Was it really THEM who turned it in just another organized crime group? I think it was more the consequence of the natural death of extremely powerful and charismatic characters like Carlo Gambino, Tommy Lucchese, Philip Lombardo etc that did the work, rather than the law enforcement. I can't know for sure, of course, but I think that if those characters were still alive and in power through the 80s and 90s, then the mafia would be weakened only in the 2000s. Human society is too corrupt and hypocritical to allow somebody like Carlo Gambino to get a life sentence or 100 years. It was difficult enough to give life even to a stupid thug like Gotti.

What, we don't have poverty in the United States? We're living in a time when even kids from well-to-do middle class families are coming home from college because they can't find a job right out of school. For the working class poor it's even worse. Admittedly, the poverty in parts of Italy is much more intense than is typically found in the United States, but there can't be too much separating the slums of Naples, Lecce or Palermo from certain neighborhoods in U.S. inner cities. In both cases there is a lot of pressure to not just be a violent macho man but also to turn your nose up at a system that doesn't work for you (which can be a justified perspective).

When it comes to the US LCN in particular, however, I do acknowledge that most families in Bensonhurst or Ozone Park aren't living hand-to-mouth, even if they are working class. Still, the vast majority of Mafiosi aren't Ivy League intellectuals; they're blue collar regular Joes who, for whatever reason, came up streetwise and probably already connected.

Granted, each of them makes a choice to pursue a life of crime but it also has to be conceded that once they go down that road it's hard to rehabilitate yourself. The U.S. criminal system and society in general does not make it easy for that to happen. Once you have a record, it's pretty much impossible to find a really good job that pays well. You could maybe work a couple of dead-end menial jobs to make ends meet, 9 to 5 for a boss you hate and sees you as an expendable commodity. But maybe you got a family to feed, you're behind on your car payments...

Then you have to see the crooks in the neighborhood, the guys with the stolen suits and stolen Cadillacs, flashing their wealth everywhere. They don't work, they just sit in social clubs and play cards or watch TV, and maybe once in awhile they go out on a big score that keeps them flush for a little while longer. Moreover, some of these guys are the same kids you grew up with, who you know are stone cold idiots but who are living a better life than you are, at least in material terms.

Of course we all know that the Mob life isn't any better. You have to fight for every crumb that comes your way, your "brothers" trying to rip you off at every opportunity and a made guy or a capo breathing down your neck to give you everything you work hard to earn. Yeah, maybe you end up making more money even after everyone gets a taste, but it won't last, because now the feds want to know how a broke-dick nobody like you is suddenly wearing Armani and driving a Beamer. And even if you do somehow manage to avoid getting killed by your rivals or arrested by the cops, you can never retire -- you're locked into working your butt off for, again, a boss that just sees you as an expendable commodity. You just traded one pyramid scheme for another, except this scheme doesn't have any sort of workers' rights or other legal protections. In fact, the law is working AGAINST you now.

So the life of a criminal isn't really a "better" life by any stretch, and it's still better to be a working stiff than a crook, but at the same time I can sort of understand why guys go down that road. There is individual responsibility, but environment nevertheless plays a role.

I'm fairly certain that Carmela was referencing the mindset more than the economics. It's just different over there, and unless you've seen it firsthand you probably can't fully understand it.

They drill it into your head from birth over there. If you're a boy, they start grooming you from childhood. If you're a girl, they teach you early on to be dutiful and to support the men in your life (and by extension, to support the local cosca as well). Simple as that.

In America there are plenty of economic reasons to turn to crime, but not nearly as many cultural reasons. And I think that's what Carmela was trying to convey.

And welcome to the boards, Neiman Marxist .

Thanks!

And I can definitely see the cultural distinction. Although based on what little I know about US street gangs like the Bloods and the Crips there is still a "gang culture" in certain neighborhoods as well. The indoctrination starts young for them as well, with boys taught to be hard, to never shy away from violence, to show solidarity with your set, etc.

Again, I am no sociologist, but I would reckon that wherever you go around the world you're going to find this sort of criminal culture prevalent in communities that have been marginalized by mainstream society. African-Americans and other minority ethnicities in the USA (including Italians in the early 20th century), "untouchables" and Korean-Japanese with the Yakuza in Japan, the rural poor and the cartels in northern Mexico, etc.

Law enforcement would be the second biggest reason for the decline of the mob, only behind general attrition.

And I never understood what people mean when they refer to the old bosses as "charismatic." Yes, by and large the old guys were smarter and tougher than their successors. And that's because they were a product of their time. But let's not forget they benefited from their time in ways their successors couldn't, i.e. less scrutiny from law enforcement, attrition hadn't set in yet, etc. So the gap between the old and new guys may not be as wide as some may think. You put a Carlo Gambino or Tommy Lucchese as head of a NY family today, or any time in the last few decades, and without those benefits, and they probably don't look as good.

Yep, RICO is the biggest difference. Just sharing in the profits with another family can get you a life sentence, evidenced by the Concrete Club.

If Gambino or Lucchese were alive today, I think they would operate in the background, behind a front boss. Otherwise, they'd probably be in jail. That's the main reason why Chin escaped prosecution for so long, plus he had to wear pajamas in the street.

Yet RICO was never used until the old bosses died, even if it already existed when they were still around, and those who lived long enough like Accardo were never convicted. I don't know, maybe I am saying nonsense, but I really got the impression that it's as if an informal social order was issued: "don't touch these guys!". Look at Gambino's funerals: RICO did already exist, yet all those politicians, policemen and others didn't consider a harm to their reputation to show up there. I don't think that when for example Domenico Cefalu or Steven Crea die, they will be so honored post-mortem. There clearly was a difference between how bosses who made career back to the 60s and 70s were treated by the law enforcement and how the ones in the 80s and 90s were.

Although im not an expert i could imagine that political corruption was more tolerated in the 50s and 60s, and that probably made it more easy for the old bosses to avoid prosecution and made it easier to infiltrade the legit parts of society and put themself in a possition where more politicians where dependent on them.... Just a thought. By the way i'm sorry if my spelling is a little off - english is a second language to me.

I know, it's crazy that the law was on the books and the government didn't know how to apply it.

Another luxury the old bosses had was J. Edgar Hoover living until '72. I believe the story of Roy Cohn having blackmail photos of Hoover wearing a dress. Cohn's ex wife confirmed Hoover wore dresses and she witnessed him engaging in homosexual acts.

RICO was around, but it wasn't used widely until Reagan took office in 1980. And it wasn't used effectively until the Commission trial in 1986 (when Giuliani and Blakey showed prosecutors how to effectively use it).

As far as the government not getting a RICO conviction on any of the old timers, you're forgetting about Tony Salerno, who was only a few years younger than Gambino and Accardo. And had Big Paul lived, he certainly would have been convicted in that case as well.

Ivy is 100 percent right about this. If those old timers were dealing with a RICO Act, a Witness Protection Program, electronic surveillance and a modern day CSI team, things certainly would have been different.

Now I still agree that those old guys were cut from a different cloth and that they were more effective than their modern day counterparts, but they would have their hands full, too, if they were living in today's world.

Yes, but if Gambino and Lombardo were still active as Commission members in the 80s, would the Commission trial ever be allowed to take place, or if it did, would it have had the same conclusion?

Because almost everybody I talked to and every writer whose books I ever read seem to more or less agree that guys like Fat Tony or Castellano weren't on the same level in terms of ability or influence compared to Gambino/Lucchese/Lombardo/Accardo etc.

On the other hand, whether Fat Tony was the real boss or front boss seems to be still debated.

First big RICO case that i remember was when they used it against the Hells Angels back in the late 1970's. The Angels actually beat the RICO charges. I think Tieri was the first big mob guy to go down on a RICO charge. The law was passed in 1970 but it took close to a decade or so for them to learn how to really nail these guys with it. Not too many guys that i can think of walk these days from a solid rico case.

Are you kidding me? Allowed to take place? This isn't Sicily and you're giving them way too much credit.

Don't forget, the reason the Commission trial was brought about to begin with was because of Joe Bonanno's silly and self-serving book. And last time I checked, Bonanno was one Gambino's contemporaries and one of the original members of the Commission.

What the hell was Bonanno thinking when he wrote that book? It still amazes me that he actually put that book out.

What he did may seem stupid, yet the fact remains that he got away with everything after this, wasn't whacked nor convicted and made money with the book. So, as paradoxical as it seems, he must have known what he was doing.

Very true. Say what you want about Bonanno, but the guy was the original Teflon Don. He did very little time in his life, and he died in his own bed.

I thought he was kicked off of the commission because of the "Donnie Brasco" escapade. I swear I've seen one of those documentaries on TV, and either a former FBI agent or some "Crime/Mob Historian said it.

Is this still being debated today? I thought it was later acknowledged that the Chin was actually in charge, and Salerno was the fall guy.



Agreed. Giuliani didn't care who the dons were. And after the commission trial, the feds went after Gotti with everything they had. And the Chin would have gone away for the Concrete Club if they didn't have Fat Tony as the lightening rod.



Yes, I read that somewhere, also, but don't believe it.
My take is they were kicked off due to the problems stemming from the Bananas war, and his attempt to clip Gambino and Lucchese (and refusal to come and explain).



True. However, the only reason he didn't die in jail was because he was fortunate enough to be kicked off of the commission and retired. Otherwise, he would have been convicted in the Commission Trial.

people talk about the commission like it ruled the entire american mafia

they bullied the northeast families but that' about it

chicago and detroit were also on the commission and they pretty much had say over the midwest famlies or at least had a certain amount of influence over them, so between the northeast and the midwest, that was pretty much the entire american mafia that was under the control of the commission.

chicago didn't give a fuck about what was going on in ny

detroit's power was limited because chicago was in the way

chicago bullied the midwest/west....ny bullied the northeast

Right, new york had the northeast and chicago had the midwest so between them the commision ruled pretty much the entire american mafia with the exception of the south east with marcello and trafficante, but even when marcello had a problem in his family when sam corallos son claimed he was the rightful heir to family, they brought it to new york to settle it.

I think alot of the top guys are still living off what the likes of gambino and luchesse built as far as the unions are concerned. but you are also getting guys sentenced off of drug slayings, home invasions and random acts from the the early 80s 90s. The way i see it mob guys are gonna get treated like street gangs in the near the future. Look at the pill(and heroin) epidemic on staten island and the even the stories ive posted up if you care to look at comments sections on many of those stories theres always people complaining about certain cultures on staten island that allow this to happen through the whole culture of silence(basically racist code for italian american and omertà).

Alot of people on here are comparing italy to america but what they dont get is that the USA is the big leagues of crime whether they like it or not. Gomorrhah is never gonna beat goodfellas or the godfather. groups like the LCN, bloods & crip, gangster disciples, hells angels, columbians, mexicans, indians, arabs and every other ethnicity have to contend with the resources of the US government. Its not like in italy, mexico,nigeria or afghanistan where things are openly corrupt.Kaboni savage, a drug kingpin in philadelphia just got the death penalty recently for something that goes on daily on many parts of the world i mentioned above so before you start talking about the sicilians and calabrians just think about the law and order situation before you do.

as far as the comission is concerned i believe it mostly settled disputes amongst union and probably drug territory more than anything else. Otherwise its just a bunch of carreer criminals separated into different groups trying to make it as difficult as possible to get killed by each other. Otherwise why put a limit on how many people get made, other than to keep yourself in power.

chicago probably didn't even show up to the meeting

Whatever man, why the fuck do i even bother with you

Yes. I always thought as a whole, the commission ran the country, not just a region.

That's how Bugsy was able to go into California and muscle in on the rackets. Dragna didn't want to mess with Luciano, who had the reputation of having the commission behind him.

And according to Frank Ragano's Mob Lawyer, every time Santo Trafficante had a major decision to make, he'd fly to NYC to get input from his LCN contacts. He was given respect, but would have crushed if he crossed the commission, IMO.

And it seemed that when NYC backed Marcello, Corallo had no chance-despite being more experienced and probably more qualified. Costello had a good thing going with Marcello/Long and wanted to keep things running smoothly.

Exactly. Giuliani's hard-on would have been even bigger if he got to try a guy like Carlo Gambino. And I mean that literally. He would have walked into Federal Court with a boner.

Maybe he means Gambino, Lucchese, etc. wouldn't have allowed themselves to get caught up in a case like that. Of course, I don't believe it. Had they been bosses later on, those guys would have also been right there at the defense table.



Bonanno had been deposed back in the 1960's, long before the Donnie Brasco case. However, the case (along with other reasons) were supposedly the Bonanno family lost it's seat on the Commission for a time.



There have been a few guys on the forums who have contended that Fat Tony really was the boss, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Personally, I think they just get a kick out of trying to rewrite history. Cafaro told everyone how it really was and he was closer to Salerno than anyone on these forums. And even if people want to throw out what Cafaro said, for whatever reason, there were government recordings that supported Chin being the real boss; including by Fat Tony himself.



Capeci gave a very good run down of the Commission.

You had the original 7 members - the five NY families, Buffalo and Chicago. Most eastern families without a seat were represented by the Genovese family. Most western families were represented by Chicago. From it's establishment in 1931, the Commission would have national influence for about the next 50 years.

In the 1960's, the Chicago Outfit started to miss more Commission meetings, which eventually resulted in a "two-headed Commission" with Chicago resolving disputed west of them.

In 1961, two additional families received a seat on the Commission - Philadelphia and Detroit.

In 1974, Buffalo lost it's seat when Maggadino died.

In 1977, Detroit lost it's seat when Zerilli died.

In 1980, Philadelphia lost it's seat when Bruno was killed.

In the 1980's the New York and Chicago families lost more contact due to prosecutions that brought new leaders who were unacquainted with each other. The Commission essentially became a New York enterprise.

Thanks for the info, Ivy.

The commission related info from Capeci was interesting. I didn't know that cities were removed from the commission upon the death of the don. I can see how that could happen with the small Buffalo region, but not with Philly and Detroit.

And I'm curious as to why New Jersey and Boston never had seats, even when they were at their peak.

"And I mean that literally. He would have walked into Federal Court with a boner."

-->

Best comment ever.