One of my favorite books is Excellent Cadavers. It's about two Italian judges that systematically root out corruption in Sicily, and pay for it with their lives. It is an incredible history of the path of fascism to the modern day Mafia. And the most interesting thing for me was how connected the Mafia are to the top levels of Italian government. Andreotti was definitely complicit.
Without having to go that far in the past, there are many evidences that Berlusconi had deep connection with mafia. Instead for Andreotti there are no evidence nor proofs, Andreotti was a very intelligent man and if he did or not something nobody was ever able to prove it.
I'm really interested to hear this. That book makes the assertion otherwise, but I definitely am not an expert. I know very little of Italian politics, honestly, and need to read more about Andreotti given what you said. Thank you.
My favorite part about Italy is how most sought for mafia bosses are "hiding" for their entire lives in their home regions and villages. The degree of "ignoring the obvious" is only comparable with the worst religious extremist, but also every country has is own equivalent of "ignoring the obvious".
It said that many northern Italians believe that a big reason the Mafia is so dominant in southern Italy and Sicily is that it was ruled (loosely) by Spain a long time ago. True?
The South being considered an actual part of Italy is a pretty new concept and not completely accepted by either the south or the north.
The north is sophisticated, cosmopolitan, industrialized, and has tons of arable farmland and just generally money running through it. Culturally it's more French / white European.
The south has very little arable land, it is rocky and hilly. It does not lend itself well to large-scale agriculture. It was largely ruled in a feudal system for a very very long time, which then collapsed into the peasant families each being given land ownership of plots too small to sustain a family.
It has also been a target of conquering by Greeks, Ottoman Turks, and many many many more cultures due to its critical location for shipping lanes - so it's been sort "ran over" too many times to count.
The fact that the real power structure has turned over so many times has led to lots of very very localized, unofficial power structures that represent sort of local "fiefdoms" which exist outside of the modern governmental structures.
Subsequently, it has built its own mythology of being "unconquerable" or "ungovernable" and not really a part of "Italy" - where "Italy" is seen as an outside power which builds into the mythology that helps the mafioso gain and retain control.
Edit: for very enjoyable (and highly regarded) novel that gets at the mafioso / Southern mythology about this, I highly recommend Black Souls.
I agree with your analysis but Greek weren't merely conqueror, they are part of Sicily because they established themselves there and remained. Large part of Catania and Syracuse are of Greek ascent.
About the arable land, I don't know, Sicily is extremely fertile in general and there also some large plains as well like in Palermo. Sicily was extremely rich and prosper during the Normad period and for the Arabs who came before it was nothing short than a paradise.
Sicily is fertile, but for example much of Calabria is very much not - too rocky/mountainous. The issue is not that there's no fertile land, but the fertile land relative to the population is not a lot in terms of just sustaining the South subsisting on its own, and it certainly doesn't have enough extra fertile land to develop as much agricultural export from the region as the north has.
And it's gotten much much worse in recent years with climate change the heat and drought is getting very serious in the south.
Spain does not have any mafia-like structures. Modern mafia emerged in Sicily long after Spain (actually Aragon) were gone, probably because of many different factors.
One should not forget the Kingdom of Two Sicilies was quite wealthy and advanced at the time of the Italian Reunification, but crumbled shortly afterwards.
There was a big wealth transfer South to North. Nonetheless, it's still a lovely place.
I am from Sicily, near Palermo. In my humble opinion the main reason of emergency of Mafia was injustice and bad government, most prominently from Bourbon family but also from previous kingdoms. When there is injustice and bad government you learn to despise the authorities and the laws and your priority is the survival.
Sicily was great when it was governed by the Normands but that didn't last for a long time.
I live now in Switzerland and I am studying its history. It seems one of the reason of Switzerland prosperity and order was they never got a prince or a king but cities were autonomously governing themselves.
Both in Palermo and in Naples, the business activities of the mafia can be categorized as extremely short-sighted profit squeezing, which I suppose is all you might expect from organizations operating mostly outside the law but with a firm grip on their respective societies (a bit like Google/Meta/Tesla I suppose).
It seems like Sicily is an experiment in what happens when you let a few thousand people intimidate the rest of society into letting them cut in line and cheat on a grand scale. I bet the average person's cost of living and taxes are probably at least 5% higher than they otherwise would be as a result of extortion fees, cleanup costs from illegal dumping, VAT fraud, cartel/monopolistic behavior, etc.
I recommend visiting the Ecomuseo in Palermo [1] if you ever have the chance. They examine, among other things, the lasting impact of the subpar building of now mostly crumbling structures by the Mafia that still litter the cities of Sicily.
Yes, the mafia built housing, but it’s not the kind of social housing we might hope for—it’s mostly slum-like. Of course, the city of Palermo is also EXTREMELY densely populated—I read something like the fourth-most densely populated city in Europe in a magazine once, but can’t source that now, so take it with a grain of salt.
Nota bene: I’m not Italian myself; my wife’s family has their roots in Sicily.
Unpopular? One of Italy's most popular historians likes to joke that, back in ancient Rome, any budding politician would have taken a post in Syria or Lybia over one in Gaul or (shudders) Britannia any day of the week. And every time, the audience just laughs and nods. The Mediterranean was a highway, not a frontier.
> but it’s not the kind of social housing we might hope for—it’s mostly slum-like.
It may be not what we hope for, but isn't it pretty much the same as what happens when the government builds it? I mean, the "projects" aren't exactly the shining example of what "we might hope for" either. It looks like this way of solving the problem is bound to fail whoever tries it - be it the well-intentioned government or the mafia.
The Mafia always enjoyed some support among people who benefit from it, which is why they make this sort of populist move in the first place. That doesn't mean they are as legitimate as a proper democratic government.
It's like saying "oh, the local feudal Lord helps us fight bandits!" - yeah, but he can also cut you down in the street without due process, doesn't care about your opinion, and might enforce ius primae noctis, without any recourse.
>It's like saying "oh, the local feudal Lord helps us fight bandits!"
Well, the whole point of the Mafia is that it's a sort of reactionary movement to defeudalisation/uniformisation in places that are far away from where the power centralizes (the exact same reason why Yakuza started after the unification and why a lot of gangsters are from Kyushu).
It also pisses me off that people use the word mafia inappropriately, for example "Russian Mafia" or "Moroccan Mafia" have no meaning, these are not feudal organization like Mafia or Yakuza
> It's like saying "oh, the local feudal Lord helps us fight bandits!"
It's not exactly the same, because
> - yeah, but he can also cut you down in the street without due process, doesn't care about your opinion, and might enforce ius primae noctis, without any recourse.
If the mafioso goes too far they lose the support of the locals.
I mean, sure, the population has no recourse when some henchman rapes some bride, but the organisation's management usually enforce their rules on their own members rigourously and violently, too.
In the case of losing what little support they have with no profit involved, it's not hard to see why these organisations don't actually allow Droit De Signeur.
They're a business, first and foremost. Allow, even encourage, violence to increase profits? Sure! Use violence just for kicks? Probably not.
> If the mafioso goes too far they lose the support of the locals
That's not really the case. The only way people can express a loss of support is by telling authorities where to find this or that boss in hiding, which happens extremely rarely (because a lot of bosses are not actually in hiding at any given time). In some cases, towns are effectively led from afar - footsoldiers just roll in whenever they need to, like before local elections - so there is very little anyone can do.
> the organisation's management usually enforce their rules on their own members rigourously and violently, too.
This is a romanticised view. There are no rules, what matters is only who can project the most violence and/or control the most money.
I agree that they're a business first and foremost, but a lot of mafiosi do actually enjoy expressing violence. Most of them come from poor backgrounds and lived through traumatizing experiences pretty early in life.
> This is the first pro-mafia comment I read on HN, and of course it’s in “Well Actually,” Normal Form, and I love it
Which part of this appeared to be pro-mafia to you?
>> It's not exactly the same, because
>> If the mafioso goes too far they lose the support of the locals.
>> I mean, sure, the population has no recourse when some henchman rapes some bride, but the organisation's management usually enforce their rules on their own members rigourously and violently, too.
>> In the case of losing what little support they have with no profit involved, it's not hard to see why these organisations don't actually allow Droit De Signeur.
>> They're a business, first and foremost. Allow, even encourage, violence to increase profits? Sure! Use violence just for kicks? Probably not.
> Which part of this appeared to be pro-mafia to you?
Well, all of it. You put mafia folks into realm of rationality, when we know from numerous accounts (as in thousands and more) that they are extremely emotional, do stupid things and fuck up almost everything they touch, even their own future. Smart criminals behave very differently, its more about negligence and lack of efficient state counter-measures that allowed them to exist and thrive.
Now when we talk about mafia I grant 1 exception - current calabrian mafia (one and only Ndrangheta) is so good at money laundering that other crime syndicates globally pay it a fee to launder their money, this outsourcing is more effective and cheaper than homemade solutions. I think last time I checked it was maybe 100 billion USD business yearly.
Ndrangheta is so good they are spread like cancer through most Europe, even ie Switzerland ain't immune to them. In eastern part of EU they corrupt poorer places like Slovakia directly via governments and prime minister and don't even hide it very much, and steal and wash most of money via massive EU development funds. There is absolutely nobody there who doesn't know about this scheme running for at least 15 years and various other schemes ie endless highways building which cost 3x as much as in Germany with terrible resulting quality, and so on... tells you something about society and why capable folks often just leave and never come back, but getting off topic here.
Welcome, visitor from the past! In our enlightened times, we understand that one truly opposed to something would not intimate that something is anything less than a baby-eating sect of demons who revel at suffering despite reason and self-interest. Only inveterate supporters, probably in the payroll, would do that.
(Reading on GP, of course, but I did greatly enjoy “Well, Actually, Normal Form.)
In a Hollywood movie, sure, with obligatory leading warrior woman role. In real history, not so much. With very rare exceptions (like England [1], and some Eastern European lands were at least some of peasants were militarized) peasantry had little military value [2], and therefore little factor in any rivalry. Also feudalism had more strict rules in regard to competition for resources compared to modern criminals. A rival had to appear first, and in most cases needed to have rights at least somehow proven by genealogical tree, and old agreements. While it did happen, it couldn't just because of peasants.
There was no need for a rival. Peasant revolts were actually quite common and in some cases they succeed in forcing their feudal lords' hands, to some degree [1].
They did happen, of course, but they wasn't common at all if you mark all occurrences on the timeline. And almost all cases were due to catastrophic events such as plaques, and famines exactly as the one you linked, not peasants joining politics. And that's the point as my comment replies to a specific claim, I didn't say peasant rebellions never happened.
There are so many small ways the common people can express support or disapproval. It's not as simple as "are they currently revolting with pitchforks".
This is the libertarian argument that since businesses try to maximize profits, they would not do things like discriminate, pollute or defraud because in the long-term it would hurt profits.
The reality is businesses (including organized crime) are made up of individuals, who do illogical and short-sighted things all the time.
So, like every goverment, then. "The government always enjoyed some support among people who benefit from it, which is why they make this sort of populist move in the first place." Yes, checks out.
At this point I'd take the feudal Lord a hundred times over any democracy, at least the feudal lord had the obligation to provide housing and a piece of land for his people/peasants, unlike democracy, which by this point is just an empty concept used to keep the current hegemonic system in place (and I could understand how come what they call democracy is still popular in places like this one here, places where people don't have to worry all that much about mortgages/paying rent)
Nothing edgy about it, I think about this subject quite often, as a matter of fact. And I'll ignore the "no knowledge of the past" thing, even though a discussion around Marc Bloch's La Société féodale could be interesting (I've read it in Italian [1], what other edition/translation would have you recommended?)
Lol, this hyperbole is laughable. Feudal lords were obliged to provide shit for peasants; if such peasants rebelled, 9 times out of 10 they would be massacred on the spot. The degree of arbitrary rule they expressed is something we just lost knowledge of, in the first world; but go ask Africans or South Asians from regions infested by warlords, to get a taste.
What about one day you send your daughters to school, but it's the day Mr Lord decides he needs some new sex slaves, and your daughters just disappear? What about Mr Lord needs some cannon fodder for some hopeless adventure, so he just raids your village, rapes a few women, chains you and your kids, and leads you to inevitable death? That's just Another Day in Feudalism for you.
>The degree of arbitrary rule they expressed is something we just lost knowledge of, in the first world
Actually, there are multiple areas in Europe that are now little different from feudal fiefdoms run by drag traffickers(13ème/15ème in Marseille comes to mind) and instead of doing anything about it politicians just pretend they don't exist.
I usually tend to forget that most of the people here have not read their history, comments like this one remind me of that. I recommend La société féodale [1] by Bloch, or the relevant volume from Histoire de la France rurale [2]
> I’d be interested to hear the viewpoints of Sicilians on this one
that's a big part of TFA, here's an excerpt:
The Sack of Palermo did not happen because a criminal organization imposed it from the outside though the use of violence. It was, rather, a chosen, planned and enacted project involving most of the Palermo elite of professionals, entrepreneurs and politicians, cheered on by a new middle class looking to climb the social ladder, and accepted by the underclasses in need of jobs and housing.
It is not impossible for a government to act as a mafia (see Russia). But I believe it's impossible for a mafia to be a functional government, they are just built on different grounds.
For me a functional government has the wellbeing of its citizens as a mission. There might be different opinions on how that would look like (hence democracy) but the idea is that; once the government is unchangeable and only cares about maximising the profits of its cadre then it starts becoming more and more like a mafia, just a legalised one.
At the scale seen in Palermo (though not only Palermo, by any means) it is effectively a government (and this point is an element of the article), but without a constitution (unless you count "submit to violence" as one) and sustained economically by extortion, corruption, and drug- and human-trafficking.
Lest this seems smug, let me say that, with SCOTUS struggling to find anything wrong in the events of January 6 2021, I am not feeling at all smug.
Lets see how that worked out for turkey. Oh, can i have syrup on those pancakes when the earth shakes. Mafia shit never works. Its tofudreg construction - in the midst of europe.
It's also falling apart, literally. I have been in Sicily and modern buildings, highways and bridges are in really bad shape due to faulty concrete. Closed roads and buildings wrapped in scaffolding everywhere.
The court of cassation disagrees. And he wasn't condemned only because of statute of limitations.
Ahem.
There are so many obvious parallels between Berlusconi and one of own, I can't fathom why it hasn't been discussed.
(Maybe it has; I mostly tuned out our kayfabe for my mental health.)
"Nobody who knows Berlusconi and has watched the rise and rise of Donald Trump can fail to be struck by the parallels."
I'm reading a book on how Spain gained and lost a world empire (I'd had it on my shelf forever and never read it):
https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Spain-Became-World-1492-1763/d...
It said that many northern Italians believe that a big reason the Mafia is so dominant in southern Italy and Sicily is that it was ruled (loosely) by Spain a long time ago. True?
The north is sophisticated, cosmopolitan, industrialized, and has tons of arable farmland and just generally money running through it. Culturally it's more French / white European.
The south has very little arable land, it is rocky and hilly. It does not lend itself well to large-scale agriculture. It was largely ruled in a feudal system for a very very long time, which then collapsed into the peasant families each being given land ownership of plots too small to sustain a family.
It has also been a target of conquering by Greeks, Ottoman Turks, and many many many more cultures due to its critical location for shipping lanes - so it's been sort "ran over" too many times to count.
The fact that the real power structure has turned over so many times has led to lots of very very localized, unofficial power structures that represent sort of local "fiefdoms" which exist outside of the modern governmental structures. Subsequently, it has built its own mythology of being "unconquerable" or "ungovernable" and not really a part of "Italy" - where "Italy" is seen as an outside power which builds into the mythology that helps the mafioso gain and retain control.
Edit: for very enjoyable (and highly regarded) novel that gets at the mafioso / Southern mythology about this, I highly recommend Black Souls.
About the arable land, I don't know, Sicily is extremely fertile in general and there also some large plains as well like in Palermo. Sicily was extremely rich and prosper during the Normad period and for the Arabs who came before it was nothing short than a paradise.
And it's gotten much much worse in recent years with climate change the heat and drought is getting very serious in the south.
One should not forget the Kingdom of Two Sicilies was quite wealthy and advanced at the time of the Italian Reunification, but crumbled shortly afterwards.
There was a big wealth transfer South to North. Nonetheless, it's still a lovely place.
Sicily was great when it was governed by the Normands but that didn't last for a long time.
I live now in Switzerland and I am studying its history. It seems one of the reason of Switzerland prosperity and order was they never got a prince or a king but cities were autonomously governing themselves.
I’d be interested to hear the viewpoints of Sicilians on this one
Yes, the mafia built housing, but it’s not the kind of social housing we might hope for—it’s mostly slum-like. Of course, the city of Palermo is also EXTREMELY densely populated—I read something like the fourth-most densely populated city in Europe in a magazine once, but can’t source that now, so take it with a grain of salt.
Nota bene: I’m not Italian myself; my wife’s family has their roots in Sicily.
[1] https://www.marememoriaviva.it/ (website only (?) in Italian)
It may be not what we hope for, but isn't it pretty much the same as what happens when the government builds it? I mean, the "projects" aren't exactly the shining example of what "we might hope for" either. It looks like this way of solving the problem is bound to fail whoever tries it - be it the well-intentioned government or the mafia.
If the alternative to slums is tent cities, I hope for slums.
It's like saying "oh, the local feudal Lord helps us fight bandits!" - yeah, but he can also cut you down in the street without due process, doesn't care about your opinion, and might enforce ius primae noctis, without any recourse.
Well, the whole point of the Mafia is that it's a sort of reactionary movement to defeudalisation/uniformisation in places that are far away from where the power centralizes (the exact same reason why Yakuza started after the unification and why a lot of gangsters are from Kyushu).
It also pisses me off that people use the word mafia inappropriately, for example "Russian Mafia" or "Moroccan Mafia" have no meaning, these are not feudal organization like Mafia or Yakuza
Should we update wikipedia?
It's not exactly the same, because
> - yeah, but he can also cut you down in the street without due process, doesn't care about your opinion, and might enforce ius primae noctis, without any recourse.
If the mafioso goes too far they lose the support of the locals.
I mean, sure, the population has no recourse when some henchman rapes some bride, but the organisation's management usually enforce their rules on their own members rigourously and violently, too.
In the case of losing what little support they have with no profit involved, it's not hard to see why these organisations don't actually allow Droit De Signeur.
They're a business, first and foremost. Allow, even encourage, violence to increase profits? Sure! Use violence just for kicks? Probably not.
That's not really the case. The only way people can express a loss of support is by telling authorities where to find this or that boss in hiding, which happens extremely rarely (because a lot of bosses are not actually in hiding at any given time). In some cases, towns are effectively led from afar - footsoldiers just roll in whenever they need to, like before local elections - so there is very little anyone can do.
> the organisation's management usually enforce their rules on their own members rigourously and violently, too.
This is a romanticised view. There are no rules, what matters is only who can project the most violence and/or control the most money.
I agree that they're a business first and foremost, but a lot of mafiosi do actually enjoy expressing violence. Most of them come from poor backgrounds and lived through traumatizing experiences pretty early in life.
Which part of this appeared to be pro-mafia to you?
>> It's not exactly the same, because
>> If the mafioso goes too far they lose the support of the locals.
>> I mean, sure, the population has no recourse when some henchman rapes some bride, but the organisation's management usually enforce their rules on their own members rigourously and violently, too.
>> In the case of losing what little support they have with no profit involved, it's not hard to see why these organisations don't actually allow Droit De Signeur.
>> They're a business, first and foremost. Allow, even encourage, violence to increase profits? Sure! Use violence just for kicks? Probably not.
I mean, to me, exactly none of that is pro-mafia.
Well, all of it. You put mafia folks into realm of rationality, when we know from numerous accounts (as in thousands and more) that they are extremely emotional, do stupid things and fuck up almost everything they touch, even their own future. Smart criminals behave very differently, its more about negligence and lack of efficient state counter-measures that allowed them to exist and thrive.
Now when we talk about mafia I grant 1 exception - current calabrian mafia (one and only Ndrangheta) is so good at money laundering that other crime syndicates globally pay it a fee to launder their money, this outsourcing is more effective and cheaper than homemade solutions. I think last time I checked it was maybe 100 billion USD business yearly.
Ndrangheta is so good they are spread like cancer through most Europe, even ie Switzerland ain't immune to them. In eastern part of EU they corrupt poorer places like Slovakia directly via governments and prime minister and don't even hide it very much, and steal and wash most of money via massive EU development funds. There is absolutely nobody there who doesn't know about this scheme running for at least 15 years and various other schemes ie endless highways building which cost 3x as much as in Germany with terrible resulting quality, and so on... tells you something about society and why capable folks often just leave and never come back, but getting off topic here.
That's not what "pro-mafia" means.
(Reading on GP, of course, but I did greatly enjoy “Well, Actually, Normal Form.)
I know of 5 kinds of posts:
- interesting (uncontroversial)
- news (controversial by default)
- I made something for fun (yay)
- I made something for profit (boo!)
- philosophical
No, I'm saying that it's not exactly the same as fuedal overloads are.
Organised crime are a business, first and foremost, and like all businesses (whether legal or not) focuses on profit.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181
[2] https://academic.oup.com/book/39423/chapter-abstract/3391457...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Remences
The reality is businesses (including organized crime) are made up of individuals, who do illogical and short-sighted things all the time.
For me, if taxes are used for the society as a whole and not pocketed by a small elite, I'm totally ok to pay them.
But the higher the taxes, the better the quality of the services/infrastructures I expect.
This wasn't actually a thing.
[1] https://www.lafeltrinelli.it/societa-feudale-libro-marc-bloc...
What about one day you send your daughters to school, but it's the day Mr Lord decides he needs some new sex slaves, and your daughters just disappear? What about Mr Lord needs some cannon fodder for some hopeless adventure, so he just raids your village, rapes a few women, chains you and your kids, and leads you to inevitable death? That's just Another Day in Feudalism for you.
Actually, there are multiple areas in Europe that are now little different from feudal fiefdoms run by drag traffickers(13ème/15ème in Marseille comes to mind) and instead of doing anything about it politicians just pretend they don't exist.
I usually tend to forget that most of the people here have not read their history, comments like this one remind me of that. I recommend La société féodale [1] by Bloch, or the relevant volume from Histoire de la France rurale [2]
[1] https://www.amazon.com/La-soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9-f%C3%A9odale/dp/...
[2] https://www.editionspoints.com/ouvrage/histoire-de-la-france...
that's a big part of TFA, here's an excerpt:
The Sack of Palermo did not happen because a criminal organization imposed it from the outside though the use of violence. It was, rather, a chosen, planned and enacted project involving most of the Palermo elite of professionals, entrepreneurs and politicians, cheered on by a new middle class looking to climb the social ladder, and accepted by the underclasses in need of jobs and housing.
Cheap affordable housing from a government is absolutely not the same as cheap affordable housing from a criminal organisation.
I'm genuinely curious what the difference is according to you.
From where I'm standing I sometimes struggle to see the difference between my government and a mafia. They behave in uncanny similar ways.
For me a functional government has the wellbeing of its citizens as a mission. There might be different opinions on how that would look like (hence democracy) but the idea is that; once the government is unchangeable and only cares about maximising the profits of its cadre then it starts becoming more and more like a mafia, just a legalised one.
I'm reading the Black Book of Communism and that's my exact impression of the Bolsheviks.
From Goodfellas: "If we wanted something we just took it. If anyone complained twice they got hit so bad, believe me, they never complained again".
That was the Bolsheviks circa 1920.
Lest this seems smug, let me say that, with SCOTUS struggling to find anything wrong in the events of January 6 2021, I am not feeling at all smug.
Might want to work on your reading comprehension there.
Railway stations with no rails going in.