/liberty/ - Liberty

>did they exist?

how should I know?

>where they proto-ourguys?

to some extent, like many societies have been, but like 'Murica it fell under demoncracy

>Were they proto-/ourguys/?

That depends, are you hard hellla-way-left?

If so, then yes, a global ansoc military devoted to hanging the captain and implementing worker-owned ships would be up your alley. If you're more on the capitalist side, it was literally a movement to kill you and give your shit to your former crew.

>>95629

Not evenly. There were still grades based on injuries received and personal investment into the campaign. It was a joint stock venture basically, there was not a hint of kolkhoz or gulag or any other socialist slavery system. Certainly no free-riding existed aboard a pirate ship, an extremely effective corporation made for a specific goal of chasing profit and nothing else.

Nobody was paid nor entitled to anything if there was no profit gained. Just as in the stock market you lose your venture. And both captain and quartermaster could be removed from office due to their bad management by joint stock holders. Just like in a capitalist corporation, huh.

I wonder how them socialist would remove a Stalin that just happened to murder them by scores left and right at his leisure.

If anything, captain's tyranny on merchant ships was more reminiscent of socialism, as you can't just switch ships or leave your post if you get cheated on the job, and there were little possibility for sailors to receive justice deserved in state courts who almost always sided with the merchant ship's captain. Almost. Judges made rulings in the King's name, but they weren't his talking property for one.

Socialism is where a judge disagreeing to order an execution of a poor slave gets executed too because the Big Planner has a plan of mass murder he expects to be fulfilled, and human property deviating from its collective owner will would not be tolerated.

>>95629

>It must be remembered that at this time "Libertarian" was a polite word for "Anarchist" (See: Social-Anarchist)

Actually it applied to individualist-anarchists.

>>95740

Its first use to describe a political position in and of itself was in the discourse between Joseph Déjacque (a communist) and Proudhon, a middle of the road socialist. It took off from there when France's third republic barred the publication of things calling themselves anarchist, i.e, anarchist-socialist.

Which of these commies is US-individualist, again?

>>95734

>Socialism is actually capitalism, while private ownership is literally communism : the post.

So, how long have you been a moron?

>>95746

This is not what I meant at all and you know it. There is absolutely nothing socialist in a society that routinely promotes and demotes its members based of efficiency of making them profit, that has decentralized lawmaking in hands you willingly adhere to or don't sail on this ship, that had Extremely Rough view on any stealing and even accusations of stealing pirate's private property, that heavily enforced what can only be described as NAP between its members and likewise pirate crews etc etc. They had active branding campaigns with pirate corps inventing their specific corporate logos (aka Jolly Roger variations) to make it immediately apparent precisely which "corp" is on your ass.

Everything made in a decentralized networked way with lawless taxless towns like Port Royale or Tortuga hub as attraction centers and free market incentives as motivations.

Never in the history of humanity there was anything resembling that AND called socialist anything. I dare you to find an equivalent.

>>95750

>There is absolutely nothing socialist in a society that routinely promotes and demotes its members based of efficiency of making them profit

Oh, yeah. I'm sure "the war-captain keeps killing members of the crew as a recreational hobby, but I made five bucks so I guess it's cool I'll just die" was waaaay common.

Hell, let's shorten your sentence to see what you let slip…

>There is absolutely nothing socialist about worker-controlled enterprise

lol. Kinda leaked that one. Contrasted with your "private ownership is socialism" crap from before, it pretty much tells us how honest of a poster you are.

>>95752

>the war-captain keeps killing members of the crew as a recreational hobby

Not documented and a straight lie.

The reverse is true and documented - the captain had absolute authority during and only during the chase and fight, and had zero privileges or power outside the chase and fight. The quartermaster ruled the ship outside the fight. Direction of voyage was decided by popular vote if captain's idea wasn't alluring enough.

Both could be removed at any time outside the chase and fight by popular vote, or immediately if a severe breach of local pirate code occurred. It is documented that some pirate ships changed captains several times during a single voyage.

Neither captain nor quartermaster had right to execute people, only an open trial before the crew. There were no st judges, usually the quartermaster knew the code best, but any other could make rulings if allowed by the crew (aka private judges). And even then they rarely executed people, preferring marooning instead. Torture and death were reserved only to the most heinous criminals, usually the caught merchant captain if his crew complained to pirates about their tyrant's misdeeds.

When a pirate ship gang court of all things is more humane and diligent and that your current state law and court, you know you are in deep shit.

> about worker-controlled enterprise

Nobody had control outside his personal share. Nobody was entitled to anything if the venture had no profit or the person in question didn't participate

>it pretty much tells us how honest of a poster you are.

You started your post with undocumented fantasy and want me to take your lies at face value.

How the fuck do you imagine "the war-captain keeps killing members of the crew as a recreational hobby" if the crew if composed entirely of armed bandits with nothing to lose.This is not a Stalinist tyranny where peasants with pitchforks are shelled with gas artillery or Gulag uprisings of sticks and stones get crushed by tank formations. It takes a single bullet to end a petty tyrant captain.

So it turns out, pirate captains were extremely well behaved individuals, unlike you dipsits try to fantasize. Whatever Hollywood shat out, a real pirate ship tale would most likely be a boring office drama of little interest to maybe historians and some ancaps.

>>95755

>Not documented and a straight lie.

So, "not common?"

>Direction of voyage was decided by popular vote if captain's idea wasn't alluring enough.

So, socialism.

>Nobody had control outside his personal share.

>Direction of voyage was decided by popular vote if captain's idea wasn't alluring enough.

Pick only one.

>>95745

>Its first use to describe a political position in and of itself was in the discourse between Joseph Déjacque (a communist) and Proudhon

That would be Libertaire, which is different from libertarian. "From wiki:

"Libertarian" came to mean an advocate or defender of liberty, especially in the political and social spheres, as early as 1796, Of course, the word was originally used in metaphysics, but I am speaking about the political sense.

>>95774

>Nobody had control outside his personal share.

>Direction of voyage was decided by popular vote if captain's idea wasn't alluring enough.

>Pick only one.

<companies are not capitalistic

How do you think evil capitalist corporations make decisions? Stockholders vote (within the constraints of the company charter).

You can call pirate ships cooperatives or companies where everyone held an equal share of stock.

>>95776

>posting this while wearing a mutualist flag.

So, socialism?

>>95774

Your definition of socialism is vague enough to be meaningless.

>>95776

Not quite. There were grades depending on their role and injuries suffered. From articles of pirate Captain Johnson's code:

II. Every Man to be called fairly in Turn, by List, on board

of Prizes, because, (over and above their proper Share) they were on these Occasions allowed a Shift of Cloaths [then punishments for withholding loot]

Entry into the crew was free, leaving at will - not quite

IX. No Man to talk of breaking up their Way of Living,

till each shared a 1000 l. If in order to this, any Man should

lose a Limb, or become a Cripple in their Service, he was to

have 800 Dollars, out of the publick Stock, and for lesser

Hurts, proportionately.

So no free-riding, once on the crew you had to buy your way out. Part of your buy-out fund was to be returned for injuries and debilities suffered on duty, which is only fair. And finally:

X. The Captain and Quarter-Master to receive two Shares

of a Prize; the Master, Boatswain, and Gunner, one Share

and a half, and other Officers one and a Quarter [everyone

else to receive one share].

So yeah, not quite the modern corp where CEO has 20-200 times more than the common man. Much smaller crew, but also much higher profits compared to common merchant navy sailor wages, so all were kinda happy with that.

As one man can't steal or buy a ship, it became common stock for its crew.

If you entered the crew, you were 'leased' a stock share of 1000 pounds, hence you didn't receive a fixed wage like in the merchant navy, but a profit share. A lease you eventually had to buy out, with discounts for meritorious service, so to say.

There is a whole book called The Invisible Hook, where an economist deals with pirate law, customs and profit-making from a purely economical point of view, seeing as people, for example, on their own invented constitutional separation of political power more than a hundred years before the USA.

Many retired pirates choosing to settle in the Thirteen Colonies probably helped though.

>>95777

>So, socialism?

Perhaps socialism in the way the word was used around the time of the first international, but certainly not as it's used today.

But do tell us all about your special snowflake definition of socialism and how it fits perfectly with this particular case, it's not like we have this exact same pointless discussion about semantics every other week or something.

>posting this while wearing a mutualist flag.

I use the gradation to distinguish myself both from those who believe in the illegitimacy of all property and those who believe in the legitimacy of property without occupation/use.

>>95814

That's really interesting, thank you.

>>95817

>I use the {mutualist flag} to distinguish myself both from those who believe in the illegitimacy of all property and those who believe in the legitimacy of property without occupation/use.

That's great, but he had a lot of other propositions, some of which are REALLY FUCKING IRONIC in this thread, and especially your post.

>But do tell us all about your special snowflake definition of socialism

I dunno, "kind of like a capitalist corporation except for being controlled completely horizontally by the workers, and the workers alone" is a pretty good one.

It's also what Proudhon advocated, which is why I pointed out that your flag + "horizontal worker ownership, that's capitalism" is some hella fucking irony.

> it's not like we have this exact same pointless discussion about semantics every other week or something.

Have you tried not being a dumbfuck every other week?

Despite the irony of mixing your flag and that post, you did a bit better than the guy who argued that privatized ownership is proof of socialism on top of that. Still, how shitty does your system have to be before one decides that arguing that worker-controlled horizontalism is "capitalism" and private ownership is proof of "socialism?" Shouldn't you throw in the towel if your own estimate of the starting position is that god-damned low?

>>95841

>worker-controlled horizontalism is "capitalism"

If it is a voluntary association it is considered capitalistic. I can see some of these associations occurring in ancapistan.

>>95841

>That's great, but he had a lot of other propositions, some of which are REALLY FUCKING IRONIC in this thread, and especially your post.

Yes, but thankfully I'm not a moron who religiously adheres to everything that was ever said by an intelligent though by no means unerring 19th century philosopher, much less one who considerably evolved his views in his later years.

>I dunno, "kind of like a capitalist corporation except for being controlled completely horizontally by the workers, and the workers alone" is a pretty good one.

Okay gotcha. So you disagree with:

The Communists

The Marxists

The Leninists

The Maoists

The Social Democrats

The Democratic Socialists

>worker-controlled horizontalism is "capitalism" and private ownership is proof of "socialism?"

The distinction here is that the workers are shareholders in both name and fact as >>95814 keeps pointing out.

Socialism is based on worker ownership of the means of production i.e. the guy using the machine is its owner.

Capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production i.e. the guy who purchased the machine is it's owner.

The pirates purchased a share of the venture (the pirate ship) and work in it as part of a contractual obligation; they don't own it by virtue of working in it. If the fact that the workers purchased the means of production makes this socialism, then the list of socialists would expand to encompass every freelancer and almost every startup ever.

>>95871

>So you disagree with:

Eh?

>The Communists

Nope. Am one.

>The Marxists

Yup. And in fact Marx was run out of the International for proposing the corporation-as-the-state.

>The Leninists

Yup. Only entered Russia after a successful socialist revolution to overthrow it, disband the soviets, and in his words, implement capitalism.

>The Maoists

Yup, though there's been some maoist-anarchist peace later on. You're also getting redundant here; M/ML/MLM are just narrower subsets.

>The Social Democrats

Yes, and it's a wing of capitalism.

>The Democratic Socialists

Yes, mostly because an external state is incompatible with socialism. See the bitching about M/ML for details.

Also, it's not a coincidence that all the false flags you mention show up after marx was (rightfully) booted tfo.

>The pirates purchased a share of the venture

Citation needed.

>and work in it as part of a contractual obligation

Citation needed.

> the list of socialists would expand to encompass every freelancer and almost every startup ever.

It usually does.

> I'm not a moron who religiously adheres to everything that was ever said by an intelligent though by no means unerring 19th century philosopher

Being unfamiliar with it is a different question.

>>95873

>Citation needed.

Well that's great because >>95814 provided one.

> the list of socialists would expand to encompass every freelancer and almost every startup ever.

>It usually does.

hahaha, good one

>>95873

>Marxism isn't real communism

Am I the only one that thinks it's hilarious whenever someone says this?

>>95895

>Well that's great because >>95814 provided one.

…which doesn't back your claims in the slightest, so….

>>95899

It's because you're a moron.

>>95912

I've always thought it was dishonesty. I mean, marx getting booted for proposing corporations-as-the-state is open history, there's nothing to debate, as was his status as a capitalist analyst before he gave union-busting a try.

…but he was *their* *guy*. They just can't let it go and have to keep pushing it, just how our "proudhonian" went from "the difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism is horizontally worker-controlled enterprise while private ownership is socialism" to motherfucking "capitalism is when resources are divided evenly among members of the commune." With no faith and credit in their own position, lies and distortion are what they have… and they have to cling to it like a drowning man to a flotation buoy.