On Monday my father gave me ten ducats. I bought bread and cheese and meats and wine.
On Tuesday he gave me ten ducats.
On Wednesday he likewise gave me ten ducats.
On Thursday he gave me only five ducats and I said to him, “Father, I am entitled to ten ducats. Why do you treat me so badly?”
My father said, “What do you do for your ten ducats other than receive them?”
John,
As the son is a mature wine drinker, doesn`t answer, and no mention is made of his doing any work for his father, or anyone else, and as he is not described as ill or disabled, one can only assume that he feels that his claim to entitlement is due soley to his blood relationship with his father…(the good old bank of dad).
As such he is indeed a sponging and ungrateful little turd.
(this one`s headin` for a record)
Quite, Chris. Indeed not only am I not ring to avoid reaction, I invite it.
Interestingly my current blog is set at one. Of the most tumultuous times for England. Civil war, religious burnings, war with Spain. Reaction? Nil.
What will future generations make of our far less turbulent times? I suspect about the same.
No you don't NEED to say anything John. But that begs the question, why on earth bother to write something that is clearly about nothing other than raising such questions and in particular raising peoples hackles?
Feigning surprise or innocence just doesn't hack it I'm afraid.
Free speech grants you the ability to express yourself unfettered. You have done just that. What free speech does not afford you is the freedom from reaction.
You can offend sensibilities and there is nothing people can do about that. But equally do not be surprised if a crack in the ice appears under your feet!
Do not be surprised if people vehemently dislike the implications that arise from a problematic piece of writing, that fails to take into account the ambiguity left all too clearly within it.
Don't be surprised if upon wriggling around and not giving anything approaching a straight answer for most of a discussion that people, figuratively hang you in the court of public opinion.
Either way remember, if this offends John - that too is free speech, free thought and every bit as equal in measure to your own.
Heyho
Chris, I haven't said that is what I do think and, of course, I don't need to. Da Vinci never said what Mona Lisa was laughing at!
Following on from your last post John.
In answer - very much intact!
It would just beg the question - why on earth didn't you just say so? Hehe
Question though - How many people "choose" not to work or just laze about or defraud the system John?
I can tell you that benefit fraud runs at around 0.7 - 1%.
I can tell you that benefit fraud costs the UK tax payer 1.2 billion a year. This usually translates to less than half the amount of money that goes unclaimed by people entitled to benefits that the government deliberately fails to properly detail.
To put this in context tax fraud, costs around 15.6 billion a year - these figures are facts not estimates.
Now there are ingrates for you! But where is the national conversation about the largely middle class crime of tax fraud?
Then we have tax avoidance, legal though thoroughly immoral. That runs at anything between 25 billion and 90 billion a year - depending upon what estimate you choose.
Again who are the ingrates?
If you overshot your weekly shopping budget of £150 by, oh I don't know say £500 quid say. Would you a) prioritise and look to take issue with the big monetary items that are causing the huge issue. Or would you b), look to blame your economical situation on buying a loaf of bread too many?
Food for thought it seems...
Jumping back to your explanation - re socialism.
Of course, i'm not sure where that would leave the poem. I'm not sure it could be taken as a parable in the wider sense, particularly in light of your other comments. Because we couldn't apply the poem as a parable, it would fall over in reference to the obvious wider interpretations and rigour that we have put it through/applied to it.
Interesting discussion all the same.
I think we can all agree on the aspirational 'a fair days work, for a fair days pay.
I wonder how any of us interpret that in the modern dystopia of work fare and zero contract hours - looks to the sky and sees only rain.
Interesting observations everyone makes, guys.
But here's another thought prompted by what some of you have blogged.
Supposing if (just supposing) my thoughts on benefits (which some of you have determined this piece is about) were that society has an obligation to provide for its most vulnerable - those who through no fault of their own cannot provide for themselves (the sick, disabled, unemployed etc) but that it has no obligation to those who can but don't...
...is my socialism compromised by this view or is it still in tact?
I have to agree with most of what Chris has written, especially in the first of his long posts. A civilised country has a decent benefits system. That is fundamental and something that has (mostly) characterised the UK over past decades. Now our minds are being steadily, subtly poisoned (by the rich!!!) so that 'benefits' are thought of as a bad thing and benefit claimants as ungrateful scroungers. Meanwhile the benefits regime is being undermined and claimants treated in disgraceful, punitive ways. I'm not a claimant myself, so there's no self-interest, but my wife volunteers in a CAB and the stories of people being left with nothing to live on would make you weep.
If anyone wants to look further into what's actually going on in this country - http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/04/08/scroungers-how-much-does-the-corporate-welfare-state-cost-the-tax-payer/
I wonder how grateful the rich are for the vast amounts they are abstracting from our economy?
great discussion and argument and counter argument on this thread boys and girls - irrespective of which side your socialist BREAD IS BUTTERED (OR NOT - SEE WHAT I DID THERE?) THEN POETRY NEEDS THIS TYPE OF DEBATE. sorry slipped into caps and can't be arsed retyping - lazy, socialist, b'stard that I am :-)
Happy to take on board all views, Chris. We are "a broad church".
All I can say John is that from what you have said both in the poem and in the subsequent discussion this is the only conclusion that I could reach in terms of parable.
If I am mistaken, then please forgive me.
What leads me to think as I do?
A poem that if not taken literally points to an idea of entitlement. You yourself said that gratitude had been replaced by entitlement, and quite clearly in connection with socialism, saying that was not your concept of socialism.
You went further and stated quite clearly that you believed socialism was a fair days pay for a fair days work, given this, in conjunction with the above what else are we supposed to think?
It seemed fairly obvious that you were attacking entitlement in the context of not working, which. I took to mean either or both - those on the dole or disability.
Again, If I am mistaken, forgive me, I apologise.
You must though surely see how I, Laura, and Ian would feel this way? Only you know what you meant, on which note I think you would need to elucidate.
Well it would be helpful in terms of discussion. If you do not wish to of course then that's for you (but then it makes it harder to be surprised, when people misunderstand you).
I still don't think the insistence on people answering the question works;
The who should pay the 5 ducats I mean...
at the very least there clearly must be too much ambiguity, too much room to interpret this in an entirely differing way, as myself, Laura and Ian all disagreed with you or at least the parable, interpreting the issue in a relatively similar way. To each other.
Any which way John, the discussion has been interesting. Free speech is a must, and that includes responses as well as original articles and poems.
Best of Chris
Chris, Wow! Everyone seems to have strong opinions on something I've not said.
As I said in a much earlier response, I've read in many discussions on WOL the view that once a piece is printed ownership transfers to the reader.
If that is the case I'm happy for everyone to have their view. Wheelbarrows and chickens.
Perhaps you could help, though. Who should pay the missing 5 ducats?
The problem is the problem your question raises John ;)
If your scenario is literal and not a parable then our answer is simple - the son.
But we both know that you wish this to be a parable.
The problem lies herein. Your scenario or parable does not correlate with the situation that you would like it to correlate with. I thought that would appear clear enough following my prior post?
You're clearly connecting this with jobseekers and disabled claimants, that is your attempted parable, but it doesn't work. It fails for the reasons I have stated.
I have given you an answer to your literal story.
No logical answer can be reached in terms of using it as a parable, Not in the context you have alluded to, so unfortunately I cannot furnish you with one - an answer that is.
The answer that you are trying to lead people into is obvious, that like the literal, if used as a parable, the son is at fault. I utterly reject that as an illogical outcome/response.
The scenario that which is literal does not correlate with that of the claimed parable.
If you doubt this, I can if you like concoct a whole string of inappropriate parables that do example this. I can offer a whole string of stories where in the literal sense we have an obvious answer that can then not be used as a wider parallel that I can suggest.
P.S
And there's still nothing but nobility in the idea of a fair days work for a fair days pay. I do however worry John that somewhere along the line, in with the right ideas you've got a little lost.
Quote
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X
To add, may people would argue that redistributive taxation is handing money to ingrates. The same logic applies. If you think this is true then you're many things, but one of them is NOT a socialist.
If you do not think redistributive taxation is ingrates claiming money, then. I fail to see how used as a parable - your story fits into your thinking.
Surely you either - believe both the story as parable and think redistributive taxation is of the very same, or you do not accept your story as a parable and accept redistributive taxation.
In one sense, this should raise questions for you John, are you really a socialist? If you are, and you might well be, maybe you need to consider this logical inconsistency?
Opinions opinions hehe
Whoa, Chris! Plenty to chew on there.
Your thoughts are longer than my parable.
Perhaps you could help, though. Who should pay the missing 5 ducats? Do I have an entitlement to them? Am I entitled to be ungrateful?
I should add in the last comment I have got my ablative wrapped around my nominative. It should have been "Multum in Parvo".
Seems to me the issue is one of context.
If this really is one person to another, a literal father and son or like relationship, then, unless we create some justifying backstory - of course the son is an ingrate! But then this wouldn't be a parable would it...
However...
If as a parable this is meant to relate to the current hot political potato of benefits and the welfare system, I would think the parable falls down and fails on a number of levels, for if that was the case;
a) the system is one of insurance, not handouts. Everyone pays in when they work, so that when hard times come knocking they can receive in the absence of work. If there was no possibility of this - why would anyone pay in, in the first place?
In other words the son would have paid the father for a long time and then, in effect would have been due his 10 ducats a day. To not pay them the father would be a thief!
b) I think the British system has been built in a certain way with a view to equity and the wish to try and create an equitable society. We all, democratically decided a long time ago that those people more unfortunate than ourselves should be afforded a life and not left to the wolves. People who are disabled that cannot work would go to the wall, or the wolves, whichever term you wish, if it wasn't for a system that we have that doesn't allow for this. The system does indeed entitle, just as the NHS entitles us all to free health care at the point of use. Society pays a monetary price for high ideals. If we didn't pay this price, we would lose our humanity and the value of that is greater!
In this case the money given to the son would not be the fathers, rather it would have been handed to the father by the village to care for his son and the son would indeed be entitled to the money. The village would gain much from this.
If anyone doubts the societal gains from a) and b), then I would invite them to compare the respective societies or villages of the USA and Britain. One has ghettoisation of the poor, and a much higher level of violent crime - most of which stems from a much, much more significant drugs and gang culture. That drugs and gang culture are intertwined and represent crude replacements of salary/funds and insurance/family.
Worth noting John;
A fair days work for a fair days pay is noble. However, what if there is no work John, or what if the person cannot work?
Key questions, don't you think?
P.S
Looking to the basic premise/analogy of a father and son; In this case, I don't think it matters where the father got the his money from, that is a legal issue only, not a moral one. So in that situation the son would not be entitled to it, no matter what the moral situation. If we argued otherwise the entire political system would fall apart and their would be blood in the streets.
On another front this little piece and the response it's generated reminds me of the phrase "Multo in Parvo" - the motto for Rutland.
Interesting dimension, Dave. Who should be the arbiter of whether the father obtained his money fairly?
Of course, my piece doesn't say how he got it. Perhaps he stole it, perhaps it was his life's hard-earned savings, perhaps it was small change to him, perhaps it was every ducat he had. I haven't said.
A very provocative piece John. I'd like to know where the father got his apparently abundant ducats from. If the response is that that doesn't matter, I'd say it matters a lot. There's far too many people in the modern world who got their wealth NOT by a fair day's work for a fair day's pay but by predatory raids on markets, at the expense of ordinary people, with the profits tucked away in tax havens.
If the father got his pile that way, then he himself is an ingrate and worse. But if he worked for it and gave good value, good luck to him. Obviously, he can do what he likes with it. Dylan wrote a song in favour of generosity - 'Do Unto Others' but it has the line "Don't wanna be used by nobody for a doormat". There's a balance to be struck.
I'm really quite flattered by this little piece. I've never had so much fanmail.
And you are quite right Laura, I used to dribble in my infancy and I dribble now in my dotage.
Suspect what you fancy dear john, and make of it what you will. I'm not sure exactly why we're discussing who to give 5 ducats to, when my original questions asked nowt of the sort. Swerve and twist - you must be a good dribbler!
Hello Laura, there you are. If you look 3 or 4 postings back you'll see I explained who it was aimed it. I suspect you're rather wanting me to give an answer you don't like. That is quite odd, isn't it?
The answer to the question about who should pay the missing 5 quid does seem a bit of a poser though, doesn't it?
MC favours I find the 5 quid myself and that is indeed one solution I can live with. How about you?
My own "reading" is that we should be grateful
for what we receive from others - and if that
changes and makes us discontented, it is open
to us to help ourselves achieve our expectations.
But that's how I understand this...not that I
expect others to agree with my interpretation.
Who should pay them? In the poem they are being given. There is a distinction. Anyway, as I said, it's up to you if you want to swerve it.
"Shitty little ingrate!" is a phrase I've barked at my kids on more than one occasion, Izzy.
Which is why I've never given my kids pocket money LOL!
They aren't at all materialistic so rarely ask for anything and I chuck them the odd fiver now and again if they help me out with a job...
They all know the value of money though - and neither of my older kids has ever gone overdrawn or borrowed what they can't pay back.
Those are values I can appreciate.
I really don't mind explaining what I had in mind when I wrote it, MC. It's aimed at shitty little ingrates everywhere; anyone who gets something for nothing and is ungrateful - young, old, man, woman, gay, straight, rich, poor. That's what I put into it. You take out of it what you want, laura.
So who should pay the 5 ducats?
I don't take the view that a poet's task is to
explain his/her poem. It is for its audience
to "take" from it what they will - or not, as the
case may be.
I can think of numerous examples on WOL which
enter this category -and assume that others find
something in the content, even if I don't.
Or we could just make it even simpler, if it's making your head spin, and say who it's aimed at.
Good to know my grandad amd me have a right to our views, Ian.
Laura this is all making my head spin. Let's take a more simplistic approach and go back to my parable:
Who should make good the missing 5 ducats?
Do I have an entitlement to 10 ducats?
Am I justified or ungrateful.
don't be so sensitive you old bard - it's just a different point of view - right and wrong is in folks mind - morally right and wrong is another matter ;-)
Shoot him? A little over the top no? And certainly nothing I would suggest, not being a Stalinist and all.
You told me that it IS aimed at someone/something, so fair enough for me to follow that up and ask who it might be.
S'up to you if you want to swerve it, if you don't want to say who you're having a go at.
Might help whoever it is to learn from your parable though eh, if they knew it was aimed at them?
Anyway, that's what me and my grandad think. (I assume he is allowed his view)
Laura, Ian - Perhaps you are both right. Perhaps the father should be taken out and shot for his inhumanity.
With regard to what it means and who it's about, as I've read in Discussions on WOL many times, once a poem is published its ownership is no longer the poet's; it is the reader's.
By that token, of course, you will indeed be right.
on Monday - my father took away my spade
on Tuesday - he tied my hand behind my back
on Wednesday - he crushed the bricks of my home
on Thursday - I said "father, why do you treat me so badly"
my father said "it amuses me to see you grovelling in the dirt for scraps"
we can all play that game john
To clarify, I meant negatively, at someone. 'Having a go', or a 'dig'. That's what I meant.
Parables are meant to illustrate, or teach. So a bit different than what I meant. So who is it aimed at then? People who don't do a day's work for pay? People who do a job, say, on Workfare, and only get dole? Or - sorry - Job Seekers Allowance? People who are on benefits, either working or not, who are then stripped of them, or sanctioned, or...?
I dunno - you tell me.
Of course it's aimed, Laura. It wouldn't be a parable if it wasn't aimed. My grandad's concept of socialism (and mine) is rather simplistic. A fair day's work for a fair day's pay.
Not at all sure who this is aimed at, but it is aimed, for sure.
What was your grandad's concept of socialism John, and indeed yours, out of interest?
Replaced by entitlement, Harry. Not at all my grandad's concept of socialism - nor indeed mine.
John,
Very true (Ah, gratitude! wherever did it go?)
If you wish to post a comment you must login.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
John Coopey
Fri 7th Feb 2014 21:54
I had to laugh, Harry. I mean - I really did have to laugh. Good on yer.