Mh, that feels slightly ahistoric. Might be true(ish) today, but the history of self organized groups parallel to the state were a worker thing. Sure, some mafia groups were wildly opposed to communism, on the other hand there was a lot of strong support towards Italian communist parties around WW1, also from people affiliated with "mob"-structures.
but the history of self organized groups parallel to the state were a worker thing.
What does "self organised" mean here? The mob in Italy wasn't a "worker thing", it was a feudal remnant.
Also I forgot to say that what you said about mafia supporting communists in Italy was a horrible take, the mafia murdered lots of leftists implementing reforms post WWII.
Also I forgot to say that what you said about mafia supporting communists in Italy was a horrible take, the mafia murdered lots of leftists implementing reforms post WWII.
You are right that there was a lot of reactionary communist murder by the mafia, but according to Acemoglu and others, the mafia adjacent groups were not just murdering communists, some built an important backbone of the communist structures and were responsible for the successes. I guess the question is whether the people petit bourgeoisie or pretty poor.
I am also only talking between roughly 1917 and 1922.
I guess the question is whether the people petit bourgeoisie or pretty poor.
It doesn't really matter what the "rank and file" were, the leadership was basically big feudal families who managed to retain control over territories via illegal means as Italy progressed to capitalism, and made tons of money by smuggling stuff and killing people. The Sicilian mafia was nuts, significantly worse than the mafia in the US. Now, the mafia in the US was also a horrible thing, but it was not merely a repeat of the Sicilian Cosa Nostra. A big part of what initially kept it together was Italians being a marginalised group of immigrants when they first came to the US. Additionally, the mafia in the US laid lower than the Sicilian mafia, because the second was trying to fight and outright replace the state in the territories they controlled, the first was trying to keep the state far from its business. So the mafia in the US had a code and abstained from using explosives, killing women and children (in general), tried to avoid collateral casualties, etc. The Sicilian mafia was more like "let's detonate 200kg of TNT to kill this one person in a highway, who gives a fuck".
Well I wouldn't know because I'm not a mob expert. When I think of the mob I think of petite bourgeoisie lumpen guys from New Jersey that have a McMansion like the sopranos and hustles that net them huge cashflows. I guess mafia stuff like gang stuff could be leftist, I mean lumpen are still proletariat I suppose. I try not to be too hard on say like black gangs hustling to survive and protect themselves but I don't have much love for mob goons from the east coast that get into that line of work solely for the profit.
The mob is pretty much a bunch of petit-bourgeoise lording over lumpens who have nowhere to go, they've been reactionary for most of their existence with the tiniest bit of "it was for oppressed minorities to organize" justification from the early days.
Are they really worse than capitalists though?
Well mobsters generally are capitalists.
Mh, that feels slightly ahistoric. Might be true(ish) today, but the history of self organized groups parallel to the state were a worker thing. Sure, some mafia groups were wildly opposed to communism, on the other hand there was a lot of strong support towards Italian communist parties around WW1, also from people affiliated with "mob"-structures.
What does "self organised" mean here? The mob in Italy wasn't a "worker thing", it was a feudal remnant.
Also I forgot to say that what you said about mafia supporting communists in Italy was a horrible take, the mafia murdered lots of leftists implementing reforms post WWII.
You are right that there was a lot of reactionary communist murder by the mafia, but according to Acemoglu and others, the mafia adjacent groups were not just murdering communists, some built an important backbone of the communist structures and were responsible for the successes. I guess the question is whether the people petit bourgeoisie or pretty poor.
I am also only talking between roughly 1917 and 1922.
It doesn't really matter what the "rank and file" were, the leadership was basically big feudal families who managed to retain control over territories via illegal means as Italy progressed to capitalism, and made tons of money by smuggling stuff and killing people. The Sicilian mafia was nuts, significantly worse than the mafia in the US. Now, the mafia in the US was also a horrible thing, but it was not merely a repeat of the Sicilian Cosa Nostra. A big part of what initially kept it together was Italians being a marginalised group of immigrants when they first came to the US. Additionally, the mafia in the US laid lower than the Sicilian mafia, because the second was trying to fight and outright replace the state in the territories they controlled, the first was trying to keep the state far from its business. So the mafia in the US had a code and abstained from using explosives, killing women and children (in general), tried to avoid collateral casualties, etc. The Sicilian mafia was more like "let's detonate 200kg of TNT to kill this one person in a highway, who gives a fuck".
Well I wouldn't know because I'm not a mob expert. When I think of the mob I think of petite bourgeoisie lumpen guys from New Jersey that have a McMansion like the sopranos and hustles that net them huge cashflows. I guess mafia stuff like gang stuff could be leftist, I mean lumpen are still proletariat I suppose. I try not to be too hard on say like black gangs hustling to survive and protect themselves but I don't have much love for mob goons from the east coast that get into that line of work solely for the profit.
The mob is pretty much a bunch of petit-bourgeoise lording over lumpens who have nowhere to go, they've been reactionary for most of their existence with the tiniest bit of "it was for oppressed minorities to organize" justification from the early days.
And that only applies to the US.