Probably the worst part of Mob life is the constant danger of betrayal and the inability to trust. Greed, envy, ambition and power are the lifeblood of organized crime. Mob Dons have to constantly wonder who to trust, who is loyal—and who’ll betray them. But there’s a difference between trust and loyalty, and both Vito and Michael experienced it:

According to Webster, to be loyal is to be faithful to a person, ideal, custom, cause, or duty; steadfast in allegiance to one's sovereign (like a Don or father). Vito was sure of the loyalty of Sonny, Fredo and Tom—they were family. He probably also was generally sure of the loyalty of Tessio and Clemenza, although his giving orders to them through Tom, with no witnesses, was a hedge against possible disloyalty, And, as we saw after the shooting, Clem couldn’t be ruled out as a suspect until Paulie was confirmed.

But trust, according to Webster, is to place confidence in a person—i.e., to do what he’s supposed to. There, Vito’s trust was far less certain. He did not have confidence in either Sonny or Fredo to be his successor. And, loyal though they were, Sonny and Fredo let down their Don and father: Sonny by shooting off his mouth at the drugs meeting, and thereby emboldening Sollozzo to attempt Vito’s murder; and Fredo’s inability to protect his father from the gunmen.

I think Vito also had less than total confidence that Sonny, Tom, Fredo, Tess and Clem would be able to overcome greed for the drugs business. Vito, who was so careful to give orders one at a time, included everyone in the Sol meeting—because he wanted all of them to hear his refusal in each other’s company, the better to discourage them from getting ideas of their own, and to encourage each other to stop each other from undermining his decree.

Michael, who had none of his father’s warmth and little of his personal touch, commanded less loyalty and trust. Part of his lifelong delusion and obsession about “legitimacy” was that, as a “legitimate” casino operator in Nevada, he wouldn’t the kind of infrastructure of loyalty and trust his father had built up. It came crashing down on him after the Tahoe shooting. “Right now you’re the only one I can completely trust,” he tells Tom. What about Rocco and Neri—the only two men he brought with him from New York; and especially Neri, who was Michael’s protégé? “Our people are businessmen; their loyalty is based on that,” Michael replies. And Fredo? Michael didn’t trust him then—and that was before the Havana revelation.

Michael didn’t even trust Tom very much. “There’s a lot I can’t tell you,” he starts out; if he really trusted Tom, he’d tell him everything he needed to know, but he didn’t. Basically, he was sure of Tom’s loyalty, when he couldn’t be sure of anyone else’s loyalty. But I doubt he had much confidence in Tom’s ability to run the family beyond the limited amount of time Michael needed to find out who the traitor was. Tom was the default choice because there was no one else. As soon as Michael got what he needed, he went back to kicking Tom in the ass.

Some life.

They are the lifeblood of capitalism too, according to - guess who: Karl Marx or Milton Friedman?


The difference, of course, is that capitalism needs trust. Trust in institutions, especially in money and political stability. The trust in the institution of a "family" (the Corleone crime organization) is more difficult to organize than the trust in a political and financial system. Yet, in the beginning of the 20th century, people like Don Corleone used the cracks of the system to establish their own regime.

On a large scale "trust" relates to institutions as much as individuals. The social compact requires a fundamental trust in things like family, church, and government. A lot if this may be collapsing today, but that's for another thread.

In the mob as in a dictatorship loyalty and trust" is largely based on fear. Screw up and you die. Dons must constantly be looking over their shoulders for enemies, and must project strength at all times, lest they be toppled. At the end even Vito knew either Tessio or Clemenza would betray the family despite many years of "loyalty and trust" to him. Keeping people "loyal" and "trusting" in the mob would be more about Machiavellian tactics than anything else.

Forgive me as this is my first post, I always got the impression Clemenza and Vito were more close than Tessio/Vito and Clemenza would never betray Vito (the way he talks to Michael makes me think he was quite fond of the family).

This is a great forum to read btw, keep up the great discussions.

Welcome to the best boards on the internet, Northstar! Keep in mind that when Vito was shot the family supected Clemenza because Paulie worked for him.

Thanks Don Tom,

That's quite true, do you think they was suspicious of him because he was Paulie's boss or could it have gone deeper than that?

Just like politics.

Ya think?

True, which was why a thoroughly disgusted and disillusioned Kay Corleone tried in her small way to break the cycle by aborting her third child.

The model that organized crime in America followed was that of the "Robber Barons," the Nineteenth Century industrialists and capitalist who established that competition was bad, monopoly and cartelization were good. The "trusts" they created were built on coercion and mutual accommodation in the face of "outsiders" trying to horn in on their businesses.

The Robber Baron idea had traction at the highest levels of American government at one time. Theodore Roosevelt, one of our most revered Presidents, and--totally inappropriately--known as "the Trust Buster," believed that competition was wasteful, consolidation and cartelization were "efficient," and would help the government to regulate business and industry. His (successful) rival in the Presidential election of 1912, Woodrow Wilson, replied: "Don't you see that if you allow monopolies and trusts to get big so that the government can regulate them, they will regulate government?" Put another way: money talks--whether it's business/industry money, or gangster money.

As I undertand it T.R. steered the Republican Party toward "Progressive" ideas, which included breaking up monpolies. He "busted" aboout 44
trusts about half the number Wilson busted.

You are correct about the mob being run that way...as Hyman Roth famously said, "We're bigger than U.S. Steel."

Theodore Roosevelt (an overrated president, IMO) was known as the "Trust Buster" because of several biggies (US Steel, Standard Oil) filed among those 40 suits. They were intended as a shot across Big Business's bows, but Progressives like TR genrally thought competition was harmful, monopolies and trusts were a natural outcome of efficient modern businesses.

In his message to Congress on 12/3/1901, TR said:

"The process [of trusts and monopoly] has aroused much antagonism, a great part of which is wholly without warrant. . . . The captains of industry who have driven the railway systems across this continent, who have built up our commerce, who have developed our manufactures, have on the whole done great good to our people... Moreover, we should recognize the immense importance of this material development by leaving as unhampered as is compatible with the public good the strong and forceful men upon whom the success of business operations inevitably rests."

His successor, William Howard Taft, was the real Trust Buster--he filed 80 suits under the Sherman Act. The Clayton Act, which outlawed interlocking directorates, was Wilson's idea. That put an end to J.P. Morgan's dominance of international finance.

Hyman Roth testified against the Clayton Act when the Senate debated it. He said, "We should be free to make our profits without Kefauver, the goddam Justice Department..."

Point well taken TB. I agree Teddy Roosevelt was overrated...a case of the myth being greater than the man. For example as you probably know the famous charge up San Juan Hill for which he got the medal of Honor was a joke, but somehow he gets credit for winning the Spanish American War. I think the story of the sickly child becoming the macho warrior, big game hunter etc. was great politics that became much of the national fabric (much like
Camelot). He does get credit for the national parks. The Roosevelt who belongs on Rushmore is Franklin, however.

BTW after his presidency he apparently went through some kind of mental breakdown because he was 48 and had nothing left to accomplish. He left the country for Africa and killed zillions of animals. He died at 60. No indication that he was alone in a dusty yard, and fell off a chair, knocking around some oranges as a dog walked away