Read Online The Pirate Organization: Lessons From the Fringes of Capitalism by Rodolphe Durand, Jean-Philippe Vergne - Free Book Online

captains who believed in doing their jobs by any means necessary, especially when investors were involved. These backers gave the captain absolute power to get rid of crew members who showed the slightest hint or intention of theft or laziness. The captain imposed order. He was protected by laws that authorized leg irons and corporal punishment. To keep the captain’s power in check and to ensure a safe expedition, investors made the captain a minority shareholder. The captain received a share of the profits along with his fixed salary as a sailor. To ensure social control and profit, investors would often choose captains who were close contacts or whom they had a direct family tie with. If the captain did not arrive safely in port, he would lose his initial investment, the return on his investment, and the respect from his family and peers.
    It was not rare for captains to abuse their authority for their own benefit. In fact, when sailors were mistreated by dishonest captains, they would often leave for other jobs. As the quotation in the epigraph of this chapter says, a basic sailor must obey—if not, he is seen as a mutineer. The threat of hardship and poor treatment was constant. The captain was all the more likely to use violence and intimidation if he had not been able to choose his own crew, and vice versa. Loyalty and trust therefore were the exceptions to the rule. Piracy was then an attractive option for mistreated sailors.
    For its part, the pirate organization responded differently to economic requirements. First, given that the cost of acquiring or investing in the pirate ship was close to zero (i.e., it was stolen), the pirate organization did not adhere to the separation of economic tasks as the merchant marines did. So, any decisions about food, chores, salaries, and rewards, as well as attack strategies and escape plans, required a different chain of command. The most adopted system involved two levels of control. First, all members of the organization elected the captain, democratically. The same process was used to remove and replace captains. Second, power and authority could be spread among the crew.
    Whereas in the merchant marine there were two co-existing populations (officers and sailors) held together by authority, on board a pirate ship, the community was one and united. However, to guarantee everyone’s rights and to maintain the cohesion of the crew, the ship’s command was shared by two complementary positions: the captain and the quartermaster. The captain was essentially in charge of major maritime operations. But in the event of an attack or a joint mission with other allied vessels, the distribution of rations and booty and the management of internal conflicts were the responsibility of the quartermaster. For many, the eighteenth-century sea pirate organization adhered to the democratic separation of powers, long before states did. When a captain was deposed after a majority vote due to, say, a lack of courage, a bad decision, or any other shortcoming, the quartermaster was often elected as the captain’s replacement. This would often give rise to competition between crew members vying for the quartermaster position. Unlike the authoritative merchant marine captain, whose privileges included getting the best cabin and the best food, the pirate ship captain did not receive any preferential treatment. His cabin (if he had one) was not private, and he ate the same food as his comrades. This equality also applied to the quartermaster. In fact, it was stipulated in the charters or articles that set out the rules of living and sharing within most pirate organizations. This type of agreement was called the custom of the coast and was based on the practices of the pirates of the Caribbean. The different codes of conduct adopted and amended by pirate communities are very similar. As the code used by Captain Roberts and his crew shows, harmful activities that could potentially lead to conflicts or