The significance behind Lucky Luciano

[Little_Al1991]

If he didn’t invent the commission then what did he really do?
He’s not the founding father of Organized Crime like how many of us believed him to be, or is he in some way?
He’s an interesting person who I’d like to know more about
The accolades given to Lucky Luciano in the documentaries are not exactly true

[Sullycantwell]

The biggest thing was having Masseria and Maranzano killed, but besides that nothing really special as far as i can tell. not sure about the 1929 Atlantic City meeting and how much is myth, but what was the significance of that? Luciano seems to have been a well liked boss according to Valachi. IIRC Joe Bonanno said Vincenzo Mangano was the first chairman of the commission which is interesting as I’ve heard people say that Luciano was.

[AustraliaSteve]

I think it just works as a narrative. Colourful nickname, early multiculturalist, the guy that theoretically “ended” the Moustache Petes. It makes it a simple story, but as we know, realities of this subject are infinitely more nuanced than early writers had the resources or desire to get in to. Isn’t it so much more convenient to point to one guy as the “father” of it all, rather than admitting he was one tiny cog in the machine?

I only comment because it’s something that keeps frustrating me with my Australian research. The great “founding fathers” of the Australian ‘ndrangheta, the three men who came to Melbourne in 1922 and started it all. I know there’s more to it, but it still eludes me. Sorry, it occurs to me that I’m not adding much to your question.

[johnny_scootch]

I think Thomas Dewey had a hand in building up the myths surrounding Luciano. It made him look better when he took him down.

[Antiliar]

Luciano first received infamy when he was convicted of prostitution. His name received headlines when he was deported first from the US then from Cuba. The Bureau of Narcotics kept his name in the news by declaring that he was the biggest heroin trafficker in the world and the head of the international Mafia. Then Joe Valachi came along in 1963 followed by the publication of The Valachi Papers in 1968. Luciano was called "one of the chief architects of the modern Cosa Nostra." He was responsible for both Masseria's and Maranzano's executions. Luciano organized the mass executions that followed Maranzano's murder, and he created a six man panel of consiglieri. Interesting that the Commission isn't mentioned in The Valachi Papers although he did discuss in the Senate hearings. Some books that came out after Valachi's revelations claimed that Luciano created the Commission. So considering all that, Luciano was considered a big deal.

[Little_Al1991]

The biggest thing was having Masseria and Maranzano killed, but besides that nothing really special as far as i can tell. not sure about the 1929 Atlantic City meeting and how much is myth, but what was the significance of that? Luciano seems to have been a well liked boss according to Valachi. IIRC Joe Bonanno said Vincenzo Mangano was the first chairman of the commission which is interesting as I’ve heard people say that Luciano was.

Ur right, Luciano’s significance stems from Masseria and Maranzano’s killing
That and being the Genovese Family boss

[Little_Al1991]

Luciano first received infamy when he was convicted of prostitution. His name received headlines when he was deported first from the US then from Cuba. The Bureau of Narcotics kept his name in the news by declaring that he was the biggest heroin trafficker in the world and the head of the international Mafia. Then Joe Valachi came along in 1963 followed by the publication of The Valachi Papers in 1968. Luciano was called "one of the chief architects of the modern Cosa Nostra." He was responsible for both Masseria's and Maranzano's executions. Luciano organized the mass executions that followed Maranzano's murder, and he created a six man panel of consiglieri. Interesting that the Commission isn't mentioned in The Valachi Papers although he did discuss in the Senate hearings. Some books that came out after Valachi's revelations claimed that Luciano created the Commission. So considering all that, Luciano was considered a big deal.

Luciano’s reputation within the media is built of fabrication as the aforementioned points are what Lucky is known for but they are not what Lucky really did but that’s why I wanted to ask what is the significance behind Luciano.
A book about Luciano debunked the Heroin trafficking, i think it was Tim Newark’s book about Luciano but in a documentary about Lucky, some guy said that Luciano called him a fool for not thinking that he had heroin hidden in dolls or something like that while he was in Italy

[Little_Al1991]

I think Thomas Dewey had a hand in building up the myths surrounding Luciano. It made him look better when he took him down.

So what is the truth behind Luciano? Irregardless of what it is, he ended the war between Masseria and Maranzano and became the Genovese Family boss
So he’s going down in history for something

[B.]

Self-promotion but the first Mob Archeologists episode was a conversation about this if you're interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5DUXAWHvaE

[Antiliar]

Luciano first received infamy when he was convicted of prostitution. His name received headlines when he was deported first from the US then from Cuba. The Bureau of Narcotics kept his name in the news by declaring that he was the biggest heroin trafficker in the world and the head of the international Mafia. Then Joe Valachi came along in 1963 followed by the publication of The Valachi Papers in 1968. Luciano was called "one of the chief architects of the modern Cosa Nostra." He was responsible for both Masseria's and Maranzano's executions. Luciano organized the mass executions that followed Maranzano's murder, and he created a six man panel of consiglieri. Interesting that the Commission isn't mentioned in The Valachi Papers although he did discuss in the Senate hearings. Some books that came out after Valachi's revelations claimed that Luciano created the Commission. So considering all that, Luciano was considered a big deal.

Luciano’s reputation within the media is built of fabrication as the aforementioned points are what Lucky is known for but they are not what Lucky really did but that’s why I wanted to ask what is the significance behind Luciano.
A book about Luciano debunked the Heroin trafficking, i think it was Tim Newark’s book about Luciano but in a documentary about Lucky, some guy said that Luciano called him a fool for not thinking that he had heroin hidden in dolls or something like that while he was in Italy

Tim Newark's book wasn't perfect, but it was a big step in the right direction and an important correction. There is good evidence he was involved in heroin, including the History Channel biography you're referring to. In real life, from what I could gather, is that Luciano was admired and respected by Cosa Nostra members. He is seen as one of the founders of the modern Cosa Nostra by insiders.

[Little_Al1991]

Self-promotion but the first Mob Archeologists episode was a conversation about this if you're interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5DUXAWHvaE

Great podcast, I enjoyed it but felt that it wandered away from Luciano far to many times
I do consider that podcast to be probably the best mob content out there which is not from a former member

[Little_Al1991]

Luciano first received infamy when he was convicted of prostitution. His name received headlines when he was deported first from the US then from Cuba. The Bureau of Narcotics kept his name in the news by declaring that he was the biggest heroin trafficker in the world and the head of the international Mafia. Then Joe Valachi came along in 1963 followed by the publication of The Valachi Papers in 1968. Luciano was called "one of the chief architects of the modern Cosa Nostra." He was responsible for both Masseria's and Maranzano's executions. Luciano organized the mass executions that followed Maranzano's murder, and he created a six man panel of consiglieri. Interesting that the Commission isn't mentioned in The Valachi Papers although he did discuss in the Senate hearings. Some books that came out after Valachi's revelations claimed that Luciano created the Commission. So considering all that, Luciano was considered a big deal.

Luciano’s reputation within the media is built of fabrication as the aforementioned points are what Lucky is known for but they are not what Lucky really did but that’s why I wanted to ask what is the significance behind Luciano.
A book about Luciano debunked the Heroin trafficking, i think it was Tim Newark’s book about Luciano but in a documentary about Lucky, some guy said that Luciano called him a fool for not thinking that he had heroin hidden in dolls or something like that while he was in Italy

Tim Newark's book wasn't perfect, but it was a big step in the right direction and an important correction. There is good evidence he was involved in heroin, including the History Channel biography you're referring to. In real life, from what I could gather, is that Luciano was admired and respected by Cosa Nostra members. He is seen as one of the founders of the modern Cosa Nostra by insiders.

Interesting information. I’d assume he’s seen as a founder because he ended the war between Maranzano and Masseria.

[Angelo Santino]

1 We know Luciano didn't "found" the American Mafia as it existed 80 years in this country prior to him.
2 We know he didn't create a new idea called "the commission" because bodies like that pre-dated him and one was proposed following Maranzano's death.
3 He gets credited with having some "business" approach to OC but there were members/bosses much more business adept than he was.
4 His contemporaries (Gentile and Bonanno) don't regard/recall/consider Luciano as founding anything, and if members today credit Luciano that's a case of history defaulting into fable. Pennisi recently said that Thomas Lucchese founded the family, these guys aren't historians.

So what was Luciano's significance? The same could be asked about John Gotti 60 years later. You look back on John and on paper- he killed his boss and some people/members ask themselves why they liked him so much? Today it's almost universally agreed that Gotti was a "bad boss." Frank Fiordilino, who came up in the 80's remembered Gotti and regrets that he idolized his image of what a gangster should be, Gotti stood in stark contrast to the guy's Frank came up under in Ridgewood- conservative, quiet and patient. Be that as it may, Gotti the man was a force of nature, regardless of what rank he held at any time. There are some people in this life who just ooze charisma and Gotti had that. It's difficult to explain someone's charisma if you never experienced it oneself. So to contextualize, people tend to give them almost super-human traits just to emphasize it. We see that in Joe Bonanno's description of Maranzano being able to jump 20 kms and break a man's neck with his thumb and index finger. But I use Gotti as an example because he defined the 80's. He was a magnet and a superstar, in that world and this one. Michael DiLeonardo loves the guy. He looks back now and admits killing a boss was wrong and one of John's faults but back then, he was star struck.

I'd argue that the Gotti' "1980's Mafia" phenomenon is comparable to the Luciano "1930's new wave."
1 Gentile and Bonanno did not speak bad of him personally. Bonanno claimed Luciano "represented" (key word) a cultural shift in the Mafia (for the worst according to JB.)
2 Valachi made it a point to write down that Luciano "represented" "the final breakdown" of cultural differences with him being a Sicilian boss and having a Napolitan Underboss. He didn't mention Costello, which if he was Consig at the time, would have added to that, him being Calabrese. The only other non-Sicilian Under in NY at the time was Anastasia.

So two independent sources invoke what Luciano represented and I'd argue it relates to Mafia culture. His Sicilian counterparts were all married with children, owned businesses and led fairly conservative lifestyles. Luciano lived at a posh hotel and banged hookers and loved to party, something I could see JB chastising his members for if they acted in such a fashion. Also he didn't come from a mafia family whereas Mangano, Bonanno, Profaci and Gagliano all had. I could see these Sicilian bosses taking more of an interest in the private lives of their members, requiring good conduct, with repercussions for bad behavior and embarrassment. The Genovese Family on the other hand, likely was mostly concerned with their member's conduct within the realm of the organization and not their private lives.

Which brings us back to the aristrocrats/racketeers vs the nouveau riche/street guys rift that has always been a yin/yang factor within the mafia. Street guys Fratianno and Gravano can deride men like Louis Dragna and Tommy Gambino as do-nothing sons of powerful members but its the latter that keeps the organization going from one gen to the next. 100 years ago there were Gambino and or relative involvement with the Gambino Family and if its around 100 years from now it'll still have Gambino-relative involvement long after Gotti and Gravano were one-offs in the annals of mafia history.

But in closing, to dismiss the fables of Luciano is not to belittle him or attempt to rewrite him as insignificant. It takes certain special qualities to be brought into the mafia, one doesn't sign up and join. And to become one of 5 bosses out of 15-2000 members in a city of 7 million people is amazing. Could any of us or most people accomplish that? I couldn't. The fact that he didn't "form" anything nor could jump 25km is irrelevant.

[Little_Al1991]

Thank you for ur thoughtful answer.
Joe Bonanno said “Luciano believe in money” I can see what he meant by that

[Angelo Santino]

I think the aristocrats viewed membership as something that should only be bestowed upon those with the right qualities as a man. This is the faction where nepotism with a strong favoring towards relatives and compaesani runs rampant. This "view" might have better served men like Bonanno, Mangano and others with mafia backgrounds but they alone cannot be relied on alone for the mafia's continuation. As they did in Sicily they did in America- recruit locally. New York (and America) provided an entirely new biosphere for them to grow and expand the network. But while men like Joe Bonanno paint it as some beautiful semi-legitimate society, one of it's basic rules is an oath to commit murder if the society calls for it. So its criminality was a built in component.

You then have the nouveau riche, members without a mafia background / exposure since early childhood from other parts of Italy being brought in. These members had to show they could handle the position before being given it. The problem with the mafia is that its own terminology is ambiguous and buzzwords like honor and loyalty can mean very different things depending on your background, upbringing and moral code. It's almost always stated in ceremony that they only admit "men of great honor." But the oath calls for murder, not to be an upstanding moral person outside of your organizational activities. So this led to more and more "unscrupulous" characters being brought in. But in their defense, most of them followed and adhered to the rules and, in many cases, were more dogmatic about it then their Sicilian counterparts. But a great deal of them didn't believe in pretending to be legitimate, didn't want to intermarry due to mafia politics nor saw the need in pretending to be legitimate rather than being proud in showing off their skirting of the law. The mafia didn't have a fail-safe for that, nothing in their bylaws prohibits that but it does require an oath to murder. Membership evolved organically over time and its no surprise that criminality became a more overt element.

The Gambinos are credited as an example of Mafia success due to it's 150 year Palermo-link which is visible to this day. People who look at it through this prism would be dismissive of the Genoveses- they don't have the bloodlines anymore. I'd argue, alternatively, that the mafia and its culture was passed on to people who didn't have that background but have carried it successfully to this day, to the point where its considered one of America's top Families. Masseria's, Luciano's and Costello's approach appeared to have been more focused on your work and less on your private life, meaning as long as they followed the laws and remained in good standing with the society, they were less concerned with your background. So perhaps in that regard, Luciano was "more focused on business."

I enjoy the different interpretations, the two contrasts. It's another interesting aspect of the story.