Organization & Operation revisited

[B.]

If I'm understanding some of the posts right, one thing that seems to be a point of confusion is an associate's relationship to his Family. He's part of the organization but not a member.

Gus Alex was an associate of the Chicago Family and Burt Young was an associate of the Lucchese Family. This meant very different things operationally but organizationally they were part of a Family's sphere of influence and formally bound to them even though neither one was a made member. Young understood this, as Nicky Scarfo tried to bring him into Philly's orbit and Young told him he was already "with" the Luccheses. Young was organizationally bound to the Lucchese Family and knew this even though he was a celebrity who likely had no deep involvement in the Family's activities. Joe Watts understood he was part of the Gambino Family and the Chicago associates referring to "the Family" show that they saw it this way as well.

[Antiliar]

Then you would have a really bad argument. The Cosa Nostra doesn't exist to appease the viewpoints of outside observers. It has its own rules, policies and traditions whether or not you agree with them. Michael made it clear that a borgata exists until the last member is gone. There shouldn't be an issue here.

Again, I don't subscribe to the "it's their organization" theory. I look at it as an outsider, with a practical point of view. The Mafia can recognize a 100 year old, last surviving member who has an incontinence problem as "a family" or "a borgata" but that's not really reflective of reality from where I'm standing.

Whether you subscribe to it or not is irrelevant. You can't go into someone else's club and tell them what their rules are. It would not only be offensive and wrong, but it would be a straw man. What you are doing by altering the rules of Cosa Nostra to force fit them to your theory is making a straw man. As for practicality, there's nothing impractical about recognizing the internal rules of the organization. Law enforcement can continue to go after illegitimate operations. Moreover by recognizing the organizational aspect of the LCN, law enforcement can use RICO to charge higher ups with running a criminal enterprise. So there's no downside in recognizing the reality in which the Cosa Nostra operates.

[PolackTony]

If I'm understanding some of the posts right, one thing that seems to be a point of confusion is an associate's relationship to his Family. He's part of the organization but not a member.

Gus Alex was an associate of the Chicago Family and Burt Young was an associate of the Lucchese Family. This meant very different things operationally but organizationally they were part of a Family's sphere of influence and formally bound to them even though neither one was a made member. Young understood this, as Nicky Scarfo tried to bring him into Philly's orbit and Young told him he was already "with" the Luccheses. Young was organizationally bound to the Lucchese Family and knew this even though he was a celebrity who likely had no deep involvement in the Family's activities. Joe Watts understood he was part of the Gambino Family and the Chicago associates referring to "the Family" show that they saw it this way as well.

Yes and this is an important point. The status of associate is a formal status, a formalized relationship to the organization. An associate is not a member of the organization but is bound to it through affiliation.

Though not as well recognized, this status is not at all unique to the US mafia, but exists in Sicily as well, where associates are referred to as avvicinati (those who have “approached” or been brought close to the mafia, from the verb “avvicinare”, “to approach” or “bring near”) or affiliati. As with the US, some affiliati are guys proposed for membership who have not yet been inducted. Others, however, are never made for various reasons (such as a number of mafia-affiliated politicians) or cannot be made, as is the case for cops who are affiliati. The latter I think is important here, in that in the US the mafia evolved in a context where mafiosi interacted with men who could never be made due to their ancestry: in both cases, you have a subset of affiliated non-members who can never join, permanent associates as opposed to proposed or potential members. Another example, I believe, of existing concepts and practices from Sicily that were deployed in new ways in response to a new American context.

Italian sources that I’ve read cast avvicinati/affiliati as subject to yet not members of the organization, as being bound by obligations and responsibilities to the organization without enjoying the benefits of membership (ie, rights to representation and protection accorded to members).

I like to think of membership as akin to citizenship (given the clear “communal” inspiration in the structures and protocols of the organization, I believe that this comparison is not just metaphorical). Like permanent non-citizen residents, associates have a formal relationship to the organization and are subject to the organization’s authority, but don’t have rights to the prerogatives of membership (though associates of course are represented in a fashion by proxy within the organization by members that do have those rights).

Guys like Watts, Rockman, and Alex had their Green Cards but could never be citizens. This condition, of being subject to the authority of an institution that they were not formally part of, is a big part of what makes guys like this fascinating to me. They lived and killed in service to an organization that they could never join.

[InCamelot]

If I'm understanding some of the posts right, one thing that seems to be a point of confusion is an associate's relationship to his Family. He's part of the organization but not a member.

Gus Alex was an associate of the Chicago Family and Burt Young was an associate of the Lucchese Family. This meant very different things operationally but organizationally they were part of a Family's sphere of influence and formally bound to them even though neither one was a made member. Young understood this, as Nicky Scarfo tried to bring him into Philly's orbit and Young told him he was already "with" the Luccheses. Young was organizationally bound to the Lucchese Family and knew this even though he was a celebrity who likely had no deep involvement in the Family's activities. Joe Watts understood he was part of the Gambino Family and the Chicago associates referring to "the Family" show that they saw it this way as well.

I believe that confusion regarding associates may also at least partially be rooted in whether they believe LCN should be viewed as a criminal organization or something more than always just that.

Some folks are always gonna value talking about it even after the crimes have ceased, while others will strongly believe there is no longer a point (and thus this is splitting hairs to continue to harp on "technically Amuso has the title even though Crea has more say" or whatever the vague scenario is).

After reading this thread more closely and a few others though, it does appear that sometimes too much "filling in the blanks" is being done.
But on the other hand, its significantly more difficult for someone to see 'Organization' as anything more than an arbitrary non-point that you're making if you don't believe that any of these men would be sitting with each other for any reason other than to commit crimes.

[InCamelot]

One day historians will look back on these recent threads as the great Org vs Op wars of '23.

Who was on what side?

Oh wait, its not that clear if you look deeper into their old posts.

[B.]

Then you would have a really bad argument. The Cosa Nostra doesn't exist to appease the viewpoints of outside observers. It has its own rules, policies and traditions whether or not you agree with them. Michael made it clear that a borgata exists until the last member is gone. There shouldn't be an issue here.

Again, I don't subscribe to the "it's their organization" theory. I look at it as an outsider, with a practical point of view. The Mafia can recognize a 100 year old, last surviving member who has an incontinence problem as "a family" or "a borgata" but that's not really reflective of reality from where I'm standing.

It's not a theory nor is an outsider view practical, it's extremely limited. My view of things is limited too but I acknowledge that.

I brought your approach up not because of circumstances where one ancient member is remaining, a situation that we probably view more similarly than not, but because of examples like Buffalo-Ontario where you dismiss concrete organizational info and disrespect people who see things differently from you when it conflicts with your understanding or assumptions. I say that not to call you out, it's just a description of how you frame your arguments.

A situation like Terrasini where Buscetta said there were two remaining members who remained a recognized Family with a rappresentante is different from Cleveland given it's in Sicily with a much larger mafia infrastructure around it, but the principal is the same. We saw this with Billy D'Elia in the US, where he was a respected mafia leader in the network despite his dwindling org. You often frame your POV around what that will mean in the future and I don't disagree with the idea that a Family is unlikely to sustain itself under those circumstances but it doesn't change what exists in the present.

Detroit is an interesting example because the post-Zerilli generation of leaders were college educated and focused heavily on legitimate business. I don't have any insight or personal investment in Detroit's viability but there is a strong mafia tradition among the clans there and local experts like Scott and Jimmy B believe there is still a Detroit Family that uses its organizational set-up and network to further the interests of its members and associates, it's just questionable to me how much that manifests in the form of explicit organized crime.

If a Family continues to induct and promote members but they utilize their relationships to strengthen legitimate business interests, that's still a viable organization with a strong operational network. This is why the mafia is not a true "gang" and Angelo Lonardo refused to refer to the mafia that way when it came up during his testimony. I personally don't believe Lonardo was trying to sugarcoat his organization, I believe he truly didn't agree with that framework.

[Pogo The Clown]

Then you would have a really bad argument. The Cosa Nostra doesn't exist to appease the viewpoints of outside observers. It has its own rules, policies and traditions whether or not you agree with them. Michael made it clear that a borgata exists until the last member is gone. There shouldn't be an issue here.

Again, I don't subscribe to the "it's their organization" theory. I look at it as an outsider, with a practical point of view. The Mafia can recognize a 100 year old, last surviving member who has an incontinence problem as "a family" or "a borgata" but that's not really reflective of reality from where I'm standing.

Whether you subscribe to it or not is irrelevant. You can't go into someone else's club and tell them what their rules are. It would not only be offensive and wrong, but it would be a straw man. What you are doing by altering the rules of Cosa Nostra to force fit them to your theory is making a straw man. As for practicality, there's nothing impractical about recognizing the internal rules of the organization. Law enforcement can continue to go after illegitimate operations. Moreover by recognizing the organizational aspect of the LCN, law enforcement can use RICO to charge higher ups with running a criminal enterprise. So there's no downside in recognizing the reality in which the Cosa Nostra operates.

Except that it is not a uniform LCN rule. Certainly not one subscribed to by guys like Angelo Lonardo and Michael Franzese. And although they didn’t didn’t explicitly say in the same words, it was also a view shared by guys like Jimmy Frattiano and Ralph Natalie. I’d wager their view is the majority view.


Pogo

[Antiliar]

Then you would have a really bad argument. The Cosa Nostra doesn't exist to appease the viewpoints of outside observers. It has its own rules, policies and traditions whether or not you agree with them. Michael made it clear that a borgata exists until the last member is gone. There shouldn't be an issue here.

Again, I don't subscribe to the "it's their organization" theory. I look at it as an outsider, with a practical point of view. The Mafia can recognize a 100 year old, last surviving member who has an incontinence problem as "a family" or "a borgata" but that's not really reflective of reality from where I'm standing.

Whether you subscribe to it or not is irrelevant. You can't go into someone else's club and tell them what their rules are. It would not only be offensive and wrong, but it would be a straw man. What you are doing by altering the rules of Cosa Nostra to force fit them to your theory is making a straw man. As for practicality, there's nothing impractical about recognizing the internal rules of the organization. Law enforcement can continue to go after illegitimate operations. Moreover by recognizing the organizational aspect of the LCN, law enforcement can use RICO to charge higher ups with running a criminal enterprise. So there's no downside in recognizing the reality in which the Cosa Nostra operates.

Except that it is not a uniform LCN rule. Certainly not one subscribed to by guys like Angelo Lonardo and Michael Franzese. And although they didn’t didn’t explicitly say in the same words, it was also a view shared by guys like Jimmy Frattiano and Ralph Natalie. I’d wager their view is the majority view.


Pogo

I'm not aware that any of them were directly asked the question. Lonardo, Fratianno and Natale are gone, but maybe I could ask Franzese.

[Pogo The Clown]

From Leonardo senate testimony in 1988.


Senator Glenn: Do you believe the family is still operating in that area, in the Cleveland area?
Lonardo: The Cleveland family?
Senator Glenn: The LCN family.
Lonardo: There is no family there right now. It was destroyed.


Lonardo made this statement despite knowing there were still about a dozen living Cleveland LCN members (he named several in the same testimony). So he obviously didn’t recognize the 1 living member (regardless of activity) = a family rule.


Franzese once made the statement that there are 9 families remaining in the country. Now one can argue his knowledge of the existence of other families but it is clear from his statement that he didn’t subscribe to any such rule either.


Pogo

[B.]

We know Cleveland continued to exist and Tronolone became boss. Be great if we knew whether Lonardo was using "destroyed" as a figure of speech to describe the disarray and damage that had been done there or if he legitimately believed there wasn't a recognized / organized Family remaining. No question Cleveland was in a sorry state at the time.

We'd have to know what Franzese's knowledge was of the national mafia at the time. Valachi knew of very few national Families and wasn't in a position to accurately identify the existence of many Families or their status. I assume that was true of Franzese as well whether his number is accurate or not.

I don't subscribe to the idea that "remaining members = Family" and want to make that clear. This argument often mutates into that but that's not my take on the rule. My take is that a Family that is still recognized and organized counts as a Family regardless of their size. That is different from "living member = Family", it's just that a Family with one living member can still be recognized.

[CabriniGreen]

i m so confused.

what the fuck are you guys arguing about?

Can't you at least use pedestrian writing styles==this is like reading a fucking text book.

What do yyou guys do for a living (generally) -- normally I wouldn't ask but you guys are on the youtube, showing faces, no?

I'm in the furniture and liquidation business. Organizationally I'm admin but operationally I do many things beyond my job description. Is that reponse pedestrian enough?

This is a massive myth that really needs to be debunked too... It really was all Chin, and he did it for political purposes... a quorum of the families had active Sicilian operatives with huge drug ops.... How can it be Commisioned banned, if 3 of the families are involved? Throw in Mannino and the Gambinos in Philly, and the Busico stuff with Buffalo, I would say a majority of the families on the East Coast were in the thick of it.

Also, when exactly did it get recinded to allow Gugliotti to move all the Queens cocaine? Or did they allow it because the weight all went to Europe?

The Commission banned drug trafficking in the 1940s or 50s. Yes, there was hypocrisy and breaking of the rule but they still issued that rule and there was pressure in some cases to ban / limit narcotics. Gigante had nothing to do with it and wasn't close to being a boss when it happened nor is there any evidence the decision was anti-Sicilian in nature.

Accardo also told Giancana on who were the bosses that the Chicago fam was able to relay on, which means there was some type of benefit. So Chicago possibly or probably had some benefit from mediating in Philly. Chicago's problem with Bonanno was both organizational and operational. Giancana wanted for Bonanno to be removed as boss or to be killed (organizational), and they also had problems with him in Arizona (operational).

This means that IF Bonanno was killed (organizational), the Chicago fam was going to push for a new boss who was going to be their ally (organizational) (benefit) and let them control all of Arizonas rackets (operational). I think similar thing happened with Philly.

Looks like org and op cant be separated again.

Hey was wondering in all your research did you come across any info verifying what Chicago's benefit in mediating w/ Philly was?

There was no direct material benefit to Chicago being part of the Commission meetings that helped resolve the dispute between Domenico Pollina and Angelo Bruno. It was required of them as national representatives of Cosa Nostra. It was an organizational dispute and an organizational meeting designed to prevent murder, warfare, and stabilize the Philadelphia Family.

The Bonanno War was not about Arizona rackets even if there was tension between Joe Bonanno and Chicago about Arizona.

Buster Wortman was an associate of the Chicago admin and also very close to the St. Louis admin. He was "part of the Family" and "on record" but not a member.

B. Where in the world did you get the ban started in the 40s and 50s? I'm almost certain this has to be a mistake.... you love the Bonnano convo. You love the Montreal convo. Did you forget the whole French Connection? Lol

[B.]

The Commission issued a rule during that era that members could no longer engage in narcotics. Magaddino was recorded discussing it and numerous other member sources mentioned it.

That has nothing to do with the fact that narcotics trafficking continued to exist and pop up, obviously the rule was ignored / broken, but the Commission issued that rule which was operational in nature.

Other operational rules that were issued nationally (not sure when) were no counterfeiting or stocks / bonds. An operational rule against prostitution went back possibly to the beginning of Cosa Nostra. Note that national (or international) rules generally prohibited certain operations but I can't think of any examples where the Commission or any other ruling body told members they had to engage in certain operations. These rules, even if broken, were based around protecting the organization whereas there was nothing requiring members to participate in certain operations even if it benefited the org. Murder is the only exception but I don't consider that an "operation" as the mafia is not typically a murder-for-hire organization.

[CabriniGreen]

The Commission issued a rule during that era that members could no longer engage in narcotics. Magaddino was recorded discussing it and numerous other member sources mentioned it.

That has nothing to do with the fact that narcotics trafficking continued to exist and pop up, obviously the rule was ignored / broken, but the Commission issued that rule which was operational in nature.

Bro what? When was the French Connection? Galante and all that? Bonnano in Sicily? The Purple Gang? Sal Mongavero? Tuminaro? That whole fucking Thomas Greco thread about the Lower East side heroin crews?
Now I'm really lost.... the drug ban happened during Castellanos era.... why in the world would you say the 40s and 50s? What the fuck was Luciano doing with the Corsicans in the 50s? Vito Genovese in the 60s?

What do you mean?

[B.]

You're simply wrong. I have no other way to say it and I mean it with respect, but you are misinformed.

And yes, there continued to be large-scale drug trafficking after the ruling. Members also fucked each others' wives. That doesn't mean the ruling wasn't issued.

[CabriniGreen]

You're simply wrong. I have no other way to say it and I mean it with respect, but you are misinformed.

And yes, there continued to be large-scale drug trafficking after the ruling. Members also fucked each others' wives. That doesn't mean the ruling wasn't issued.

Ok bro... who exactly banned it. The Costello era? That's what you are saying?