Perce on despeta la mendicores?

par George Orwell

traduida par Andrew Burns

Lo merita dise alga cosa sur la loca sosial de mendicores, car pos cuando on interata con los e descovre ce los es umanas comun, on no pote evita senti surprende par la disposa strana cual la sosia ave en relata con los. Persones pare pensa ce on ave alga difere esensal entre mendicores e omes laborante e comun. Los es un raza separada – escluidas, como criminales e prostituidas. Omes laborante “labora”, mendicores no “labora”; los es parasitos, sin valua en sua propre natur. On no esamina la declara ce un mendicor no “gania” sua vive en la mesma modo como un bricor o un critica leteratural “gania” la sua. El es mera un malcrese sosial, tolerada car nos vive en un eda compatiosa, ma despetada esensal.

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.

An tal si on regarda atendente, on vide ce on ave no difere esensal entre la modo de susta de un mendicor e los de multe persones respetable. Mendicores no labora, on dise; ma, alora, cual es labora? La laboror labora par penduli un picon. Un contor labora par soma cuantias. Un mendicor labora par sta su sielo en tota la climas e sufri venas varicosa, la broncite cronica, etc. Lo es un comersia como cualce otra; alga nonusosa, evidente – ma, alora, multe comersias respetable es alga nonusosa. E como un tipo sosial, la mendicor trova se bon situada cuando on compara el con multe otras. El es plu onesta ca la vendores de la plu de la medisines inferior, e plu educada ca la proprior de un jornal de soldi, e plu amin ca la promovores de ofres de lua per compra – resomal, un parasito, ma un parasito alga nonosiva. El estrae nonfrecuente plu ca un vive magra de la comunia e, – e esta debe escusa el seguente nosa ideas etical – el paia per lo sempre denova par sufri. Me no pensa ce on ave cualce cosa en un mendicor cual separa el a en un clase diferente ca otras, o cual dona a la plu de omes moderna la direto de despeta el.

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.

Alora la demanda emerje: Perce on despeta mendicores? – car vera on despeta los, asoluta. Me crede ce esta es per la razona simple ce los fali gania un vive conveninte. En la pratica, lo no importa a cualcun esce la labora es usosa o nonusosa, produosa o parasital; la sola cosa esijeda es ce lo es profitosa. Con tota la parla moderna de enerjia, eficasia, benefica sosial e la resta, cual lo sinifia estra: “gania mone, gania legal lo, e gania multe”? Mone ia deveni la proba grande de virtua. Mendicores fali esta proba e donce on debe despeta los. Si on pote gania an des paundes a semana par mendica, lo ta deveni instante un profesa respetable. Un mendicor, pratical regardada, es simple un comersior, ganiante sua vive como otra comersiores, en la modo disponable la plu pronto. El no ia vende plu sua onora ca la plu de persones moderna; el ia era no plu ca par eleje un comersia en cual on no pote deveni rica.

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 modern 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 modern people, sold his honor; he has merely made the mistake of choosing a trade at which it is impossible to grow rich.