AHC: early 1900s anarchists notice that American mobsters often seen as Robin Hood figures — and go this route?

[GeographyDude]

In OTL, anarchists are mainly about the occasional righteous assassination, which usually doesn’t get a damn thing done, and in fact is counter-productive most of be time. And therefore, fails even on their terms, and their world view.

Let’s say these anarchists very much notice the popularity of the American, New-York centered mob.

And notice that mobsters are often perceived as Robin Hood figures, and with scant evidence. For example, running the combo of illegal gambling and loan sharking is not exactly stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. In fact, pretty much the contrary.

Yes, I’m basically asking for “nice” mobsters or at last more constructive monsters — and highly effective ones. That’s part of it, too.

Your ideas please.

 

[GeographyDude]

Five Families

Genovese, Gambino, Bonnano, Colombo and Lucchese. For decades these Five Families ruled New York and built the American Mafia (or Cosa Nostra) into an underworld empire. Today, the Mafia is an endangered species, battered and beleaguered by aggressive investigators, incompetent leadership...

books.google.com

This is kind of the good part of the mob.

Here Mr. Anthony Salerno (“Fat Tony”) is saying in the early 1980s, you boys have a job to do, we don’t hurt cops.

 

[JesterBL]

So basically American illegalism?

 

[Citrakayah]

They're anarchists, they're going to be hurting cops. Anarchists are ultimately more ambitious than the Mafia--the anarchists are trying to overthrow the state and capitalism, both of which the cops are supposed to be defending (this doesn't even require corruption on their part--the law is supposed to support the status quo). The Mafia want power and money. So the clash of interests between anarchists and cops is, I would argue, more fundamental than that between the Mafia and cops.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the mob gets suppressed a lot harder as a result; the American Mafia attempted to avoid confronting the police too much, and put effort into subverting them. That's a strategy that doesn't work too well when your stated goal is "the complete abolishment of the current government."

It may be a more workable strategy where law enforcement is very thin, and they go after locally unpopular figures. So more rural areas.

 

[Thisisnotausername]

Honestly, anything like that that gets off the ground in the first place probably degenerates into just another mob outfit with a coat of anarchist paint. Like you say yourself, despite the way they can be romanticized by both themselves and others, mobsters are not nice people.

This is kind of the good part of the mob.

Here’s Mr. Anthony Salerno (“Fat Tony”) is saying in the early 1980s, you boys have a job to do, we don’t hurt cops.

And to the extent that any anarchist mob would be "nicer" on account of being anarchist, I have trouble imagining it would manifest itself in friendliness towards the police.

 

[GeographyDude]

So basically American illegalism?

Please explain more.

 

[Aghasverov]

Yeah, to me this is an uphill climb... you have a completely different ethos between anarchism and organized crime... one wants to subvert "the system" and utterly destroy it, the other thrives by working inside "the system" (though just barely at times), manipulating it and capitalizing upon its inherent corruption to seek opportunities for profit where possible....

 

[GeographyDude]

They're anarchists, they're going to be hurting cops. Anarchists are ultimately more ambitious than the Mafia--the anarchists are trying to overthrow the state and capitalism, both of which the cops are supposed to be defending (this doesn't even require corruption on their part--the law is supposed to support the status quo). . .

Valid point.

But in this timeline, I’m hoping some prominent anarchists take a deep breath and rethink their goals — and maybe decide they’re going to focus on the here and now, rather than pie in the sky. And they decide they are going to be effective robin hoods stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.

And since people don’t like to receive handouts, maybe with much of their ill-gotten gains, they’re going to form legit businesses and pay somewhat above market rates. Or, at least not lay people off during slow times and jack people round with their hours and schedules.

 

[JesterBL]

Please explain more.

Anarchists in France, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy who went beyond ideas of the propaganda of the deed and theories of individual reclamation (essentially, petty theft) and advocated daring criminal acts as part of a broader insurrectionary process. Most famous were the Bonnot Gang, who were somewhat similar to the romantic American Bank robbers of the post-WW1 era in their adoption of automobiles and automatic weapons.

 

[GeographyDude]

Honestly, anything like that that gets off the ground in the first place probably degenerates into just another mob outfit with a coat of anarchist paint. . .

This is probably most likely. But it would be interesting if it could go on for two longish generations, for example, 30 + 30 years into the mid-1960s.

 

[GeographyDude]

Yeah, to me this is an uphill climb... you have a completely different ethos between anarchism and organized crime... one wants to subvert "the system" and utterly destroy it, the other thrives by working inside "the system" . . .

It would take at least one anarchist group deciding they no longer believed in any system post-collapse being better then the current one.

And they might also focus on opportunities to “transform” the system — by their “legit” businesses helping to raise the bar, by providing muscle to unions, etc.

And really, maybe a group of 8 individuals fiercely loyal to each other might be enough for the nucleus of a criminal group.

 

[Citrakayah]

Valid point.

But in this timeline, I’m hoping some prominent anarchists take a deep breath and rethink their goals — and maybe decide they’re going to focus on the here and now, rather than pie in the sky. And they decide they are going to be effective robin hoods stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.

And since people don’t like to receive handouts, maybe with much of their ill-gotten gains, they’re going to form legit businesses and pay somewhat above market rates. Or, at least not lay people off during slow times and jack people round with their hours and schedules.

They're anarchists, if they were going to form a legit anything it would be a mutual aid society or a cooperative. Or a charity. If they form a "legit company" then they're violating their own ethics; pretty soon they're not going to be anarchists anymore. Regardless, if they're not just giving stuff away, or doing things by themselves, all those things you listed are moot questions because they won't be in control.

If they're going to go the criminal route, the most effective acts would probably be sabotage, theft (to fund their activities), and possibly weapons smuggling to groups they favored. They might disguise the nature of their group, on the logic that being mistaken for ordinary criminals would lead to less state repression. This could be deployed strategically to weaken key foes of the labor movement, strengthen the labor movements militant wing, and--possibly, though this is very ambitious--weaken imperialist powers by arming their subjects.

They definitely aren't going to view reforming the system as something particularly fruitful--these were revolutionaries.

It would take at least one anarchist group deciding they no longer believed in any system post-collapse being better then the current one.

I want to push back against this a little, because I do not believe this is an accurate assessment of anarchist thought at the time--even for the assassins. They were attempting to overthrow of the state; they were not trying to cause society to collapse. They didn't think any possible society would be better than the current one, they thought they could inspire a revolution that would result in their preferred society.

Unless you mean, "The thought that the current system would be better than any system that could come after the collapse of the current one." But then... they wouldn't be anarchists.

 

[Aghasverov]

It would take at least one anarchist group deciding they no longer believed in any system post-collapse being better then the current one.

And they might also focus on opportunities to “transform” the system — by their “legit” businesses helping to raise the bar, by providing muscle to unions, etc.

And really, maybe a group of 8 individuals fiercely loyal to each other might be enough for the nucleus of a criminal group.

Hmmm... would they still be "anarchists" then? 🤔
Maybe anarchism with a bit of an undercurrent of syndicalism or Marxism...
Sounds like you have the idea for a nascent TL floating around in your head already

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

In OTL, anarchists are mainly about the occasional righteous assassination, which usually doesn’t get a damn thing done, and in fact is counter-productive most of be time. And therefore, fails even on their terms, and their world view.

Let’s say these anarchists very much notice the popularity of the American, New-York centered mob.

And notice that mobsters are often perceived as Robin Hood figures, and with scant evidence. For example, running the combo of illegal gambling and loan sharking is not exactly stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. In fact, pretty much the contrary.

Yes, I’m basically asking for “nice” mobsters or at last more constructive monsters — and highly effective ones. That’s part of it, too.

Your ideas please.

I don't think it is ideologically compatible. The Mafia are hyper hierarchical. In a way they're almost like a direct transplant of southern Italy's feudal system into urban America. Complete with hereditary lords whose armed vassals keep the land free from bandits (loathe be any petty criminal stupid enough to ply their trade in the Mafia's turf) in exchange for the commoner's tithe (the racket part of protection racket).

edit: and further, much of why some immigrant communities were """fond""" of their illegal overlords is because they maintained a form of order in neighbourhoods neglected by law enforcement. Expecting anarchists to impose order through a monopolization of violence is antithetical to the principles of anarchism.

 

[overoceans]

"To John Dillinger..."

 

[mial42]

This is OTL. The illegalist current of anarchist thought included bank robbers and extortionists who used the proceeds of their crimes to fund the cause and for various projects (this wasn't limited to anarchists; Stalin spent a few years robbing banks in the Russian Empire to fund the Bolsheviks).

 

[GeographyDude]

Just like religions have trees of development, I’m sure anarchist thought does as well.

I’m asking for one which takes the view — yes, the rules are to support the top dogs and are therefore bullshit — it’s just that we’re going to be highly effective about lying, stealing, cheating.

And furthermore, we’re going to accept the common man and common woman just as they are. For example, at times people are quite willing to accept a large, programmatic lie, in part to emphasize that they are a member of the in-group. But in face to face, people are very attune about whether they’re being lied to.

 

[Pete55]

Valid point.

But in this timeline, I’m hoping some prominent anarchists take a deep breath and rethink their goals — and maybe decide they’re going to focus on the here and now, rather than pie in the sky. And they decide they are going to be effective robin hoods stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.

And since people don’t like to receive handouts, maybe with much of their ill-gotten gains, they’re going to form legit businesses and pay somewhat above market rates. Or, at least not lay people off during slow times and jack people round with their hours and schedules.

If we look at the gangsters of the 1930s, we see a decent example of people viewed to some degree as Robin hood like figures. They all ended up dead.

The mafia and the like do not survive by killing cops, but anarchist revolutionaries have a vested interest in political killings and in war with officers of the peace. Thus, like dillinger, regardless of their fame or subculture popularity, they wind up in a morgue with numerous bullet holes.

If the Anarchists want to last, they need to change forms and tactics drastically, and simply handing out wads of cash only goes so far.

 

[GeographyDude]

Best Outcome — the stupid anarchists Serbian nationalists don’t assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie Chotek. And really, how tone deaf do you have to be to think that shooting a woman at point blank range is somehow going to be anything other than very poorly received ? ! ?

* I was wrong. In fact, the “Black Hand” were Serbia nationalists. And furthermore, they may have expected the young amateurs who they armed to fail (as they very nearly did).​

* The goal may have been that “an assassination attempt, with its links to Serbia, would anger the Austrians enough to gain international support for Pasic’s removal?” Pasic being the Serbia Prime Minister whom the Black Hand opposed.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/12/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-start-world-war-i/

Next Best — stupid anarchists don’t cause 1919 Red Scare in the United States.

Third Best — at least a large anarchist group is selling clean alcohol during the prohibitions in the U.S. and Canada. And they have a reputation, really best leave them alone. Now, if you ask for a sit down, that’s a different matter, but you better be prepared to make a reasonable offer.

 

[GeographyDude]

I want to push back against this a little, because I do not believe this is an accurate assessment of anarchist thought at the time--even for the assassins. They were attempting to overthrow of the state; they were not trying to cause society to collapse. They didn't think any possible society would be better than the current one, they thought they could inspire a revolution that would result in their preferred society.

I’m glad you pushed back and brought this up. I think we might be kind of approaching the crux of the matter.

They can mouth the words and maybe even intellectually believe what you say, but emotionally — it sure looks like they emotionally believe the current system is so wretched, that any post-revolution society will be better.

I remember years back talking with this SWP guy here in Houston, meaning Socialist Workers Party, and he basically believed this. Although in truth, he may not have liked being questioned by an outsider, and a younger person to boot.

And then, the anarchists seem to believe that common women and men will rise up in a very mechanical and one-dimensional way, all evidence to the contrary. If only they “get the right leadership,” again, all evidence to contrary.

It’s like the would-be revolutionaries are committing the “No True Scotsman” fallacy ? ?