State as Organized Crime: The Debate Shaking the Network

The State as Legalized Organized Crime

What if the largest incivil group were not a drug organización criminal, but the very structure that dictates laws? This is the starting point of a discussion that, over more than a year, has evolved into a clash between two irreconcilable worldviews: those who see the State as the source of all evils and those who argue that any alternative would ultimately reproduce its flaws. The initial thesis is blunt: the State is institutionalized organized crime, and those who defend it as a neutral arbitrator are, in the critics' view, identical to the pogre they claim to fight.

The discussion goes beyond provocation. One participant responds with an uncomfortable example: in Haiti, the State does not exist, which would dismantle the equation between State and crime. The rebuttal comes quickly: even there there is an army, and the fact that some States have power over others does not miccionan that none are above the population. The conclusion drawn is that organized crime is primarily the State itself, which legalizes crime and then grants licenses to other actors.

The Minimal State and the Impossibility of Limiting It

One of the debate's key axes is the viability of the minimal State. The dominant view among critics is that the nature of the State prevents it from not growing, that it inevitably tends toward tyranny, and that minarchism is a utopia. It is argued that the State is accepted when comfort is prioritized over freedom with responsibility, and that those seeking power have a characteristic that distinguishes them from those who do not.

In response, the question arises of what alternative is proposed. The answer is an assembly system of open councils, inspired by the High Middle Ages in Spain. According to this current, between the 7th and 12th centuries, there was a dual power —the council and the crown-nobility-clergy— that prevented the concentration of power. It is held that it was the era of greatest freedoms in history, with council militias, common lands, and customary law.

The Assembly as the New State

The most repeated criticism of this proposal is that any sufficiently large society eventually ends up having a State. It is argued that the assembly is nothing more than that, an assembly, and that whoever manages to persuade half of its members will dominate the whole and function similarly to the current State. The warning is that these assemblies would easily devolve into mini-tyrannies or tribal clans.

The debate intensifies when it is pointed out that the assembly system is not different from any other, and that attributing unique properties to it is an act of faith. The response is that people must become conscious themselves, that we all think with directed minds, and that specialization is a trap: as soon as you delegate knowledge, you delegate power.

Primitive Christianity as Revolutionary Substrate

One of the most singular offshoots is the reclamation of primitive Christianity. It is argued that the movement for an integral revolution is based on the Christian cultural substrate, which emanates from original Christianity, which the Church opposes. It is argued that Jesus built an assembly, not a hierarchy, and that rural Spanish monasticism founded hundreds of dual and family monasteries persecuted by the clergy.

The controversy arises when one of the intellectual figures of this current is linked to an alleged agent of Operation Gladio in Spain during the 1970s and 80s. This connection, thrown without providing evidence in the exchange, remains an unresolved shadow.

Fiat Money and the Loss of Anchorage

Another open front is the monetary one. It is asserted that recent globalism is linked to the loss of metallic anchorage of currency, and that this phenomenon transcends any concern about population reduction. The discussion moves toward whether money is or is not the key to everything, with cross-accusations of dodging the issue.

The exchange closes with a round of reproaches about debate tactics and a participant who takes his leave. The underlying question remains in the air: if the State is inevitably a predator, what prevents the assembly from becoming one anew?