cullen... this is a paper you wrote for a class? i would give you an f. you research is terrible, and you are an asshole. pirates were not under any circumstances Anarchist. at times pirates could be socialist, even democratic, but NOT Anarchist. ANARCHY: 1. Absence of any form of political authority. (Regardless to what you say, the captain had complete power over the ship. disassociated worker pirates could evict (mutiny) if they didn't like the way the capitan led.) 2. Political disorder and confusion. (pirates were strategic in planning. they (as you mentioned above) didn't attack just any ship.) 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. (if anything, pirates had a common purpose.)
ANARCHISM: 1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. (pirates had their own governments of sorts.) 2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists. (ok) 3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority (their was a code of conduct that all pirates respected and followed. except during mutiny, pirates followed the commands of their capitan, and captains were very authoritarian)
Re: damnit cullen...cullen_cakesMay 19 2005, 07:22:40 UTC
first, you're definition for anarchy which was found in a dictionary is extremely false.
"of sorts". the common people governed themselves, they had no room for tyranny or authority of one person over another.
codes of conduct or constitutions, often called "ship's articles" were aboard each ship and all different in small detail. they all protected the rights of the individual, whcih included to have an equal say in the affair's of the ship.
i also said in the paper that pirates were not consiously anarchist, but howvere held MANY MANY MANY of the same ideals as revolutionary anarchists and were rooted in the same conditions as them, and then explained why this was so. revolutionary anarchism is rooted in class struggle and a constant fight to overthrow authority and create equality among everyone, regardless of race, sex, background, trade, etc. among the idelas was collective owvership, which pirates held dearly, all members of the crew had an equal share of the bounty stolen, and in what the ship did, as i said in the paper (and this is the only time i will agree that there needs to be some form of command) the only time the captain had complete authority over the crew was during battle. and though it is not backed up by any recources i found, but only through experience in groups with the same principles and roots, the crew would meet and critique the captains decisions that were made during battle, and based on those critiques would continue to trues his authority during battle, or mutiny.
that whole last paragraph was ment to be some sort of concluding statement, but i just kept going... sorry.
Re: damnit cullen...unoriginalmoronJune 11 2005, 20:14:02 UTC
No, he's right. Pirate captains only had authoritative power during battles when decisions had to be made quickly and there wasn't time for a vote. Otherwise captains were elected except in extremely odd circumstances such as Stede Bonnet who was a wealthy Virginian landowner before he turned to piracy. He paid his crew salary rather than than simply promising them a share of the spoils. He also was a gigantic pansy and had the emo-est pirate flag ever.
Although, I would like to ask about his assertation that pirates were indifferent to race as they were a major part of slave operations in Madagascar.
PS - That hot_ska_kids thing was complete bullshit.
ANARCHY:
1. Absence of any form of political authority. (Regardless to what you say, the captain had complete power over the ship. disassociated worker pirates could evict (mutiny) if they didn't like the way the capitan led.)
2. Political disorder and confusion. (pirates were strategic in planning. they (as you mentioned above) didn't attack just any ship.)
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. (if anything, pirates had a common purpose.)
ANARCHISM:
1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. (pirates had their own governments of sorts.)
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists. (ok)
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority (their was a code of conduct that all pirates respected and followed. except during mutiny, pirates followed the commands of their capitan, and captains were very authoritarian)
Reply
"of sorts". the common people governed themselves, they had no room for tyranny or authority of one person over another.
codes of conduct or constitutions, often called "ship's articles" were aboard each ship and all different in small detail. they all protected the rights of the individual, whcih included to have an equal say in the affair's of the ship.
i also said in the paper that pirates were not consiously anarchist, but howvere held MANY MANY MANY of the same ideals as revolutionary anarchists and were rooted in the same conditions as them, and then explained why this was so. revolutionary anarchism is rooted in class struggle and a constant fight to overthrow authority and create equality among everyone, regardless of race, sex, background, trade, etc. among the idelas was collective owvership, which pirates held dearly, all members of the crew had an equal share of the bounty stolen, and in what the ship did, as i said in the paper (and this is the only time i will agree that there needs to be some form of command) the only time the captain had complete authority over the crew was during battle. and though it is not backed up by any recources i found, but only through experience in groups with the same principles and roots, the crew would meet and critique the captains decisions that were made during battle, and based on those critiques would continue to trues his authority during battle, or mutiny.
that whole last paragraph was ment to be some sort of concluding statement, but i just kept going... sorry.
Reply
Reply
Although, I would like to ask about his assertation that pirates were indifferent to race as they were a major part of slave operations in Madagascar.
PS - That hot_ska_kids thing was complete bullshit.
Reply
Leave a comment