Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There was nothing "socialist" about Jamestown. Many of the initial settlers were aristocrats who had no experience of work, and no interest in it. The parent's quote specifically proposed the notion of people not working. This doesn't disprove the argument or address the point about the structure of Jamestown's initial income distribution mechanism. > We already have a culture like this. Those who believe they own…
The claim that Jamestown was "saved by capitalism" is the typical libertarian/conservative story touted out in discussions about socialism and capitalism. The situation was a lot more nuanced than that. The setup of Jamestown as between the Crown and the investors, not the colonists, who were essentially indentured servants for 7 years. Also, the climate was not right for the types of crops the colonists were trying…
I don't know anything about Jamestown, but... this kind of feels like you're giving more detail, but it's detail that doesn't really contradict the original narrative?
At any rate, I took the original narrative to be: originally the workers received the same amount of stuff regardless of how much they worked, and that went badly. Then the workers started to receive more for working harder, that went better. And your version seems to be consistent with that, even if there were other factors making things difficult for the colony. Like they're two different stories, set in the same universe but focused on different things. One is a history and one is a snapshot, and the snapshot adds more detail but doesn't mean the history is wrong.
That's the impression I'm getting of the two narratives here. I remain ignorant of the actual facts.