5 ms·

Interesting. I think the article downplays the brutality of the mafia, but the takeaway I've gotten from it is simple: if you want to lower organized crime, off

Interesting. I think the article downplays the brutality of the mafia, but the takeaway I've gotten from it is simple: if you want to lower organized crime, offer genuine, legal opportunities of advancement to those who currently don't have them.

tomp 12y ago
I think this lesson can be applied to many conflicts in the modern world. Why are EU youth joining the ISIS? They don't have any other opportunities in life. Why are Palestinians attacking Israelis? They have no other means of achieving anything meaningful in life. Why are people protesting in Occupy Wall Street? Their lives have turned to shit, and they can't improve them. The most dangerous people are those who have nothing to lose. Give them something to lose, (their hopes, their future), and you will not only improve their lives, but also avoid revolutions.
- firasd 12y ago
  This is very facile I'm afraid. Did George Washington not have anything to lose? Osama bin Laden, born to an incredibly rich family? No, sometimes people actually risk losing what they have to struggle for what they believe in.
  - tomp 12y ago
    Osama didn't do it alone. Hitler didn't do it alone. They both had a number of people that were disillusioned with their lives, hopeless about their future, looking for someone to hate, and wanted to be a part of a cause. (I'm not sure how George Washington is relevant, though.)
    - firasd 12y ago
      You don't see how George Washington is relevant to analysis of motivations behind conflicts and revolutions?
      - tomp 12y ago
        No; probably because I don't know enough about the history of the US (AFAIK, he was one of the founding fathers).
        firasd 12y ago
        Ah ok. Well, the founding fathers did their founding after a pretty momentous revolutionary war as you may know. And the British subjects settled in America weren't doing so badly that they had to rise up in desperation for hope or a future. They wanted political independence and self-determination (in much the same way Palestinians want today, although different factions among Palestinians have varying territorial and other desires.) I agree with you that many of the restless and unhappy masses become the actual front-line fighters in conflicts; I just disagree that providing people with financial and social stability would necessarily avoid a conflict. Sometimes people just won't stand for something.
        tomp 12y ago
        But wasn't the problem also the fact that US (whatever it was back then) was basically a UK colony, which meant that the UK was basically levying lots of tax and taking whatever they could back to the UK? Also, it's not like the people of the US attacked another country... they just thought that they would do better without a foreign overlord. Probably, if the UK let them go (like they would let Scotland go), there would be no war. Or am I mistaken?
        firasd 12y ago
        Yeah they were a colony. And that's sort of my point; they weren't hopeless and desperate--in fact my understanding is that the average American (not counting slaves) back then was better off than the average person in England--but they were exploited and subjugated to some extent. And they decided the final fix would be to change the whole political order of things, and to fight a revolution over their desired new order.
        mikeash 12y ago
  - csomar 12y ago
    IMO, these are exceptions. Osama did have a lot to lose, but his supporters didn't.
- peterfirefly 12y ago
  "Why are EU youth joining the ISIS? They don't have any other opportunities in life." That's an utter and complete lie. Even if you believe it explains the Arabs who join the ISIS (which it doesn't), it certainly doesn't explain why the European converts do.
  - tomp 12y ago
    It's probably not the whole story, but the way I see it: First, it's not "the European converts" that join ISIS, it's the Muslims that live in European countries (so no converting necessary, in the religious sense). Second, I haven't had much contact with this immigrant minority, but from the media, I get the feeling that they are not really "respected" - their culture and heritage is demonized left and right, they are "foreigners" and "people of color". Probably, this got much worse after 9/11 and other terrorist attacks (e.g. in the UK), and was quite bad even before (e.g. in France, from what I hear). Thirdly, the economic melt-down. It affects all people, but it affects the youth disproportionately, and I assume the immigrant population also. Immigrant youth -> affected really really badly. They see that people from the older generations got it much better (essentially, for most of their lives, things were getting better), while their (our?) future is full of problems (unemployment, both from the recession and from automation; climate issues and ecology; terrorism; dwindling natural resources). Is it really so hard to believe that they feel really disillusioned? Anyways, you say it's a lie, what's the truth then, in your opinion?
    - peterfirefly 12y ago
      It's definitely also converts :( Your second point is not even wrong. There's plenty of respect for decent people who treat others right. There is a growing dissatisfaction with religious nutcases and criminals and layabouts. There is outright fear and hatred for those who terrorize their neighbourhoods. And why shouldn't Islam be disrespected? Is it a good religion? Is it tolerant? Is it really the religion of peace? And why should honour killings and clannishness be respected? Besides, schools are free, secondary and tertiary educations are free or heavily subsidized. As to your third point, the economic meltdown and the enormous youth unemployment is mostly a Southern thing. Having a large unofficial economic sector is also mostly a Southern thing -- so the real unemployment rates are thankfully lower. The youth unemployment has more to do with rigid and stupid labour markets than with the global finance crisis or the Euro crisis. At least those who speak English (or a Northern language) have a chance to emigrate. The migrant workers in the South who are hard hit by the crisis are mostly Africans, not Arabs. The ISIS terrorists are mostly Arab. I haven't heard of a single Sub-Saharan African in ISIS. The truth is that the (economically) Western European countries have been bending backwards for years (decades) to help them and that we have been treated badly every step of the way. The truth is, unfortunately, that not everybody is a good person, not everybody is equally aggressive and violent, not everybody is equally intelligent, and not every culture is good. And what's worse, aggression, violence, trust, and intelligence are all partially inherited.
vidarh 12y ago
Rather than see it as downplay the brutality of the mafia, consider that when you hear about the mafia, it tends to be the brutal aspects you hear about. Not the parts that were most successful at avoiding unwanted attention.

tomp 12y ago

I think this lesson can be applied to many conflicts in the modern world. Why are EU youth joining the ISIS? They don't have any other opportunities in life. Why are Palestinians attacking Israelis? They have no other means of achieving anything meaningful in life. Why are people protesting in Occupy Wall Street? Their lives have turned to shit, and they can't improve them. The most dangerous people are those who have nothing to lose. Give them something to lose, (their hopes, their future), and you will not only improve their lives, but also avoid revolutions.

firasd 12y ago
This is very facile I'm afraid. Did George Washington not have anything to lose? Osama bin Laden, born to an incredibly rich family? No, sometimes people actually risk losing what they have to struggle for what they believe in.
- tomp 12y ago
  Osama didn't do it alone. Hitler didn't do it alone. They both had a number of people that were disillusioned with their lives, hopeless about their future, looking for someone to hate, and wanted to be a part of a cause. (I'm not sure how George Washington is relevant, though.)
  - firasd 12y ago
    You don't see how George Washington is relevant to analysis of motivations behind conflicts and revolutions?
    - tomp 12y ago
      No; probably because I don't know enough about the history of the US (AFAIK, he was one of the founding fathers).
      - firasd 12y ago
        Ah ok. Well, the founding fathers did their founding after a pretty momentous revolutionary war as you may know. And the British subjects settled in America weren't doing so badly that they had to rise up in desperation for hope or a future. They wanted political independence and self-determination (in much the same way Palestinians want today, although different factions among Palestinians have varying territorial and other desires.) I agree with you that many of the restless and unhappy masses become the actual front-line fighters in conflicts; I just disagree that providing people with financial and social stability would necessarily avoid a conflict. Sometimes people just won't stand for something.
        tomp 12y ago
        But wasn't the problem also the fact that US (whatever it was back then) was basically a UK colony, which meant that the UK was basically levying lots of tax and taking whatever they could back to the UK? Also, it's not like the people of the US attacked another country... they just thought that they would do better without a foreign overlord. Probably, if the UK let them go (like they would let Scotland go), there would be no war. Or am I mistaken?
        firasd 12y ago
        Yeah they were a colony. And that's sort of my point; they weren't hopeless and desperate--in fact my understanding is that the average American (not counting slaves) back then was better off than the average person in England--but they were exploited and subjugated to some extent. And they decided the final fix would be to change the whole political order of things, and to fight a revolution over their desired new order.
        mikeash 12y ago
- csomar 12y ago
  IMO, these are exceptions. Osama did have a lot to lose, but his supporters didn't.
peterfirefly 12y ago
"Why are EU youth joining the ISIS? They don't have any other opportunities in life." That's an utter and complete lie. Even if you believe it explains the Arabs who join the ISIS (which it doesn't), it certainly doesn't explain why the European converts do.
- tomp 12y ago
  It's probably not the whole story, but the way I see it: First, it's not "the European converts" that join ISIS, it's the Muslims that live in European countries (so no converting necessary, in the religious sense). Second, I haven't had much contact with this immigrant minority, but from the media, I get the feeling that they are not really "respected" - their culture and heritage is demonized left and right, they are "foreigners" and "people of color". Probably, this got much worse after 9/11 and other terrorist attacks (e.g. in the UK), and was quite bad even before (e.g. in France, from what I hear). Thirdly, the economic melt-down. It affects all people, but it affects the youth disproportionately, and I assume the immigrant population also. Immigrant youth -> affected really really badly. They see that people from the older generations got it much better (essentially, for most of their lives, things were getting better), while their (our?) future is full of problems (unemployment, both from the recession and from automation; climate issues and ecology; terrorism; dwindling natural resources). Is it really so hard to believe that they feel really disillusioned? Anyways, you say it's a lie, what's the truth then, in your opinion?
  - peterfirefly 12y ago
    It's definitely also converts :( Your second point is not even wrong. There's plenty of respect for decent people who treat others right. There is a growing dissatisfaction with religious nutcases and criminals and layabouts. There is outright fear and hatred for those who terrorize their neighbourhoods. And why shouldn't Islam be disrespected? Is it a good religion? Is it tolerant? Is it really the religion of peace? And why should honour killings and clannishness be respected? Besides, schools are free, secondary and tertiary educations are free or heavily subsidized. As to your third point, the economic meltdown and the enormous youth unemployment is mostly a Southern thing. Having a large unofficial economic sector is also mostly a Southern thing -- so the real unemployment rates are thankfully lower. The youth unemployment has more to do with rigid and stupid labour markets than with the global finance crisis or the Euro crisis. At least those who speak English (or a Northern language) have a chance to emigrate. The migrant workers in the South who are hard hit by the crisis are mostly Africans, not Arabs. The ISIS terrorists are mostly Arab. I haven't heard of a single Sub-Saharan African in ISIS. The truth is that the (economically) Western European countries have been bending backwards for years (decades) to help them and that we have been treated badly every step of the way. The truth is, unfortunately, that not everybody is a good person, not everybody is equally aggressive and violent, not everybody is equally intelligent, and not every culture is good. And what's worse, aggression, violence, trust, and intelligence are all partially inherited.

vidarh 12y ago

Rather than see it as downplay the brutality of the mafia, consider that when you hear about the mafia, it tends to be the brutal aspects you hear about. Not the parts that were most successful at avoiding unwanted attention.