In light of the recent Colombo bust, my observations.

[desertdog]

A group that requires it's members take an oath to break the law is a "criminal organization", especially since 100% of them do commit crimes.
Please name one made guy who never committed crimes?

[B.]

In response to Wiseguy -- I think we've been over it before but a couple others that just came to mind:

- The Lucchese admin under Tom Gagliano and Tommy Lucchese reportedly asked for no regular tribute from members. Both had extensive business interests of their own like many early bosses. Angelo Bruno appears to have been similar, with no street tax during his time as boss and I don't remember the bugs or informants from the 1960s saying Bruno taxed the members themselves.

- Vincent Gigante didn't take tribute from members. This has been framed as if it was an idea unique to him but it's part of a common trend among bosses. The Bonanno and Genovese families doing this in the modern era shows it wasn't just an anachronism for the leadership to forego tribute.

Does anyone know if Valachi said anything about the Genovese member taxing its members from 1931-1962? Can't recall. He did say Tony Bender took all of the profits from an "off the record" drug deal, but this appears to have been done because Valachi and co. were technically breaking the rules and Bender felt he could abuse the situation.

I agree Christmas tribute still counts as the mafia asking for its members to kick up, though it is different than the mafia taxing every score a member makes. The Christmas tribute is also not "give the boss money you earned from crime" but includes any money the members can afford to kick up. There are reports of legitimately successful businessmen in families giving some of the most Christmas money and it has no direct relationship to crime, simply the mafia tradition of honoring the rappresentante.

[Chaps]

B. You correct about Philadelphia under Angelo Bruno. There was a study done in 1991 that was commissioned by the Pennsylvania Crime Commission titled Life Under Bruno: The Economics of an Organized Crime Family. It describes the Bruno Family thusly: "The Family was not a business, nor did it operate businesses. As one long-time member declared with reference to money making activities: 'The Family don't run anything.' The Family, instead, was more like a fraternal organization." It goes on that "businesses (legal and illegal) belonged to the members and their partners and were not operated on behalf of the Family. As owners, they pocketed the profits, when there were profits; and suffered the losses, when there were losses." It also states that the concept of "tribute" or "kicking up" to Bruno did not exist until Scarfo became Boss. Same with the street tax. If anyone is interested that hasn't seen this study, it's really interesting. I could scan it and post into the files section if you want.

[Chaps]

In response to Wiseguy -- I think we've been over it before but a couple others that just came to mind:

- The Lucchese admin under Tom Gagliano and Tommy Lucchese reportedly asked for no regular tribute from members. Both had extensive business interests of their own like many early bosses. Angelo Bruno appears to have been similar, with no street tax during his time as boss and I don't remember the bugs or informants from the 1960s saying Bruno taxed the members themselves.

- Vincent Gigante didn't take tribute from members. This has been framed as if it was an idea unique to him but it's part of a common trend among bosses. The Bonanno and Genovese families doing this in the modern era shows it wasn't just an anachronism for the leadership to forego tribute.

Does anyone know if Valachi said anything about the Genovese member taxing its members from 1931-1962? Can't recall. He did say Tony Bender took all of the profits from an "off the record" drug deal, but this appears to have been done because Valachi and co. were technically breaking the rules and Bender felt he could abuse the situation.

I agree Christmas tribute still counts as the mafia asking for its members to kick up, though it is different than the mafia taxing every score a member makes. The Christmas tribute is also not "give the boss money you earned from crime" but includes any money the members can afford to kick up. There are reports of legitimately successful businessmen in families giving some of the most Christmas money and it has no direct relationship to crime, simply the mafia tradition of honoring the rappresentante.

I did read at one point (I'm trying to find where) that Frank Costello did not require crews to kick up to him as he was already wealthy in his own right and didn't need the money.

[Pogo The Clown]

It also states that the concept of "tribute" or "kicking up" to Bruno did not exist until Scarfo became Boss. Same with the street tax.

Interestingly there was a report from 1990/1 that said the family was involved in collecting the street tax in the early days but it was abandoned in the early 1949s. As we know Scarfo started it up again and it continued up to the Ligsmbi era.

I did read at one point (I'm trying to find where) that Frank Costello did not require crews to kick up to him as he was already wealthy in his own right and didn't need the money.

It was in Valachi's book.


Pogo

[B.]

B. You correct about Philadelphia under Angelo Bruno. There was a study done in 1991 that was commissioned by the Pennsylvania Crime Commission titled Life Under Bruno: The Economics of an Organized Crime Family. It describes the Bruno Family thusly: "The Family was not a business, nor did it operate businesses. As one long-time member declared with reference to money making activities: 'The Family don't run anything.' The Family, instead, was more like a fraternal organization." It goes on that "businesses (legal and illegal) belonged to the members and their partners and were not operated on behalf of the Family. As owners, they pocketed the profits, when there were profits; and suffered the losses, when there were losses." It also states that the concept of "tribute" or "kicking up" to Bruno did not exist until Scarfo became Boss. Same with the street tax. If anyone is interested that hasn't seen this study, it's really interesting. I could scan it and post into the files section if you want.

I haven't read that but it fits perfect. The philosophy is that each member has the organization behind him but it's up to him what he does with his "license". He could be a school bus driver like Gambino member Phil Meli or he could be a criminal mastermind, it's up to him. What the organization expects from him depends on what he does. If they needed help with the school bus union they might go through Meli because he's a driver. If they need cash, they might ask a big time earner. The mileage varies depending on the boss/family/situation.

Also thanks for the info about Costello. So Gigante wasn't a one-off within Genovese family history.

-

My opinion is that Cosa Nostra is an incredibly aggressive and socially conservative branch of libertarianism.

[CabriniGreen]

And where did the idea come from the Bonannos never required kick ups from it's members? Vitale testified taking tribute from his underlings was how Massino got rich.

We've gone over it before but for those interested:

- Vitale said Massino never asked for tribute from him but he voluntarily gave him half of his earnings anyway as a sign of appreciation for bringing him into the life. Massino himself said aside from Christmas and the boss's birthday members weren't expected to pass up money from rackets, crimes, business, etc. This includes Montreal, who was only asked for Christmas tribute like the New York crews

I would bet money Massino expected it. This to me is a strange point to make. One of the main counterpoints in the whole Montreal argument is NY Bonnanos demanding tribute from those guys. And them complying being a demonstration of fealty. Was this not from Massino, then? I think its political and situational.

- Massino did institute a war chest asking for a relatively small monthly payment from members which Vinnie Asaro angrily protested as it went against the traditional MO (he complained that a mafia member shouldn't have to pay to remain a member in good standing), another sign that the family didn't traditionally demand money be passed up. Asaro was in a position to know the organization's history given he was a 4th generation Bonanno member in direct succession.

-
Then hes off, or just wrong. Didnt Profaci do the same thing? I posted an article from Time, or Life, one of em, in 1969, and it said Carlo Gambino did the same thing. The same article where the Westside called them the "Degenerates". And Bonanno was supposed to be close to this " Conservative Faction".....

When Peter Zuccaro was a Bonanno associate in the 1970s he testified Frank Bonomo (old time member made before 1931) didn't ask for tribute and simply represented him in disputes when he needed it. One time he inquired about what Zuccaro made from a robbery but even then didn't ask for money. Other Bonanno informants spanning years have made similar comments.

If you were well off financially, and a leader, the SMART ONES seemed to take it easy on tribute demands. But dont know if that was standard. Case in point Sammy and Paul. Paul didnt need tribute from anyone, but he took it AS A SIGN OF RESPECT AND FEALTY. He worshipped money. For Gotti, you just had to show up and make him feel like hes King of the World. For Paul, make him feel like hes CEO of Mafia Inc.

And again, what about a guy like Tomasulo? Didnt Vitale take his business and kill him? After he expressed outrage that it was just TAKEN FROM HIM? He wasnt even ALLOWED to kick up, right?

We really need to hammer this topic home and de-Sopranoize people. This is a very important aspect that many overlook and if you want to understand the mafia you need to understand that it is not a criminal organization but an organization willing to resort to criminality. It will lead to a better understanding. If people want to combat mafia, they need to factor this aspect in.

Chris, I gotta say, first off, the example of the linen business I dont get. That's not a legitimate business. It's legit NOW, but tell me it wasnt built out of the mafias cartelization of the Garment Industry. It's like a legacy operation. Chicken or the Egg type question, do they have a big linen business without the mob influence?

Also, the American mob is what it is today because of prohibition. Rampant criminality.

I'll send you something in the near future related to this. I've found a way of describing (rather than "explaining") what the organization is that doesn't rest on "theory" nor does it dismiss criminality. Impossible to have a black and white argument about it.

What I keep coming back to, like you, is that murder is the only consistent crime they ask of members. However they don't view murder as a "crime" but as a legal punishment in their own system. I agree with Pogo this makes them all potential criminals in a larger society that only authorizes police/military to kill people (a "monopoly on violence"), but his statement that all members are and have been criminals isn't correct.

This is a major point in John Dickes book. That the government failed to establish a monopoly on the use of violence. But I dont think it makes them non- criminals. The most spectacular example of this type of failure in government has to be the cartels. They can buy politicians, police, even the goddamn military. I dont think they consider themselves criminals either, but come on...... it's my problem with the Corleonesi. Like, your not a fuckin STATE, gimme a break.


It's a point Sandokan Schiavone makes in Savianos book. That the sicilians have delusions of grandeur, based around being close to politicians. Basically he was saying they almost SEE THEMSELVES as the politicians, whereas he was self aware. He was a gangster. There was only business, there was no State, anti- State. They did business WITH politicians, and if they didnt play ball, they would find a way to cheat or swindle him. They would grant financial and community support in exchange for favors. But they didnt think k they WERE the politicians. Navarra was a DOCTOR, Leggio was a damn peasant. Was Leggio a great businessman, sure. But he still got his start stealing cattle.


You would see the ineffectiveness of this if Italy was ever drawn into a war. Whose in charge? The mafia?

A theoretical argument is that taking a blood oath to commit murder makes all members potential criminals, but it's not a theoretical argument to say there are members who weren't criminals and the organization has a built-in capacity for these types of members -- that's just a fact.

The mafia is much more like a real estate agency who employs licensed realtors that are "with" the agency but technically independent contractors when it comes to producing income. The agency sometimes helps with leads but for the most part it is up to the agent how and what they decide to sell and how often. There is no quota an the agency has no right to pressure agents to sell houses. Unlike the mafia, though, these agencies do ask for "tribute" from sales 100% of the time.

Real estate agents kick up, lol. Otherwise, they dont get the benefits of being with an agency, brand name, research, access to a reservoir of information as far as rental and buying trends, all that crap. They gotta be independent and build it up themselves.



In Sicily, to me the power of the mafia always stemmed from the Interactions between the gabelloti,
the workers, the land that they work, and the rich landowners with political clout. Also, controlling the votes in small towns. Those guys were criminals, backed up by wealthy connected men. It doesn't legitimize their criminality in my view.

Take Partinico. I consider it a venerable Mafia family. History with Detroit through 3 Fingers, connections to Italian politics. If you look in the News From Italy section, there is an article about them engaged in white collar racketeering in the waste disposal industry. This SAME family was running five drug gangs, all in competition and conflict, and apparently ran by a woman named Guisy Vitale. AND, apparently, she was some kind of rat. So much for the rules, huh?





This a GREAT TOPIC, by the way.....

[B.]

I would bet money Massino expected it. This to me is a strange point to make. One of the main counterpoints in the whole Montreal argument is NY Bonnanos demanding tribute from those guys. And them complying being a demonstration of fealty. Was this not from Massino, then? I think its political and situational.

Not sure what you mean. I said Montreal and the other Bonanno decinas were all expected to pay Christmas tribute. Cicale said Basciano via Montagna requested additional Christmas money in 2005 which Montreal reluctantly paid. This is consistent with testimony about the Bonannos mainly asking for tribute at Christmas but not necessarily otherwise.

Then hes off, or just wrong. Didnt Profaci do the same thing? I posted an article from Time, or Life, one of em, in 1969, and it said Carlo Gambino did the same thing. The same article where the Westside called them the "Degenerates". And Bonanno was supposed to be close to this " Conservative Faction".....

We were talking about the Bonanno family and I said Vincent Asaro protested the Bonanno "war chest" on those grounds. He was a Bonanno member upset about the Bonanno family's war chest. Other families wouldn't factor into his view.

And again, what about a guy like Tomasulo? Didnt Vitale take his business and kill him? After he expressed outrage that it was just TAKEN FROM HIM? He wasnt even ALLOWED to kick up, right?

Tomasulo was a low-level associate and the son of a member. He had no right to claim the operation when his father died and he threatened the administration for trying to claim ownership, as they had the right to do. Much more to it than just Vitale "taking his business and killing him" out of greed.

If Tomasulo had made his son prior to his death it would have been a different story. There's a reason made members have higher status and are protected in ways that associates are not.

This is a major point in John Dickes book. That the government failed to establish a monopoly on the use of violence. But I dont think it makes them non- criminals. The most spectacular example of this type of failure in government has to be the cartels. They can buy politicians, police, even the goddamn military. I dont think they consider themselves criminals either, but come on...... it's my problem with the Corleonesi. Like, your not a fuckin STATE, gimme a break.

It's a point Sandokan Schiavone makes in Savianos book. That the sicilians have delusions of grandeur, based around being close to politicians. Basically he was saying they almost SEE THEMSELVES as the politicians, whereas he was self aware. He was a gangster. There was only business, there was no State, anti- State. They did business WITH politicians, and if they didnt play ball, they would find a way to cheat or swindle him. They would grant financial and community support in exchange for favors. But they didnt think k they WERE the politicians. Navarra was a DOCTOR, Leggio was a damn peasant. Was Leggio a great businessman, sure. But he still got his start stealing cattle.

My belief is that the mafia does, at its core, view itself as a state when it is allowed to operate without interference. They don't simply influence local government in Sicily but merge with it when given the chance. A mafia politician is not "pretending" to be a politician, he is a politician. They continually use political and military language, too, not "big business" or criminal language. It is a system of representation and their approach isn't unlike the way Sharia Law is used in fundamentalist Islamic communities even in western countries.

I recommend re-reading John Dickie's book with this in mind and also check out this thread: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=7540

[TallGuy19]

In response to Wiseguy -- I think we've been over it before but a couple others that just came to mind:

- The Lucchese admin under Tom Gagliano and Tommy Lucchese reportedly asked for no regular tribute from members. Both had extensive business interests of their own like many early bosses. Angelo Bruno appears to have been similar, with no street tax during his time as boss and I don't remember the bugs or informants from the 1960s saying Bruno taxed the members themselves.

- Vincent Gigante didn't take tribute from members. This has been framed as if it was an idea unique to him but it's part of a common trend among bosses. The Bonanno and Genovese families doing this in the modern era shows it wasn't just an anachronism for the leadership to forego tribute.

Does anyone know if Valachi said anything about the Genovese member taxing its members from 1931-1962? Can't recall. He did say Tony Bender took all of the profits from an "off the record" drug deal, but this appears to have been done because Valachi and co. were technically breaking the rules and Bender felt he could abuse the situation.

I agree Christmas tribute still counts as the mafia asking for its members to kick up, though it is different than the mafia taxing every score a member makes. The Christmas tribute is also not "give the boss money you earned from crime" but includes any money the members can afford to kick up. There are reports of legitimately successful businessmen in families giving some of the most Christmas money and it has no direct relationship to crime, simply the mafia tradition of honoring the rappresentante.

Valachi said that at one point when Bender was losing heavily at the racetrack, he started abusing Valachi and other members of the crew for money, but Valachi refused to pay him anything. I also vaguely remember him saying that he never kicked anything up.

[B.]

The whole "mafia is run like big business" idea is nonsense too. Yeah, occasionally some guy calls himself the CFO in casual conversation but there is little evidence they see their organization like a corporation.

In a capitalist environment does the mafia have qualities in common with big business? Sure, but guess what? If you start a rock 'n' roll band in America and want to be successful you run it like a big business. If you want to be a poet and earn a living in our society you run it like a business. Guess what else? If you're part of a political org like the DNC you also run it like a big business. It doesn't mean these entities are all in the business "of" big business, it means you have to take on the qualities of business to thrive and survive in a world where that's the currency.

The mafia wants to control big business and sometimes does, but the mafia is the system under which businesses operate not a business itself. In that way it's very similar to "legitimate" government. Keep in mind how fluid that term is, though... two months ago the Taliban was a rebel terrorist group and now they're the legitimate Afghani government.

[TallGuy19]

And, for what it's worth, I do remember Al D'Arco talking about sitting down with each member of his crew and having them put their rackets on record with him after he became a captain. They were required to kick up to him, even though he was a newly-promoted captain who had no personal stake in any of their operations. He went from being a brokester to a wealthy guy overnight just from all the tribute he was getting from his soldiers.

[B.]

And, for for what it's worth, I do remember Al D'Arco talking about sitting down with each member of his crew and having them put their rackets on record with him after he became a captain. They were required to kick up to him, even though he was a newly-promoted captain who had no personal stake in any of their operations. He went from being a brokester to a wealthy guy overnight just from all the tribute he was getting from his soldiers.

For sure. I don't see anyone arguing that crews and families never demand regular tribute or tax members, though. The argument is that it's not a mafia-wide requirement and depends on the circumstances. Some families have consistently leaned away from it, which seems to be closer to the traditional Sicilian system.

It's def not a black and white argument of "the mafia always taxes its members" vs. "the mafia never taxes its members". There is a world of grey area but we do see patterns with some groups.

I know in CC's original post he pointed out that if a member isn't earning illicit income, the family will not force him to commit crimes in order to meet a manufactured quota. The Sopranos really did a number on people's brains with the episode about Christopher kicking up to Paulie. Not earning is obviously going to impact a member's reputation and we know Massino removed a ruling panel member for not paying into the war chest, so there are incentives but they're not going to shelve or kill someone for not earning, illegal or otherwise.

[B.]

With this topic in mind, the idea of "active" and "inactive" members are terms I try to avoid. A truly inactive member is a shelved member, not a member who is elderly, in prison, or uninvolved in crime.

- FBI CIs have used the term "inactive" but it refers mainly to criminal activity, the FBI's focus. Tom DiBella was described by FBI informants as inactive in the years leading up to becoming boss. Did the borgata flip a switch that made DiBella go from inactive to active in order to elect him boss? No, they just elected him boss because he was a Cosa Nostra member. Doesn't matter if he was on his ass watching TV all day before that.

- This isn't an NFL team where the mafia officially separates inactive members from everyone else like injured reserve. When they talk about the total membership of their family they don't have a separate category for "inactive members". For the FBI's purposes it makes sense why members are ID'd as inactive but it's nothing close to an exact science. On the other hand the mafia does have an exact science when it comes to being made, promoted, shelved, and following protocol. "Activity" does influence these positions -- it just doesn't define them.

- Tony Riela was a retired old man but traveled across the country, met with Rockford, who in turn met with Milwaukee, then arranged a meeting between Rockford, Milwaukee, and Bonanno leaders all so that a Bonanno soldier could be introduced as "amico nostra" to the Milwaukee boss in order to get approval for an associate to operate in Milwaukee. What Riela did is Cosa Nostra activity -- was he "inactive"? Maybe in a criminal sense but not within the organization.

The FBI's relationship to the mafia is like NASA's relationship to space. It gives outsiders the best view available but it isn't the entity itself. Pluto's a planet, no wait it's a moon... hold on, is it "active"? Let's ask the solar system.

[Dave65827]

Capo Dennis Delucia has just flipped probably going to see his whole crew indicted soon

Looks like another 2011 for the Colombo’s

[CabriniGreen]

And, for what it's worth, I do remember Al D'Arco talking about sitting down with each member of his crew and having them put their rackets on record with him after he became a captain. They were required to kick up to him, even though he was a newly-promoted captain who had no personal stake in any of their operations. He went from being a brokester to a wealthy guy overnight just from all the tribute he was getting from his soldiers.

Throw Scarfo in there too......