[lbo-talk] Genocide, Holocaust

Bill Bartlett billbartlett at enterprize.net.au
Sun Jun 1 19:09:14 PDT 2003


At 11:00 AM -0400 1/6/03, Chris Doss wrote:


>What do you do in a case of a culture like the Gypsies (at least the
>ones I see), in which the whole source of income is beggary and
>petty crime? What bothers me so much is not that they do this --
>beggary and petty criminality aren't peculiar to Gypsies -- but that
>the children are given no other choice of lifestyle. They're not put
>in school. They are kept drugged half the time. They don't learn
>anything but how to beg. Should the culture be respected, or should
>these kids be forced to attend school? This is not a rhetorical
>question, I really do not know the answer.

Here's the answer. You may not like it though.

Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas

Extract from from 'Down and out in Paris and London' by George Owrell

It is worth saying something about the social position of beggars, for when one has consorted with them, and found that they are ordinary human beings, one cannot help being struck by the curious attitude that society takes towards them. People seem to feel that there is some essential difference between beggars and ordinary 'working' men. They are a race apart--outcasts, like criminals and prostitutes. Working men 'work', beggars do not 'work'; they are parasites, worthless in their very nature. It is taken for granted that a beggar does not 'earn' his living, as a bricklayer or a literary critic 'earns' his. He is a mere social excrescence, tolerated because we live in a humane age, but essentially despicable.

Yet if one looks closely one sees that there is no ESSENTIAL difference between a beggar's livelihood and that of numberless respectable people. 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, chronic 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. I do not think there is anything about a beggar that sets him in a different class from other people, or gives most modern men the right to despise him.

Then the question arises, Why are beggars despised?--for they are despised, universally. I believe it is for the simple reason that they fail to earn a decent living. In practice nobody cares whether work is useful or useless, productive or parasitic; the sole thing demanded is that it shall be profitable. In all the modem talk about energy, efficiency, social service and the rest of it, what meaning is there except 'Get money, get it legally, and get a lot of it'? Money has become the grand test of virtue. By this test beggars fail, and for this they are despised. If one could earn even ten pounds a week at begging, it would become a respectable profession immediately. A beggar, looked at realistically, is simply a businessman, getting his living, like other businessmen, in the way that comes to hand. He has not, more than most modem people, sold his honour; he has merely made the mistake of choosing a trade at which it is impossible to grow rich. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030602/5965ff70/attachment.htm>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list