
Why Do We Admire Mobsters? - pmcpinto
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/why-do-we-admire-mobsters
======
grandalf
There is really very little difference between the mafia and legitimate
governance.

Smaller organizations lack the propaganda reach and expertise to sanitize
their actions and so they are classified as criminals. Larger ones have hordes
of academics, journalists, philosophers, etc., proclaiming the moral
righteousness of their use of lethal force and intimidation (see the "Bush
Doctrine").

There is no such thing as politics without force, and force requires
intimidation, killing, extortion, etc. Just like the shopkeeper who grudgingly
but willingly pays the mafia for "protection", we pay taxes on threat of jail
time for "infrastructure" and "education", etc. For all but the elite,
education is just daycare and training for serfdom.

It's amazing how humans love the strong leader (Trump is capitalizing on this)
and how we love to take sides against and enemy or other (sports, etc.) These
are animal tendencies that we still embrace and that still have tremendous
impact on us in spite of our large primate brains.

In the third world, politicians travel around with a few dozen soldiers
carrying machine guns. Our leaders travel in a motorcade with limousines, to
hide the raw projection of power from public view. But to an adversary it's a
formidable show of force.

~~~
PJDK
\- Smaller organizations lack the propaganda reach and expertise to sanitize
their actions and so they are classified as criminals. Larger ones have hordes
of academics, journalists, philosophers, etc., proclaiming the moral
righteousness of their use of lethal force and intimidation (see the "Bush
Doctrine").

This is very much missing the point of there being any state at all. The
notion of a single group having the monopoly on violence in a society is very
important for that society to be able to function. To say it's the same
because both government and mafia use force to get people to pay money is
missing the point completely. Having only one source of violent coercion is
vital for a society to function properly (see Syria for examples of what
happens when you have many sources).

If you can have democratic constraints on how that violence get's used, then
all the better.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_\(book\))

~~~
tormeh
Ah, yes. A voice of reason. It gets so tiresome when some people can't
understand that the use of force is unavoidable. People who frequent the same
circles where game theory is routinely discussed don't seem to grasp violence
being a necessary consequence of its benefits to the victor. If they had
understood that, then they would immediately have understood that a democratic
government is a pretty good overlord to have, and that having some sort of
overlord is mandatory. While it is true that states and mafia are similar in
some respects, that is a truth of dubious interest and importance.

I can only conclude that the people continuing to compare mafia and democratic
governments are ideologically handicapped. Or maybe it's a steady procession
of innocents believing the world has never considered their insight. Probably
a bit of both.

~~~
tammer
The idea that centralized violence is necessary for a "functioning" society is
a common misconception. It's rarely discussed in political circles but we've
got to remember that the state as we understand it is a technology, not some
divinely ordered system. And as HNers should well know, something new can
always come along and obsolete the old.

There are a number[1] of anthropological investigations into this (outside the
scope of anarchist theory to which this tenant is integral) although they're
fairly diffuse.

This is similar to the idea that a a voting majority is the only reasonable
way to make egalitarian decisions. As anarchist[2] and non-heirarchical
organizations (whether we're talking Kobanê or Valve) are illustrating,
governing by consensus is a rarely discussed but viable alternative.

[1]:
[https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=society%20without%20ch...](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=society%20without%20chiefs)
[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities)

~~~
lifeformed
Are there any proposed systems in which a billion person society can function
without centralized violence?

~~~
Kalium
There are many such proposed systems. A better question is if there are any
such proposed systems that aren't silly and predicated an a refusal to
understand human nature.

I know a number of communists and anarchists who seem to believe they can just
wish away aspects of primate psychology.

------
loudmax
We admire high achievers. Watching fictional Walter White or fictionalized
Pablo Escobar build their drug empires is exciting, especially given the
emotional distance alluded to in the article. A series about major capitalists
or political figures could be interesting too, but not as inherently exciting
without the danger of sudden violence. A story about mid- or low-level crooks
might be exciting, but nobody would say we're admiring these characters.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
"The Wolf Of Wall Street" springs to mind as well. Hideous behaviour that
ruined thousands of ordinary people's lives, but lots of people can't help but
admire people like Mr. Belfort - at least as portrayed in the movie - for
their success (myself included). It's an interesting phenomenon.

~~~
branchless
Hmm. He seemed to me like a dreadful guy. I experience this quite a bit with
American films. The "hero" is a dreadful person and I'm hoping they get what's
coming to them ASAP.

I couldn't shake this on watching The Sopranos. Too often really disgusting
behavior was made to humorous in a way that left a bad taste.

It's not that I'm squeamish. Off the top of my head the last US film I watched
where I quite liked the "anti-hero" was "There will be blood". I particularly
enjoyed him bludgeoning the preacher with a bowling pin.

~~~
lifeformed
But Daniel Plainview was as dreadful of a guy as anyone though. A true
sociopath.

~~~
branchless
Can't disagree. I just wanted him to kill the equally dreadful preacher. And
he did!

------
beat
I really, really love gangster stories. Some of my favorite movies and tv
shows are about gangsters. It's interesting to think about why.

One of the things that really motivates me in these stories is the morality
play aspect of it. First, the core characters tend to be very honorable
people, deeply committed to family, friends, and community. But they find
themselves in situations where their honor is in conflict with itself, and
they are forced to choose (or clever their way out of the choice).

Second, the bad guys get what's coming to them, in spectacular ways. I'm
currently rewatching Sons of Anarchy, a really beautiful show. I'm on Season 3
now, and already anticipating the finale (spoiler alert). In a fantastic
double murder, Opie gets to kill Stahl, the ATF agent whose lies led to his
wife getting murdered by his own club. And Chibs gets to kill an incredibly
powerful IRA gangster who stole his wife and daughter. It's _so_ satisfying,
to see these awful people get the punishment they so richly deserve.

In a world where justice is so rare and so corrupted, to get to see villains
in black and white and getting the fate they deserve is blessed relief for us.
It's a true escape from reality.

------
akshat_h
I think it also comes from how they can act on urges directly. People are
(sometimes)frustrated by their lives, and a mobster seems like it is a
glamorous life where you can shoot anyone you don't like. To add to that
psychopathic characters who can speak their mind without consequence like
Sherlock etc are also admired quite a bit. I am of course talking here about
romanticism in movies and literature, and not real life ones.

------
codingdave
You can always tell who actually lived around mobsters vs. who has only heard
stories. Admiration comes from those who have only heard stories.

~~~
josefresco
You're kidding right? Within the neighborhood that mobsters/gangsters rule
there is typically widespread "admiration" from the residents. Some are just
afraid, but many youngsters grow up idealizing these individuals for their
success and power. This also allows/enables the criminals to remain in power.

~~~
blounderbluss
I take it you have actually lived in one of these neighborhoods and not that
you're summizing this from something you've read our watched on TV. Fear is
quite different from admiration. There are a few who aspire to the lifestyle
and the 'respect' it brings but most ordinary law abiding people despise the
gangsters/mobsters/gangbangers who make their lives so miserable. It's like
living under a dictatorship or in Soviet Russia. Fear and silence doesn't mean
admiration or willing complicity.

~~~
josefresco
John Gotti was widely "loved" by the same community he terrorized. There are
countless examples of this throughout history. Certainly, a segment of the
population is simply scared, but fear alone is/was not enough to keep power.

------
nilved
I've read that part of Al Capone and other Prohibition-era mobsters success
was due to their offering protection from corrupt police forces. This seems
prescient as time goes on.

~~~
weland
I haven't lived in the times of Al Capone, but I have lived in a country where
Al Capone-like stuff was still happening at the time, and I can confirm this.

Local organized crime leaders had no more disdain for law than most policemen,
prosecutors, judges or politicians. However, due to the nature of their
activity, they had to maintain a reputation of honesty and reliability.

People feared them, but they were generally true to their word. If you paid
the protection tax, your shop was protected. Of course, the tax could be
raised without any advance notice, but more astute negotiators generally
managed to delay enforcement by a few weeks. But your shop was fine.

Policemen, on the other hand, did nothing of that sort. Even when not actively
assisting the crooks, there was no proactive protection of any kind. The
police could only step in after your shop was devastated for the first time --
and even then, the usual process was that you'd file a complaint and, after
the legally-required 30 days, the local police would send you a short letter
saying they couldn't do anything due to lack of evidence. Assuming, that is,
that the post office didn't lose the letter.

Law enforcement agents were seen as very unreliable partners: sometimes they'd
help civilians, sometimes they'd just stay out of it, and oftentimes they'd
blatantly and obviously take the side of the mobster who was paying them to
look the other way.

The crooks, on the other hand, were seen as reliable. Yes, they were ruthless,
but you could generally count on their help, if you were willing to pay the
price.

~~~
meric
We talk about police, shopkeepers, mobsters, politicians as if they're
separate factions in society. I just want to add this:

I've travelled to this country (GDP per capita ~$1500) and stayed with this
_huge_ family. In the city I stayed in, there was one suburb where every house
was part of the same family with the same last name. There must have been 500
to 1000 members, who knows. Inside one family there were policemen,
shopkeepers, maids, factory owners, factory workers, businessmen, and family
members with connections to mobsters (I couldn't pin down the mobsters and
politicians among them exactly). In this country family _is_ life. All members
of the family _generally_ love and respect everyone else in the same family.
Their family ties are a lot strong than ties they make at their "work". The
first thing we did when I arrived to stay with the family was to meet the
mobster of the city so as to protect me from everyone else. One of the
mobster's primary function was to act as a middleman for paying "fees" to the
right politician to get bureaucratic matters resolved efficiently. (e.g.
getting a visa in a few days instead of a month or two without "fee". In a
way, they are lobbyists the common people can afford). The family ties cut
across economic, social, and political boundaries. The fact that mobsters
thrive there means they are part of the stable equilibrium. It wouldn't be
possible to say "Let's get rid of the mobsters" \- that's like saying "Let's
get rid of the lobbyists from the US.". Politicians are good at politics, and
often have little technical knowledge of the world outside their workplace.
That's why they rely on lobbyists and mobsters to tell them what to do. Often,
the law does not describe the entirety of the world.

~~~
jerf
If you look at history, it's pretty clear this is the normal state of
humanity.

I, too, absorbed a bit of the sneering disdain for patriotism that a lot of us
did as children, but I've since come to understand that it is actually a
serious advance in human affairs. Patriotism is a brilliant psychological hack
on the built-in "family" tendency of humans that hacks it to permit building
larger political/social structures by hacking the humans to see that
essentially as their new "family". Seeing only when it sometimes causes excess
is missing the forest for the webworm infestation.

~~~
omouse
I'm reading a book on Utopias by Lewis Mumford and he explains that most of
the utopias always tried to make sure children weren't too attached to their
families. Family can prevent people from pursuing their goals or the skills
that they're very good at. The most obvious is example is geography where you
can't move to another country.

~~~
meric
I think Orwell's 1984 was also about a utopia trying to make sure children
weren't too attached to their families. ;)

------
ericjang
I think the psychological distance only partially explains the reversal in
public sentiment from scorn to adoration. Obesity was never a serious problem
in the communities I have lived in. The U.S's obesity epidemic is an abstract
concept to me (as I have never experienced it first-hand), and yet I don't
have any nostalgia for it.

Surely, it must be more than abstraction and omertà. Some drug organizations
do not brand themselves with a public services front - see the TED talk by
Rodrigo Canales
[http://www.ted.com/talks/rodrigo_canales_the_deadly_genius_o...](http://www.ted.com/talks/rodrigo_canales_the_deadly_genius_of_drug_cartels?language=en).

I only speak for myself, but I like crime movies/drama for the allure of
ruthless power. It's a unique sort of power that can only be obtained
illegally, and at some great moral expense. This Faustian device makes for
intriguing plots.

Who else can have a mountain of cocaine? Who else can execute business with
such brutality? What other line of work involves Zero Halliburton cases
stuffed with Benjamins, to go with high-powered handguns and sharp suits?
These are proxies for power that a pleb like myself can barely begin to
comprehend.

There's a scene in the Godfather Part II that I really like, when the nervous
money-grubbing landlord comes into Don Corleone's office and gives him cash so
that a previously disagreeable tenant can stay in his inn. The absurdity of
the scene belies Corelone's power like the tip of an iceberg, and it's
visually interesting to see a normal-looking guy wield such mysterious power.

This is echoed by the common "crime lord is the manager of a pizzaria by day"
trope (Breaking Bad, Drive, Road to Perdition), where a seemingly weak front
has a hidden-dragon kind of vibe.

To summarize, I think that "psychological distance" theory only carries the
audience halfway, in that they don't feel the revulsion towards mobsters
because they don't deal with them personally. I think most of the allure comes
from the forbidden power.

------
verytrivial
Who's this "we"? They are parasites.

~~~
jedrek
The tens of millions of people who watch stuff like Goodfellas, The Godfather
and The Sopranos.

~~~
thomnottom
Watching The Godfather does not mean that one admires mobsters any more than
watching Downfall means one admires Hitler...

Oh crap, I didn't mean to invoke Godwin so quickly. It was just an easy
comparison. But seriously, someone else pointed out Walter White in Breaking
Bad and, as much as I loved the show I (and the friends I spoke with) had no
admiration for him in the end. We admired the storytelling not the actions.

~~~
agumonkey
I disagree. I heard about The Sopranos and watched it a bit after the buzz
peaked. I mostly hated it. I can't swallow anything related to mafiosi. Sure,
the show had some brilliant ideas from time to time (the premises only were
gold), and some brilliant execution (the surreal dreams). But the whole story
.. I'm still angry just thinking about it. Yet millions of people watched, and
bought the DVDs. Personally that's already far too much love to such a thing.

Many people mention Breaking Bad, but it's a completely different situation
isn't it ? it's more a 'back against the wall' / idiotic heroism thing. He
didn't go there to sustain a lifestyle, he was cornered.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Many people mention Breaking Bad, but it's a completely different situation
> isn't it ? it's more a 'back against the wall' / idiotic heroism thing. He
> didn't go there to sustain a lifestyle, he was cornered.

Walt was never cornered by anything except his own pride; he choose to cook
meth _instead of_ accepting help from people he resented (for reasons which
are, IIRC, not actually explicitly made clear.) I mean, really, its pretty
much classic hubris-driven Greek tragedy in a modern setting.

~~~
philwelch
Walt's beef with his cofounders is explained in Season 5; he resents them for
becoming billionaires after he sold his share of the company. There's also an
implied love triangle.

~~~
dragonwriter
The falling out that led to him splitting from the company is the unexplained
bit;it seems to me that's the root of the resentment and their later success
is salt on the wound.

------
Amorymeltzer
Short answer: Prohibition

Long answer: Americans REALLY hated prohibition. Mobsters fought the man when
it was cool to fight the man.

------
lucio
"omertà, standing up to unfair authority, protecting your own", that's
silly... "omertà" means: if you talk we kill you.

------
jokoon
Because mobsters can be better politicians for their local citizens.

Pablo Escobar actually gave money away to columbians. When you think about the
columbian drug trade, it was an actual mean to take money from the US to
Columbia. I don't see why columbians would fight it if it didn't cause that
much violence. Of course until the government and the DEA tried to stop him,
then of course people would like him less.

So it really all depend how people perceive those criminals. You could just
think that criminals are just people seizing a political opportunity to
improve their neighborhood or city by other means. Prohibition was creating an
opportunity just like the drug war did.

~~~
grandalf
Exactly. This view will take some criticism from people who are as yet not
cynical about the power-seeking scumbags who lead our nation.

------
yitchelle
I don't think admiration is the right word here. It is more fascination,
trivial interests and for the sensational nature of their lifestyle. Only kids
who don't know better or can't see a future path would admire (I use that term
very loosely here) these mobsters.

When I was living in Melbourne during the gang wars, the folks were terrified
in getting in the cross fire, but the city were gripped with a fascination of
their life style and events. Admiration, very little.

------
cousin_it
Same reason you admire rappers. High animal status.

~~~
blounderbluss
Don't know why this is being downvoted. Maybe it's your wording. If you change
rappers to gangsta rappers, I think this is quite true - in fact this is the
heart of it. For all our civilized behavior, we are still underneath it
animals. [Some] gangsters are alpha dogs in a sense so there is a small part
of us that admires that.

~~~
digi_owl
Reminds me of an article by Adam Curtis, talking (in part) about how people
glamorize the landed aristocracy of Britain.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/2989a78a-ee94-...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/2989a78a-ee94-385e-808f-c9c7c38d1cb7)

There seems that even though we have long since left the ape hill, the ape
hill has not left us. We keep defaulting back to power politics whenever push
comes to shove...

------
skapadia
How many people don't like money and power? We tend to highlight these aspects
of any career (even if there are other negative aspects that far outweigh the
benefits). "Get rich quick" schemes are always popular.

------
TwoBit
People seem to admire ruthless leaders of the past, despite what they did. I
wonder how Hitler will be considered a thousand years from now.

------
louithethrid
They are a proto-state, privatly organized, and as thus show that a state is
nothing permanent and his violence monopoly can and is challenged. Thus, the
coward in us roots for the anarchist life the mobster lives. The sad thing is
that those repressed beeings who admire them, will also cheer for the gallows
for this guys, once they get caught. And also for gallows for innocents.
Doesent matter who, as long as frustration can be vented, and mobverment has
lifted protection from the beeing

------
imakesnowflakes
Why? Because they command respect from others, which is one of the
prerequisite for becoming a mobster in the first place.

~~~
blounderbluss
This. Sometime ago I had to deal with a flippant waiter/busboy at a restaurant
in a slightly rougher part of town, and a manager who didn't take me too
seriously. I felt very small. I remember thinking Tony Soprano wouldn't put up
with this.

------
the_watcher
> no one holds the Son of Sam or Charles Manson in high regard.

Doesn't Charles Manson famously receive love letters in jail?

~~~
the_watcher
Also, the main difference here is that Manson and the Son of Sam killer killed
simply to kill. The mafia, while an evil organization who ruined countless
lives, actually did employ people and provide services and benefits to actual
people. It doesn't excuse their actions at all, but it highlights why some
might be able to overlook some of their bloodiness.

------
midnitewarrior
People always admire others who do what it takes to get what they want.

------
jcslzr
we envy that they have a guiltless conscience, read the scene with the 2
killers in the tower of Richard III

------
gopowerranger
What you mean "we"?

Much of this is just excitement added to a boring life, or curiosity, and
should not be confused with "admiration". After watching or reading about such
mobsters, I find I am disgusted, and hope I never come in contact with such a
lot.

~~~
agumonkey
They're still far too popular culturally considering their lifestyle. Most of
the mafiosi movies are praised. Which lead me to think that people secretly
loved the idea behind the mafia. They decide to make their own rules and
ensure their own "well being"[1], push the environment as much as it can take;
and somehow it might appeal to people. After all, deep down, it's all about
'me' first.

ps: add a sense of family and tradition, and you have a strong recipe.

[1] morally relative of course

~~~
icebraining
_Most of the mafiosi movies are praised. Which lead me to think that people
secretly loved the idea behind the mafia._

Many films about natural disasters have also been praised. Enjoying the film
does _not_ mean one loves the characters in it.

~~~
chipsy
What all fiction tends to do - crime stories, disasters, horror, action,
romance - is make ordinary life look relatively muted. Maybe you don't want to
become a mafioso in real life, but you do want to feel validated in your more
minor lawbreaking, your small rebellions against authority, etc.

Plenty of teenagers want to imagine themselves being action heroes, with a
"simple" life full of glorifying adventures where people die but not them - an
escape from the immediate problems of their everyday existence. As they get
older, most of them feel less inclined to see the world burn, and so
reinterpret the same stories in a more troubled way. But in the moment, it's
always about being "so badass" or whatnot. A person you could be, if you were
just a little less inhibited by things like emotion and caring for others.

And that's the second part of it - that you can uphold "glorified bad guys" as
part of an elaborate rationalization process to ignore your own failings,
praising their every motion while distancing yourself from the idea you are
also bad.

~~~
icebraining
While the escapism you're describing is certainly widespread, it's completely
reductionist to say it's always about that. Particularly in the most popular
editions ( _The Godfather_ , _The Sopranos_ , etc), the mafiosos do _not_
enjoy a good life. They are often tragic figures, not successful people. Sure,
Tony Soprano may have a lot of money and doesn't take shit from bosses or
other idiots, but he's also living with depression and suffers from regular
panic attacks. And does anyone envy the life of Scarface?

I think it's actually the opposite; what really makes gangster films
successful is not our envy of the "qualities," but the fact that we can relate
to their flaws, which eventually destroy them. In _good_ films, in which the
characters are not two dimensional "bad" guys but relatable people, we take
empathize and take pity on them, even if we understand they have no one to
blame but themselves - much like we.

(By the way, if you think all fiction makes ordinary life look muted, I
suggest you look into the realism movements. I can recommend _Scenes from a
Marriage_ , which has nothing that would look out of place in an ordinary
life, yet it's a masterpiece)

------
cygnus_a
I don't admire mobsters

------
zoren
How is this hacker news?

~~~
mattmanser
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
\- If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that
gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

It is an interesting question.

