You mentioned that Marxist historians coined the term 'social crime' in the 1960s. While having a left-leaning world view myself, I always considered the view of Marxist scholars on crime to be overly romantic. Marxist historians and criminologists alike often regard crime as a revelutionary act, and the criminal as a rebel fighting against the powerful. They tend to ignore that volume crimes like theft, robbery, and violent crime are mostly intra-class: the poor against the poor.
Marxist historians and criminologists might be a good example for confirmation bias in the social sciences.
I agree with everything you say! If I were feeling cynical, I might point out that Marxist historians, of course, were for then most part pretty middle-class types who were not at all vulnerable to theft, robbery, and so on. It's relatively easy to romanticise criminals when you are not prey to them. The poor are exactly the most likely to become victims, as you rightly point out (not least because, like everyone else, criminals tend not to enjoy commuting, so commit crimes reasonably close to where they live). Good point about confirmation bias: certainly that would be worth looking into.
Thank you very much for your kind words. I always love reading everyone's thoughts about these posts.
It is ironic that many self-declared representatives of the working class did not come from a working class background themselves, let alone have ever worked hard physically. I once heard the term 'salon socialist' and found it quite suiting.
Indeed. Often I hear politicians and pundits say things that make me think 'There's someone who has never gone hungry'. Do you think there is something there to do with that very recent notion, luxury beliefs? Might be.
Jason, your post is the best short history of outlawry in Europe and The West I have encountered. The transition from agrarian to urban society left some behind, plotting their revenge on what we call "the elite" today. The romantic impulse, a Marxist/Leftist conceit, makes thieves and brigands into "our side" and authority into "the other side." It's why cops are so lowly regarded in the mind of the left; they are protectors of the elite. I'm continually fascinated by the theories of Thomas Hobbes, a much underrated mind in our Lockian world. Until the very last years of J. Edgar Hoover's life, Hobbes' ideas held sway through the activities of the FBI, which he founded. The Bureau first went after some of the roving bandits of the swath of the US from Texas to the Canadian border and all the way through the Midwest. Hoover finally had to recruit some Texas gunmen to confront Dillinger et al. Then Hoover backed away from law and order tactics by ignoring the burgeoning La Cosa Nostra (literally "Our Thing.) Prohibition gave the urban Italian gangs a real foothold in at least 25 cities and when whiskey became legal again, the Mafia (a general term) switched to gambling, whore-mastering and other crimes. Eventually, the Mob became powerful by corrupting local and state (sometimes even federal) crimes and the evidence that the families from various cities were collaborating became unavoidably obvious in 1957. Hoover changed his tune but it took fifteen years for the feds to become truly significant in the war against "organized crime." It took another fifteen years to crack the hold of the gangs on urban and even federal political bodies and law enforcement agencies.
The midpoint of that process was 1972, the time when, as a reporter, I became fascinated by the budding war between the feds and the Mob. Think back to that year's Academy-Award winning film, The Godfather. Puzo, Coppola and the other leftist leaders of the entertainment business, pictured the Mafia as a benign group of social outlaws who only killed one another and who were otherwise "Men of Honor." The FBI agents were hapless milque-toasts who let Sonny Corleone make monkeys of them. But in the end, the film lifted the veil of secrecy and made La Cosa Nostra a real institution with implications for social order. In that scenario, the feds' actions made real sense out of the war against the Mob. Amongst themselves, mobsters called themselves "The Second Government." That was an act of hubris and it gave sanction to the idea that normal, organized society (what Hobbes called "The Leviathan) had good reason to crack down on the arrogant and powerful criminal cartel whose name could not even be whispered on film. It was "the Underworld" but when it became less supernatural, it became more amenable to control.
That theory, pretty much my own, deserves to be considered. La Cosa Nostra started as a blackmail scheme which victimized the Italian immigrant community. The majority society, even the FBI, could afford to ignore it. Only when LCN became powerful enough to impinge on good, Anglo-Saxon law enforcement and criminal justice institutions did the public accept and even applaud the often ruthless, even extra-legal activities of strike forces, FBI and police intelligence agencies and legislators who reined in some of Hoover's most aggressive activities and at the same time approved harsh, far-reaching laws like RICO and the judicially-approved wiretap and listening-device programs that penetrated the thick walls around the Mob and began to bring it down.
It has recently become apparent that Hoover, who until the 1950s kept his beloved Bureau out of organized-crime investigations, came to decry that decision as "the worst" he made in more than 50 years of federal crime-busting.
Thank you for your kind words, Evan, & for all your thoughts about the mafia & FBI. I hope you won’t mind my asking about your reporting career. It sounds very interesting.
I used to be a bit of a mafia-watcher but that interest seems to have faded a bit in recent years. Thank you for reminding me about a few things I had forgotten about mafia history, & some I didn’t know. I’m excited by your idea of the underworld becoming less supernatural & easier to fight in the wake of the Godfather. You are quite right that it started out as an extortion scheme - Black Hand, wasn’t it? - & the danger & anonymity must have made it look more & more exotic & invulnerable. I seem to remember the Oxford English Dictionary defining the ‘mafia’ as something they didn’t even exist. That aura must have been difficult to maintain once Michael Corleone started appearing on your local cinema screen.
This whole connection between crime & broader society is fascinating, actually (the roots of organised crime in Sicilian labour disputes are a lifetime’s study in themselves). Are you writing anything on the subject yourself?
You mentioned that Marxist historians coined the term 'social crime' in the 1960s. While having a left-leaning world view myself, I always considered the view of Marxist scholars on crime to be overly romantic. Marxist historians and criminologists alike often regard crime as a revelutionary act, and the criminal as a rebel fighting against the powerful. They tend to ignore that volume crimes like theft, robbery, and violent crime are mostly intra-class: the poor against the poor.
Marxist historians and criminologists might be a good example for confirmation bias in the social sciences.
Thanks for this interesting text
I agree with everything you say! If I were feeling cynical, I might point out that Marxist historians, of course, were for then most part pretty middle-class types who were not at all vulnerable to theft, robbery, and so on. It's relatively easy to romanticise criminals when you are not prey to them. The poor are exactly the most likely to become victims, as you rightly point out (not least because, like everyone else, criminals tend not to enjoy commuting, so commit crimes reasonably close to where they live). Good point about confirmation bias: certainly that would be worth looking into.
Thank you very much for your kind words. I always love reading everyone's thoughts about these posts.
It is ironic that many self-declared representatives of the working class did not come from a working class background themselves, let alone have ever worked hard physically. I once heard the term 'salon socialist' and found it quite suiting.
Indeed. Often I hear politicians and pundits say things that make me think 'There's someone who has never gone hungry'. Do you think there is something there to do with that very recent notion, luxury beliefs? Might be.
Jason, your post is the best short history of outlawry in Europe and The West I have encountered. The transition from agrarian to urban society left some behind, plotting their revenge on what we call "the elite" today. The romantic impulse, a Marxist/Leftist conceit, makes thieves and brigands into "our side" and authority into "the other side." It's why cops are so lowly regarded in the mind of the left; they are protectors of the elite. I'm continually fascinated by the theories of Thomas Hobbes, a much underrated mind in our Lockian world. Until the very last years of J. Edgar Hoover's life, Hobbes' ideas held sway through the activities of the FBI, which he founded. The Bureau first went after some of the roving bandits of the swath of the US from Texas to the Canadian border and all the way through the Midwest. Hoover finally had to recruit some Texas gunmen to confront Dillinger et al. Then Hoover backed away from law and order tactics by ignoring the burgeoning La Cosa Nostra (literally "Our Thing.) Prohibition gave the urban Italian gangs a real foothold in at least 25 cities and when whiskey became legal again, the Mafia (a general term) switched to gambling, whore-mastering and other crimes. Eventually, the Mob became powerful by corrupting local and state (sometimes even federal) crimes and the evidence that the families from various cities were collaborating became unavoidably obvious in 1957. Hoover changed his tune but it took fifteen years for the feds to become truly significant in the war against "organized crime." It took another fifteen years to crack the hold of the gangs on urban and even federal political bodies and law enforcement agencies.
The midpoint of that process was 1972, the time when, as a reporter, I became fascinated by the budding war between the feds and the Mob. Think back to that year's Academy-Award winning film, The Godfather. Puzo, Coppola and the other leftist leaders of the entertainment business, pictured the Mafia as a benign group of social outlaws who only killed one another and who were otherwise "Men of Honor." The FBI agents were hapless milque-toasts who let Sonny Corleone make monkeys of them. But in the end, the film lifted the veil of secrecy and made La Cosa Nostra a real institution with implications for social order. In that scenario, the feds' actions made real sense out of the war against the Mob. Amongst themselves, mobsters called themselves "The Second Government." That was an act of hubris and it gave sanction to the idea that normal, organized society (what Hobbes called "The Leviathan) had good reason to crack down on the arrogant and powerful criminal cartel whose name could not even be whispered on film. It was "the Underworld" but when it became less supernatural, it became more amenable to control.
That theory, pretty much my own, deserves to be considered. La Cosa Nostra started as a blackmail scheme which victimized the Italian immigrant community. The majority society, even the FBI, could afford to ignore it. Only when LCN became powerful enough to impinge on good, Anglo-Saxon law enforcement and criminal justice institutions did the public accept and even applaud the often ruthless, even extra-legal activities of strike forces, FBI and police intelligence agencies and legislators who reined in some of Hoover's most aggressive activities and at the same time approved harsh, far-reaching laws like RICO and the judicially-approved wiretap and listening-device programs that penetrated the thick walls around the Mob and began to bring it down.
It has recently become apparent that Hoover, who until the 1950s kept his beloved Bureau out of organized-crime investigations, came to decry that decision as "the worst" he made in more than 50 years of federal crime-busting.
Thank you for your kind words, Evan, & for all your thoughts about the mafia & FBI. I hope you won’t mind my asking about your reporting career. It sounds very interesting.
I used to be a bit of a mafia-watcher but that interest seems to have faded a bit in recent years. Thank you for reminding me about a few things I had forgotten about mafia history, & some I didn’t know. I’m excited by your idea of the underworld becoming less supernatural & easier to fight in the wake of the Godfather. You are quite right that it started out as an extortion scheme - Black Hand, wasn’t it? - & the danger & anonymity must have made it look more & more exotic & invulnerable. I seem to remember the Oxford English Dictionary defining the ‘mafia’ as something they didn’t even exist. That aura must have been difficult to maintain once Michael Corleone started appearing on your local cinema screen.
This whole connection between crime & broader society is fascinating, actually (the roots of organised crime in Sicilian labour disputes are a lifetime’s study in themselves). Are you writing anything on the subject yourself?