4 ms·

> In all societies in which there is a power vacuum gangs take over. Such gangs are the basic form of government. They have command structure, and a population

> In all societies in which there is a power vacuum gangs take over. Such gangs are the basic form of government. They have command structure, and a population base they exploit. Over time, as gang grows, it comes into conflict with other gangs and one eventually emerges as the dominant. Once in command over a big chunk of population, it either splits into many smaller bands, repeating the cycle, or it evolves to be more structured, and rules appear, which regulate how gang members operate and what they are allowed to do. You may know these rules as 'laws'. This happens because every gang eventually understands that in the long term, taxing a prosperous population is far more profitable and stable than unlimited plundering.

ThrowawayR2 7y ago
How does your hypothesis apply to, for example, Mexico? Seems that "eventually" may mean decades, if not longer.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  It seems to apply pretty well to Mexico. Every time the cartels reach an equilibrium of violence where there’s a clear chain of command and territories violence drops. Then the Mexican state decides that having para-states on its territory is unacceptable, smashes them and violence increases. You see the same dynamic though not on the same scale in US organized crime history; the Mafia were brutal thugs just like the brutal thugs who are criminals in US inner cities now. The Mafia used violence less often because they were organized. People knew where they stood. Pay your protection money, don’t talk to the police unless they’re our police and you’re done. No crime is better than organized crime is better than widespread disorganized crime.
  - Ericson2314 7y ago
    > the Mafia were brutal thugs just like the brutal thugs who are criminals in US inner cities now. Hello? It's not 1990. Look at the crime stats. There's plenty wrong with today, but there isn't much organized or disorganized crime.
  - paganel 7y ago
    I agree with you 100%, just wanted to add as an extra data point that after reading some of Max Weber's works I realised that he was the one that best described how society works in modern times (not saying that his observations were perfect, just closer to the perceived truth). He is of course the one that re-popularised the "monopoly on violence" [1] term that describes (among other, countless things) Italian Mafia's tactics (which I think Weber even mentions) and today's Mexican cartels' way of doing things. As such, I highly recommend Weber's "Economy and Society" [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_and_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_and_Society
- Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
  I was actually thinking about centuries, not just decades, referring, mostly, to the early formation of ancient societies. It is not a fast process by any means. In modern times the process is, of course, can go much faster than in 2000BC, because everyone can see a template of a working system before their eyes in the form of existing countries, so they can just copy-paste the basic law / organizational structure instead of slowly inventing them.
crooked-v 7y ago
The classic example of this on a massive scale is, of course, medieval Europe. All Roman-imposed centralized order broke down in a slow apocalypse and control reverted to local armed gangs... which then formed alliances and feudal pecking orders and gradually recentralized into kingdoms and empires.
SuoDuanDao 7y ago
I read a book in which the author related the nature of new societies after a breakdown to invasive plants - both being nasty and difficult to deal with, while extracting a lot of resources from a fairly tough environment, but in so doing making those resources bioavailable for more diverse future ecosystems.
Cyberdog 7y ago
Reminds me very much of this video, which I like to rewatch every couple of months or so for the sheer brilliance of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNFJK1ZpVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNFJK1ZpVg

ThrowawayR2 7y ago

How does your hypothesis apply to, for example, Mexico? Seems that "eventually" may mean decades, if not longer.

barry-cotter 7y ago
It seems to apply pretty well to Mexico. Every time the cartels reach an equilibrium of violence where there’s a clear chain of command and territories violence drops. Then the Mexican state decides that having para-states on its territory is unacceptable, smashes them and violence increases. You see the same dynamic though not on the same scale in US organized crime history; the Mafia were brutal thugs just like the brutal thugs who are criminals in US inner cities now. The Mafia used violence less often because they were organized. People knew where they stood. Pay your protection money, don’t talk to the police unless they’re our police and you’re done. No crime is better than organized crime is better than widespread disorganized crime.
- Ericson2314 7y ago
  > the Mafia were brutal thugs just like the brutal thugs who are criminals in US inner cities now. Hello? It's not 1990. Look at the crime stats. There's plenty wrong with today, but there isn't much organized or disorganized crime.
- paganel 7y ago
  I agree with you 100%, just wanted to add as an extra data point that after reading some of Max Weber's works I realised that he was the one that best described how society works in modern times (not saying that his observations were perfect, just closer to the perceived truth). He is of course the one that re-popularised the "monopoly on violence" [1] term that describes (among other, countless things) Italian Mafia's tactics (which I think Weber even mentions) and today's Mexican cartels' way of doing things. As such, I highly recommend Weber's "Economy and Society" [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_and_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_and_Society
Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
I was actually thinking about centuries, not just decades, referring, mostly, to the early formation of ancient societies. It is not a fast process by any means. In modern times the process is, of course, can go much faster than in 2000BC, because everyone can see a template of a working system before their eyes in the form of existing countries, so they can just copy-paste the basic law / organizational structure instead of slowly inventing them.

crooked-v 7y ago

The classic example of this on a massive scale is, of course, medieval Europe. All Roman-imposed centralized order broke down in a slow apocalypse and control reverted to local armed gangs... which then formed alliances and feudal pecking orders and gradually recentralized into kingdoms and empires.

SuoDuanDao 7y ago

I read a book in which the author related the nature of new societies after a breakdown to invasive plants - both being nasty and difficult to deal with, while extracting a lot of resources from a fairly tough environment, but in so doing making those resources bioavailable for more diverse future ecosystems.

Cyberdog 7y ago

Reminds me very much of this video, which I like to rewatch every couple of months or so for the sheer brilliance of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNFJK1ZpVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNFJK1ZpVg