by B. » Fri Feb 11, 2022 8:13 pm
Ed wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 6:31 am
A+
A very nuanced interpretation. It seems more likely than what I formerly believed was the naked buying and selling of LCN memberships with money.
The evolution of practices and rules happens in all aspects of life, even criminal life, but I wonder if it still represents a "decline" in the LCN. You are still buying membership, but now it's through the backdoor. It would have impacted the type of individual the organization inducted—less of a zealot and more of a racketeer.
I can see that happening with the decline of familial bonds in the Borgata. How do you decide who to recruit if your son or nephew doesn't want to join the organization? On the other hand, maybe money and the power to earn was always a decisive factor for recruitment, even in the "old days."
I remember reading Sonny Barger's memoir, where he described the distinct evolution of the Hells Angels as an organization. From memory, he said the bikers evolved from "delinquents" in the 1950s to "ruffians" in the 1960s to "gangsters" in the 1970s. (I paraphrased that badly.) It's interesting how groups develop, given the circumstances.
Yep, exactly. Freddy Santantonio's breakdown of the different ways members get proposed adds to it in my opinion. In addition to the traditional methods he mentions earners being made as follows:
I don't believe earners would be excluded from Family meetings if they are made members but you can read into what he said a bit, sounds like he was more dismissive of this member type given he earned membership as a toughguy like Valachi. Valachi's explanation of "buying membership" by making Scalise a business partner is similar to Santantonio saying earners were made for giving money to leaders.
When they made professionals / businessmen earlier in mafia history I don't think they were making them so they could get a cut of their money, as many of them had relation/hometown connections and it was their influence/resources in an industry or field rather than direct tribute that qualified them. I doubt all of the doctors who were made early on were expected to give a percentage of their salary even though they were "earners" by definition.
I'm not aware of any examples offhand of Sicilian mafiosi past or present being made for being "earners" alone either. This might have been part of Americanization and I'm under the impression few members pre-1931 were made for that reason whereas by the 1950s we know it was happening. By the 1970s it was commonplace and you do see some resentment over it but it doesn't seem to have been as controversial by then.
This came up with Massino, as he asked Basciano what the best type of member is and Basciano said killers. Massino corrected him and said they need earners and killers because not everyone has the same strengths basically. Massino testified Basciano had a rep as both a killer and earner, so it's not black and white.
[quote=Ed post_id=219887 time=1644586288 user_id=153]
A+
A very nuanced interpretation. It seems more likely than what I formerly believed was the naked buying and selling of LCN memberships with money.
The evolution of practices and rules happens in all aspects of life, even criminal life, but I wonder if it still represents a "decline" in the LCN. You are still buying membership, but now it's through the backdoor. It would have impacted the type of individual the organization inducted—less of a zealot and more of a racketeer.
I can see that happening with the decline of familial bonds in the Borgata. How do you decide who to recruit if your son or nephew doesn't want to join the organization? On the other hand, maybe money and the power to earn was always a decisive factor for recruitment, even in the "old days."
I remember reading Sonny Barger's memoir, where he described the distinct evolution of the Hells Angels as an organization. From memory, he said the bikers evolved from "delinquents" in the 1950s to "ruffians" in the 1960s to "gangsters" in the 1970s. (I paraphrased that badly.) It's interesting how groups develop, given the circumstances.
[/quote]
Yep, exactly. Freddy Santantonio's breakdown of the different ways members get proposed adds to it in my opinion. In addition to the traditional methods he mentions earners being made as follows:
[img]https://i.ibb.co/RCBZTFK/santantonio.png[/img]
I don't believe earners would be excluded from Family meetings if they are made members but you can read into what he said a bit, sounds like he was more dismissive of this member type given he earned membership as a toughguy like Valachi. Valachi's explanation of "buying membership" by making Scalise a business partner is similar to Santantonio saying earners were made for giving money to leaders.
When they made professionals / businessmen earlier in mafia history I don't think they were making them so they could get a cut of their money, as many of them had relation/hometown connections and it was their influence/resources in an industry or field rather than direct tribute that qualified them. I doubt all of the doctors who were made early on were expected to give a percentage of their salary even though they were "earners" by definition.
I'm not aware of any examples offhand of Sicilian mafiosi past or present being made for being "earners" alone either. This might have been part of Americanization and I'm under the impression few members pre-1931 were made for that reason whereas by the 1950s we know it was happening. By the 1970s it was commonplace and you do see some resentment over it but it doesn't seem to have been as controversial by then.
This came up with Massino, as he asked Basciano what the best type of member is and Basciano said killers. Massino corrected him and said they need earners and killers because not everyone has the same strengths basically. Massino testified Basciano had a rep as both a killer and earner, so it's not black and white.