Hello everybody,
I am no expert on the topic and have just read some articles, etc. But I would like to raise some questions about mafias in general and Italian mafias in particular.
Yes, mafiaS. It's plural. And not just because you can have a different mafia for each ethnic community in your melting-pot country... especially in Italy, mafias have developed somewhat separately, each of them within their own regions of control; sometimes in unison and sometimes fighting each other for territory.
Such mafias have specific features that are unique to each of them. I don't know the whole list, but it is interesting to notice the differ in:
>administrative structure
>rituals
>attitude toward religion
>share of the black market they control
>preferred mode of action (political infiltration, corruption, smuggling, human trafficking, or any combination of these)
>entrepreneurial goals
>spoken dialect
>etc.
So here I will try to brief those of you who are interested in the topic with some basic notions to understand the phenomenon (e.g. its origin, dimension, etc.).
Just give me some feedback and -- hey -- if someone is more expert than I am and wants to call me out on my bullshit or wants to contribute with their own country's experience, you are all more than welcome to interact.
Now I'll keep going, but I have prepared no posts, so there is no specific plan for the discussion. All questions are welcome and I'll try to answer them to the best of my knowledge.
>spoken dialect and regional ethnic identification
One of the things Italians love to talk about is how divided they are.
Now, ethnographically speaking, Italians have the tendency to stress a bit too much on differences and not enough on similarities. According to their own view, there are striking differences even in a 20 km radius. Although this may be true in many relevant cases, truth is that there are some broad areas of shared linguistic background, which resulted in regional language variations on the same structure.
In fact, the map has the following broad language groups:
>Sicilian languages
>Neapolitan languages
>Middle Italian languages
>Tuscan language
>Gaul-Italian languages
>>Venetian language (which is a subset of the Gaul Italian, in my opinion, even though with remarkable historical differences)
>Retro-Roman languages
>Languages of minorities (a mixed bag of French, German, Albanian, etc.)
>>70636267
If you look at the map, it looks like a mess, but please consider the following things:
>the same colour (e.g. green) means same dialect. Yes, there are some slang variants, but people within the same colour area are assumed to understand each other pretty well
>The further you go, the hardest it is to understand each other when speaking dialect. A guy in the top left green will have less issues going south-west (towards Bologna), but many more issues going East (because the Furlan area is very different).
>Even so, many understand quite well the Tuscan and Middle Italian (Rome) accents and languages because they are the cornerstone of Standard Contemporary Italian
>Because of MSM, fascist propaganda and nationalism, dialects have always been regarded as low-tier languages -- linked to the countryside and thus meant to be forgotten qua illiterate and barbaric.
>Of course, this kind of ideological regime propaganda is bullshit because most of these languages have evolved as national languages of the Princedoms and Free States of Italy. E.g. Venetian has been spoken and written as the official language of the Venetian Republic for some 1,000 years (until Napoleon fucked up the place) and still survives to date
>Another thing to remark is that, again because of schooling, MSM, etc. younger generation and highly urbanized areas have lost their touch with the original languages of their own regional motherland. So do not expect everyone to stick to the stereotype. Some regions are more resilient than other ones to nationalization
>>70636267
>>70636402
I have talked a bit about Italian languages because it helps us understand in which condition Italy was when mafia happened.
Of course, mafia did not happen overnight, but was the result of a political and economical transition Italians call "Risorgimento".
"Risorgimento" [insurgence, uprising] refers to all those civil wars and proxy regional revolts that resulted in the unification of the Peninsula.
It goes unsaid that such project of unification got advantage of the redneck plebs thank to easy propaganda, but it was mainly a project from the "enlightened" romantic bourgeoisie that was getting wealthy and was pissed off by all those feudal constraints to a free market.
Yes.
>The main reason for the uprisings was the creation of an Italian free market.
There were, of course, other reasons:
>People were pissed off with Napoleon, who was supposed to create a Pan-Italian State and instead ended up selling bits and pieces to foreign countries. Anyway, he lost, so these foreign countries had it easy slicing the Italian pie. Many were pissed off by foreign rule.
>Pseudo-socialist and communist ideologies. Throughout the 20th Century there were widespread "statist" ideologies among the encultured elites of the country. Some advocated monarchy, others Republic, others wanted to cut the Pope's head off, etc. So, during the process of unification, each of these factions fought for different goals and shit.
>Piedmont was frankly trying to expand and become hegemonic in the Peninsula. It had best railways and shit, and its ruling monarchy had lost most ties with their Trans-Alpine (read: French) territory of origin (Savoy) and they had become fully Italian and interested in Italian politics and shit.
>>70637132
So, basically, when unification occurred, some redpilled duded said:
>Italy has been made. Now it's time to make the Italians.
That's the most redpilled thing one can say. If I remember correctly, von Metternich used to say:
>«The word "Italy" is just a geographic expression and a denotation that concerns language, but which has not the political relevance revolutionaries think of.»
It goes unsaid that, despite all the fascist propaganda and the "Italian pride" of Mussolini and even of later left-wingers (who had to justify fighting fascism during WW2 for the sake of unification)... despite all of these blue pills, most Italians would serenely agree with von Metternich.
Italy was fucking separate and unification was an artificial thing on behalf of the elites and not the result of a ethnic process of homogenization.
>>70637132
>that map
Italian unification was a mistake
t. Garibaldi
Does Cosa Nostra keep the shitskins in Sicily in line?
>>70637651
See here: >>70637505
:^)
>>70637505
The South had a different experience of the uprising. Its middle class was a fraction of the Middle class of the Northern revolting states.
I mean -- come on -- Milan's uprisings were against Austrian domination. Same goes for Venice. Both welcomed Savoy as a "liberator". But what about the South?
The South was pretty much okay.
Well, it was bankrupt and shit because the Bourbons that ruled there were fucking idiots or just didn't give a shit.
However, it missed all the proletarian and bourgeois bloc that made things like French Revolution happen.
Of course there were some restless young and less young traders and merchants. They tried to rebel many a time, but they lacked substantial support from the populace and were slaughtered like pigs in a butchery.
So, some adventurous geniuses from young Republican associations got radicalized by some dude called Mazzini and they organized a military expedition to the South.
These 1,000 red-shirt brothers (can you be more communist than that?) did something that nowadays would be labelled terrorism or just invasion of a foreign countries.
They were led by a dude named Garibaldi, who was basically the Che Guevara of the time; possibly an expert in Guerrilla warfare with the background in the merchant navy in Chile.
Led by this troop leader, the 1,000 redshirts "invaded" Sicily.
>>70637953
I'll get there in a minute.
I know our criminals have a few nice holds in Italy. And I think I heard some things about Serbs also doing shady shit through Italy, but they don't really have an actual presence there.
Discussing about "Italian" mafias is an outdated concept, most criminal organizations have branches all over the world nowadays and most conduct the same type of businesses; mafia isn't a family or a group of people, mafia is a human behaviour.
>>70637953
The shitkins prob do the lowest work for them.
>>70637651
No it wasnt. But forcing all Italic peoples into a centralised piece of shit republic after WW2 certainly was.
Italy should be a federal rebublic.
>>70637132
sweet gif
>>70637651
No. Post WW2 Italy was a mistake. You even have the fucking communist star on your emblem.
You were just as cucked as Germany, just a less known.
>>70638207
Now. 1,000 people is nothing.
Moreover, the Piedmont didn't want to fight a fucking war with the South nor to annex it.
They were happy with their northern free market, with railways and shit. Who gave a fuck of the decadent South?
So the Minister of Piedmont (Cavour) made sure the 1,000 raiders wouldn't get their weapons in time. But they defied the thing and got them in Tuscany instead and then went to Marsala.
But the only reasons they succeeded were:
>English ships protecting their landing (see pic)
>Local feudal Sicilian rulers decided the Kingdom was crap so "why not? Maybe we'll get more privileges with a revolution. We will just make sure we will be on the winning side".
At this stage, the Kingdom of Naples was overwhelmed by:
>Garibaldi's redshirts winning the day
>Sicilian peasants uprising because local noblemen told them to do so
Savoy made a decision:
>If Garibaldi is going to fucking win, he will make a Republic, which goes against our interests
>He will also go straight to Rome and make a mess with the Pope, who is very influential in Italy and abroad
>So we have to go there, win the war instead of him, and claim that unification was our plan from the beginning
>We will fight Papal troops for the purpose of creating a corridor, but we will not get Rome immediately and stop that Che Guevara fool
They succeeded. And this was the start of the colonial exploitation of the South on behalf of Savoy.
>>70638671
Exactly.
>le mafia gabagool offer you can't refuse meme
It's feudalism. They even marry cousins.
I hate being Italian because people glorify this shit so much.
>>70638671
>>70638741
shut up, fagits.
Mu communist symbols in a catholic country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_d%E2%80%99Italia
>>70637505
>Italy was fucking separate and unification was an artificial thing on behalf of the elites and not the result of a ethnic process of homogenization.
you could say the same about germany, or many other modern nations. actually, you'd have a better case with germany, since half the german states were catholic and the other protestant during unification.
italians were all catholics who spoke the same language, there's no great crime in uniting them under 1 flag.
>>70638687
Who cucked the South of Italy?
Apparently, there was a series of mixed interests.
>Savoy had interest in exploitation, but not in proper rule. They appointed governors and send the army to garrison the South. The army was not kind to the people. Taxation became a problem.
>However, also the local feudal lords cucked the South. At least some of them did. They basically allowed for the country to be sold to Savoy (a foreign power) just for the sake of getting some extra privileges as the "fathers" of unification
>Mafia
This is where my knowledge gets murky.
Some say Mafia started with highwaymen, much like nowadays FARCs. They fought for freedom from occupation first, but then they became entangled in the system they created.
Basically, I think history of early highwaymen [briganti] was similar to that of FARCs in Columbia. They started as political guerrilla. Then committed crimes to get funding (burglaries and shit). Then they started taxing peasants in the territory they controlled. And ultimately they became a criminal organization.
>>70638363
>mafia is a human behaviour.
I think my comparison between "briganti" and nowadays "FARCs" proves your point. I will return to that later.
Based thread. Very interesting.
Keep it coming
>>70639071
>you could say the same about germany, or many other modern nations. actually, you'd have a better case with germany, since half the german states were catholic and the other protestant during unification.
I fully agree with this.
Germany was a mess even during the so-called Empire (which was actually an elective something that resulted from a million different political systems).
I wanted to say that but left it for you to discuss. I do not think Italy's history is much different from other nation-building stories.
>>70639071
>italians were all catholics who spoke the same language, there's no great crime in uniting them under 1 flag.
Clearly you haven't read this:
>>70636267
>>70636402
>Same language
Fuck no.
I still cannot understand most shit people from distant region say.
You English speakers have very similar syntax across dialects. It is just matter of getting used to accent and slang words.
Italian languages have a variation in basically everything, from vocabulary to syntax. Sentence structure, verbs and shit.
Everything is different. Pronunciation is etc.
I bet you don't understand Cockney or Gaelic just because you're English.
>>70639102
Now that I think about what I said, it kinds resembles what Giovanni Falcone once said about mafias, he defined them as a human phenomena, and like every human phenomena, it is bound to end.
btw, where did you do your research?
>>70639486
kind of resembles* (kek)
>>70639306
Thank you Turkroach.
Actually, Turks have a role in this story.
Because Savoy had to make their rambunctious entrance in foreign politics.
So they basically chose to participate in a proxy war just to prove they were strong enough to carry on their foreign agenda.
This is what is called the Crimea War.
Sounds familiar, /pol/?
It is the same old story of NATO (the "then" NATO = France, British Empire and Savoy/Sardinia) supporting Turks to fight against Russians who tried to get a military strategic point in the Black Sea.
>>70638971
The point is that Italy doesnt work as a centralised republic.
Italy is a way too diverse country (culturally, linguistically, politically, etc.) for such a state to properly work.
Federalize it and see how fast corruption and inefficiency dissapear.
If the Sicilians had to spend their own money instead of relying on money from Rome, they would be much more careful not to waste it.
>>70639375
>Holy
>Roman
>Empire
>>70639486
>btw, where did you do your research?
I'm an academic, but not in the field of history.
I have been exposed to such things for almost 10 years.
So I decided to collect my knowledge.
But I have never read things other than some articles and mostly I am trying to tie up a lot of separate info I found on wikipedia and elsewhere.
I am also passionate about "Anni di Piombo" and other crimes. So I tried to make a huge flowchart that linked everything.
Of course I failed because of complexity, but that was just free time shit. That's why I'm on /pol/.
What you are reading is mostly the result of academic-ish lurking. No professional historian though. Just an attempt to make it clear in my mind.
>>70639687
Agreed
>>70639633
Does this story sound familiar, /pol/?
>Abbos lecturing me on my country.
Fuck off and go back to sniffing petrol.
Jk senpai it's a very good and informative thread. Keep it up.
>>70637953
See >>70638528
When a nigger arrives here with a boat the mob usually takes him under their "protection" and makes him do jobs like selling shitty souvenirs on the beach or selling drugs to teens at parties.
>>70639870
Anni di Piombo are beautiful to study, I'd give you a couple of good docs, but they're in Italian.
>>70639102
(continued)
However, the issue of highwaymen is a bit more complex.
Surely there were rebels who got radicalized, used criminal activities for the purpose of funding, and then started becoming the little rulers (lords of war) of the that Afghanistan we used to call "South of Italy in the 19th-20th Century".
But fact is that, as I said, even local feudal leaders kinda had interests in keeping things illegal or in fucking with the local Savoy police, which didn't even speak the language of Southerners.
So, basically, the reason most things are "illegally managed" in the South (from elections to drinking water) are not just the result of radicalized rebels but of a general discontent with the mismanagement of a foreign invading country.
It is not easy to invade, colonially exploit, and expect people to thank you.
Rather, they go to black market and think jack shit of your Savoy troopers.
This is why, I think we have to distinguish various levels of analysis. Each of them has its own relevance:
>Muh foreign invasion. I don't cooperate with invaders.
>Muh rebellion transformed into organized crime
>Muh feudal privileges I want to protect at all costs
>Muh I don't deal with foreigners.
>Muh Mediterranean culture, why cannot wash the dirty linens at home and keep things within family walls
So, on top of organized crime, we need to consider the dispositions of a people that didn't want foreign rule and was more than happy to see foreign-speaking governors being cucked.
However, these plebs didn't see it coming. That is, mafias were not there just for their benefits. Rather, they were for-profit organization. So fact is you can cherish them when they cuck the invaders. But you cry when they beat the shit out of you for not paying a debt.
>>70640361
>Anni di Piombo are beautiful to study, I'd give you a couple of good docs, but they're in Italian.
I can manage
>>70640574
When I say South of Italy was in the 19th Century like Afghanistan nowadays, I mean to say that it would be fully legit to hear a Southern dude say the exact same thing of this Afghan guy.
Question is at 07:20
https://youtu.be/QRjd8JjKtVg?t=7m18s
>Question: You mean NATO couldn't come here with all their tanks and heavy weapons?
>Answer: Unfortunately no, they couldn't. They would come for an hour of two, but when they left, the area was just the same. The same Taliban and the same people.
Substitute the name of the factions and the result is the same.
>>70638845
>It's feudalism. They even marry cousins.
(continued from >>70641082 )
Now, regardless of whether the current Mafias are the direct heirs of former feudal leaders or just radicalize rebel groups who became criminal organization and only secondarily involved with local bourgeoisie and nobility...
...That is, regardless of the sequence in which events took place...
It is still a fact that nowadays mafias remind us a lot of Feudalism.
Here are the features of Feudalism I want to discuss. But I will make a comparison with Mexican cartels, so that it is respected the assumption, made by >>70638363 , that this is more an aspect of human behaviour in general... and you do not have to be the grandson of a Prince to come up with a system that is similar to feudalism.
Feudalism and Mexican cartels are similar in these respects:
>The ruling class is made of warriors. Warriors are not necessarily illiterate, but they are not just book keepers... even though nowadays Mafias 2.0 might have evolved from violent crimes to white collar crimes... but that's a new story.
>Religious figures are used to legitimize the ruling class. So there are usual strong ties with everything sacred. There is no greater pious man than a Cartel Lord who is being blessed by his trusted priest. These people fund churches and shit as a consequence. And it is not just to wash off their sins. It is more a matter of feeling legitimate rulers.
>>70639687
Some region of italy are called "special region" and they have more power and are less dipendent from rome , like sicilia and sardegna , but they are doing pretty bad.
(continued from >>70641875 )
>Feudal lords are also protectors of the arts. Because Public Relations and Media control is a thing. In fact, you can tell all Cartel bosses have their own singers, tv channels and shit. Similarly, Neapolitan Camorra has an entire genre of music [neomelodici] that sing the praises of the Lords. Compare this with basically all human history up until the birth of capitalism. All scholars and singers, and troubadours got their wages from Feudal Lords who were killers and warriors on one hand, but they were trying to polish their appearance with their own peers.
What I am saying here is that Dante was decidedly more gifted than Gigi d'Alessio, but the funding system he relied on when he left the Republic of Florence was basically the same.
1. Within Republics, you could make a life as a clerk and become a scholar as well.
2. Within Church dominions you could become a scholar or literary man or artist by getting scholarship (by means of minor religious orders that allowed travel or by working for architecture projects -- the link between art and power is strong here; see Michelangelo working for the Pope).
3. Within strictly Feudal systems, your funding depends on your ability to appease and please the leader and satisfy his (or his wife's) whims.
>>70642156
>Feudal lords have the tendency to ask artists to celebrate them.
I will say more on this.
Do you realize that most of our findings from Ancient civilization onwards were either public infrastructures (roads, etc.) or monuments?
And what is a monument if not an attempt to make yourself famous (and respected) beyond your own life span?
As far as I know, Augustus might be just a very clever businessman, but what makes him well regarded nowadays is also his ability to communicate us, by means of scholars in his payroll, his own version of how things were going.
Ancient Rome had a parasitic and corrupt Republican economy, which relied on people begging people in charge -- e.g. Senators -- to join their private armies, to become servicemen and maybe get a career within this or that family. Augustus was just the pimp of all pimps, as far as I am concerned. But he got to rule the country AND had people write history books under his name. He also had statues etc.
Next time somebody retrieves an overly embroidered or carved sword from an ancient age, made of wealthy materials that went beyond the sheer purpose of the weapon, try to think of such artefact as something culturally similar to pic related.
It was just another mafia leader pimping around with kitch stuff he liked because he felt represented by it.
>>70639932
>>70642887
I prefer to think things change... it is just that Russian access to Mediterranean and/or Baltic sea is an unfinished business.
So it was bound to come back. Over and over again.
(continued from: >>70642619 )
>Family ties.
So here we get to the core element that lies behind the feudal or mafia systems. Family ties.
Generally speaking, I think all people with Economy 101 know that the development of society (I will not talk of "progress") depends on the way people entrust each other with time, work or resources.
Consequently, we can say that trust is the core element behind all economics undertaking.
Before I go on, I need to make clear to the English-speakers that the semantic field of "trust" includes other terms, such as "faith", "loyalty", and "confidence".
I can entrust somebody with resources (trust), but I can also entrust somebody with the life of my daughter (confidence), or I can trust my subordinates and they trust me back (loyalty), or I can even trust God and hope he trusts me by bestowing luck on me (faith -- superstition).
The difference in systems is on how trust is quantified and traded.
For the contemporary reader, I argue it is jack easier to think of trust in terms of cash. Currency is a common thing nowadays, but it wasn't back in Middle Ages.
Cash, for us, is a measure of trust. Like trust, it is theoretically unlimited. Some would say it is a measure of time, but this is just the proletarian upshot of a general rule: of course, subordinate work requires people to be entrusted with resources in exchange of their time, because time and work is the only thing they can trade. However, between wealthy people, cash is not directly synonymous with time, but with power.
Okay, that was general, but let's go back to Feudalism.
Feudal = from Foedus
Fede = Faith/Trust
Foedus is in fact a Pact, i.e. a legal oath in which basically the Lord entrusts his vassal with some land to manage in exchange of his loyalty.
In the most formal and legal perspective, we can see this as an exchange of favors.
>>70643512
>In the most formal and legal perspective, we can see this as an exchange of favors.
However, psychologically and sociologically, I think it was much more than that.
Early vassals are usually family members or childhood friends. This is why, when you read ancient stories and even historical novels, a lot of stress is put on who was doing what with whom.
Do you know of all those instances in which you read:
>And this guy was sent to the court of Lord X.
That's not just an appointment. It is a chance for a career. Suppose you are a minor nobleman, 12 y.o., bound to become shieldbearer of some important nobleman. That's your chance.
Of course, if you are the son of an important lord yourself, you become at the same time guest and hostage.
If I send my first born at your court, I entrust you with his education, but I also know you will jail or kill him if I try some dirty tricks on your lands. Moreover, given power is transmitted by means of hereditary ties, my first born is also the only chance my region has for government stability in the long run.
So yeah, being "friend" of somebody means a lot in nowadays capitalism. But at the time it was even more, because there was no algorithm to calculate your ability to repay debts, so people had to trust family members first, and also people whose character was well known and respected.
Ideally (but not factually), vassals were supposed to be the King's band of brothers. Hardly so in real life, because of envy, political calculus, etc. But it was friendship and mutual trust the basis of power sharing... and it was not quantifiable as easy as currency is.
Of course I make it easy. People knew where they stood. They knew who the fuck owned what and who could repay debts etc. But in such a system, nothing prevented a Lord from making decisions based solely on friendship and not on financial calculus.
(continued from >>70643993 )
But does Feudalism exhaust the definition of what Mafia is?
The comparison with feudalism is tempting also because of the historical situation of the South of Italy. However, I entertain a theory of "convergent cultural evolution". That is, no matter your legacy, given some specific conditions everybody will come out with a similar system.
Examples:
>(hypothetical) American Second Civil War.
>FARCs (see above)
Basically whoever ends up relying more on individual trustees to make a profit and enhance his position (rather than on objective production outcomes) can set up a system like that. Call it feudalism, call it corruption, call it "rebels gone criminal"... it is the same old story.
Of course, material outcomes are still important. You have to harvest taxes. You have to make a profit. You have to earn shit. However, this is not technically the duty of the Lord.
Labour or the exploitation thereof is the duty of minions. The Lord is the one who ensures that everyone in his circle are happy.
Consequently, it is not always the case that some leader wants to optimize the production outcomes of the land or territory (or market share) he manages. Why not?
Answer: because he does not want to displease his partners. He does not want to be the tall poppy or, if he actually is the tall poppy, he wants to make sure nobody cuts his head, so that financial or economical optimization does not work for him unless, of course, he can control all of that like an absolute leader.
So, even when faced with innovation, the boss might shrug it off because such innovation in the market will hurt his peers, who will feel personally deprived of privileges or suffer losses (financial or emotional). Pleasing people in a family/friend trust system is more important than achieving normative goals such as optimal production, protection of the environment, or even justice.
Innovation is a problem. And you don't want to create a problem, won't you?
(continued from >>70644677 )
The other thing that distinguishes Mafia from Feudalism is the domain of business Mafia deals with.
Suppose there is a substantial identity between Mafia and Feudal system (there isn't, but we have seen there are many similarities born out of a similar attitude to trust and its sources). Suppose they are structurally analogous to each other.
If that was the case, the difference would be in the fields of application, i.e. in the types of spaces where power is exercised and enforced.
It is at this stage (and not at the structural analysis stage!) that the history of Mafia comes into play.
Historical contingencies made the difference. A system like the Feudal one was born out of the subdivision of the Roman Empire (I will not talk of collapse here because it is bullshit -- there was no apocalypse). Moreover, local nations became way more feudal not just because of their distance to the Imperial centre, but also because new waves of migrants, who were given land in exchange of military protections, added their own warrior legal systems on top of the Roman civil one (in which, all things considered, even plebs could raise to the top of the government). So, feudalism was just an evolution of official governments.
Instead, historically, mafia was born out of insurgence against a foreign invader. So it can be seen both as a progressive force that aims to overthrow the "official status quo" but also as a reactionary force that aims to secure and defend some privileges that the "official State" wants to control.
Once mafia becomes established and more organized than just highwaymen and bandits, it gets more and more reactionary -- at least with regards to the areas of society it controls. So it becomes more organized crime and less band of rebels.
>>70638671
This
You also failed because you didn't bring the Falange in power
(cont. from >>70645372)
So what are the areas of interest and business of Mafias?
## FIRST PHASE ##
Well, considering they were originally funding their rebellion by means of criminal activities, the earliest business domains of mafias were:
>Smuggling
>Robbery
>Prostitution
>>70646129
## SECOND PHASE: CONSOLIDATION ##
>Bribery
At some point, it becomes clear everybody knows where you hide. So the key to security is not defense, but mostly bribing the police and the local authorities.
>Tithes and taxation
Moreover, given territorial control is now somewhat bigger and defined, it is possible to start taxing peasants and plebs for further help. It started as free subscriptions to the rebel cause. Now in town everyone is supposed to do it.
>Loan sharks
Since you start having capital, you start also working like an underground bank. I don't have to explain that, but loans are exactly how you start to getting hold of the entire economy of a region. Of course, since you are organized crime, you can loan at illegal rates and use violence to make people comply with your terms.
>>70646394
## THIRD PHASE: EXPANSION (STILL LOCAL) ##
>From bribery to corruption
Basically, once you start bribing authorities to get away with smuggling and sheit, you are on the slippery slope that quickly leads you to attempt seizing power from behind the curtains.
This is not the same as overthrowing power *qua* rebels. This is just a way to secure yourself and your business by funding political campaigns and have friendly people in charge, who can provide you with help and intelligence about state funding and many other juicy opportunities. Every time they help you, they get a cut of the profit.
>From loan sharking to legit investments
>From smuggling to production
The new thing is that once you start getting rich, you can also expand your business areas with new holdings.
You have the capital to do so, and you want to make it cheap. So why smuggle cigarettes, booze and drugs from abroad if you can produce them where you are? At later stage (nowadays) decentralization is the key, but at these mid stages it is convenient to have direct control over production instead of contract it.
Consequently, you start to own land, properties, artisans and maybe a couple of shops. All of them are profitable qua legit shops but also profitable because they are cover-ups for your illicit activities, which are way riskier but also pay better.
>>70647148
## FOURTH PHASE: EXPANSION (INTERNATIONAL) ##
>From prostitution to human trafficking
The first form of human trafficking is clearly that of prostitution.
However, changed historical conditions and the irrecoverable poverty of your land has made it so that many people leave their homes to become labourers abroad.
Among the destinations, we have:
>Northern Europe (e.g. Belgium, German and French mining fields)
>South America
>United States of America
>Australia
Now, as a smuggler you already had footholds in foreign countries, but you had no local people working for you other than a couple of trustees.
Now you have a chance to:
>Expand internationally
>Expand your market, open yourself to new markets
>Cuck migrants by providing migration services those racisssss countries do not provide. In a world where the migrant is by definition exploitable, it is paramount for migrants to work for people in foreign countries who speak their language and can guarantee certain things such as protection.
My assumption is that we face two scenarios:
1. People feel poor and go abroad. Once abroad they realize they are being exploited and have no safety net. Naturally, they fall into the net of migrant mafia, which acts as a proxy of the Italian one.
2. Some people are cucked by mafia from the start. The local boss talks to youngsters of opportunities abroad. These people leave but are illiterate and have no idea how the fuck it is to live in New York. So they realize they are fucked because they have no support and know no language. This is a chance for them to be exploited by local Italian mafias, who are relentless compared to the average American employer, who is racist but maybe not a slaver.
So, there is a chance in my opinion that the poverty of the South combined with mafia interests overinflated the phenomenon of migration... because there was an interest in using local plebs as slaves -- but you just had to do that abroad and, guess what?, make them pay for it.
>>70647735
Given the nature of the phenomenon, I don't think Mafia bosses of the time behaved differently from Negroes tribal chiefs who trafficked with people.
The difference with Negroes was that Mafia dudes benefited from trafficking, but never renounced the "ownership" (albeit indirect) of their own slaves.
For fucks sake we're not sending people abroad to sell them. They are our clay. We will dispose of them. Instead, Negro chiefs were content just with the payment for slaves, but they were basically depriving themselves of labour force. Possibly, they were deluded by quick payments at what appeared higher rates.
Instead, as I said mafia both trafficked and made sure not to stop after smuggling people abroad, but put into place a follow-up system that profited from every single stage of the migration process:
>Travel
>Migration procedures
>Housing
>Employment
>Taxation
>Loans
>Repatriation
>etc.
If Negroes had done at least half of these things, they would be Kings now. But they didn't because they had no idea how things were working and had limited entrepreneurial perspective -- possibly due to their cultural milieu.
I noticed people are bored of reading my shit.
But I will finish it just because I am liking the narrative.
>>70648142
>I don't think Mafia bosses of the time behaved differently from Negroes tribal chiefs who trafficked with people.
Should be:
>I DO THINK
Bump limit reached. Page 9. I bail out.
Thanks to all who read so far. Maybe I still had a couple of posts about how they got back to Italy with wealth and started messing up with the financial markets... but that's another story, in a sens. It is a post WW2 one, with drugs, informatization.
Another thing missing here is the distinction between all Italian mafias... e.g. Ndrangheta has a certain structure, whereas Sicilian mafia doesn't. Camorra is said to have transitioned from honour codes to cartel-like organizations etc.
>>70649269
It was pretty interesting, anon.
When are you gonna make another thread?
>>70649340
I don't have fixed dates. I'm sorry.
But thank you very much for your appreciation.
I wish I could make one of those big print screens... and save this for another time.
