{"version": "1.0", "type": "rich", "title": "Hey, this might sound like a stupid or facetious question, but is there really any difference between crime syndicates and...", "author_name": "kontextmaschine", "author_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "provider_name": "kontextmaschine", "provider_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "url": "https://kontextmaschine.com/post/166232743013/", "html": "
juche-karl-heisenberg asked: Hey, this might sound like a stupid or facetious question, but is there really any difference between crime syndicates and \"legitimate\" capitalist governments? Both have been/are involved in violence, extortion, drug trafficking, etc. and neither of them are immune to corruption, or even resistant to it. Neither of these provide justice for everyone in their sphere of influence, only certain people. Am I completely off? I can't be the first to wonder about this.
\n

quoms:

\n\n

obviously yes there are differences, but if what you\u2019re asking is are those differences categorical then basically no, states and mafias are (or can be) more or less divergent versions of the same type of system

i would point to scale as a significant factor here. when something is the size of most states it doesn\u2019t make sense to run it like a mafia anymore; states that operate on the same basis of personal relationships, patronage, and rent extraction as mafias do (lacking, in effect, the professional bureaucracy and rule of law characteristic of modern states) tend not to be regarded as especially well-functioning

conversely, however, mafias tend to be very good at providing passable \u2018state\u2019 services on the local level, either in communities that have slipped through the cracks of the state or where the state has ceased to exist altogether (as in a civil war context)

I\u2019d endorse this, my feeling is generally that a mafia is just a government that hasn\u2019t achieved hegemony, there\u2019s been some decent theorizing of this under Olson\u2019s notion of governments as \u201cstationary bandits\u201d if you\u2019re interested

I think debating \u201cis this \u2018government\u2019\u201d as a noun can get into all sorts of weird edge cases - is a \u201cgovernment in exile\u201d with an intact structure that doesn\u2019t particularly govern anything at the moment still a \u201cgovernment\u201d? In a feudal situation where lords, guilds, merchant families, and a church are all understood to have the ability to extract resources and dictate social terms backed by violence by men bearing their symbols, which of these are governments?

Is a tribal council less \u201cgovernment\u201d than a Westphalian state? Does the answer depend on formal mechanisms of power and succession? Does it depend on continuity across generations? Does it depend on the ability to project power beyond its boundaries? Does \u201cgovernment\u201d have to correspond to \u201cboundaries\u201d in the first place?

But as a verb, yeah, states and mafias govern with the same tools and dynamics

"}