THE BLACK HAND FORUM

B. wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:10 pm I'm more into the Buddhist cosmology take, that there is no independent origination and every one thing is moved by another thing, making it impossible to narrow down the one element that created it all. There is no central cause, only the cause-effect relationship spiraling outward into infinity. Every cause is an effect and every effect is a cause.

The org is moved by its operations, and the operations are moved by the org. If a member is made in a forest and no third party exists who can introduce him, is he really made? Gautama Buddha asked that same question and it remains an unanswerable Zen koan. What's the sound of one hand pricking its own finger?

B. wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:10 pm If a member is made in a forest and no third party exists who can introduce him, is he really made? Gautama Buddha asked that same question and it remains an unanswerable Zen koan. What's the sound of one hand pricking its own finger?

CornerBoy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 5:26 am does essence precede existence or vice versa?

CornerBoy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 5:26 am does essence precede existence or vice versa?

B. wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 10:03 pm The one on the right minus the color-coded racket stuff is a more accurate representation of a mafia organization than the one on the left. The left one is a good way for novices to understand the basic hierarchy of the mafia but the way you mapped out the organizational positions on the right is a better representation of how most if not all Families are formally structured, i.e. not all associates report to soldiers and not all soldiers report to captains plus the "shape" of a Family isn't uniform.

B. wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 10:03 pm A true operational chart would be visually even more chaotic and difficult to chart accurately with many overlapping and criss-crossing lines. Easier to chart out the relationships and operating hierarchy of a specific racket or operation like the government did in the Pizza Connection case but that too isn't black and white. Your chart on the right is good at explaining that the organization doesn't always reflect rackets/streets which I think was your main point.

Antiliar wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 12:12 pm My only suggestion - not a critique - for the chart on the left was to remove the associates so it would only show LCN members. The operational one on the right, I believe, is a more accurate representation of reality. Made members at every level have associates, and as members move up in rank so can their associates. Associates of the bosses and capos can be seen as near equivalents to members in authority, power and respect. Some can rise to unique privileged positions such as Meyer Lansky and later Joe Watts in New York, Maishe Rockman in Cleveland, and Jack Guzik, Murray Humphreys and Gus Alex in Chicago. So while it's a busier chart, it's the one I prefer and I think Angelo did a great job of giving us a visualization of how the LCN operates in real life.

OcSleeper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 12:35 pm I like the way both charts are shown. I think you have to keep associates in the operational chart because although they might not be actual members in the organization, they are part of the formal structure of the mafia.

The only suggestion I would have is for the operational chart. I think you should have a line connected from the captains, soldiers, and associates direct with the boss to the underboss, consigliere, and captains to show they can speak with the authority of the boss behind them.

CabriniGreen wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:33 am

Angelo Santino wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 7:13 am org vs op.jpg

I'm honestly confused as to why this is called operational. To me it's a Organizational Flow chart for a mafia borgata.. They even have software for this....

Angelo Santino wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 7:13 am org vs op.jpg

Angelo Santino wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 9:13 pm Antiliar, B., Snakes and Tony, I sent you the chart above and you all had your opinions, I hope you share them here. There were disagreements with the above. We're not a hivemind seeking vindication, and also critique/disagreements help me improve. Based on all of youree input I may redo it. I'll push back on things but it'll be thru debate.

B. wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 11:52 pm I guess I don't see the need to describe guys as unofficial co-captains or co-underbosses if they weren't. There are duos who would seem like co-captains like DeCarlo/Rega and Corozzo/DiMaria because they were best friends, partners in everything, made together, etc. They weren't co-captains though, they just operated that way to some degree and maybe in some cases one of them acted for each other. Castellano and Dellacroce directed different factions but why call them unofficial co-underbosses when you could call them by their official titles which describe their roles more accurately.

Neil Dellacroce was described by Angelo Bruno as a "capodecina di capodecina" because he represented a faction of other captains but he wasn't officially that. When someone was making a formal introduction they wouldn't say "Joe meet Neil, capodecina di capodecina". But in conversation Bruno wanted to communicate that Dellacroce had a representational role over a group of captains and Magaddino indicated Tommy Rava previously had the same role over the same faction. Nick Gentile wasn't a captain but him being named sostituto over multiple Agrigento decine in the same Family is similar.

Basically the Gambinos gave certain factions their own de facto leader and for Dellacroce it became even more concrete when he became underboss and repped them on the admin. You also see this with Vito Genovese when Costello was boss. You don't see this with Profaci/Magliocco or Bonanno/Garofalo/Morales where the boss and underboss came from the same faction. Another side of the organizational vs. operational discussion that hasn't been brought up much in this thread is politics. Politics often relect formal org titles but politics also go outside of it.

Like the above guys said, there is organizational precedence for a group of consiglieri. Buscetta and Calderone said it existed in Sicily and it was all over the historic US. It wasn't because they all operated as advisors -- it was because the organization formally elected/appointed them. This disappeared over time but we're at a point where many of us aren't surprised to find out a given US Family had a consiglio.

That's why it's exceptional the DeCavalcantes allegedly had two underbosses or there is more to it that wasn't put in context (i.e. Majuri was acting for LaSelva because he was on Connecticut). We don't see Cosa Nostra Families with two underbosses and it would mean the DeCavalcantes truly were "different" as some people try to make other Families out to be. If we had wiretaps of Giancana that made reference to two underbosses it would be taken as evidence that Chicago was fundamentally different but because it's the good old DeCavalcantes it's treated with a shrug. "So they might have had two underbosses, okay let's talk about John Gotti."

One reason I question the info about the DeCavalcantes is a city like Chicago where it was believed they had a very different version of sottocapo that was taken to mean "personal underboss". Nick Calabrese put this to rest by stating explicitly in court that they used sottocapo to mean acting capodecina. This isn't that weird, as the shortened term "capo" is traditionally a term for the Family boss himself and a century ago it would be out of place to call a capodecina a "capo" even though it's just a shortened version. If you told a mafioso in 1915 that a Family had multiple people with the title of "capo" they would be confused and think there were multiple bosses not unlike us being confused about Chicago's use of sottocapo. But if you explained to a 1915 mafioso what you meant by "capo" he'd immediately understand that you meant capodecina.

What's important organizationally is the meaning intended, not the term. This has been a constant source of confusion/debate on the boards over the years. "Oh these guys call themselves a borgata but these other guys call themselves an outfit, they must be a different thing." I mean Joe Bonanno hated the term "boss" and felt it was an improper interpretation of the traditional role but he understood what people were referring to when they said it. Because his Family mainly called him a "Father" it doesn't mean he was something different from a boss/capo/rappresentante. "Father" is no different from the euphemism "the Man" when that's been used but these still refer to something formal and it is more confusing than it is helpful to assign "unofficial" versions of formal titles to people even if it's only us obsessives that care.