Organization & Operation revisited

[Villain]

Re-read the thread, and it appears that a significant amount of disagreement regarding this subject might be rooted in whether you believe LCN to be a criminal enterprise first and foremost, or not (which was a good thread as well).

From the POV of those that might not see a clear need to differentiate organization vs operational, they might think the purely organizational aspects are arbitrary and "not really there" if the operational aspects alone are able to run the criminal enterprise.

Villain asked: but dont you think that 90% of the ORGANIZATIONAL cases are mainly tied to finances? Meaning the system of representation is mainly created by finances. Without it, there would be no system, right? Because whats the point of it? We are talking about CRIMINAL subculture here, right?

If someone wants to take out the criminal aspect out of the Mafia and to take out the financial kick ups, what are we looking at here than?

Legit guys? Lets say you are the boss, the other guy is the underboss, im a capo etc. Im working in the bank, the other works at some pharma company and the other guy works at some market. Are we looking for political power or huge legit income? First of all, if you want to reach political power, you need a lot of cash. And how are you going to find that cash? Through legitimate enterprise which might lasts for decades, or we can sell coke or operate gambling schemes so we can get fast money, right?

Especially the money kickups who are divided between the guys in the hierarchy, meaning the cash starts from the bottom and goes all the way to the top. So if we also take out this, than we are looking at some either terrorist organization or a religious sect, not at a Mafia subculture.

Whats the point of the hierarchy if no one kicks up any cash? They post Information or legit cash? Naw, not at all.

Whats the point of the organization with 2000 or 3000 members (+thousands of associates) without those two things? Who are they fighting against or what its their goal? Fighting against the system as partisans is again, a terrorist organization. Sitting and doing nothing, and dividing legit cash and talking to politicians for legit jobs sounds like playing cards at the bar with some guys who are in fantasy land and imagine they are all Mafiosi LOL

As CabriniGreen already said....we should not mix the US and Italian Mafia in one plate.

The "operational" thing is a simple but very nicely created illusion.

Thats it.

[Antiliar]

There is a distinction between the organization and operations. They overlap and interact, but they're not identical.

Let's take it back to the beginning. How the first Mafia group formed isn't known. Did it start as an organization then engage in crime, or did it engage in crime then form a hierarchy? It's a chicken versus egg question for which we don't have an answer. But we can identify which takes priority. The organization. After all, the original common names for the Mafia were the Fratellanza and Fratuzzi, "brotherhood" or "fraternity" and "little brothers." It's not just a criminal organization, but a fraternal society where people get together and support each other. Marriage among members and their relatives is encouraged.

Moreover, there is no requirement that one must break the law. There have been soldiers who have successful businesses or have advanced professions such as being a politician, a doctor or a lawyer who were never arrested. One could form a gang of friends and relatives and all they do is play and do other activities together without engaging in any criminal activity at all. Likewise, we can see in the last years the San Francisco Family hardly engaged in any criminal activities at all - possibly none - yet it still existed as a small Family. It's possible that Los Angeles still exists with a handful of members who have ranks but avoid all criminal activity. For all we know Tommaso Gambino is a legitimate businessman who gets together with his two or three underlings to play poker after a BBQ every other weekend and that's the extent of their meetings.

Likewise a group of friends could go on a crime spree without belonging to any organization and without forming one.

[Villain]

Re-read the thread, and it appears that a significant amount of disagreement regarding this subject might be rooted in whether you believe LCN to be a criminal enterprise first and foremost, or not (which was a good thread as well).

From the POV of those that might not see a clear need to differentiate organization vs operational, they might think the purely organizational aspects are arbitrary and "not really there" if the operational aspects alone are able to run the criminal enterprise.

Villain asked: but dont you think that 90% of the ORGANIZATIONAL cases are mainly tied to finances? Meaning the system of representation is mainly created by finances. Without it, there would be no system, right? Because whats the point of it? We are talking about CRIMINAL subculture here, right?

Angelo said (paraphrasing): No. The mafia is a network and its members can utilize that network to generate money, if they want to.

I don't recall Villain responding directly to this, but maybe because its relatively harder to prove with sources either side? I would presume the FBI isn't spending tax payer money to collect info on LCN's non-criminal activities. But this "yes it is" vs "no it isn't" is likely to continue challenge each other.

But their primary concern isn't business, it's really power by ANY MEANS... if they wanted to be regular folk, they could. If they wanted to be honest businessmen, they could. If they wanted to be high professionals, they could. If they wanted to be a cabal of politicians, they COULD. THEY DONT. So either they are unwilling or unable.

Ultimately, I see them as criminal, not because of any particular operation, but because they are fundamentally opposed to law and order, seemingly even when opportunities to transition away from crime presents themselves.

Political power often requries murder and lots of cash, as it was previously pointed out. Thats a criminal organization, with its own hierarchy.

Completely agree with you and InCamelot.

[CabriniGreen]

There is a distinction between the organization and operations. They overlap and interact, but they're not identical.

Let's take it back to the beginning. How the first Mafia group formed isn't known. Did it start as an organization then engage in crime, or did it engage in crime then form a hierarchy? It's a chicken versus egg question for which we don't have an answer. But we can identify which takes priority. The organization. After all, the original common names for the Mafia were the Fratellanza and Fratuzzi, "brotherhood" or "fraternity" and "little brothers." It's not just a criminal organization, but a fraternal society where people get together and support each other. Marriage among members and their relatives is encouraged.

Moreover, there is no requirement that one must break the law. There have been soldiers who have successful businesses or have advanced professions such as being a politician, a doctor or a lawyer who were never arrested. One could form a gang of friends and relatives and all they do is play and do other activities together without engaging in any criminal activity at all. Likewise, we can see in the last years the San Francisco Family hardly engaged in any criminal activities at all - possibly none - yet it still existed as a small Family. It's possible that Los Angeles still exists with a handful of members who have ranks but avoid all criminal activity. For all we know Tommaso Gambino is a legitimate businessman who gets together with his two or three underlings to play poker after a BBQ every other weekend and that's the extent of their meetings.

Likewise a group of friends could go on a crime spree without belonging to any organization and without forming one.

I would counter argue that thats evidence of assimilation to American society. Because a mafia family NOT in the active pursuit of power to me is essentially purposeless. I mean look, it died out... no?

And I think it started with all three social classes. The aristocrat, the Gabelloti, and the peasant. And the dynamics between the 3. You kinda can't have the Mafia I think without all 3. This is why I called it an emergent phenomenon.....

I think I said this before, many Italians found opportunities in the States they never would have had in Italy. Once they got a taste of decent government and the good life, why exactly would they be continuing to pursue mafia power? Especially when it's not the same thing as it is in Italy. The citizens of San Fran were never gonna look at the local wiseguys as being more legitimate or deserving of ruling over the elected officials. They can't control the vote like in Italy.

Its like a cartel boss can buy off a whole Mexican state, the police, the army, the mayor. You can't pull a fraction of that shit here. Dicke spoke on the monopoly of the use of violence. I think there is another side to thst coin. The monopoly on the use of CAPITAL.

[Villain]

I also agree with Antiliar to an extent that we still dont have a straight answer on whether the first Mafia group started as an organization then engaged in crime, or did it engage in crime and then formed a hierarchy. According to my long time research on various type of groups (criminal, masonic and combat) the Italian Mafia probably started as partisan groups which later engaged in crime against the occupation or the system they were "harassed" by at the time, and the whole hierarchy thing possibly came afterwards.

BUT.....BUT as some of the fellas already said, this has nothing to do with the AMERICAN Mafia or the second or third generation of Mafiosi in the US (especially the ones who were born there like Al Capone). I think we even have information from a member who used the "Americanized" term, meaning this is the main faction which we should look at or concentrate at, not the old Sicilian Mafia and how it started. The American guys worked with everyone and created their "own society" (in the same image as the old Sicilian Mafia and Camorra) which was helped in its creation by non-Italian gangsters, who in turn in some families like Chicago, held official spot on their round table.

For example I previously asked a question and placed evidences in the non-Italian thread regarding the long time blood connections between Greeks and Italians (especially Sicilians and Calabrians), but i never received an answer. If someone wants to go down that way, believe me we will all think that Alex was a "made" member of the Chicago Mafia LOL.

Thats why we should only focus on the US Mafia and look at the ops vs org thing from a different perspective, and after that it will stop to exist.

[InCamelot]

If anyone is interested, Eric/B's analogy using his corporate office experience to differentiate organizational vs operational in the "Non-Italians & the Chicago Outfit" thread (page 3) is very helpful bringing more understanding to this.

[Antiliar]

There is a distinction between the organization and operations. They overlap and interact, but they're not identical.

Let's take it back to the beginning. How the first Mafia group formed isn't known. Did it start as an organization then engage in crime, or did it engage in crime then form a hierarchy? It's a chicken versus egg question for which we don't have an answer. But we can identify which takes priority. The organization. After all, the original common names for the Mafia were the Fratellanza and Fratuzzi, "brotherhood" or "fraternity" and "little brothers." It's not just a criminal organization, but a fraternal society where people get together and support each other. Marriage among members and their relatives is encouraged.

Moreover, there is no requirement that one must break the law. There have been soldiers who have successful businesses or have advanced professions such as being a politician, a doctor or a lawyer who were never arrested. One could form a gang of friends and relatives and all they do is play and do other activities together without engaging in any criminal activity at all. Likewise, we can see in the last years the San Francisco Family hardly engaged in any criminal activities at all - possibly none - yet it still existed as a small Family. It's possible that Los Angeles still exists with a handful of members who have ranks but avoid all criminal activity. For all we know Tommaso Gambino is a legitimate businessman who gets together with his two or three underlings to play poker after a BBQ every other weekend and that's the extent of their meetings.

Likewise a group of friends could go on a crime spree without belonging to any organization and without forming one.

I would counter argue that thats evidence of assimilation to American society. Because a mafia family NOT in the active pursuit of power to me is essentially purposeless. I mean look, it died out... no?

And I think it started with all three social classes. The aristocrat, the Gabelloti, and the peasant. And the dynamics between the 3. You kinda can't have the Mafia I think without all 3. This is why I called it an emergent phenomenon.....

I think I said this before, many Italians found opportunities in the States they never would have had in Italy. Once they got a taste of decent government and the good life, why exactly would they be continuing to pursue mafia power? Especially when it's not the same thing as it is in Italy. The citizens of San Fran were never gonna look at the local wiseguys as being more legitimate or deserving of ruling over the elected officials. They can't control the vote like in Italy.

Its like a cartel boss can buy off a whole Mexican state, the police, the army, the mayor. You can't pull a fraction of that shit here. Dicke spoke on the monopoly of the use of violence. I think there is another side to thst coin. The monopoly on the use of CAPITAL.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you wrote, but I will restate, however, that the Mafia isn't just a criminal organization. It's also a brotherhood. It was formed during a period when many secret societies were formed under the influence of the Freemasons. There are family bonds that extend back for generations. Crime is an operational element. It's not an essential element. It may be hard to accept since crime and the Mafia are so tightly intertwined, but those familial bonds and close relationships would still be there if they give up their lives of crime. They would also continue to have a network of business connections, and they would continue to make investments together.

What you wrote about the Mafia as it has operated so far attempting to have a monopoly of violence and capital, absolutely. 100%. It makes it much easier to function - to operate - if a group has monopoly power. The American Cosa Nostra through racketeering has at different times controlled both sides of the chief elements of capital by controlling the unions and management. In an earlier period they even had their own banks. Back in the 1920s Ciro Terranova held a monopoly on artichokes in New York City by at least controlling sales and distribution, and it was backed up by violence. While I don't think they ever approached the levels of violence used by the Sinaloa cartel, Al Capone was as close as any of them.

[Villain]

There are family bonds that extend back for generations. Crime is an operational element. It's not an essential element. It may be hard to accept since crime and the Mafia are so tightly intertwined, but those familial bonds and close relationships would still be there if they give up their lives of crime. They would also continue to have a network of business connections, and they would continue to make investments together.

Isnt that more of a blood/family connections being involved in legitimate enterprises? Like an ordinary or everyday family around the world? Like yours and mine?

My personal family has a network of businesses and connections in and out of the country or around the world, and we all make investments and control these businesses together, with the elders having the last word because their signatures are also on the papers (the bosses lol). Its one big legit family. Does this make us a "Mafia family" or some type of "brotherhood"? I dont think so and I cant see the point of it regarding the Mafia.

The Mafia's roots or start for their legit enterprises/networks (especially outside of Italy) is/was 99% illegal cash.

[Antiliar]

There are family bonds that extend back for generations. Crime is an operational element. It's not an essential element. It may be hard to accept since crime and the Mafia are so tightly intertwined, but those familial bonds and close relationships would still be there if they give up their lives of crime. They would also continue to have a network of business connections, and they would continue to make investments together.

Isnt that more of a blood/family connections being involved in legitimate enterprises? Like an ordinary or everyday family? Like yours and mine?

My personal family has a network of business connections in and out of the country, and we all make investments and control these businesses together, with the elders having the last word because their signatures are also on the papers. Its one big legit family. Does this make us a "Mafia family"? I dont think so.

The Mafia's roots for their legit enterprises/networks is/was 99% illegal cash.

No, it's not like our biological families. It's not for nothing that each crime family is called a borgata, like a borough or a little village. People who are part of the village are encouraged to marry each other, and their children are often brought into the life.

These connections continue what began in Sicily. The American Mafia didn't start out as a bunch of criminals copying the Sicilian Mafia. Members of the Sicilian Mafia brought it over here. We have many examples of this continuity. Antonino Giammona was the boss of Uditore and the provincial boss of Palermo in the late 19th century. One of his descendants married the sister of Carlo Gambino (if I recall correctly), and the descendant of his brother became a caporegime in Los Angeles. Rocco Lupo, the father of Ignazio Lupo, was associated with the Pagliarelli borgata in Palermo and influenced two of his sons to become of the life in America. Francesco Motisi, who was connected to the Lupos, became the boss of New Orleans. After leaving America he became the boss in Pagliarelli. Bernardo Terranova, a member of the Corleone borgata, probably sponsored his stepson Giuseppe Morello to become a member. Later his sons Nick, Ciro and Vincent were brought in.

Moreover, if the American Mafia was only a copy, then the Sicilian Mafia would have no obligation to accept them. But they not only accepted them, they were seen as the same thing. This is why Nick Gentile could transfer his membership from an American borgata to a Sicilian one and back. This why a powerful member like Salvatore Maranzano could transfer from being the provincial boss of the province of Trapani to an American borgata under Cola Schiro.

[CabriniGreen]

There is a distinction between the organization and operations. They overlap and interact, but they're not identical.

Let's take it back to the beginning. How the first Mafia group formed isn't known. Did it start as an organization then engage in crime, or did it engage in crime then form a hierarchy? It's a chicken versus egg question for which we don't have an answer. But we can identify which takes priority. The organization. After all, the original common names for the Mafia were the Fratellanza and Fratuzzi, "brotherhood" or "fraternity" and "little brothers." It's not just a criminal organization, but a fraternal society where people get together and support each other. Marriage among members and their relatives is encouraged.

Moreover, there is no requirement that one must break the law. There have been soldiers who have successful businesses or have advanced professions such as being a politician, a doctor or a lawyer who were never arrested. One could form a gang of friends and relatives and all they do is play and do other activities together without engaging in any criminal activity at all. Likewise, we can see in the last years the San Francisco Family hardly engaged in any criminal activities at all - possibly none - yet it still existed as a small Family. It's possible that Los Angeles still exists with a handful of members who have ranks but avoid all criminal activity. For all we know Tommaso Gambino is a legitimate businessman who gets together with his two or three underlings to play poker after a BBQ every other weekend and that's the extent of their meetings.

Likewise a group of friends could go on a crime spree without belonging to any organization and without forming one.

I would counter argue that thats evidence of assimilation to American society. Because a mafia family NOT in the active pursuit of power to me is essentially purposeless. I mean look, it died out... no?

And I think it started with all three social classes. The aristocrat, the Gabelloti, and the peasant. And the dynamics between the 3. You kinda can't have the Mafia I think without all 3. This is why I called it an emergent phenomenon.....

I think I said this before, many Italians found opportunities in the States they never would have had in Italy. Once they got a taste of decent government and the good life, why exactly would they be continuing to pursue mafia power? Especially when it's not the same thing as it is in Italy. The citizens of San Fran were never gonna look at the local wiseguys as being more legitimate or deserving of ruling over the elected officials. They can't control the vote like in Italy.

Its like a cartel boss can buy off a whole Mexican state, the police, the army, the mayor. You can't pull a fraction of that shit here. Dicke spoke on the monopoly of the use of violence. I think there is another side to thst coin. The monopoly on the use of CAPITAL.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you wrote, but I will restate, however, that the Mafia isn't just a criminal organization. It's also a brotherhood. It was formed during a period when many secret societies were formed under the influence of the Freemasons. There are family bonds that extend back for generations. Crime is an operational element. It's not an essential element. It may be hard to accept since crime and the Mafia are so tightly intertwined, but those familial bonds and close relationships would still be there if they give up their lives of crime. They would also continue to have a network of business connections, and they would continue to make investments together.

What you wrote about the Mafia as it has operated so far attempting to have a monopoly of violence and capital, absolutely. 100%. It makes it much easier to function - to operate - if a group has monopoly power. The American Cosa Nostra through racketeering has at different times controlled both sides of the chief elements of capital by controlling the unions and management. In an earlier period they even had their own banks. Back in the 1920s Ciro Terranova held a monopoly on artichokes in New York City by at least controlling sales and distribution, and it was backed up by violence. While I don't think they ever approached the levels of violence used by the Sinaloa cartel, Al Capone was as close as any of them.

You might have slightly misunderstood me. It's the STATE that has to establish this monopoly. It's precisely in the failure to do so that helps CREATE mafia- like activity. It's this failure that " legitimizes" a mafiosi every time he commits an act of violence with impunity, it reinforces his " RIGHT" to do so.

Same with the payoffs in the States during prohibition. They became as legitimate as any corporation financing a campaign or making a donation. During prohibition, it's this failure on prohibiting the use of illicit capital that allowed the mafia to forge many of their initial connections to Judges and politicians. Drug money was made so politically toxic you can't make the same type of wholesale payoffs. This is why I say there's two sides to that coin that John Dicke wrote about. The State has to establish a monopoly on the use of violence in a territory. But you have to do the same with capital. Imagine if a cartel boss could just hand a politician a bag of drug money, like it was during prohibition. Every fucking mayor on the border would be bought. Every receptive, availible cop, every customs guy, it would be a mess.


The mafia does not maintain a standing army. It has no ability to really control a country, my man. Thats on the STATE. The mafia does not, can not, nor has any capability to issue or print money. It's not a Nation. It's not a bank. Thats on the STATE. You misunderstood me....

[Antiliar]

There is a distinction between the organization and operations. They overlap and interact, but they're not identical.

Let's take it back to the beginning. How the first Mafia group formed isn't known. Did it start as an organization then engage in crime, or did it engage in crime then form a hierarchy? It's a chicken versus egg question for which we don't have an answer. But we can identify which takes priority. The organization. After all, the original common names for the Mafia were the Fratellanza and Fratuzzi, "brotherhood" or "fraternity" and "little brothers." It's not just a criminal organization, but a fraternal society where people get together and support each other. Marriage among members and their relatives is encouraged.

Moreover, there is no requirement that one must break the law. There have been soldiers who have successful businesses or have advanced professions such as being a politician, a doctor or a lawyer who were never arrested. One could form a gang of friends and relatives and all they do is play and do other activities together without engaging in any criminal activity at all. Likewise, we can see in the last years the San Francisco Family hardly engaged in any criminal activities at all - possibly none - yet it still existed as a small Family. It's possible that Los Angeles still exists with a handful of members who have ranks but avoid all criminal activity. For all we know Tommaso Gambino is a legitimate businessman who gets together with his two or three underlings to play poker after a BBQ every other weekend and that's the extent of their meetings.

Likewise a group of friends could go on a crime spree without belonging to any organization and without forming one.

I would counter argue that thats evidence of assimilation to American society. Because a mafia family NOT in the active pursuit of power to me is essentially purposeless. I mean look, it died out... no?

And I think it started with all three social classes. The aristocrat, the Gabelloti, and the peasant. And the dynamics between the 3. You kinda can't have the Mafia I think without all 3. This is why I called it an emergent phenomenon.....

I think I said this before, many Italians found opportunities in the States they never would have had in Italy. Once they got a taste of decent government and the good life, why exactly would they be continuing to pursue mafia power? Especially when it's not the same thing as it is in Italy. The citizens of San Fran were never gonna look at the local wiseguys as being more legitimate or deserving of ruling over the elected officials. They can't control the vote like in Italy.

Its like a cartel boss can buy off a whole Mexican state, the police, the army, the mayor. You can't pull a fraction of that shit here. Dicke spoke on the monopoly of the use of violence. I think there is another side to thst coin. The monopoly on the use of CAPITAL.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you wrote, but I will restate, however, that the Mafia isn't just a criminal organization. It's also a brotherhood. It was formed during a period when many secret societies were formed under the influence of the Freemasons. There are family bonds that extend back for generations. Crime is an operational element. It's not an essential element. It may be hard to accept since crime and the Mafia are so tightly intertwined, but those familial bonds and close relationships would still be there if they give up their lives of crime. They would also continue to have a network of business connections, and they would continue to make investments together.

What you wrote about the Mafia as it has operated so far attempting to have a monopoly of violence and capital, absolutely. 100%. It makes it much easier to function - to operate - if a group has monopoly power. The American Cosa Nostra through racketeering has at different times controlled both sides of the chief elements of capital by controlling the unions and management. In an earlier period they even had their own banks. Back in the 1920s Ciro Terranova held a monopoly on artichokes in New York City by at least controlling sales and distribution, and it was backed up by violence. While I don't think they ever approached the levels of violence used by the Sinaloa cartel, Al Capone was as close as any of them.

You might have slightly misunderstood me. It's the STATE that has to establish this monopoly. It's precisely in the failure to do so that helps CREATE mafia- like activity. It's this failure that " legitimizes" a mafiosi every time he commits an act of violence with impunity, it reinforces his " RIGHT" to do so.

Same with the payoffs in the States during prohibition. They became as legitimate as any corporation financing a campaign or making a donation. During prohibition, it's this failure on prohibiting the use of illicit capital that allowed the mafia to forge many of their initial connections to Judges and politicians. Drug money was made so politically toxic you can't make the same type of wholesale payoffs. This is why I say there's two sides to that coin that John Dicke wrote about. The State has to establish a monopoly on the use of violence in a territory. But you have to do the same with capital. Imagine if a cartel boss could just hand a politician a bag of drug money, like it was during prohibition. Every fucking mayor on the border would be bought. Every receptive, availible cop, every customs guy, it would be a mess.


The mafia does not maintain a standing army. It has no ability to really control a country, my man. Thats on the STATE. The mafia does not, can not, nor has any capability to issue or print money. It's not a Nation. It's not a bank. Thats on the STATE. You misunderstood me....

I didn't write or suggest that the Mafia has a standing army or control a country or legally print money. I wrote that it attempts to obtain a monopoly, and I gave one example. This monopoly was limited to one product in a certain limited territory. Of course the state has a monopoly on legal killing (except for self-defense). What you seem to be saying is that by not enforcing its monopoly on violence and other acts the government emboldens criminals. If that's what you're saying there's no disagreement.

[CabriniGreen]

There is a distinction between the organization and operations. They overlap and interact, but they're not identical.

Let's take it back to the beginning. How the first Mafia group formed isn't known. Did it start as an organization then engage in crime, or did it engage in crime then form a hierarchy? It's a chicken versus egg question for which we don't have an answer. But we can identify which takes priority. The organization. After all, the original common names for the Mafia were the Fratellanza and Fratuzzi, "brotherhood" or "fraternity" and "little brothers." It's not just a criminal organization, but a fraternal society where people get together and support each other. Marriage among members and their relatives is encouraged.

Moreover, there is no requirement that one must break the law. There have been soldiers who have successful businesses or have advanced professions such as being a politician, a doctor or a lawyer who were never arrested. One could form a gang of friends and relatives and all they do is play and do other activities together without engaging in any criminal activity at all. Likewise, we can see in the last years the San Francisco Family hardly engaged in any criminal activities at all - possibly none - yet it still existed as a small Family. It's possible that Los Angeles still exists with a handful of members who have ranks but avoid all criminal activity. For all we know Tommaso Gambino is a legitimate businessman who gets together with his two or three underlings to play poker after a BBQ every other weekend and that's the extent of their meetings.

Likewise a group of friends could go on a crime spree without belonging to any organization and without forming one.

I would counter argue that thats evidence of assimilation to American society. Because a mafia family NOT in the active pursuit of power to me is essentially purposeless. I mean look, it died out... no?

And I think it started with all three social classes. The aristocrat, the Gabelloti, and the peasant. And the dynamics between the 3. You kinda can't have the Mafia I think without all 3. This is why I called it an emergent phenomenon.....

I think I said this before, many Italians found opportunities in the States they never would have had in Italy. Once they got a taste of decent government and the good life, why exactly would they be continuing to pursue mafia power? Especially when it's not the same thing as it is in Italy. The citizens of San Fran were never gonna look at the local wiseguys as being more legitimate or deserving of ruling over the elected officials. They can't control the vote like in Italy.

Its like a cartel boss can buy off a whole Mexican state, the police, the army, the mayor. You can't pull a fraction of that shit here. Dicke spoke on the monopoly of the use of violence. I think there is another side to thst coin. The monopoly on the use of CAPITAL.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you wrote, but I will restate, however, that the Mafia isn't just a criminal organization. It's also a brotherhood. It was formed during a period when many secret societies were formed under the influence of the Freemasons. There are family bonds that extend back for generations. Crime is an operational element. It's not an essential element. It may be hard to accept since crime and the Mafia are so tightly intertwined, but those familial bonds and close relationships would still be there if they give up their lives of crime. They would also continue to have a network of business connections, and they would continue to make investments together.

What you wrote about the Mafia as it has operated so far attempting to have a monopoly of violence and capital, absolutely. 100%. It makes it much easier to function - to operate - if a group has monopoly power. The American Cosa Nostra through racketeering has at different times controlled both sides of the chief elements of capital by controlling the unions and management. In an earlier period they even had their own banks. Back in the 1920s Ciro Terranova held a monopoly on artichokes in New York City by at least controlling sales and distribution, and it was backed up by violence. While I don't think they ever approached the levels of violence used by the Sinaloa cartel, Al Capone was as close as any of them.

You might have slightly misunderstood me. It's the STATE that has to establish this monopoly. It's precisely in the failure to do so that helps CREATE mafia- like activity. It's this failure that " legitimizes" a mafiosi every time he commits an act of violence with impunity, it reinforces his " RIGHT" to do so.

Same with the payoffs in the States during prohibition. They became as legitimate as any corporation financing a campaign or making a donation. During prohibition, it's this failure on prohibiting the use of illicit capital that allowed the mafia to forge many of their initial connections to Judges and politicians. Drug money was made so politically toxic you can't make the same type of wholesale payoffs. This is why I say there's two sides to that coin that John Dicke wrote about. The State has to establish a monopoly on the use of violence in a territory. But you have to do the same with capital. Imagine if a cartel boss could just hand a politician a bag of drug money, like it was during prohibition. Every fucking mayor on the border would be bought. Every receptive, availible cop, every customs guy, it would be a mess.


The mafia does not maintain a standing army. It has no ability to really control a country, my man. Thats on the STATE. The mafia does not, can not, nor has any capability to issue or print money. It's not a Nation. It's not a bank. Thats on the STATE. You misunderstood me....

I didn't write or suggest that the Mafia has a standing army or control a country or legally print money. I wrote that it attempts to obtain a monopoly, and I gave one example. This monopoly was limited to one product in a certain limited territory. Of course the state has a monopoly on legal killing (except for self-defense). What you seem to be saying is that by not enforcing its monopoly on violence and other acts the government emboldens criminals. If that's what you're saying there's no disagreement.

It was a slight misunderstanding. You wrote that you agree with a statement I made saying the MAFIA established a monopoly on the use of violence and capital. What I was saying is I would never say that because the Mafia has NO capacity for either. I was referring to the State. The mafia doesn't maintain a standing army or police force, so it CANT monopolize violence. What it CAN do is REDUCE the governments "share of the violence industry ", and undermine the publics confidence in the system to protect it. It can take a SHARE of the Market for violence, if that makes sense. It CANT monopolize capital because it's not a Nation that prints its own money, it's not a Central Bank.

We agree I think..... just got some wording crossed....

[Villain]

Theres no criminal (ethnic) organization above the state.

I love this movie scene (some say that they took some version of the Giancana story and made a fictional scene in which he allegedly talks to the CIA director).....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbbxQqKXUIk

[PolackTony]

The mafia doesn't maintain a standing army or police force, so it CANT monopolize violence. What it CAN do is REDUCE the governments "share of the violence industry ", and undermine the publics confidence in the system to protect it. It can take a SHARE of the Market for violence, if that makes sense. It CANT monopolize capital because it's not a Nation that prints its own money, it's not a Central Bank.

Well put.

[Villain]

99% of the members of 99% of the "legit" masonic organizations (which probably exist before the Mafia) are required to make or at least find donations (financial) on monthly level or on several months. The Templars for example gather all of their finances and 70% or 80% goes to charity only for the Christian people.

SO...the positions within the hierarchy of these people mostly depends on financial income and after that comes the connections and stuff. Similar situation is with the Mafia but they mostly dont care where the money comes from.