Oswaldo Zavala is a Mexican literary critic, cultural theorist, and professor at the College of Staten Island and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). He gained prominence for his controversial 2018 book “Los cárteles no existen” (Drug Cartels Do Not Exist), which challenges mainstream narratives about Mexican drug trafficking. Zavala argues that the concept of powerful, autonomous cartels is largely a political fiction that obscures state complicity in violence and serves to justify militarization while facilitating resource extraction and territorial control under the guise of fighting drug trafficking.

His vision represents a significant challenge to mainstream narratives about narco-trafficking in Mexico.

In his book “Drug Cartels Do Not Exist” (Los cárteles no existen), Zavala argues that the dominant narrative about powerful, autonomous drug cartels controlling territories in Mexico is largely a political fiction. Instead, he suggests that what we call “cartels” are actually loose networks of traffickers who operate with varying degrees of state complicity or protection.

Zavala contends that the “war on drugs” narrative serves political interests by:

• Obscuring the role of the state in facilitating drug trafficking
• Justifying militarization and security policies
• Deflecting attention from structural economic and social problems

His work is part of a critical academic perspective that examines how narratives about drug violence are constructed and who benefits from these constructions. Rather than seeing cartels as entities that challenge state power, Zavala suggests they operate within parameters established by state actors and economic policies.

Drug cartels acting as mercenary paramilitary groups

That perspective aligns closely with Zavala’s critical framework. He indeed discusses how what we call “cartels” often function as paramilitary forces that serve economic interests beyond drug trafficking.

In this analysis, violence attributed to “drug wars” is actually part of a larger process of territorial control and resource extraction. The displacement of indigenous communities from resource-rich lands follows a pattern where:

1. Violence creates conditions for depopulation and land abandonment
2. This violence is attributed to “cartel activity” in media and official narratives
3. Once communities are displaced, extractive industries (mining, logging, agriculture) move in
4. The state frames this as “restoring order” rather than acknowledging complicity

Zavala argues that labeling these groups simply as “drug cartels” obscures their function within a neoliberal economic model that prioritizes resource extraction and land privatization. The violence serves as a mechanism for primitive accumulation – forcibly separating indigenous peoples from their lands and communal resources.

This interpretation connects narco-violence to Mexico’s political economy and global capitalism rather than treating it as a separate criminal phenomenon or cultural pathology.

Connection with Michael C. Ruppert’s work

Michael C. Ruppert, (American, 1951-2014) was a former LAPD narcotics officer who became a controversial investigative journalist and author after leaving law enforcement. Ruppert gained prominence for his allegations about CIA involvement in drug trafficking, which he claimed to have witnessed firsthand during his police career. His work expanded beyond drug policy to encompass peak oil theory, government conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, and criticisms of the global financial system. His major book “Crossing the Rubicon” (2004) detailed his theories about peak oil and government complicity in various events. He founded the newsletter “From The Wilderness” to publish his investigations. Ruppert’s work was both praised for challenging official narratives and criticized for what some considered insufficient evidence for his most dramatic claims. He died by suicide in 2014 after struggling with health and financial issues.

Despite significant differences in context and approach, Ruppert’s and Zavala’s work share several important alignments:

Both challenge official narratives about drug trafficking, arguing that state institutions (particularly intelligence agencies in Ruppert’s case) are deeply complicit in the drug trade rather than simply combating it. They reject the framework that presents drug trafficking organizations as autonomous entities operating against the state.

Both view the “War on Drugs” as a politically constructed narrative that serves geopolitical and economic interests rather than public health concerns. They see drug policy as a mechanism of control and resource extraction rather than as genuine efforts to reduce drug harms.

Their analyses connect drug trafficking to broader political economy questions – Ruppert linking it to CIA operations and geopolitical objectives, while Zavala connects it to neoliberal economic policies and resource extraction in Mexico.

However, Ruppert’s work was more conspiratorial in tone, focused heavily on the CIA specifically, and branched into many other controversial areas like 9/11 theories. Zavala’s analysis is more academically positioned and specifically focused on the Mexican context and critical theory approaches to understanding violence.

Key Takeaways from Ruppert and Zavala’s Works

1. State Complicity: Both argue that state institutions are not simply fighting drug trafficking but actively participating in or facilitating it—Ruppert focusing on CIA involvement, Zavala on Mexican state actors.
2. Political Fiction: They contend that the “War on Drugs” narrative serves as a political fiction that obscures the economic and political interests behind drug policies and enforcement.
3. Economic Utility: Both view drug trafficking violence as functionally serving broader economic interests—resource extraction and land dispossession (Zavala) or geopolitical and financial objectives (Ruppert).
4. Narrative Control: They emphasize how official narratives about drug trafficking distract from structural problems and legitimize policies that primarily benefit political and economic elites.
5. Systemic Analysis: Rather than focusing on individual criminals or organizations, both analyze drug trafficking as integrated into larger systems of power—Zavala connecting it to neoliberalism and capitalism in Mexico, Ruppert linking it to global intelligence operations and resource control.