this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
28 points (96.7% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
892 readers
11 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm pretty skeptical of this. First, what does proletarian even mean when capitalism is still in the takeoff stage? Second, who is boarding a packed, disease-ridden sailing ship for a perilous months-long journey besides those with few other options?
The diggers and the levellers; both key figures in america, look em up. Religious fundamentalists who wanted freedom for white men and genocide for everyone else. They split from there lords over the contradiction of 'you shall not kill' in christians conciding with the class conciousness emerging in the serf class as they slowly began to read.
That was one of the first questions that they asked 'if it says here you cant kill but you killed to gain the land we serfs work then you are not holy' basically.
You're right that workers in the domestic system at that time, the pre-cursor to the proletariat, would not have the means to settle the colonies unless a corporate sponsor really needed their specialties.
All ships were disease ridden then, they are still disease ridden today, look at cruise ship statistics. The deadliest route to California from the US was a boat to Panama, taking the train across the isthmus, then a boat to San Francisco, an expensive itinerary - because it was the fastest. Highest rates of death occurred in this route due to disease. It was the poor and cheap who took overland wagons (which still cost a lot).
It appears that Sakai's answer is that land hunger was so severe that, yes, petty bourgeois individuals would be willing to endure it to have something like the standard of living they had been used to.
Here is a quote he takes from ""Social Origins of Some Early Americans". In SMITH, ed., 17th Century America. N.Y., 1972."