Were Pirates Anarchists?

[Cobra]

By pirates, I’m not talking about someone who copies files from “The Web”. I’m talking about the real Pirates, the ones on ships during the 1700’s.

Here’s what I understand about pirates (correct me if you think any part is wrong):

Many pirates were once crew on merchant ships but came to dislike their authoritarian oppressors. They forced the capitalists to go walk the plank and be eaten by sharks. After taking over the ship through mutiny they became pirates. They shared a common bond of hatred towards all authority. While they did have captains, they were voted in and could also be voted out. All the important decisions made were voted on. Everyone’s vote counted equally. Captains may have had prestige, but they did not hold any actual power. The loot was divided almost equally. The captain got slightly more, but that was because he saved part of it for ship repairs and insurance.

It seems like anarchy to me. Am I wrong?

http://ragnarokpress.com/artype/pyle/pyle4.jpg

[the SovieT]

Pirates, were most of the times paid by the major empires like Britain and Spain to attack another countries flagships...


In fact, the sole porpose of a Pirate was to assault merchant ships and kill the crew, then they would take the survivors and either sell them or force them to join them...



but if this is anarchy to you I can do nothing but agree....

[STI]

If pirates were anarchists, they wouldn't have had heirarchies. There were 'captains' who were the 'bosses' of the pirate ships= heirarchies= pirates weren't anarchist.

[Cobra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 01:20 AM
If pirates were anarchists, they wouldn't have had heirarchies. There were 'captains' who were the 'bosses' of the pirate ships= heirarchies= pirates weren't anarchist.
A ship needs a captain in order to make quick decisons. If your going around assaulting ships somebody would need to coordinate the atack for it to be effective. So a group of anarchist pirates would need a captain.

Just having someone give orders not necessarily create a hierarchy. If the captain had no power to force anyone to follow his orders then he would not be anymore powerful than anyone else. If the members of the crew followed his orders simply out of trust, and not from coercion, then they could still be anarchists.

So what it would come down to is whether or not the capatain had the power to force others to do something. If he did, than they were not anarchists. If he did not, then they were anarchists.

Was the position of "captain" a position of power or just a position of prestige for pirates?

[STI]

The captain was the 'owner' of the ship, and had the power to 'hire' and 'fire' the crew. He had power over others in this and hence heirarchy.

[roman]

It amazes me the length anarchists goto to invent imaginary histories of anarchism. I guess if I was part of a revolutionary tradition that has accomplished virtually nothing, maybe I would be grasping at pirates too.

[sh0cker]

Pirates were sort of anarchy according to now days point of view, but actually they were good sailors who were very gredy; who wanted money! They weren't thinking about anarchy o anything similar, all they wanted was money and ships

[DSCH]

Pirates hated anarchy. The pirate political philosophy is more akin to fascism where the Captain is equivalent to the Dictator.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchism: A political philosophy advocating freedom, a complete rejection of authority, direct democracy and mutual co-operation without forms of domination or hierarchy working for the benifit of society.

Pirate Ship: A boat full of sexist men advocating theft and murder, a complete rejection of democracy with a leader with a chain of command for the purpose of control and discipline working for the benifit of greed.

.....I can see the similarities!

[BOZG]

Of course they were anarchists, they just wanted no police so they could kill you and break into your home. They wanted chaos like those wacky anarchists.

[DSCH]

There was never anarchy on any pirate ship and, if there was, it was soon ended by the rise of a tyrant Captain.

[Morpheus]

You people are all overgeneralizing and using the term "pirate" in different ways. Some pirates were just mercenaries hired by rival empires to attack each other. Others were formed through mutiny by sailors (oppressed wage-slaves). Sometimes the revolt would take on anarchistic forms. There would be general assemblies by the sailors to run the ship and captains would be elected to help coordinate things (much as the Spanish workers elected commitees to help coordinate things). They were mandated & recallable with no privilidges and power residing in the sailor assembly. I would hesitate to call this an anarchist movement, as there were no anarchists involved, but it did sometimes have similiarities to anarchy. For more on this time period, see The Many Headed Hydra by Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker. It comes from a Marxist perspective, IIRC.

[Yazman]

Pirate Ship: A boat full of sexist men

I disagree. There were many, many female pirates, and a lot of them were captains of male-dominated ships, too.

[Organic Revolution]

pirates were in no way anarchists.... just like many have said... there was a fucking leader

[Xvall]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 05:32 PM
Of course they were anarchists, they just wanted no police so they could kill you and break into your home. They wanted chaos like those wacky anarchists.

Yeah man. Those whacky anarchists. Always breaking into my home. I remember once, this crazy old anarchist broke into my home and stole my stereo; he talked to be about Bakunin too.

If by anarchy you mean psychotic-greedmongering-hiearchy, then yeah. The prirates were big-time 'anarchists'. If by 'anarchists' you mean individuals who followed a social-political ideology centered around the destruction of 'states', then no, they wer not anarchists. Saying that an anarchist is simple someone who believes in 'lawlessness' is as big of a generalization as saying communists are people who want 'every aspect of sociery to be equal'.

[Kez]

Christ almighty,

This thread takes the piss out of all the anarchist heores who have fought for, with, and as the workers in the last century. Did they sacrifice their lives in vain? If che-lives were a representative site of the left, then they would seem to have done so.

Fortunately, it is not.

One wonders how they were anarchists when they isolated themselves from workers anyway?
Also, since when were there capitalists walking the plank in the 1700's!

A capitalist is a person who owns the means of production, these bastards were not
a) around in 1700's
b) even the rich didnt go round cruises on ships

utter stupidity

i can imagine sacco and vanzetti turning in their graves at this horseshit

[Cobra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 12:32 AM
Christ almighty,

This thread takes the piss out of all the anarchist heores who have fought for, with, and as the workers in the last century. Did they sacrifice their lives in vain? If che-lives were a representative site of the left, then they would seem to have done so.

Fortunately, it is not.

One wonders how they were anarchists when they isolated themselves from workers anyway?
Also, since when were there capitalists walking the plank in the 1700's!

A capitalist is a person who owns the means of production, these bastards were not
a) around in 1700's
b) even the rich didnt go round cruises on ships

utter stupidity

i can imagine sacco and vanzetti turning in their graves at this horseshit
The capitalists walked the plank because they were the oppressers on merchant ships. The merchant owned the ship. Merchant=Capitalist. The crew worked on the ship. Crew=Workers. This may surprise you but capitalists did exist back in the 1700's. They just did not have as much power as they do today.

And by anarchists I meant somone who beleives that power and wealth should be distributed equally amoung all individuals and that this should be acheived by destroying the existing power structure. I was not referring to the Anachronistic movement that began during the time of Bakunin. I guess "egalitarian" would have been a better word, but the basic principles remain the same.

To not confuse anymore people as to what I am talking about, I'm going to use the word "Egalitarian" instead of the word "Anarchist" to describe the pirates I was reffering to for now on.

So it seems everyone here agrees that on most pirate ships the captain held most of the power, thus the pirates on those ships were not egalitarians. However, I doubt if this was the same far all pirate ships.

Does anyone here know anything about those few pirates (or any sailors during the 1700s, for that matter) that did follow egalitarian principles? I find it hard to believe that none of them did.


Morpheus:
You people are all overgeneralizing and using the term "pirate" in different ways. Some pirates were just mercenaries hired by rival empires to attack each other. Others were formed through mutiny by sailors (oppressed wage-slaves). Sometimes the revolt would take on anarchistic forms. There would be general assemblies by the sailors to run the ship and captains would be elected to help coordinate things (much as the Spanish workers elected commitees to help coordinate things). They were mandated & recallable with no privilidges and power residing in the sailor assembly. I would hesitate to call this an anarchist movement, as there were no anarchists involved, but it did sometimes have similiarities to anarchy. For more on this time period, see The Many Headed Hydra by Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker. It comes from a Marxist perspective, IIRC.
The Many Headed Hydra -Thanks for the advice comrade. I'll be sure to read that.

Those revolts you referred to with the elected captain; where did these happen and at what time?

[roman]

Cobra says: Merchant=Capitalist.

This is actually very false. Merchant classes and trading societies go back to ancient times and existed well into the late middle ages and even modern times in the great trading centers of Vinice, Ansterdamn, etc. It is false to assume that capitalism emerged simply and naturally out of trade and markets. In fact, historically, capitalism emerges first in England, a nation which was in many respects backwards as far as trade and European comerce were concerned. It is in fact, part of England's backwardness and isolation that allowed a new kind of production and national market to emerge in England in a way that it never emerged in Vinice or Ansterdamn. The big difference between mediveal merchant cities and England was the source of profit. In continental trading centers profit was attained mainly though buying in one area at a lower price and trading in another area at a higher price. In England, you have a almost unique evolution where profit more and more was tied to revolutionizing the means of production - new technology, hence, new social relations, etc. In captialism, the source of profit is tied to production - outside the sphere of the circulation of commodities. This is why in Capital, Marx makes the values in his corn and iron economies constant, to show that the source of profit under capitalism is production, not merely circulation.

If this is all rather confusing a great book on the subject is Ellen M. Wood's The Origin of Capitalism. Also read Marx's Capital V1, Riddle of Fetish of Commodities.

[BOZG]

Yeah man. Those whacky anarchists. Always breaking into my home. I remember once, this crazy old anarchist broke into my home and stole my stereo; he talked to be about Bakunin too.

If by anarchy you mean psychotic-greedmongering-hiearchy, then yeah. The prirates were big-time 'anarchists'. If by 'anarchists' you mean individuals who followed a social-political ideology centered around the destruction of 'states', then no, they wer not anarchists. Saying that an anarchist is simple someone who believes in 'lawlessness' is as big of a generalization as saying communists are people who want 'every aspect of sociery to be equal'


And if by " Of course they were anarchists, they just wanted no police so they could kill you and break into your home. They wanted chaos like those wacky anarchists.", I'm being a sarcastic bastard than yes.

[Comrade Zeke]

Pirates let me the expert on everything give you some info on Pirates. When we think of Pirtates we think of Parrots and Peg Legs, Jack Sparrow and William Turner, Romantic Villians who saved the poor from oppersion.

Well your imangenry Fanasty is wrong, Pirates were greedy, and slefish and only wanted plunder.
How did you become a Pirate??? Well you could mutine and take over a ship and then you would be a Pirate, or your could be a Merchant fed up with your boring life and no money and become a Pirate to make money.
But most often you were just an ordinary Sea man or a Captain of a vessel know as a Privateer. A Privateer is what the great Empires hired at the time to take out other nations trading ships, sometimes these Privateer Captains got too greedy and started to attack all ships even your mother country, then you would probally be banded outlaws and become Pirates, the Privateer Captain would tell his crew "Join me in Plunder and there shall be great reward!" And they joined because in the 1700 everyone was poor except for the Merchant Bosses, the Nobles, the Generals and the Kings. And you can't forget the church! lol
After you have turned Pirate you would hunt ships with your captain and your ussally small ship such as a Sloop or Brigantiene. You would attack ships and take their plunder. Pirates Captains were fair with their crew and held elections and duals. The Captain only had real power in battle and when derecting the coarse of a ship. The rest was put up with the crew,The Bowstrip, the Gunner,the Navigator,the Second Mate,The Carpenter and all the others. Pirates were not that rutheless if a crew gave up easliy without a fight the Pirates would asked them to join the crew...most likely the Merchants on the ship who wen't making to much money would join the crew. Pirates sometimes even became Admirals of Pirate fleets such as Black Beard who controled at one point 4 ships and 600 men! He even took on a British Warship and woN!
So Pirates were extreamly powerful

OPIONION oF PIRATES AND ANARCISM:Pirates were just as greedy as the rich Capitalist they attack and they can't be called Anarcists. But in my opionion Pirates were more Communistic because everyone has a job on the ship and they all work together to achive a perfect society in a Pirate's case Loot, more loot, and more loot. SORRY ABOUT SPELLING
Zeke

[peaccenicked]

In defence of anarchists. Anarchism is to piracy as is communism is to baby eating. The have nothing in common.
Perhaps the nearest the anti-state left gets to it is pirate radio.
The revolution wont be televised.

[Sabocat]

I wouldn't say pirates were anarchists. Pirates really worked within the construct of a democracy. There was definitely a hierarchy, as there needs to be on a ship. Not all crewmen were adept at navigating, tactics, etc. Life on a pirate ship was infinitely easier than the commercial or warships they came from. They shared the profits almost equally amongst themselves and the captains were much more humane.

Pirate crews were usually disgruntled crew from national or merchant warships as life aboard those ships was absolutely miserable, akin more to indentured servitude than employee status. Oft times, "crew" were knocked unconscious in bars, and taken to ships and "pressed" into service as crew. The work was hard and dangerous. The food was scarce and horrible. The pay was a mere pitance. Children as young as 8 years old were grabbed from orphanages and used for "powder monkeys" bringing gunpowder to the crew loading the cannons on warships and privateers. Quite a lot of them died during the battles. Because they were so young, they would often panic at the sight of blood all over the deck. To ameliorate this situation, the decks down below where wounded men were taken during battle would be painted red so that the powder monkeys and younger crew wouldn't panic at the sight of all the blood. It's easy to see why someone who had been "in the service" of their country would grow to be rebellious.

Some of the merchant ships would be gone for 1-2 years at a time. The sailors that were "shanghaied" often leaving family behind with no idea where they had gone.

Here's a good article/paper on politics and ideologies of the Carribean and Moroccan Pirates.

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archive...5/msg00047.html (http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9705/msg00047.html)

[Uhuru na Umoja]

I think it is fair to say that a few of them had anarchist tendancies - that is that they were not keen on central authority or the state. However, they were not politicised anarachists within any set goals. Because of this they ended up merely re-creating the heirarchies they were used to (ie. with captains, etc.) on their own boats, thus the found themselves equally bound to a central authority.

[Cobra]

roman:

Cobra says: Merchant=Capitalist.

This is actually very false. Merchant classes and trading societies go back to ancient times and existed well into the late middle ages and even modern times in the great trading centers of Vinice, Ansterdamn, etc. It is false to assume that capitalism emerged simply and naturally out of trade and markets. In fact, historically, capitalism emerges first in England, a nation which was in many respects backwards as far as trade and European comerce were concerned. It is in fact, part of England's backwardness and isolation that allowed a new kind of production and national market to emerge in England in a way that it never emerged in Vinice or Ansterdamn. The big difference between mediveal merchant cities and England was the source of profit. In continental trading centers profit was attained mainly though buying in one area at a lower price and trading in another area at a higher price. In England, you have a almost unique evolution where profit more and more was tied to revolutionizing the means of production - new technology, hence, new social relations, etc. In captialism, the source of profit is tied to production - outside the sphere of the circulation of commodities. This is why in Capital, Marx makes the values in his corn and iron economies constant, to show that the source of profit under capitalism is production, not merely circulation.

If this is all rather confusing a great book on the subject is Ellen M. Wood's The Origin of Capitalism. Also read Marx's Capital V1, Riddle of Fetish of Commodities.

So I was wrong in my assumption that merchants were capitalists. Apparently, I have falsely assumed that “capitalism emerged simply and naturally out of trade and markets” when in fact it was created by the so-called “Industrial Revolution” in England. Thanks for the correction comrade.

As for those books you mentioned, well, I’ve tried reading Capital before and found it way too confusing. Ironically, I’ve read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and found it much easier to comprehend (though I disagreed with many parts it). Maybe it’s something to do with the translation. Too bad Adam Smith didn’t write Capital, for if he did I might actually understand it.

In any case, I’ll at least read The Origin of Capitalism book you mentioned.


Comrade Zeke:

Well your imaginary Fantasy is wrong, Pirates were greedy, and selfish and only wanted plunder.

OPIONION oF PIRATES AND ANARCISM:Pirates were just as greedy as the rich Capitalist they attack and they can't be called Anarcists. But in my opionion Pirates were more Communistic because everyone has a job on the ship and they all work together to achive a perfect society in a Pirate's case Loot, more loot, and more loot. SORRY ABOUT SPELLING
Zeke

What? My imaginary fantasy is wrong? Still, if I lived in that time period I would be a pirate; at least until I got rich. Then I would leave and buy my own ship and be a captain. I would be a different kind of captain; I’d be like Lenin and would free the oppressed workers on the merchant ships and force them to join us.

Though seriously, you did raise an interesting point about them working together to achieve a better life. While they were usually greedy bastards, they could be considered to be somewhat socialistic. Though, the type of “socialism” that they lived under only existed on the ship. Anyone outside the ship would exist for the pirates to exploit.


Disgustapated:

I wouldn't say pirates were anarchists. Pirates really worked within the construct of a democracy. There was definitely a hierarchy, as there needs to be on a ship. Not all crewmen were adept at navigating, tactics, etc. Life on a pirate ship was infinitely easier than the commercial or warships they came from. They shared the profits almost equally amongst themselves and the captains were much more humane.

Pirate crews were usually disgruntled crew from national or merchant warships as life aboard those ships was absolutely miserable, akin more to indentured servitude than employee status. Oft times, "crew" were knocked unconscious in bars, and taken to ships and "pressed" into service as crew. The work was hard and dangerous. The food was scarce and horrible. The pay was a mere pitance. Children as young as 8 years old were grabbed from orphanages and used for "powder monkeys" bringing gunpowder to the crew loading the cannons on warships and privateers. Quite a lot of them died during the battles. Because they were so young, they would often panic at the sight of blood all over the deck. To ameliorate this situation, the decks down below where wounded men were taken during battle would be painted red so that the powder monkeys and younger crew wouldn't panic at the sight of all the blood. It's easy to see why someone who had been "in the service" of their country would grow to be rebellious.

Some of the merchant ships would be gone for 1-2 years at a time. The sailors that were "shanghaied" often leaving family behind with no idea where they had gone.

Here's a good article/paper on politics and ideologies of the Carribean and Moroccan Pirates

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archive...5/msg00047.html

So life as a pirate, despite its hardships, was a lot better than the alternatives.

That article you gave the link to gives a good illustration of the “monstrous excessive desires” of capitalism using Robinson Crusoe as an example. When Robinson’s ship sank and he went to the uninhabited island, he became completely mad. He tried to get everything on the island, though without needing hardly any of it. “His desire to get as many things as conceivably possible was absolutely unlimited”. He became extremely irrational as he tried to become more “productive”. Robinson Crusoe’s fanatical way of thinking, as the article suggests, may have came from being a sailor. Sailors were greedy bastards since the time of Columbus. And, according to the article, the sailors spread this way of thinking across the globe (somewhat contradicting what comrade roman said about it originating in England). Very interesting.

So pirates during the 1700’s must have been driven by an excessive desire to consume more and more. They didn’t care if they were breaking the law, killing, and enslaving others to get it. It didn’t matter if they actually needed the loot or not, but they would do anything to get it.

This desire to consume everything may have given the pirates a sense of inner emptiness and alienation that is prevalent in most so-called “modern” capitalist countries.

However, they did experience something that people in “modern” capitalist countries almost never do; and that’s adventure. Pirates went on adventures of a lifetime. In the minds of the pirates, distant lands at this time must have been considerably further apart than they are today. Just crossing the Atlantic would have been quite an accomplishment. Most the time their fellow pirates surrounded them. The companionship that the pirates had with one another may have counteracted any feelings of emptiness and alienation that they may have had.

It is difficult to say how typical pirate actually felt. But it’s interesting to think about nonetheless.

It seems that pirates in many ways lived in 2 worlds. On the ship it was a refuge of socialism. There were little or no disparities in the amount of wealth one would accumulate and everyone was treated with respect (though this was not true on all ships). However, individuals on these ships had the same mindset as greedy capitalists. They existed to consume everything and then some.

This paradox could have created conflicts. It is very likely that some pirates may have backstabbed each other trying to steal each other’s loot. This infighting would have made it difficult for any bit of socialism that existed to exist for very long.

In conclusion, if any pirates “were anarchists” it would have been only temporary.


To the so-called “Defenders of Anarchism”:
About half the posts on this thread are intelligent and well thought out. The other half is complete crap. Stop posting mindless 1-2 line comments. Just posting one-liners such as “OMG! They were not anarchist! They killed people for money!” isn’t contributing much to this discussion. And in case anyone has misunderstood me, I did not create this thread with the intention of offending Anarchists; it was intended to examine the isolated revolutions that took place during the 1700’s on merchant ships and how the pirates lived. I’m actually an anarchist myself (though only when it’s convenient) so I’m in no way trying degrade the people who were/are “the real Anarchists”. If I have offending anyone, I Apologize. If you have something that is at least halfway intelligent to add to this discussion then feel to post it. If you don’t, then don’t waste our time.

[yoshim]

i would think that some people who became pirates would have had anarchists tendancies however it would be unfair to say that they all did. In fact they seemed to live the lives as a democracy even if that did involve acting like anarchits.

[revoevo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 05:05 AM
...maybe I would be grasping at pirates too.
:lol: Why does this whole thread have me laughing? I guess it seems a little too irrelevant... too completely irrelevant... yeah....

[STI]

Lately, all the backlash against 'music piracy' has caused me to go bonkers for pirate stuff. I've created a fictional cartoon, Barnicle Bill, the friendly pirate, and I listen to 'The Last Saskatchewan Pirate' by Captain Tractor all the time... it's fun.

[SittingBull47]

well, all i know is that Pirates were wild. Outlaw pirates, however, the kind fresh out of prison and looking to get away from Europe, can actually be classified as Anarchists. The lack of mutinies on outlaw pirate ships shows that there was minimal hierarchy.

[Xvall]

Sorry Boz. Sarcasm is near impossible to discern on the internet.

[SittingBull47]

me? i wasn't being sarcastic. I read the pirate mutiny thing before and i think it's true.