4 ms·

"All other countries have a mafia, in Bulgaria the mafia has a country."

by JBiserkov 6y ago

ekianjo 6y ago
Can we say the same thing about Mexico and the cartels?
- pstuart 6y ago
  Yes. And their other south of them as well. All of them the result of US interference, both directly and indirectly via The War on Drugs™.
  - mrslave 6y ago
    Your statement that Mexico is a narco-state as a direct consequence of USA fighting against the importers of illegal drugs from Mexico cannot simply be given but clearly requires expounding. And even if it were, the implication is the nation of USA isn't entitled to fight against illegal, anti-social, and violent activity is absurd.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      > the implication is the nation of USA isn't entitled to fight against illegal, anti-social, and violent activity is absurd. If drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will deal in drugs. The cartels are terrible, evil organizations made up of despicable and desperate human beings. There is nothing good to say about them. But if drugs were strongly regulated, instead of made illegal, and drug addiction treated like an illness, would they even exist?
      - unishark 6y ago
        Latin America has a problem with corruption and the rule of law generally that goes well beyond drugs. I don't really know how to fix it and don't believe anyone else does either. I am certainly willing to support an attempt at legalization since it has a moral basis in "freedom" and such. But the above poster is not wrong. If murder-for-hire, sex trafficking in children, etc are outlawed, then only outlaws will do those too. Meanwhile Canada did not become a weak and corrupt narco state, despite having an even larger border with the US. For that matter Japan's (even stricter) drug laws didn't turn Korea and China or any other neighbor into a narco states. The problem is more complicated than people want to believe.
      - pnako 6y ago
        The cartels would obviously immediately stop chopping up journalists in pieces and would retrain to become car mechanics, bakers, factory workers, etc.
        triceratops 6y ago
        No. But they might have been involved in other, less profitable criminal enterprises (stolen cars, maybe) and had less power and influence than they do now.
    - coliveira 6y ago
      It is the US that created the illegal activity, but putting this activity into illegality in the first place. The war on drugs only made the criminal problem in Latin America worse by creating the incentives to become a criminal. Moreover, the US has already been caught dealing directly on drugs (Iran contras), and I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't the last time.
    - groby_b 6y ago
      That claim would hold much more water if the US wasn't actively involved in the drug trade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_traffi... If you like books, I highly recommend "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade" Or if the US hadn't made its own opioid crisis, which caused skyrocketing demand for hard drugs (and is the result of a pharma industry that is completely out of control) https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/mexicos-drug-war https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/mexicos-drug-war Or if the US was in any way concerned with addressing the actual drug consumption crisis.
    - pstuart 6y ago
      I'll be charitable and assume you're well-intentioned. Your argument makes no sense. If the drugs weren't illegal then your whole argument goes up in a puff of smoke. If you can't prove to me that this "war" is valid, then any premise you base upon it is nullified. Go ahead, sell me on how the war is about keeping America safe.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    > All of them the result of US interference, both directly and indirectly via The War on Drugs™. It's a little easy to blame everything on the US. You can also factor in the fact they had weak central governments to begin with. A country that has a strong executive power is usually not overrun by cartels.
- wahern 6y ago
  The Mexican federal government seems to be fairly independent. All the various high-profile corruption cases prove this out, as they generally seem to have been singular installations and conversions of corrupt officials from below, however numerous. I think the problem in Mexico is the sheer inability of the federal government to effectively project its power across the country, both because of lack of resources and because of systemic corruption at the local level. Sometimes this seems to rise to the level of complicity, but I think it's more a reflection of the fear that exposing their impotence through failed enforcement operations would only worsen the situation. By contrast, the allegations are that Bulgarian political leadership isn't simply in the pocket of the mafia, they are the mafia leadership. It's sort of like in a military coup where the General-cum-President installs all his lieutenants into government office and otherwise changes the system so that the military controls all the levers. That's a quite different situation than in Mexico, and I'm not aware of any analogous situation anywhere else unless you play semantic games--e.g. consider as "mafia" the oligarchs and aristocrats of kleptocratic regimes. Such gross equivocations are great for manipulating outrage, including diversionary outrage--e.g. whataboutism--but not particularly constructive.
  - throwqqq 6y ago
    Russia and Ukraine come to mind for regimes where the Mafia has taken control of the country. The only difference is that there are more natural resources to exploit so the purely criminal dealings aren't as large a percentage of their total portfolios.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    > political leadership isn't simply in the pocket of the mafia, they are the mafia leadership If the mafia becomes the government, technically you can't call them the mafia anymore, because they have become legitimate once they gain political power.
pgtan 6y ago
Yeah, well, I don't think that mafia and corruption in a not so rich state are worse than (Euro-) socialism and redistribution on the current Western European scale.
- darwinwhy 6y ago
  Would you be saying that if you lived there? The millions of emigres seem to prove otherwise.
  - pgtan 6y ago
    Emigrant is not the right word. Most of the Bulgarians living abroad, including me, keep their property in Bulgaria and don't sell. They don't cut their connections in the home land, and many of them return at the end of the day.
virgilp 6y ago
I have one word for you: Russia. Now if you excuse me, I have to go jump out the window.

"All other countries have a mafia, in Bulgaria the mafia has a country."

ekianjo 6y ago

Can we say the same thing about Mexico and the cartels?

pstuart 6y ago
Yes. And their other south of them as well. All of them the result of US interference, both directly and indirectly via The War on Drugs™.
- mrslave 6y ago
  Your statement that Mexico is a narco-state as a direct consequence of USA fighting against the importers of illegal drugs from Mexico cannot simply be given but clearly requires expounding. And even if it were, the implication is the nation of USA isn't entitled to fight against illegal, anti-social, and violent activity is absurd.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > the implication is the nation of USA isn't entitled to fight against illegal, anti-social, and violent activity is absurd. If drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will deal in drugs. The cartels are terrible, evil organizations made up of despicable and desperate human beings. There is nothing good to say about them. But if drugs were strongly regulated, instead of made illegal, and drug addiction treated like an illness, would they even exist?
    - unishark 6y ago
      Latin America has a problem with corruption and the rule of law generally that goes well beyond drugs. I don't really know how to fix it and don't believe anyone else does either. I am certainly willing to support an attempt at legalization since it has a moral basis in "freedom" and such. But the above poster is not wrong. If murder-for-hire, sex trafficking in children, etc are outlawed, then only outlaws will do those too. Meanwhile Canada did not become a weak and corrupt narco state, despite having an even larger border with the US. For that matter Japan's (even stricter) drug laws didn't turn Korea and China or any other neighbor into a narco states. The problem is more complicated than people want to believe.
    - pnako 6y ago
      The cartels would obviously immediately stop chopping up journalists in pieces and would retrain to become car mechanics, bakers, factory workers, etc.
      - triceratops 6y ago
        No. But they might have been involved in other, less profitable criminal enterprises (stolen cars, maybe) and had less power and influence than they do now.
  - coliveira 6y ago
    It is the US that created the illegal activity, but putting this activity into illegality in the first place. The war on drugs only made the criminal problem in Latin America worse by creating the incentives to become a criminal. Moreover, the US has already been caught dealing directly on drugs (Iran contras), and I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't the last time.
  - groby_b 6y ago
    That claim would hold much more water if the US wasn't actively involved in the drug trade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_traffi... If you like books, I highly recommend "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade" Or if the US hadn't made its own opioid crisis, which caused skyrocketing demand for hard drugs (and is the result of a pharma industry that is completely out of control) https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/mexicos-drug-war https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/mexicos-drug-war Or if the US was in any way concerned with addressing the actual drug consumption crisis.
  - pstuart 6y ago
    I'll be charitable and assume you're well-intentioned. Your argument makes no sense. If the drugs weren't illegal then your whole argument goes up in a puff of smoke. If you can't prove to me that this "war" is valid, then any premise you base upon it is nullified. Go ahead, sell me on how the war is about keeping America safe.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  > All of them the result of US interference, both directly and indirectly via The War on Drugs™. It's a little easy to blame everything on the US. You can also factor in the fact they had weak central governments to begin with. A country that has a strong executive power is usually not overrun by cartels.
wahern 6y ago
The Mexican federal government seems to be fairly independent. All the various high-profile corruption cases prove this out, as they generally seem to have been singular installations and conversions of corrupt officials from below, however numerous. I think the problem in Mexico is the sheer inability of the federal government to effectively project its power across the country, both because of lack of resources and because of systemic corruption at the local level. Sometimes this seems to rise to the level of complicity, but I think it's more a reflection of the fear that exposing their impotence through failed enforcement operations would only worsen the situation. By contrast, the allegations are that Bulgarian political leadership isn't simply in the pocket of the mafia, they are the mafia leadership. It's sort of like in a military coup where the General-cum-President installs all his lieutenants into government office and otherwise changes the system so that the military controls all the levers. That's a quite different situation than in Mexico, and I'm not aware of any analogous situation anywhere else unless you play semantic games--e.g. consider as "mafia" the oligarchs and aristocrats of kleptocratic regimes. Such gross equivocations are great for manipulating outrage, including diversionary outrage--e.g. whataboutism--but not particularly constructive.
- throwqqq 6y ago
  Russia and Ukraine come to mind for regimes where the Mafia has taken control of the country. The only difference is that there are more natural resources to exploit so the purely criminal dealings aren't as large a percentage of their total portfolios.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  > political leadership isn't simply in the pocket of the mafia, they are the mafia leadership If the mafia becomes the government, technically you can't call them the mafia anymore, because they have become legitimate once they gain political power.

pgtan 6y ago

Yeah, well, I don't think that mafia and corruption in a not so rich state are worse than (Euro-) socialism and redistribution on the current Western European scale.

darwinwhy 6y ago
Would you be saying that if you lived there? The millions of emigres seem to prove otherwise.
- pgtan 6y ago
  Emigrant is not the right word. Most of the Bulgarians living abroad, including me, keep their property in Bulgaria and don't sell. They don't cut their connections in the home land, and many of them return at the end of the day.

virgilp 6y ago

I have one word for you: Russia. Now if you excuse me, I have to go jump out the window.