanting to pull down the Iraqi (or Nigerian or American) state. But the motivation is well explained in Lind : these people are more loyal to their gang or tribe, and so local ends such as revenge against the Sunnis trump worries about the success of the Iraqi state or US attempts to bring “development” to the region.
Similarly, it's obvious to Dan that criminal gangs and islamicist insurgents and revolutionary groups are “sui generis” different things. (One motivated by nihilism, one by money and women) Whereas it's obvious to Lind and Robb that they are all part of a single continuum : a phenomenon Robb calls a “market” because of the diversity of competing suppliers and consumers, and the openness to new entrants, *not* because he assumes it has to run by the same protocols or property rights as the legal market (which is what it seems that some commenters here are assuming he means)
But every time that the FARC dabble in cocaine, Al-Qaeda in Iraq buy a hostage for money, or an initially political group like the Crips or PCC evolves into a mere criminal gang, the distinctions get blended. That looks to me like evidence that Lind and Robb are right. But if you have better arguments / evidence that distinguish the different kinds, and reasons to think that different tactical approaches are required to combat each, then I'm open to hear them.
Frankly, as far as I can tell, a lot of what goes under the title 5GW *is* the same as 4GW / Global Guerrillas, but given a happy-face. At best it's an optimistic search for a way through the difficulties of the times. But mostly it's simply remarking on the same phenomena as Lind and Robb but with a coda of “but don't worry, we're on top this, the good guys will triumph in the end”.
BTW: Curious that people are attacking Robb for sounding like 80s cyberpunk. The main reason we value science fiction is that the writers often have good intuitions about the way the future might unfold. It's not rally surprising that some aspect of current trends got forseen by SF writers.
January 27th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Tom,
Thanks for the visit. It's an honor.
If anything, this experience gives me even more respect for Chet Richards [1], Frank Warren [2], and others who have gone through the process of writing a book without the “over-the-top” rhetoric.
I think we're all looking forward to John's book and what it says.
Isaac,
Nigeria is not a case of “global guerrillaism,” systempunkt strikes, or open source warfare. It is a case of goonish tribal thugs trying to get rich. The motivation is not nihlism, the motivation is cash, pride, and women.
As I wrote when comparing the Nigerian fights to a Chicagoland gang [3]:
“One might note that if the Black Gangster Disciple Nation is typical of corporate-style crime, John Robb's suggestions are dangerously wrong…. The Black Gangster Disciple Nation can be compared to the tribal enemies our SysAdmin will face, and that we are now facing in Iraq. Ultimately, the enemy force is just a vehicle for shifting money and prestige to its leaders.”
“I completely avoided making a joke about your posting of a hockey/5GW article and Robb's tagline of 'skating to where the puck will be'…;-)”
LOL!
Ry,
“But isn't there a difference to why someone begins down a pathway and what they become along the pathway, Dan? THe proto-GG has his reasons, but what is he once he's tapped into the 'urban guerilla newsgroup'?”
If we listen to Robb, a born-again convert. Robb's theory is very idealistic, believing that man will transcend the normal motivations in favor of unrewarded work building Jerusalem (or tearing her down, as the case may be).
“As I read JRobb, the GG phenomenon is a lot like the 'development in a box' concept in that it is bereft of ideological goals. It's simply a set of tools that can be used either by the US(capitalistic) or PRC(socialist).”
Hmmmm.. I don't think so, but Robb might know better. I don't see Robb's theory as a tool of state-on-state warfare, because his worldview implies that the anarchy cannot be undone. I may be wrong, though.
” What's worse, it seems like there's nothing stoping groups like say, Stormfront, from sharing info with Hezbollah—internet—and so whatever Stormfront learns about dodging the FBI Hezbo does too.
I think the major point of GG is not to think so much about the who or the why so much as the how. “
Except that information is valuable. Robb likes the “marketplace” when it comes to violence but not to information. It would only be in stormfront's interest to “open source” information when the utility of that information being publicaly available is greater than the utility of trading that info for capital, land, or labor. As the ultimate enemy of every gang is other gangs (the State is not in the extortion and drug racket, and so is not trying to corner the market but rather drive up the cost of doing business), it's odd that a gang would forfeit a monopoly on some information in order to benefit other gangs.
“One of the terrorists comes to the same conclusion. He keeps on being a terrorist anyway. He thinks it's part of societal evolution and he's helping force the world evolve to something better.”
Thus terrorism became, in that story, a nuisance, similar to murder, crime, and rape. That's a victory for the state. “Banditry” and “insurgency” are different concepts, and moving the rebels from the latter to the former is what states fighting insurgencies try to accomplish.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/02/10/review-center-for-chet-richards-neither-shall-the-sword.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/12/12/review-of-postsecret-edited-by-frank-warren.html
[3] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/11/30/inside-the-black-gangster-disciple-nation-crack-cocaine-gang.html
January 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
But isn't there a difference to why someone begins down a pathway and what they become along the pathway, Dan? THe proto-GG has his reasons, but what is he once he's tapped into the 'urban guerilla newsgroup'?
As I read JRobb, the GG phenomenon is a lot like the 'development in a box' concept in that it is bereft of ideological goals. It's simply a set of tools that can be used either by the US(capitalistic) or PRC(socialist). Same for the GG. Once he starts down the path he's got the tools. He's got a broad network that doesn't have a head, but lots of money and expertise to lend him. It's doesn't have an “Adam Selene” but it has the redundancy that was written into The Moon is A Harsh Mistress(and then some).
It doesn't matter why so much as how as JRobb puts it. For whatever reason the GG(who can be the enviro and anarcho jackalopes from the PNW, Islamic fundies(of how many different stripes?), or ultra right wing nuts like McVeigh and the Michigan Militia) has decided to take undertake a systems disruption approach and he's got this amorphic 'base' to operate from.
What's worse, it seems like there's nothing stoping groups like say, Stormfront, from sharing info with Hezbollah—internet—and so whatever Stormfront learns about dodging the FBI Hezbo does too.
I think the major point of GG is not to think so much about the who or the why so much as the how.
Of course, I'm totally outside my area of expertise and could be talking out of my butt.
“though they altered some governing rulesets, the system still exists” Which is something that actually got dealt with in the short story I was talking about from WJW. It's in the Facets compilation. One of the terrorists comes to the same conclusion. He keeps on being a terrorist anyway. He thinks it's part of societal evolution and he's helping force the world evolve to something better. I can't quite point to any one thing that JRobb has written, but that seems to be under a lot of much of it. Or, I'm talking out of my butt.(Who let a chemistry student into the discussion anyway?)
January 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
You are sounding too harsh here.
Robb's gotta a book in that neither region between written and on the shelves, and it is a nerve-wracking experience. I think he's writing has gone over the edge as a result and that, when his book comes out and he catches some deserved strokes, he'll settle down.
If he doesn't, then it will be because he's so painted himself in the dark corner that he can't deal with the real world anymore, as you argue. I just he feels like he's made such a huge bet with the book, that if he can't “back it up” with proof from the real world, then he'll get dismissed.
In a shrill world, most authors feel the need to make over-the-top arguments, but besides the title, I'm hoping the text will be more reasonably balanced.
January 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I believe that there is value to systempunkts, open source warfare, and the bazaar of violence. It could be that these ideas might be “over valued” (therefore there is profit to be had by shorting them like Dan is,) but I do not think they are entirely useless. I can see how a systempunkt can erode the credibility of a government agency and eventually force that agency to give up its power and yield to it to private entities (although I think it would be extremely difficult to do so.) Open source warfare also seems a useful analytical framework to understand some of the threats we face today; there seems to be a lot more sharing and a lot less top down control among terror groups (networks, stand alone actors, etc.) occurring today than were ten years ago. As for the bazaar for violence, I do not know that I fully understand it, but it seems to me that it has been around for a long time and is not a new manifestation.
Regards,
TDL
January 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
As I've said before, I very much enjoy your fireside chats with John. TDL is right, I have gained with regard to both of your positions and thoughts simply from the comments going back and forth. And, to frame a comment I left at ZEN this morning, I should probably have said that the over looks more like what Robb wants ideally.
That said, what about Nigeria? Yes, there was a recent link via John, but the Nigeria question has been in my work and reading for some time. Lex asked who these strange people are…read that Junger article (to start). Black Globalization. Systempunkt disruption. Dispersed network of crazies. Bazaar of Violence. It's all there. For all of its Perfect Storm style, the article jibes with the facts on the ground.
The profits from bunkering and kidnapping are both whetting their appetites for more and yet prohibiting much more of a grander scale for fear of a real crack down and an end to all profit. I see no reason that MEND could not actually cause a major, major disruption should they decide to.
I was talking to our S2 the other day and mentioned that it was odd that in the recent world opinion polls the US was very highly regarded in Nigeria while falling from 62 to 38 in an ally like Poland. Not being too facetious, but a 5GW action to engender acceptance of possible US action there?…
There's more, but – back to work.
Isaac
January 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
BTW –
I completely avoided making a joke about your posting of a hockey/5GW article and Robb's tagline of 'skating to where the puck will be'…;-)
January 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
TDL,
“I also don't like the fact that Robb frequently ignores any criticism. The whole “he stole this from me…” is somewhat irritating as well.”
Perhaps the real problem here is that such behavior creates a self-referential OODA loop. Thus you get the sort of internally-coherent, externally-gibberish theory that characterizes “Global Guerrillas.” Criticism is the best thing a writer, or any thinker, can have. A philosophy of life that believes someone has “been written out of just about everything I've pioneered” [1] isn't a productive one.
Purpleslog,
“I agree for the most part. I do find the Open Source Warfare, The Bazaar of Violence, and Systemtpunkt concepts interesting. They can be applied to broaden possibilities for 3GW/4GW/5GW. The complete idea though of GGs attacking the economic strength of states head-on is unlikely to have any lasting effect”
It would be interesting to deconstruct GG, and see where it has value. I'm not sure what he means by Open Source War or the Bazaar of Violence, or how these are new. As far as Systempunkt, I think Felker's (1998) words [2] are appropriate (h/t to the Small Wars Council [3])
“Of note, the theory articulates a culturally based paradigm with airpower applied against the linkages within a society’s system processes, rather than a “one-size-fits-all” target list that attacks form.. To be most effective, airpower must be used against those vulnerabilities that create the greatest systemic shock in the fabric of a societal structure. Anything less only chips away at the margins.”
It's certainly possible to collapse a system, but the emphasis on a systemic center-of-gravity is looking for exactly the sort of “one-size-fits-all” target that “only chips away at the margins.
Also,
“The standalone GG makes no sense. What Robb is describing is a sort of update of the anarchist from the late-1800s/early-1900s for the 21st century.
“
Hmm… Instead of the right bomb in the right place at the right time, the right systempunkt in the right bazaar of violence during the right open source war….
Ry & Lexington,
Regarding fictional Global Guerrillas, Tyler Durden's “Fight Club” is probably also a good example [4]. Like a GG, Project Mayem's objective is the destruction of the system. However, the real life attacks of 9/11 were for more system-oriented than anything in the story, and they didn't effect the existence of the system at all (though they altered some governing rulesets, the system still exists). Nihlistic GGs run into the huge problem of differential motivation that Machiavelli talked about, while those that offer something to their fighters risk being coopted into that economic activity.
[1] http://jrobb.mindplex.org/2005/02/27.html#a6088
[2] http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/Maxwell_Papers/Text/mp14.pdf
[3] http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1649&page=10
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_Club_(film)
January 24th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Aristoi by Williams was a fantastic far future human science fiction novel. They were believably post-singularity. [1,2]
(tdaxp's note: “The novel describes a technologically advanced society with a rigid hierarchy of social classes. The top class, the “Aristoi,” are given the ultimate responsibility: that of managing nanotechnology.” — Wikipedia)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristoi_%28novel%29
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Aristoi-Walter-Jon-Williams/dp/0812514092
January 24th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Lexington Green:
Finally, I tend to think the “GW” framework is not all that useful. And I certainly don't think the ultra-nebulous concept of 5GW adds much clarity to the discussion.”
Well, 5GW is nebulous because it is new and still be thought out. I think the xGW as originally presented by Lind was so-so, but the framework is extending (e.g. mapping generations to OODA, combined kinetic and non-kinetic methods). I find the extended xGW framework still useful. With a framework, I can explore the corners of the box (the generation) and look to the next box (5GW) for more ideas and possibilities.
“what will politically motivate violence look like in the future? What will be the best way for the USA and its allies to protect themselves from these anticipated (or unanticipated) outbreaks?”
These are great framing questions. I can tell you they are what has motivated me in learning 4GW and exploring possible 5GW among other things. I might substitute “conflict” for “violence” though. You questions are what every active citizen should be thinking about and making sure their reps are thinking about.
January 24th, 2007 at 12:00 am
This is no easy task Dan(and as far as I know JRobb has not accused WJW of plagarism, but we'll wait and see.
).
The only books of WJW I still have with me are Hardwired and Voice of the Whilrwind.
Okay, let's look at the character of Cowboy from Hardwired.
He's making money hand over fist. He feels free. But he struggles with that his life has no meaning and the world is, as he sees it, utterly amoral. He finds meaning in bringing 'It' down. So he fights a major war with a collection of fringe elements forcing the 'It' to change or fall.
Etiene Steward form VoW.
Sewer rat. Grew up in a fraked up environment of collapsed France. Only found meaning when he was destructive.
The point: the GG, as do WJW characters, lack a moral center and feels a tremendous need for one. The primary driver then is not economic or other easily definable something. It isn't simply glory, but to have a world, a moral world, he understands and works as he think it ought.
That's how the GG starts out. I think anyways. I mean, come on, like I'm gonna know when you and LG don't?
I do think that JRobb has accurately defined the tactics and the nature of the beast(it's so de-centralized and anyone can now buy into it. The proto-GG looking for meaning has near zero in his way to start on his road to anarchist wonderland).
Of course, i could be utterly wrong and simplistic.
January 24th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Does anyone remember John Brunner's Stand on Zanzibar? There was a sort of open-source super-vandalism going on in that book, which as I think back on it, reminds me of GG. The people doing the terrorism or vandalism were mostly demobilized soldiers who had undergone conditioning which made them super-destructive. But it was hard to unwire them for civilian life. No one talks about that book much, but I recall it from time to time and I read it at least 25 years ago.
January 24th, 2007 at 12:00 am
nq04 wrote:
“ohn Robb's writings make sense and I feel your post is way too aggressive.”
Hi nq04, I would appreciate your insights and commentary. This has all been discussed before.
Please check out the prior discussion (http://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2006/05/30/am-i-understanding-the-gist-of-the-global-guerilla-concept/) at my site follow the links. I think it would be great if you could include your thoughts and ideas in this thread.
January 24th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Lexington Green:
My problems have been, inter alia, (1) motivation; why will the GGs do these things?[...]
That is a big part of the problem with GG for me. The standalone GG makes no sense. What Robb is describing is a sort of update of the anarchist from the late-1800s/early-1900s for the 21st century. There may be a few…but there is nothing to sustain them or numbers large enough to be significant.
I can see at a strategic or operational level some 4GW movement trying to grow a GGish environment to satisfy the goals of the 4GW, but the GGs would not benefit themselves. The 4GW might use the GG to disrupt or distract an opponent as part of a lager bundle of kinetic and non-kinetic tactics. [Think special GG-ish Hezbollah - mostly independent - cells taking action in the US against economic target as part of the Iranian Mullahs and Revolutionary Guards counter-action to US activity elsewhere]
I can see a State employing GG-like light infantry to distract/disrupt an opposing state while something else is going on. [Think GG-ish Chinese Light Infantry infiltrating and doing economic damage in the US while some fighting flares up over Taiwan...the action in the US distract the US from Taiwan short term. The GG fail long term of course, but short-term stupid politicians may force resources to the GG diversion]
I could also see a puppet-master mode 5GW perhaps seeding a GG-like action to create an ungovernable location for some other purpose. Once again tough, the actual GG would be just be dupes and consumed.
I agree that there is no long term SystemPunkt opportunity for a GG-ish org. I think there might be a place for SystemPunkt attacks though as part (a minor or supporting at best) of a larger bundle of kinetic and non-kinetic actions. This is not Robb's thinking though.
I will look at his book when it comes out. It is possible he has been keeping key parts of his ideas away from his blogs. He does seem to relish/desire/predict the decline of civilization into some type of pre-modern/post-modern violent anarchy – and that just seems weird to me.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Well, I guess my perception is consistent with yours, CGW, and I'm not just imagining things.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
IMHO, you don't judge elaborate worldviews (which is what this post is basically about) these things by how meaningful they are, but how thought provoking it is to read it.
Any social theory has to be range from abstract but useless to specific but wrong.
My two cents.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
“”4) He seems to almost jeer at civilization and enjoy the prospect of its doom, which makes me think his analysis may be out of whack too, since he has overinvested in a particular course of future events.”"
How long has it been since you've read the fiction of Walter Jon Williams? JRobb has that 80s cyberpunk feel to him and I get the impression it has deeply shaped his thinking. Get a good grip on WJW and William Gibson and you proll'y got a good grip on JRobb too(the motivations for the GGs is actually covered, tangentially, in the compilation Facets by WJW. Sorry someone absconded my copy a few years ago.).
And don't get the man started on the need for 'maximalism'. He'll go for days.
He IS an interesting read though.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Ry,
Fascinating! I've never read Walter Jon Williams, and I couldn't find out too much from Wikipedia [1]. Could you explain some more?
And if they are similar, has Robb ever accused Williams of plagiarism? :-p
I agree with Lexington completely on motivatino and capability. Robb needs to demonstrate, it seems, highyl inelastic motivation on the part of his “global guerrillas” combined with an ability to cause havoc not even seen in WWII. Unless he gets around to seriously defending his ideas, they remain conversation fodder.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Jon_Williams
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Robb definitely has some flaws. I don't know that what he writes is entirely gibberish, however. The point about motivation is very appropriate. I could never understand what drives all these individual actors in Robb's worldview. I do think there is much value in his focus on “open source” warfare, but ultimately reading someone like Nassim Taleb gives better incite into living with and dealing with asymmetric risks.
Regards,
TDL
P.S. I also don't like the fact that Robb frequently ignores any criticism. The whole “he stole this from me…” is somewhat irritating as well.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Never read Walter Jon Williams. I grew up on William Gibson. I read Neuromancer when it came out and I was blown away. I read Count Zero as it came out in installments in Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine in the early 80s, with the killer JK Potter illos, and I remember saying at the time it was like the Golden Age of SF all over again. So, if WJW is in that league, I'll find it.
TDL “entirely gibberish” is not what Dan said. He is saying, I think that Robb's writing exists in a closed off world based on his own premises, hence it is logically self-consistent even if flawed or wrong, thus “coherent gibberish”. A logical proof based one one or more incorrect premises is valid but false. Hence it is literally worse than useless because it is misleading but has a surface appearance of correctness. Robb is lucid enough in terms of his prose style and his reasoning within his own framework. Moreover, he has a sort of dystopian power and drive that is as “ry” notes above, reminiscent of the cyberpunk writers, which makes him seem more convincing than a cooler analysis would do with the same assertions and arguments. So he has coherence, and he has a gripping style, and he talks about interesting and important questions. The problems however are real.
I do think “gibberish” is too strong, though.
January 24th, 2007 at 12:00 am
TDAXP
“A full and complete understand of global guerrillas theory neither explains the past nor predicts the future.”
Nor does it gives us insight onto a future to shape.”
I agree for the most part. I do find the Open Source Warfare, The Bazaar of Violence, and Systemtpunkt concepts interesting. They can be applied to broaden possibilities for 3GW/4GW/5GW. The complete idea though of GGs attacking the economic strength of states head-on is unlikely to have any lasting effect
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Lexington Green,
“(4) He seems to almost jeer at civilization and enjoy the prospect of its doom, which makes me think his analysis may be out of whack too, since he has overinvested in a particular course of future events.”
This makes everything about GG seem particularly 'out of whack,' since John Robb is fully invested in existing social and economic networks, whether in the Internet (his blogs, his connections formed through them) or in the state-defended markets which he is always saying are doomed (his publishing deal, his book.) In fact, it would seem that, in order for him to be successful with his book — and with his recent corporate moves [1] — the doom-and-gloom of GG has to be proven false; i.e., in order to succeed, he must fail (either direction.)
“(5) He seems to consider other people talking about these things to somehow be poaching on his game preserve, which is weird, and to not be real open to hard criticism and the benefits it can yield in terms of refining the analysis, no matter how painful it can be.”
In other words, Global Guerrillas must have One Source (John Robb), which means he doesn't have much faith in open-source initiatives, contrary to most of what he says on his two blogs. Or, he believes in the hierarchical structures he finds within states, since presumably he would seek to defend his GG from attempts at plagiarism and so forth through legal means, and GG is an idea which must originate at 'the top' or with John Robb. By so strongly staking a claim in intellectual 'territory', he implies that territory can be defended from incursions and cooptation and so forth: the 'state' can remain secure and resilient. More than that, he implies that it MUST remain secure within his so-called 'open source' environment, with dissemination following only accepted, already existing channels / networks (which happen to be protected by the state).
In any case, I also like reading Robb's blogs and think much of value can be found there — if the truths and observations he uses are recontextualized back into a consideration of the whole reality.
[1] http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/johnrobb/2007/01/john_robb_is_no.html
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Victor Serge said, “I followed his argument
With the blank uneasiness which one might feel
In the presence of a logical lunatic.”
He said it of Konstantinov. Revolution
Is the affair of logical lunatics.
The politics of emotion must appear
To be an intellectual structure. The cause
Creates a logic not to be distinguished
From lunacy. . . . One wants to be able to walk
By the lake at Geneva and consider logic:
To think of the logicians in their graves
And of the worlds of logic in their great tombs.
Lakes are more reasonable than oceans. Hence,
A promenade amid the grandeurs of the mind,
By a lake, with clouds like lights among great tombs,
Gives one a blank uneasiness, as if
One might meet Konstantinov, who would interrupt
With his lunacy. He would not be aware of the lake.
He would be the lunatic of one idea
In a world of ideas, who would have all the people
Live, work, suffer and die in that idea
In a world of ideas. He would not be aware of the clouds,
Lighting the martyrs of logic with white fire.
His extreme of logic would be illogical.
— Wallace Stevens, Pt. XIV of “Esthétique du Mal”
Dan,
Your post, the subject matter, and nq04's comment together reminded me of this.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
nq04,
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your contribution to this discussion. In what ways is my criticism wrong? As Robb chooses not to defend himself [1], will you step up?
a517dogg,
Thanks for the link to “Fourth-Generation War and Other Myths” by Dr. Antulio Escevarria. I haven't read that specific, but I have criticized Escevarria's take on 4GW before. [1] The generational model of warfare has high explanatory power, is a useful model [2], and is potentially scientific. “Global Guerrillas,” which Robb sometimes calls 4GW and sometimes calls 5GW, and sometimes writes about as if its 3GW, and sometimes writes about as if its 2GW, is none of those.
Curtis,
Thanks for the excerpt. I like this passage, myself, from a brilliant thinker I know [3]:
“And now, [Robb] pulls a Lind, steals a title, and his destruction-oriented mythical creatures have become 5GW Warriors — because, I think, the idea of 5GW must be coopted since much 5GW discussion concerns building order, and Robb sees that such a framework will shut his forthcoming book out. “
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/05/10/defending_4gw_against_echevarria.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/11/02/making-a-science-of-the-generations-of-war.html
[3] http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/10/barnett_and_robb.php
January 21st, 2007 at 12:00 am
John Robb's writings make sense and I feel your post is way too aggressive.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:00 am
Then you will agree with this paper http://tinyurl.com/2c9fse
(Found via ZenPundit)
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
My problems have been, inter alia, (1) motivation; why will the GGs do these things? Why not just sell contraband and make money? Why go the extra mile and destroy whole societies, etc.? Who the Hell are these strange people? Do we not learn more by just examining actual violent groups without this category? (2) capability; I just don't believe that it is possible to do a “systempunkt” that will bring us to our knees, etc. All the evidence is that modern economies are ultra resilient and redundant. The lessons of the US Strategic Bombing Survey show us this, where whole cities were pounded into rubble. Bombs on trains are like a raid by a singe B-29. Not enough to derail society. (3) The victims of the GG are simply not so inert and helpless as Robb seems to depict them. (4) He seems to almost jeer at civilization and enjoy the prospect of its doom, which makes me think his analysis may be out of whack too, since he has overinvested in a particular course of future events. (5) He seems to consider other people talking about these things to somehow be poaching on his game preserve, which is weird, and to not be real open to hard criticism and the benefits it can yield in terms of refining the analysis, no matter how painful it can be.
All that said, I enjoy his blog, I think he has interesting insights, if overly and unjustifiably bleak, and I look forward to his book. Maybe he'll tie things up better. Probably not. But we'll find out.
Finally, I tend to think the “GW” framework is not all that useful. And I certainly don't think the ultra-nebulous concept of 5GW adds much clarity to the discussion. Rather than ask “what will 5GW look like?” It becomes a matter of working within that box, for no good reason I can see. I'd rather just ask, “what will politically motivate violence look like in the future? What will be the best way for the USA and its allies to protect themselves from these anticipated (or unanticipated) outbreaks?”
February 1st, 2007 at 12:00 am
Guys,
I think Dan and Curtis need to step back from theory space a bit. All theory and no practical reality makes for a very unhealthy debate.
The reality is that we are getting beaten in Iraq and Afghanistan (and there are signs that it won't stop there as in Nigeria). The model I provide answers many of the questions as to why this is so and as a result it is being sought after by those that are in decision making positions to make a difference, which I am more than happy to provide. So, there is more than a little evidence that GGs are a reality and not some “gibberish” as opposed to purely theoretical work that hasn't been proven out yet.
In terms of approach, I do take a “red team” approach to how I write, but I think that is the most effective way to get across the message. My thinking is that unless the threat and the environment is accurately defined, you can't build effective solutions. So far, the solutions I am finding appear to bottoms up in a way that parallels the threat, which seem incompatible with what the existing bureaucracies can accept. We'll see who is right.
Perhaps this all started with my occassional jab at Barnett (who is apparently someone you both care about), who is often inclined to return the jab. I think between the two of us, it is all part of healthy intellectual debate and not because we both hate each other. It shouldn't be interpreted as anything but that.
Thanks to phil, ry and others for trying to inject some calm into the debate here. My work on this topic is a labor of love and not something that consumes my life (I spend most of my time and make the vast majority of my money in the real world building companies). So to assume I have some massive degree of influence in this sphere that needs to be deflated is both foolish and naive. I suspect we are all pissing in the wind of history on this.
Sincerely,
John Robb
February 1st, 2007 at 12:00 am
Maybe I am misinterpreting the direction of this discussion, but it has a very “top-down” feel to it. I think the notion of global hegemony or world government (however, you wish to term it) disturbing. I also would say that global government is not necessarily the direction that global political affairs are going in, we have to be careful to not allow our biases to cloud our arguments. The deterministic notion that governments will conglomerate into one global entity is troubling and I would argue unrealistic. Just because for the past century and a half states have become larger does not mean this trend will continue. I would make several counter arguments:
“I suppose a global hegemony would not have the same flavor as historical tyrannies…”
I would argue that a global tyrant or global government (even if it is democratic or republican) would be worse than the tyrants of history. It is simply easier to impose one moral code, one vision of history, one set of beliefs than it is to cater to the 6 billion different individuals on this planet. Governments can not provide for the needs and desires of thousands, let alone billions. Groups who were opposed to any global hegemon would have to be suppressed (and it will become much easier, under this hypothetical scenario, to wipe out entire groups than to manage them over time.)
“Our increasingly complex, integrated, and peaceful forms of government exist not because they are morally better, but because they work.”
I agree with this notion to a degree, but I do not think the forms government that currently exist are necessarily more peaceful. The basic forms of government that exist today are the same ones that existed several generations ago that brought about the greatest level of violence in human history.
Regards,
TDL
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
John,
Thank you for your comment. It is both substantial and appreciated.
“The reality is that we are getting beaten in Iraq and Afghanistan (and there are signs that it won't stop there as in Nigeria).”
We're not going to obtain maximalist results in either state, though the final outcome in both seems very similar to what we had planned in Afghanistan (llose central government surrounded by warlords who share the same fear of a Taliban resurgence) than in Iraq (where we ditched the strategy to try to build a unified, democratic, liberal state). So the lesson seems to be: more Afghanistans, less Iraqs.
“GGs are a reality and not some “gibberish” “
I disagree that global guerrillas exist, but you are correct that GG theory is not gibberish [1]. Such a description is more hot than accurate. I apologize.
“In terms of approach, I do take a “red team” approach to how I write, but I think that is the most effective way to get across the message.”
Yes. However, such is a mixed blessing. Apparent red-team enthusiasm (the hook-line-and-sinker post [2]) drives up readership and comments, but it lessons the quality of the destruction. Same for the original post at the top of this page — quite popular, but perhaps it didn't help the debate.
“Thanks to phil, ry and others for trying to inject some calm into the debate here”
I agree 100%.
“My work on this topic is a labor of love and not something that consumes my life (I spend most of my time and make the vast majority of my money in the real world building companies).”
I hope your next project goes as well as your previous one.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/02/02/not-gibberish.html
[2] http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2007/01/journal_targeti.html
January 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“”As I read JRobb, the GG phenomenon is a lot like the 'development in a box' concept in that it is bereft of ideological goals. It's simply a set of tools that can be used either by the US(capitalistic) or PRC(socialist).”
Hmmmm.. I don't think so, but Robb might know better. I don't see Robb's theory as a tool of state-on-state warfare, because his worldview implies that the anarchy cannot be undone. I may be wrong, though.”
Dang. When people tell me I shouldn't use analogies in argument I should listen.
What I meant was that the GG thing was ideologically neutral. Not a state on state tool for warfare by othermeans.
“Except that information is valuable. Robb likes the “marketplace” when it comes to violence but not to information. It would only be in stormfront's interest to “open source” information when the utility of that information being publicaly available is greater than the utility of trading that info for capital, land, or labor. As the ultimate enemy of every gang is other gangs (the State is not in the extortion and drug racket, and so is not trying to corner the market but rather drive up the cost of doing business), it's odd that a gang would forfeit a monopoly on some information in order to benefit other gangs.”
I think this is where we go past each other.
It's a very Nash-esque approach. Non-cooperative group gaming. The jackals team up to down the lion. So they share info about what works—but not necessarily everything about themselves. The important part is taking down the lion. The next move is how to kill the other jackals.
If your whole motivation is to bring down the lion it makes sense. It's rational—in the game theory def'n—to act this way. You give them tactics and other things that work in weakening the lion. You have other stuff to go after them later. Plans within plans kind of thing.
“Thus terrorism became, in that story, a nuisance, similar to murder, crime, and rape. That's a victory for the state. “Banditry” and “insurgency” are different concepts, and moving the rebels from the latter to the former is what states fighting insurgencies try to accomplish.”
I wouldn't disagree about the story. You've not read it and I'm not doing it justice here.
But I will argue whether insurgency and banditry are different concepts. Not according to the Col who wrote 'Learning to eat soup with a knife'(chpt two) they are virtually synonomous. Only the conception of the nation state as the summed power of the populace and war becoming the act of popular will around the time of Nappy was there ever a distinction made between the two. Same phenomenon.
Look at FARC. They're still terrorists. But now they're just as much about getting rich as they are creating a socialist paradise. It's a rather similar story in a lot of terrorist groups according to Jonathan Harris(http://www.bestwebbuys.com/The_New_Terrorism-ISBN_0671458078.html?isrc=b-search)
I'm not sure I agree with you on that one Dan.
(and now to catch up. Looks like there's some good stuff here.)
January 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“BTW: Curious that people are attacking Robb for sounding like 80s cyberpunk. The main reason we value science fiction is that the writers often have good intuitions about the way the future might unfold. It's not rally surprising that some aspect of current trends got forseen by SF writers.”
Phil, that wasn't an attack. Look at what I said.
I said that if you got a feel for what the early cyberpunk genre was like(particullarly WJW) then you got a good feel for JRobb. You were better able to see the world as he does and what he's about. That's it.
Don't go ascribing motivations and actions just yet. You don't know me well enough yet to do that.
January 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
” take each of these in turn. Is the Sicilian Mafia or the Japanese Yakuza, or the Chinese Triads, primarily concerned with the collapse of New York, Osaka, and Hong Kong police forces? Of course not!”
BUt Dan, for the neo-Islamicist-terrorist to be successful, they believe that the old order must be swept away. Social evolution forced until a 'leap' is made. Then they become not just the Triads but the Iranian Ruling Council clones. They've got their fingers in everything.
They would be if it required rebuilding NYC in their own image to be effective and successful. Look at radicalism in San Francisco. SF once was a patriotic blue collar town(they named stuff after MacArthur and Nimitz). Their tactics were very different but they utterly remade 'The City' in their own image to get their way. One sit in and system disruption at a time. The wankers.
This is actually old hat to me. Pol Pot worked this way. Burn it all down and then build anew. It isn't novel. The boys at FASA came up with a large organization in their game universe that operated the same way(Battletech, okay, some I game junky, so shoot me.). They sounded very like the terrorists of today, and this was being written in the late 90's, pre-9/11. They believed that mankind had to go thru a dark age to be cleansed and then reordered on their Holy Writ Truth. Sounds familiar. The only difference is that the internet makes for transmission of technical knowledge so much easier(why not hide in broad daylight? There's so much 'there' there. It lends a certain sense of formlessness.)
It isn't THAT far fetched to think of an organization devotes itself first to destruction, almost mindlessly, and then moves to rebuilding.
Think of the phases of war. There's the kinetic part(Barnett's first half) and then the rebuilding part(Barnett's second half, or the work done by Marshall in Europe or Dug-Out Doug in Japan—-nations we burnt to the ground and then rebuilt). There's bad parrallelism here, of course, the control element is not the same, but it shows that there doesn't need to be pure nihilism to follow GG.
Again, what difference does the motivations make if it is the sum effect that GG is diagnosing and describing? I don't think it does.
sure, there will be the pure psycho addicted to death and mayhem. So what. It's the main thrust that's the problem. “Kill the lion.” We'll worry about eating the other jackals later. (Other historial connection: communists and anarchists in Spain fighting Franco. Worked together to get rid of Franco. Had designs to gut each other afterward. Pre-empted each other into watching Franco rule. They forgot to kill the lion first.)
January 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“Global guerillaism will not work if its goal is state-collapse.”
Total disagreement. Why? Why not? Why can't you burn something down, collapse the state, only to build something in its place? why is this impossible?
Pol Pot.
Lennin.
Mao(the cultural rev seems a very burn to the roots event)(That's three. Have I met the criteria for minimum statistical significance?)
It happens. Burning it down to replace it with something else IS their plan. The IRA operates that way. And they used to train in Libya under radical Islamic bastiches intent on killing the crazy Irish after the Great Satan Americans, Israel, and Britain. It may be a cliche, but there's some truth to the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
(oh, and sorry for the deluge.)
January 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“Why? Why not? Why can't you burn something down, collapse the state, only to build something in its place? why is this impossible?”
Because, if you are serious about building something in its place, you'll know that you will need the tools and resources necessary to rebuild from the ruins once the Mayhem and Destruction ™ have done their work.
“Statistical significance” in this case is pseudoscience: the extension of a statistical measurement into a universalism. It is saying that the factors in the referenced Cambodia or China are identical to the factors of globalization and our contemporary world: that supply (resources), population density, lines of potential distribution and abilities to control all these are identical.
Sure, there could be GGs still trapped in the past, who cause a lot of havoc: the inept ones.[1] It was interesting to see PurpleSlog's comment above, about the possibility that these inept ones will make for good pawns in 5GW campaigns, since that thought was behind my previous consideration of GGs in a 5GW world but I didn't suggest it in that post. However, to the degree that any of these GG have aspirations for building a 'better' future, and are capable of looking around themselves to see the effects of their own work and the demands of the environment, they will need to take into account factors Pol Pot and Mao did not need to consider.
[1] http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/10/global_guerrillas_as_5gw_warri.php
January 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Phil,
“I don't think he believes that order in general is doomed. He just doesn't believe in a particular kind of order : that which is that imposed from another country, top-down, by military and other bureaucratic means. (In other words, interventionist projects of both the neocon and Barnettist flavour.)”
I agree that this seems to be behind Robb's work. (Even though I would not equate Barnett's theory with neocon theory!) However, rather that blindly oppose a vertical imposition of foreign rule-sets by assuming a directly opposite, extreme libertarian or anarchist emergence, Robb should go back to the beginning and consider why certain types of 'distasteful' organization occur in the first place while pondering how a system founded on anarchist principles can possibly be self-maintaining. He needs to step out of his head and consider the basics — and I don't mean the much-beloved 'primary loyalties' but the real necessities of life. A person's primary loyalty tends to be to himself, his own survival; and tribalistic structures only work to the degree that they can actually supply the needs of the individual. Is a world shaped by Global Warming and diminishing resources and increasing population density apt to provide easy nourishment for extremely insular groups — consider that these insular groups may be at war for control of these things, sure; but constant struggles over control are going to diminish the ability to effectively organize distribution to supply their protected groups. Robb is quite willing to consider these factors when he considers states, but far less willing to consider them in relation to GG's.
At present, the supply of weapons alone to insurgent groups is quite dependent on the existence of a connected economy; I'd like to see insurgents in Iraq try all the mining, smelting, engineering, construction, etc. to supply their needs for weaponry (while staying hidden, of course); I'd like to see them try importing these when the nations currently supplying them are more focused on trying to feed an internal populace or tame internal turmoil caused by a breakdown in international markets and general connectivity, or trying to mitigate the most negative effects of Global Warming. It would seem that Robb's conceptual GG's are much like himself: in order to succeed, they must fail (either way). But because they don't live so much in the intellectual realm but almost by definition will be greatly involved in consideration of actual markets, networks, and so forth, they will be more aware of the results of their activities, unlikely to destroy merely to make the theory of GG a reality.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Some words on money-oriented and ideology-oriented actors should be emphasized, as I think they have been overlooked.
a) Ideologically-driven opponents of the State (The Taliban and the Khmer Rouge, for example) rapidly began building a totalitarian state upon seizing power. Robb's theory is not that “there are insurgents who want to set up a bad government,” but that there are insurgents (his global guerrillas) who are driven by defeating governance.
b) Financial driven opponents state power operate as businesses. The belief that their first focus is destroying the state is absurd — it's like saying AT&T first focus is destroying the state. It's much more rational for the mafia to attempt to shift high-rent [1] resources from the state to the mafia. Meanwhile, it's in the interest of the mafia for the state to keep creating public goods that benefits the mafia as well.
Global guerrillas must therefore be ideologically-neutral, as anti-system actors will be out-competed by actors who work within the system (including typical insurgents, organized crime, etc). But the bazaar of violence is not stable, so GGs must be ideologically-driven, as it will not happen on its own. [2]
Global Guerrillas thus suffers from an incoherency: if it's ideologically-driven then the ideologues will be out-competed by the pragmatists, but if it's not ideologically-driven the bazaar of violence will not result.
Therefore, global guerrillas is false.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/01/27/elements-of-global-guerrilla-theory.html
January 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“Why? Why not? Why can't you burn something down, collapse the state, only to build something in its place? why is this impossible?”
Because, if you are serious about building something in its place, you'll know that you will need the tools and resources necessary to rebuild from the ruins once the Mayhem and Destruction ™ have done their work.”
And if you consider the only valuable and necessary tools to be the people and their adherence to a particular moral code this fails why? If you don't care about standard of living like we on this blog do does this still fit? Remember, in the case of ME Islamic terrorists they believe they sent the Sov Un packing simply by will. Who needs a major industrial base when you can defeat your enemy by sheer act of will using ancient weapons in some cases and captured ones from your foe?
The way I'm reading the above is that since they hate the conditions the way to make them go away is to adopt them because they're 'serious building something in its place'.
They would have the resources necessary. The resources they, in the ME Islamic terrorist, believe is the only ones that matter.
And let's not forget the focal point is not utter destruction of everything in the case of GG. It's to create ennui and a seeking of someone to protect them in the target populace. Just enough destruction. Just burning enough of it down to get people to jump to your side.
We'll just have to wait for the book.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“It's to create ennui and a seeking of someone to protect them in the target populace. Just enough destruction. Just burning enough of it down to get people to jump to your side.”
This is why John's silence is troubling: there is honest misunderstanding about what he is saying, and yet he does not clarify. He is not treating his readers respectfully, which is too bad.
Recall what Robb wrote:
“. The outcome, if left to run its course, wouldn't be a replacement or positivist modification of the Iraqi state, rather, it would be an extremely weak or failed state that cedes control over many of its vital functions and territories to non-state networks (both anti and “loyalist”)” [1]
Thus getting the people to “jump to your side” only would count as global guerrillaism (as I read the passage) if “your side” has no pretensions to replace or modify the state, but rather “your side” wants to stay as a non-state actor.
Am I reading this write? Ry? Phil Jones? Robb, for that matter?
[1] http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2005/11/journal_insurge.html
January 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
How does the endgame result (and goal) of GG's dissolution of the state jive with the real aspect of human social evolution? Haven't human beings conglomerated to form increasingly large social structures throughout history?
Additionally as nation states become more intwined economically (and strategically) isn't the antithesis of the GG theory more likely in the form of hegemony?
I think it's an intriguing theory and certain aspects bear a good deal of cogency (global black market allowing GG's financial sovereignty from states, for instance) but it seems counterintuitive to the direction human kind has been and continues to head for.
Even the most horrific human misadventure (Nazism) had at it's base the element of a social collective rather than essential anarchy.
Why a sudden 180 degree twist to effective social devolution? I think the GG theory needs a remarkable event or “spark” (like German nationalism on the heels of a humiliating defeat, economic ruin, etc.) to be more understandable.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Ry,
“And if you consider the only valuable and necessary tools to be the people and their adherence to a particular moral code this fails why?”
Because, in order to have an ideological convert, you need to have 1) a living human being not totally focussed on just trying to stay alive, and 2) a living human being willing to buy into the ideology. The ideology in this case also involves the belief that the ideological leaders are capable of supplying the needs of the individual. I think that most people can be fooled a lot of the time, and gaining converts is much easier at the outset of any destructive campaign, but that maintaining that base requires delivering on the promise: something the ideological leaders will have ever-present in mind.
“Remember, in the case of ME Islamic terrorists they believe they sent the Sov Un packing simply by will. “
An isolated, temporal event. They also quickly established a Taliban state, to deliver on their promises; or a Northern Alliance making similar promises and delivering on them on a local scale.
“The way I'm reading the above is that since they hate the conditions the way to make them go away is to adopt them because they're 'serious building something in its place'.
They would have the resources necessary. The resources they, in the ME Islamic terrorist, believe is the only ones that matter.”
The condition they hated was not “The State” ™, but a particular state and its imposition. The resources they had were what remained — remember, they did not totally destroy the poppy crops and eliminate global trade in their “Effort Against a State” ™; rather, they used these things and even now continue to use these things to maintain global trade and an inflow of cash. This helps to maintain not only the 'primary loyalties' of their ideological converts but also their ability to arm themselves.
“Just enough destruction. Just burning enough of it down to get people to jump to your side. “
Exactly. Not a total destruction of all state-protected markets on a global scale. Therefore, they will limit their attacks — whether because they know they are dependent on certain systems; or, because they realize that foreign allied states demand it, being dependent on certain systems themselves; or, because they are only concerned about attacking certain limited nodes and totally disregard others — thus insuring some measure of resiliency (and ability to move) for states besides their own.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“Additionally as nation states become more intwined economically (and strategically) isn't the antithesis of the GG theory more likely in the form of hegemony?”
Jay,
This reminds me much of Plato's theory of the evolution of styles of government in the Republic, especially his assertion that tyranny follows the much more chaotic democracy: the tyrant arises at first as a benevolent solver of problems, and the people support his efforts to combat the chaos and conflict; then, he assumes total control. It's not a pretty thought, although I suppose a global hegemony would not have the same flavor as historical tyrannies. It also reminds me of Barnett's calls for global rule-sets. Doesn't the theory of hegemony generally assert that the governed will give their assent? In a system as complex as a global hegemony, plenty of concessions would need to be given by the central government; then again, the potential rise of many 'micropowers' would give them some extra sway under such a system, at least compared to the 'sway' individuals in the system would have as well as to the sway would-be superpowers would like to claim.
It strikes me as possible that Robb has anticipated these things and that his passionate argument for GG (and potential 4GW memetic actions) may be the result of a wish to ensure some level of personal autonomy within such a system: Again, a mere side of a mere guess about the character of the Mover behind GG.
January 31st, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jay,
“How does the endgame result (and goal) of GG's dissolution of the state jive with the real aspect of human social evolution? Haven't human beings conglomerated to form increasingly large social structures throughout history?”
I think this is a good point. Our increasingly complex, integrated, and peaceful forms of government exist not because they are morally better, but because they work. It's not clear why this should be suddenly turned around.
Curtis,
“An isolated, temporal event. They also quickly established a Taliban state, to deliver on their promises; or a Northern Alliance making similar promises and delivering on them on a local scale.”
This is a good point. The Soviet Empire collapsed between 89 and 91, yet by the mid nineties the Taliban (a group so scared, psychologically and physically, that it may have been the most physically disabled government in human history) were well ont he way to establishing a totalitarian apparatus, extending their their influence to the north and south, and successfully combating two different insurgencies (the warlord remnants combined with even crazier Muslims from Kashmir).
Wealth, power, and order love each other. It's very, very expensive to stop it.
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
TDL,
“I would argue that a global tyrant or global government (even if it is democratic or republican) would be worse than the tyrants of history. It is simply easier to impose one moral code, one vision of history, one set of beliefs than it is to cater to the 6 billion different individuals on this planet.”
In fact, I've recently suggested something quite different in response to rhetorical questions left elsewhere:
“I suppose I should extend my fingertip feelings by saying that 5GW theory appears to assume the reality of the possibility that normative theory can be applied differently than it is typically applied; i.e., with the understanding that largely vertical establishment and maintenance of standards within a system is proving archaic and probably impossible. [1]“
I didn't bring up the theory of “hegemony” in this thread although I've followed through on the consideration, and I recognize that the instinctual reaction to the word or to the idea of 'global government' is to assume some sort of top-down vertical imposition of will. In Robb's comment here, he reintroduces the concept of “bottoms up”, after you have used the idea “top-down”; and I would say that this dichotomous thinking is rather facile. A great link is missing in each understanding; namely, that bottoms-up controls, influences, and so forth create, in a complex system, a corresponding top-down imposition. The system built through bottoms-up pressures also creates top-down controls.
As for the second sentence quoted above: Tell me how “one moral code, one vision of history, one set of beliefs” has ever been achieved, in any government or society in history. There has always been diversity of opinion, has there not? I think you have given too much credence to the notion of one-way, top-down controls. No such thing has ever existed, which is why governments that have attempted the forced emergence of such a scenario have always fallen. Creating a vision of such a government in order to be able to argue against it is pointless.
[1] http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2007/01/5gw_freedom_and_theory.php#comment-1660
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
How very 4GW of you, John, not so much substantive as appealing to a **sense** of goodness/rightness while attacking irrelevancies to show badness/wrongness:
“All theory and no practical reality makes for a very unhealthy debate.”
[truism meant to sweep away any substantive criticism]
“it is being sought after by those that are in decision making positions to make a difference”
[argument from authority]
“Perhaps this all started with my occassional jab at Barnett”
“I think between the two of us, it is all part of healthy intellectual debate and not because we both hate each other. It shouldn't be interpreted as anything but that.”
[Note the attempt to demarcate between 'unhealthy debate' and 'healthy debate', while borrowing some of the authority of Barnett-the-icon]
“Thanks to phil, ry and others for trying to inject some calm into the debate here. “
[Who needs substantive debate, anyway? Calm is much better.]
“My work on this topic is a labor of love”
[And we know that labors of love are, because it's love, irreproachable. The actual issues and, of course, realities being discussed, are of no matter.]
“So to assume I have some massive degree of influence in this sphere that needs to be deflated is both foolish and naive.”
[Again, not so much about what's happening in the combat zone, but about who's who and so forth. Therefore: build your opponents' assumptions then knock them down with moralistic or intellectual displays of one's own location on the highest ground.]
“I suspect we are all pissing in the wind of history on this.”
[Want to figure out what's really happening? Naw, just give up. It's hopeless.]
“Sincerely”
[This is how it's done.]
——–
But having returned the favor, just now, I suppose these things aren't terribly different than many of my comments in this thread. Just so. I'll admit to being a little flattered that you think I have any influence whatsoever and must be corrected!
“The reality is that we are getting beaten in Iraq and Afghanistan (and there are signs that it won't stop there as in Nigeria). “
John, change the title of your book to “Iraqi Guerrillas, Afghani Guerrillas, and Nigerian Guerrillas”, and you might clear up some of the confusion. Does the subtitle mean, “The end of ALL globalization” or only “The end of globalization for a few hotspots, for the time being at least”? I don't think anyone will argue against the fact that you have your thumb on the situation concerning a few hotspots, and appear to understand the dynamics of those places (particularly Iraq) rather well; and that these are things the U.S. and any other meddlesome states will need to know; but when you extend this particular vision to a grand epistemology concerning a global future — that's where you leave your theory open to attack. If indeed such an extension has never been your purpose; and we who have argued healthily or unhealthily have confused your aim through facile reading, misled by the title of the book to interpret other things erroneously; then changing the book's title and perhaps the title of your website might clear up the confusion.
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
As demonstrated in the deconstruction of my response, I suspect that it is impossible to have any level of constructive debate with you. This is my last response to the site. Thanks for your time.
Sincerely,
John Robb
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
“it is being sought after by those that are in decision making positions to make a difference…”
“So to assume I have some massive degree of influence in this sphere that needs to be deflated is both foolish and naive.”
This is incoherent.
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
TDL,
“The basic forms of government that exist today are the same ones that existed several generations ago that brought about the greatest level of violence in human history.”
Only absolutely (when you measure by the megadeath). However, that's an artifact of how successful the current system is at allowing babies to be born and keeping them alive. Similarly, I imagine Japan has a mucher higher absolute death level that Compton, I'd rather live in Nihon than that suburb of LA.
As a probability of dying through violence, however, the average death-by-violence rate in a tribal society is less than the average-death-by-violence rate than the citizens of the combatant countries during WWII.
Our ever-more-peaceful world keeps sensitiziing us to violence, though, which I guess is a mixed blessing.
Curtis,
Your deconstructive criticism of John's post was inspired by the fac that it was rhetoric. It was — but it was rhetoric designed to defuse a situation and keep lines of communication open. It was the right comment at the right time, and I thank him for it.
“There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven..” (Ecclesiastes 3:1)
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
Evaluating such rhetoric in the way it was intended to be evaluated can only be possible when both parties have agreed upon a common set of guidelines for extracting the purpose from the gibberish.
Perhaps in the idealized world, when all live by common rule-sets, with common morals and common beliefs and common ideologies and common understandings and a common language, and so forth, we will be able to conduct business through such fuzzy circumlocutions without disagreement and in perfect harmony; but if John is right, such a world is not likely. Even if he is not right in his vision of the future, I doubt that resting on faith in fuzzy rhetoric and fuzzy relations and fuzzy logic will be wise.
To me, your interpretation seems like either a wish or another 4GW spin, and I don't think anyone is fooled by your sudden ascension to the higher ground. Of course, I would wish for JR's return to the site and this thread, if he would offer 'sincere' attempts at clearing up the confusions that have obsessed us concerning GG: in simple, direct, layman's words that might pierce through our foolishness and naïveté.
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
My reply is very much in keeping with my “scholarly style.” For instance, after I was accused of being a Jew [1] (?!), my reply asked for clarification of that, not an exposition on the accuser's motives. (To analyze the motives, I started another thread [2]). They are both interesting discussions, but they don't effect the validity of each other.
Likewise, witness my reaction to the Black Gangster Disciples. [3]
John's comments are valuable because they shed further light on his theory. If his writing is wrong but internally consistent (as I think it is), the more we get out of him, the more we can prove our position.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/08/22/beautiful-zionist-girls-hot-jewish-babes-and-sexy-zionist-ch.html#c1379419
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/01/09/jew.html
[3] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/11/30/inside-the-black-gangster-disciple-nation-crack-cocaine-gang.html
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
I agree that your reply is in keeping with your style!
I do not believe that John's comment sheds new light on his theory, but I suppose that further reading at his blogs and reading his book might (the latter probably better than the former); as usual, it's “wait and see!”
I'm not even sure, btw, that his theory is internally consistent. Maybe that is due to his avowed “red team approach” since such an approach leaves at least half the argument unaddressed, using implication and nuance and so forth whenever that half encroaches on the theory. But quite possibly the attempt by others to fill the void he has left, who seize upon implication and nuance to do so, is what makes it seem internally incoherent.
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
“as usual, it's “wait and see!”"
Let's go faster than that.
“I'm not even sure, btw, that his theory is internally consistent. Maybe that is due to his avowed “red team approach” since such an approach leaves at least half the argument unaddressed, using implication and nuance and so forth whenever that half encroaches on the theory. But quite possibly the attempt by others to fill the void he has left, who seize upon implication and nuance to do so, is what makes it seem internally incoherent.”
As I see it, there are three possibilities for global guerrilla theory
Internally valid, externally valid
Internally valid, externally invalid
Externally invalid, externally invalid
(An externally invalid theory cannot make coherent predictions, and thus is thrown out immediately. Thus I think his comment that
“I think Dan and Curtis need to step back from theory space a bit. All theory and no practical reality makes for a very unhealthy debate.”
Is substantial but incorrect. A theory can be shredded entirely in the theoretical space.)
That's why I started looking at the elements of GGT [1] as well as the definition of GGs themselves. [2] If GGT is internally invalid, we may be able to establish this just by nailing down his concepts. If GGT is externally invalid, we can demonstrate this by making it clear what GGT actually says. Alternatively, if GGT is correct (unlikely in my view, but possible), it would complement everything that's been written about 5GW and the generations of war.
So let's get to work. There's other phrases Robb throws around — black swans, black globalization, (“black” ??). They need definitions.
And if, at the end of the day, all we are left with is a series of defined terms, that wouldn't be bad either. The terms can survive independent of the theorist that spins them. They can, if they are useful, be incorporated into 5GW theory.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/01/27/elements-of-global-guerrilla-theory.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/01/30/working-definition-of-global-guerrillas.html
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Black Globalization is happening.
http://tinyurl.com/32u6of
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
What is “black globalization”?
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Certainly the black market is an age old phenomena.
I think where Black Globalization is born is in consideration of the massive growth in the global black market and the possibility (or reality depending on ones position) of GG's utilizing such for what is essentially financial sovereignty.
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
What a thread! I can't believe I read the whole thing.
Actually I think a better definition of “Black Globalization” is the direct use of black market for anti-state and competing state action.
On a related note, I have a site called JargonDatabase.com and I have “Strategy” section located here
http://www.jargondatabase.com/SubCat.aspx?id=113
It might be useful for future understanding we collected all of the terms we're using in the thread.
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Despite Curtis' churlishness, here's a quick suggestion that may help. Pick out the one thing, as narrow that you can make it, that troubles you about GG warfare. Ask me the question (send me an e-mail) about it and I will do my best to answer it.
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Steve,
Great idea what with the Jargon Database. Unfortunately, if the term “Black Globalization” is there I can't find it.
John, that's a generous offer.
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Black Globalization:
James McCormick's characteristically AWESOME review of Moises Naim's book “Illicit”.
“Moises Naim, editor of Foreign Policy magazine, has written an outstanding summary of the flip side of the post-Cold War economic boom. Think of it as the antithesis of Jim Bennett’s book … a “The Global Criminal Affluenza Challenge: How an Army of Fagins Leverages High-Yield Crime while Civil Society Implodes in the 21st Century.”
The author asks a provocative question. What if we looked at global crime from a purely economic perspective?”
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/004587.html
February 4th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jay, why is Steve wrong on black globalization?
Steve, why is Jay wrong on black globalization?
Lexington, is black globalization purely economic?
John, a gracious offer. The email's been sent.
February 4th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
It's not that Steve is wrong. It's that the definition of Black Globalization wasn't present in his database or I couldn't find it.
February 4th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jay is correct, I thought I had added that a while back (I was thinking of Black Swan) but I hadn't.
Contributions welcome, and quite frankly, needed with this sort of topic.
The definition is here [1]
[1] http://www.jargondatabase.com/Jargon.aspx?id=1487
February 4th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jay,
I was actually just looking for a contrast of
“I think where Black Globalization is born is in consideration of the massive growth in the global black market and the possibility (or reality depending on ones position) of GG's utilizing such for what is essentially financial sovereignty.”
with
“”Black Globalization” is the direct use of black market for anti-state and competing state action.”
One definition appears much broader than the other, and I was curious about that.
February 4th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I like my definitions narrow. Now that I think about it, it would be interesting to see GG groups (such as we use the term) morph into mafia like entities. That was how the mafia started in fact.
February 4th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Ah, I see.
Some more regarding black globalization.
If I understand Johns GG theory correctly, one principle that divides GG's from “simple” 4GW is their financial autonomy. Where as say, Hezbollah is reliant on Iran for arms and cash the GG's will utilize the benefits of black globalization effectively relieving them from state reliance.
I think he begins to capture and mold out this idea here[1](as quoted from cfr.org on his site)
“Indeed, when it was headquartered in Sudan and then Afghanistan, the al-Qaeda terrorist organization provided important financial support to its host state—instead of the other way around.”
That's a pretty impressive example of financial autonomy. Admittedly it doesn't engage the BG effect (this is discussed later in his analysis) but it does set the framework to apply the BG element of GG autonomy.
Lastly, I'd say that without the BG element the GG theory is essentially lost. For an anti-state organization to exist I'd say financial sovereignty is paramount.
[1] http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/04/journal_al_qaed.html
*In all honesty I haven't got a clue as to how html works on blgogspirit other than the fact that previous attempts to produce links here haven't been effective. As such, my apoligies if the above isn't an actual link.