5 ms·
I am reminded of what George Orwelles wrote in "Down and out in Paris and London": > Beggars do not work, it is said; but then, what is work? A navvy works by
by hitekker 11y ago
I am reminded of what George Orwelles wrote in "Down and out in Paris and London":
> Beggars do not work, it is said; but then, what is work? A navvy works by swinging a pick. An accountant works by adding up figures. A beggar works by standing out of doors in all weathers and getting varicose veins, bronchitis etc. It is a trade like any other; quite useless, of course — but, then, many reputable trades are quite useless. And as a social type a beggar compares well with scores of others. He is honest compared with the sellers of most patent medicines, high-minded compared with a Sunday newspaper proprietor, amiable compared with a hire-purchase tout-in short, a parasite, but a fairly harmless parasite. He seldom extracts more than a bare living from the community, and, what should justify him according to our ethical ideas, he pays for it over and over in suffering.
EDIT: On a side note, I agreed halfway with what you're writing but the second half of your comment seems a bit more unclear/I'm not sure what you're discussing there. Could you clarify what you mean?
- digi_owl 11y ago> but, then, many reputable trades are quite useless Brings to mind Graeber's article on "bullshit jobs". http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- hueving 11y agoYou cannot pay a cost you impose on others with self induced suffering. I cannot steal and break my own toe to "pay it back". That justification is nonsense.
- robbiep 11y agoI think you missed the point of the quote: Orwell is saying that to see someone suffer is in line with our ethics; someone who suffers can be ethically reasoned to have earned what dues come their way. Compare the beggar in orwell's quote, if you will, to the injured war veteran who benefits from a fundraiser. He has suffered, so we consider it worthy for him to benefit through community actions. Why is he worthy of the benefit? Because he suffered. I am not worthy because I have not suffered as he has. The beggar? Suffering. You are thinking very stringently if you are interpreting the quote as a 'literal' trade, broken toe for dinner for a week
- hifier 11y agoNo. The veteran is worthy because in his suffering, he provided value to the community.
- Retra 11y agoThe beggar provides value by only extracting a pittance. If he were, say, a burglar, he would be taking far more than he needs, and that would actually be costing you something less reasonable. If everyone only used what they needed, we'd all have plenty of resources to dedicate to the communal good.
- hifier 11y agoIt's disgusting to be comparing a veteran's suffering to a beggar's.
- Nutmog 11y agoIn which direction? Is it because the veteran is a murderer while the beggar is harmless or because the veteran's suffering is more severe than the beggar's?
- invalidOrTaken 11y agoThe difference is intent. The injured war veteran, at least according to the official fiction, suffered in the course of benefiting the community. Whether they succeeded is up for debate, but the intent to benefit is seen as evidence that gifts/support/etc. won't "enable" them.