Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
      CommentAuthorPete Martin
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007 edited
    (Not sure on category, made a best guess)

    From the ever-brilliant Global Guerrillas. And I'm a sucker for neologisms.

    Neofeudalisation. Basically reverting back to tribalism but within a high-density population. This is a typical result of creating an Empty State (see: Iraq).

    From article:
    While neofeudalization reduces violence, it is at the expense of:

    * Economic activity. Commuting is nearly impossible. Retail dries up.
    * Movement. Travel speed is reduced by six fold (based on examples). Few cars are allowed (due to the danger of VBIEDs).
    * Privacy. All residents are monitored and biometrically detailed.

    For those of you who don't remember...
    "the grim meathook future that most of the world is facing, in which they watch their squats and under-developed fields get turned into a giant game of Counterstrike between crazy faith-ridden jihadist motherfuckers and crazy faith-ridden American redneck motherfuckers, each doing their best to turn the entire world into one type of fascist nightmare or another."
  1.  (249.2)
    Reading John Robb is a survival trait.

    As for neofeudalisation - anyone else getting flashbacks to Snow Crash?

    Warren - maybe there's a need for a Grim Meathook section?
  2.  (249.3)
    In a slightly less severe manner - this is what I see on the streets of London every day. The different gangs (based around postcodes a lot of the time) with different lingo, slang and dress codes.

    It goes deeper than that, and is the cause for many of the murders on my patch these past few months (trust me, very few of the people who are killed on on my patch are 'innocent victims').

    I'm lucky that our 'tribe'* is seen as neutral - otherwise a lot more of *us* would be in danger.

    But of course, none of this hits the news because large numbers of this (although not all) are based around racial lines.

    What is also interesting to watch is to see how tech (like mobile phones) is changing the ways these tribes work.

    (*The ambulance service if you don't know me)
    • CommentAuthormunin218
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
    As for neofeudalisation - anyone else getting flashbacks to Snow Crash?

    ah, snow crash.......

    I think most of us would end up citizens of Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong......
  3.  (249.5)
    Snow crash was about individual city states. Neofeudalism can be states within a city. Not gangs, not how they dress or how the speak (which is the most middle-class thing i've read on here), not even controlling criminal elements, but a complete decentralising of government and infrastructure (which would tend towards the example of warlords with their heavies).

    I think the comic-book model would be Mega City One from Judge Dredd.
  4.  (249.6)
    Or, for a real-life example, the Brazillian favelas, de facto states within cities, run by drug lords. The walls are mostly social/cultural for now, but could occur to keep the poor folks out...
  5.  (249.7)
    Not gangs, not how they dress or how the speak (which is the most middle-class thing i've read on here)

    Eh? I guess that you are talking about my post.

    Taking aside that I think you want 'middle class' to be some sort of insult - use of language is part of culture, dress and fashion is part of culture and setting yourself up as autonomous economic groups who compete with others, sometimes violently is also a part of culture. Differences in people turn them into tribes when they become introspective and suspicious of people who don't share their culture.

    Which is why I suggested a 'less severe' comparison. Even so, there are places in London where the officers of the state (in this case the police) don't go in except 'mob-handed', likewise there are places where we wouldn't go without a police escort. Couldn't this be a precursor to a Neofeudalistic state?

    (And if writing in a slightly harsh manner about gangs is my only crime when I'm fed up of seeing kids die in front of me because of such silliness, then, well - I must be doing alright).

    And if it wasn't some attempt at an insult, I apologise fully for taking it in such a way.
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    Snow crash was supposed to be a video game.

    Gangs are not the problem ,99% of the conflict and cash to pay for it comes from the profits of drug prohibition. get rid of prohibition and you will solve most of your gang problem.

    I am shopping for a quarter section(160 acres) to build my compound on right now. Tribes could be a good thing. People are far to disconnected right now.
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007 edited
    People are far to disconnected right now.

    And striving not to be, at least in my whitebread American limited experience -- they goof around in the SCA (trust me, quite tribal), they amass friends on Facebook, and oh yeah, hang out on web forums, join clubs, meet in churches, whatever they can, because otherwise we're all at home in our tiny families locking the doors against anyone actually getting near us. (Personally, I can't abide the presence of people much of the time. I seem to be just broken that way.) Heck, I suppose the fascination with political parties (something I also lack) is tribal at its core. Maybe it'd go away if something better comes along. I can dream, right?
      CommentAuthorCat Vincent
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2007 edited
    Tribes are fine. It's tribal warfare that's the problem. There's a distinct lack of accepted mediators between modern tribes.
    The only example I can think of is the 'AfroReggae' movement in Brazil - who, aside from being a musical group who perform at Carnival, are seen as a neutral tribe who fosters non-violent negotiations between the various tribes of the favelas.
  6.  (249.11)
    I think Robb's managed to articulate a trend that's existed for quite some time, at least in the Americas. Brasilian favelas aside, there are sections of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Oakland, Detroit, Cleveland, and Washington DC that have qualified for this classification for decades. Police do not venture, and the disconnect from social services and mainstream politics are palpable. 'Biometric tagging' is qualified by public assistance programs (welfare, ebt, section 8, medicaid), by which people are cataloged and tracked, and the neighborhoods are cloistered and isolated. Leadership (or the vacuum therein) usually revolves to charismatic neighborhood figures (who despite popular fiction, are not always underworld archdemons). The fact that Robb's recognized neofeudalism as a trend on the rise is what's worth noting, as we've reached a point where tacit anarchy is an acceptable, ongoing condition in small doses, as long as it only consumes adjacent territory by attrition, slowly, bite by bite. It is dramatic upswells or divergence into higher profile resource blocs that attract mainstream attention, and by then, the routines of Robb's neofedualism are already embedded in a neighborhood or territory. The only solutions I've seen nation-states and city-states take to engage or re-acclimate these neofeudal nodes is either mincing public entitlement programs in an attempt to speak through money; or simply uprooting the whole community, as seen in Chicago's Cabrini Green, Washington DC's Northwest communities, indiscriminate swaths of Brooklyn and Manhattan.
    • CommentAuthorNecros
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2007
    It is odd that we are calling this a new phenomena, when it really seems like something that has always been with the human species.

    There always seems to be this trend toward declaring someone outside our group "other" and thus not of our group, and then internally sectioning off our group into different subsets of varying power levels. I guess this trend could be considered neofeudal, but it could also be tagged neotribal.To me it seems like something that sits there waiting to become realized, part of our nature as human.

    Various individuals through the ages have taken advantage of the way this drives different types of people to try and belong to the group. While this can be seen as a negative part of our being, I also think that it can be used in a positive fashion. Instead of just looking at Jim Jones type cult leaders, there are multiple ways this drive can be used to foster belonging in a community of positive people. If we can find a way to channel this drive in a positive direction it could make a lot of difference t oa lot of people.
  7.  (249.13)
    @Pete Martin:

    Thanks for the link and the term. I just scanned through the site and there is a lot of great stuff there! I have added Robb to my "must read" list.

    It's all currents and riptides, as massive states and international consortia try to consolidate power, and gangs/factions/ethnies/(insert type of human group here) try to oppose it, ignore it, or disrupt it. It really gets to the problem of politics as analysis of the big bloated creatures on the surface, while ignoring the hungry innumerable minnows below scrambling for survival and a sense of belonging.

    "Tribalism" can take many forms. I think about indigenous communities who engage in a wide range of practices to keep the state at bay (or sometimes co-opt the states for some purposes). I would love to map out the layers of political power and group cohesion over the globe, from nation-state to neighborhood level, to get a visual rendition of what Robb is talking about. There's a lot to ponder in what he's saying. . . .
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2007
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    It could be so hardwired into us that we are foolish to fight it and should instead try to make it as non-invasive and beneficial as possible?
    I have a feeling that humans like wolves instinctively form social hierarchies and fight for their position. Also at what point does natural selection come in?
    Maybe we need tribal warfare to weed out the weak and ineffective tribes? I am starting to think that war may be a natural and less painful population control than disease and we are better off with small scale tribal warfare than the world wars of the last century. WW1 also made Spanish flu possible.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.