Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

January 11, 2016

Cartel Land

Filed under: crime,drugs,Film,Mexico — louisproyect @ 7:00 pm

Although I had plans to eventually write about the 2015 documentary “Cartel Land” at some point, I’ve decided to put it on the front burner now that the recapture of Joaquín “Chapo” Guzmán and Sean Penn’s Rolling Stone interview with the drug baron has become the lead story in the NY Times.

“Cartel Land” is now the fourth documentary I have seen about the Mexican drug wars. The first was the 2013 “Narco Cultura”, a film that was focused on the Narcocorrido—the songs that blend the traditional Norteño style with lyrics that toast the drug lords after the fashion of American gansta rap. I found much of it compelling but regretted that there was “not much in the way of analysis.”

Only two months ago, I reviewed “Kingdom of Shadows”, a personality-driven documentary that profiled a Texas rancher who smuggled marijuana when he wasa young and a Mexican cop who was noteworthy for being an exception to the virtually universal rule of corruption. It too was far more interested in “story-telling” than analysis.

Sandwiched between the two films chronologically was the 2014 “Drug Lord: the Legend of Shorty” that described the futile search by a young and obscure director for an interview with the elusive drug lord (chapo means shorty). Apparently he lacked the clout of Sean Penn. Once again I found the film sorely lacking in analysis:

Although I can recommend “Drug Lord”, I am still looking for a documentary on the Mexican drug trade that focuses on the political and economic aspects (what else would you expect from me?) It would be important to hear what Mexican radicals, especially those trained in sociology and history, have to say about the viral growth of drug syndicates over the past couple of decades.

Following suit, “Cartel Land” once again could not be bothered with anything so dry and dusty as a sociologist explaining why Mexico’s major industry is now the production and sale of illegal drugs. Even more than the three films mentioned above, it is intent on drama and action after the fashion of narrative films such as “Traffic” or “Sicario”.

Its saving grace was having access to the autodefensas in Michoacán, the state on the west coast of Mexico that was as ravaged by drug gangs as Guzman’s Sinaloa. The autodefensas were anti-drug paramilitaries initiated in late 2013 by a physician named José Valverde who allowed the film crew to accompany him on raids against members of the Knights Templar cartel that dominated the region. Your initial impression is that the vigilantes were popular with the community and effective. When the Mexican military began to crack down on them, there were protests that successfully defended their right to bear arms and to use them against the gangs.

Like “Kingdom of Shadows”, “Cartel Land” includes a personality from Texas, this time a 56-year old man named Tim “Nailer” Foley who is obviously seen as a complement to Valverde since he too is the leader of a vigilante group known as the Arizona Border Recon whose members, including Foley, patrol the border with Mexico assault rifles in hand. They claim they are trying to prevent drugs from flowing into the USA but mostly they serve as an auxiliary to the border patrols that are trying to keep desperate jobseekers from crossing over. Indeed, you see Foley and his henchman training their guns on some hapless Mexicans whose only hope is to get a job in construction or gardening. The film makes no effort to interrogate the role of Foley’s goons given the obvious evidence that drug cartels use submarines, planes, trucks, and tunnels to get drugs into the USA, not in the backpacks of poor people swimming across the Rio Grande.

The final third or so of the film chronicles the downfall of the autodefensas as its raids begin to target the innocent just as many DEA raids in the USA have done over the years. There are also allegations that the Knights Templar have penetrated the autodefensas to turn them to their own advantage. Eventually Valverde is arrested and sentenced to a long prison sentence cheek by jowl with those who he was supposedly trying to eliminate.

The obvious lesson is that you should not take the law into your own hands although the American vigilantes have a much easier time of it as the armed occupation in Oregon might indicate.

Mostly the film exploits the visceral experience of being embedded with Mexican vigilantes who are taking the fight to the bad guys. We are treated to a front row seat of men firing assault rifles into Knights Templar hideouts as Valverde or his deputies cry out “Surrender, motherfuckers.”

Perhaps the intent of director Matthew Heineman can best be gleaned from the inclusion of Kathryn Bigelow as Executive Producer. Bigelow was the director of “Zero Dark Thirty”, the atrocious reenactment of the raid on Osama bin-Laden’s hideout that provided vicarious thrills to many film reviewers—except me. Shortly after Bigelow came on board, she told Entertainment Weekly that the film would be “potent, raw and visceral”, the same adjectives that could apply to “Sicario”, a narrative film I found cliché-ridden and obvious.

The appeal of the drug wars for people like Kathryn Bigelow should be obvious. They allow her and those attuned to her aesthetic like Matthew Heineman to make a lurid entertainment with social questions getting short shrift. After all it is not the job of a filmmaker to make judgments unless of course you are some obscure Marxist whose work will be screened at the Film Forum for a week or so and then disappear into oblivion.

This leads us to the Sean Penn/”Chapo” Guzman saga. You can read Penn’s article on the Rolling Stone website. Most of Penn’s article is about himself, written in the vein that this commercially “edgy” magazine has made famous. For example, after he gets off a plane flown by one of Chapo’s henchmen, he takes care of some personal business:

I throw my satchel into the open back of one of the SUVs, and lumber over to the tree line to take a piss. Dick in hand, I do consider it among my body parts vulnerable to the knives of irrational narco types, and take a fond last look, before tucking it back into my pants.

Obviously we are in Hunter Thomson territory. Not that I mind gonzo journalism so much, but I keep looking for some discussion of why Sinaloa is so poor or some other matters that could help put the drug wars into perspective.

After thousands of words of prelude that has the aura of an Oliver Stone movie, Penn finally sits down to interview the world’s leading drug dealer. As might be expected, Guzman is given ample opportunity to express by what now seems self-evident, namely that as long as there is a demand for drugs, Mexico will supply them. He got involved in the drug business in Sinaloa when he was 15 years old because there were no other jobs available and hopes to continue for as long as he can in his chosen trade.

Showing that he has absorbed the best techniques of an Oprah Winfrey, Penn asks the gangster about his relationship to his mom. His reply: “My relationship? Perfect. Very well.”

The interview, which probably took all of 15 minutes, is noteworthy for its deference to its subject.

Years ago I tried to come to terms with the Colombian drug trade since there was a time when the public was fascinated with Pablo Escobar, another Robin Hood figure who rose from poverty. My research convinced me that rather than turning Colombia into a jungle, there was evidence that it was a stabilizing factor:

It is important to understand that the cocaine industry also has the effect of fueling the transformation of the peasantry into a proletariat and petty proprietors at the very same time it is displacing it from subsistence farming. In the early 1980s, according to Johns Hopkins Political Science professor Bruce Begley, over 500 thousand Colombians had jobs in the drug trade. In addition, Begley argues that the drugs have actually served to stabilize the Colombian political system and specifically compares their role in the economy to the introduction of the coffee industry in the mid-1800s:

Due to marijuana and cocaine a new nouveau riche has developed in Colombia much as in the late and early twentieth centuries a coffee oligarchy developed in the country. Parts of the civil wars which were fought in the latter part of the nineteenth century, particularly the War of 1000 Days in Colombia, had something to do with the introduction of coffee and the socioeconomic changes that followed. Today, fairly conservative, often right-wing individuals link themselves frequently with MAS, with the military and with other organizations moving to legitimize themselves within the Colombian system, moving to gain status within that society, buying political power, Into the system if you like, but not to disrupt that system in any fundamental way. Nonetheless, there is this sense that the old families in Colombia which have controlled the politics since the late nineteenth century introduction of coffee are now gradually incorporating and absorbing the nouveau riche, the Carlos Lehders that rise, not necessarily in the first generation but rather in the second and third generations. The children of the drug dealers now join the major social clubs and marry into some of the more prestigious families. Many of these old families are precisely those families who were declining economically, and hence politically. With the introduction of coffee in the nineteenth century the new coffee barons also gradually married into more traditional, land-owning families, joining money and commercial agricultural exports with status within the society.

If you look at American history, you will see the same tendencies. The Robber Barons used illegal means to create the vast wealth that is now enshrined in the names of universities like Stanford and Carnegie-Mellon. Who knows? Maybe years from now there will be a Chapo University.

Even more to the point, just as the prohibition of cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana lead to huge but illicit profits in Mexico, alcohol played the same role in American society. And perhaps nobody had more of a meteoric rise to respectability based on racketeering than Joseph Kennedy, the father of the JFK. Some years back I wrote about our country’s Chapo—of course he was a lot taller than Guzman but by no means no more benign:

In keeping with Balzac’s epigraph to “Pere Goriot” that “Behind every great fortune there is a crime,” the Kennedy dynasty owed its place in history to the ongoing criminal activities of Joseph Kennedy.

In “The Outfit,” Gus Russo’s definitive study of the Chicago mob, we learn that Joseph Kennedy made his millions through a combination of white-collar crime and bootlegging. Using the same kinds of illegal insider trading that people like Michael Milken made infamous, Kennedy sold short just before the 1929 crash and walked away richer than ever. As a banker-investor, Kennedy plundered the stock of Pathé Films in the 1920s, giving insiders like himself stock worth $80 per share, while leaving common stockholders $1.50 per share. When Kennedy attempted a hostile takeover of the California-based Pantages Theater chain in 1929, he paid a 17 year old girl $10,000 to falsely claim that she had been raped by the chain’s owner, who then served part of a fifty-year prison sentence that was ultimately reversed. Kennedy got control of Pantages at a bargain basement price.

With respect to bootlegging, Russo reports:

Kennedy was up to his eyes in illegal alcohol. Leading underworld bootleggers from Frank Costello to Doc Stacher to Owney Madden to Joe Bonanno to Meyer Lansky to Lucky Luciano have all recalled for their biographers or for news journalists how they had bought booze that had been shipped into the country by Joseph Kennedy. On the receiving side of the booze business, everyone from Joe’s Hyannis Port chums to the eastern Long Island townsfolk who survived the Depression by uncrating booze off the bootleggers’ boats tells tales of Joe Kennedy’s involvement in the illegal trade.

Connections made in this period would prove useful during JFK’s 1960 Presidential bid. Murray “Curley” Humphreys, the brains behind Al Capone, and his chief executioner Sam Giancana (nicknamed “Moony” because of his psychopathic reputation) had inherited control of the Chicago mob after Capone’s death and built up powerful alliances in the trade union bureaucracy all around the country that helped to tip the balance in Kennedy’s favor in the 1960 primaries race.

Using mob lawyer and ex-state attorney general Robert J. McDonnell as a liaison, the Kennedys met with Giancana in Chicago in 1960. According to Russo, a quid pro quo was worked out at this meeting. In exchange for the mob’s help, a Kennedy Justice Department would go easy on them. According to Humphreys’ widow, the mobster was leery of making a deal: “Murray was against it. He remembered Joe Kennedy from the bootlegging days–called him an untrustworthy ‘four flusher’ and a ‘potato eater.’ Something to do with a booze delivery that Joe had stolen. He said that Joe Kennedy could be trusted as far as he, Murray, could throw a piano.”


  1. Well, I’m disappointed, but not surprised, to hear that this is another depiction in the same vein as all the other depictions of the Mexican drug trade, in which American government and society is complicit.

    I wish that the people of Mexico could actually tell their own stories and in their own words, and be heard. Just once, I’d like to see something that’s less sensationalism and more raw honesty.

    Everyone knows Mexican government is corrupt, but for some reason, the voices of the average people are drowned out, even as the people call for an end to the corruption that’s destroying their families and their country.

    Comment by Juana — January 11, 2016 @ 9:03 pm

  2. Gratis Copy of the ABC’s of Communism, Bolshevism 2016

    This new edition of my textbook may be of interest to you. It is now available for purchase along with my other books at Kindle Books http://www.amazon.com. There are accompanying lectures on You Tube at the ABC’s of Communism channel. I have books in print in libraries http://www.worldcat.org .

    Best wishes, Jason drjasonsmith@hotmail.com


    Comment by drjasonwsmith — January 11, 2016 @ 9:27 pm

  3. Juana, Yes, there is a certain nostalgia for romantic adventurism when Americans write about Mexico. The cultures and politics of Mexico — its deep and profound history, its Revolution and mini revolutions, its long and profound political development within and beyond a colonial super power, is never quite given equal or fair billing. Again we see one measure being used: a linear perspective where the US, a far younger country than Mexico and half as interesting as far as I am concerned, are still stuck in 17C feudal relations with aristocratic land owners versus a subsistence peasantry. Louis cant really be blamed for being an American or his upbringing in the genre of the wild western and its depiction of Mexico through those eyes, However, on his well known views of the conflict in Syria, of ordinary folk fighting more than a corrupt dictator but a entrenched system long since corrupted, morphing out of a long revolutionary struggle — that in itself was the result of a long struggle.

    As you may agree The Drug War, that was initiated in 2007, was on the heels of very significant events going back 20 years, culminating the frustrations and desires and the struggle for changes going back decades, And that reached such a boiling point in certain States that the panicked political classes and power brokers at all levels, rural and urban, needed to do “something” about it. If the USA is important in this story is that it was alerted and warned, pushed and cajoled by the Mexican government. The Merida Plan provided the unconditional money, and the diffused establishments of Mexico went about their business of suppressing revolts or potential revolts.

    Are their Drug Lords? Most certainly, but they arent new, and they arent going to replace large landlords or to make proletariats out of peasants. Louis is falling into the same classic trap set by the Assad regime in his country: where the corrupt system creates an illusion of a conflict to conceal a more profound conflict that is going on just beneath the surface — all in order to save itself.

    It was an entertaining read about US Movie Stars and US politicians, and their misadventures,,, And it initially had potential, But face it: for most Americans, Mexico is an enigma wrapped inside tight popular misconceptions rooted in a long historical relationship…

    Comment by seaspan — January 13, 2016 @ 5:41 am

  4. correction: “where the US, a far younger country than Mexico and half as interesting as far as I am concerned” are at the developmental and evolutionary top of the heap, and Mexico is “still stuck in 17C feudal relations…”

    Comment by seaspan — January 13, 2016 @ 5:46 am

  5. No, it is not stabilizing Mexico. The drug trade has ruined Mexico. I was in a border town the other week and it is over run with creepy hooded cops and the army was speeding around in pick ups with machine guns affixed at the rear. In the daytime in the downtown. It was like Iraq. Empty stores everywhere.

    The drug wars has drained commerce and capital from many cities, and wasted human energy and life.

    Incidentally, the reason Prieto is moving against the cartels is because Western capital is starting to balk at the risks down there.


    Comment by Jeff — January 14, 2016 @ 8:45 am

  6. Seaspan,

    The large scale drug trade really is new in Mexico and the level of violence and carnage is off the charts. I had a 20 year gap in visits and the change is unbelievable.

    As for development, Mexico was a country people immigrated to, rather than the United Sates, in the 1930’s.

    Comment by Jeff — January 14, 2016 @ 8:52 am

  7. During your 20 year gap, I was living there,,, from 1992 to the present day. I’m not saying there isnt violence or that there isnt a drug trade and drug war. There are all three, not so coincidentally in tandem with underlying social dynamics. Not coincidentally, to re emphasise. As far as the development of Mexico, I was suggesting an incorrect conception in my “correction” post.

    Comment by seaspan — January 18, 2016 @ 2:10 am

  8. Spot on about Sean Penn. A refreshingly thought-full commentary. In contrast to Rose’s recent 2-part interview where Rose just kept beating Penn with the same questions over and over trying to wear him down. I’ve always admired Rose, but never saw this vicious close-minded side to him. Anyway…thanks for the writing.

    Comment by beverly — January 21, 2016 @ 7:41 pm

  9. Cartel Land has no analysis? It starts with the cooks making meth and ends with the same cooks who are now revealed as the former Autodefensa Militia members. The full circle says a lot, and essentially says that the American Demand for drugs will be met and therein is where the blame for the mess lies. You might want to review the beginning of the documentary where it is explained by the head meth cook.

    The analysis is spot on and compelling, too bad ya missed it. But you are a Communist so I guess ya miss quite a bit of reality or are evil, one of the two, or both.

    The American Militia captured a Cartel resupply squad, or at least that is what it implies. What your non-analysis misses is that the Cartels control immigration across the border. They make BILLIONS a year doing that. They also smuggle drugs. They are also deeply embedded in the Government of Mexico. All of that was also presented in the Movie, guess ya missed that too.

    You also missed that the Knights Templer organization was not who inflitrated the Mexican defense groups. It was a rival Cartel. The Autodefensa groups were genuine, but the other Cartel supplied them with weapons and infiltrated them with some of their men (the Forgiven Ones) – I guess you missed that too.

    I could go on but point is your review is nonsense and ya might well have paid attention to the film instead of using it to grandstand and push your noxious political views.

    Comment by Don Schutt — January 27, 2016 @ 9:41 pm

  10. Cartel Land has no analysis? It starts with the cooks making meth and ends with the same cooks who are now revealed as the former Autodefensa Militia members.

    That is not an analysis, Schutt. An analysis reads like this:


    Comment by louisproyect — January 27, 2016 @ 10:11 pm

  11. To the writer of this piece, your first mistake and proof that lack of facts is a liberals forte was saying “Kingdom of Shadows”, “Cartel Land” includes a personality from Texas, this time a 56-year old man named Tim “Nailer” Foley. The fact is had you actually viewed the film which I can safely assume you hadnt you would have learned that Foley is originally from California and moved to Arizona many years ago. Arizona Border Recon patrols the AZ Border which is miles away from the Rio Grand Valley TX . I see geography isnt your strong point. Calling drug mules and illegal aliens “desperate job seekers” is akin to calling yourself a “journalist” And to think that incompetent folks like yourself actually receive a paycheck

    Comment by Deepsea5150 — May 7, 2016 @ 2:58 am

  12. Too bad about the autodefensas – they didn’t last long at all, either all murdered or sold out. How about a report on the Zapatistas ?

    Comment by maggie — October 29, 2017 @ 8:30 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: