Blood sports?
- This topic has 39 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:From friends' accounts the dirtiest players were either police or prison officers teams.Quote:I would prefer an evening in the local with a few pints, some rum chasers a couple of meat pies and a game of darts. Each to their own
In general, food production will be a social decision, not personal choice.Your beer will be from a local micro brewery, your rum locally made moonshine and your meat pies will be from some sort of slaughtered animal reared locally on a small-scale rather than produced on some industrialised livestock farm and then processed in a meat-processing factory. Of course, we are as socialists judgmental, Tim. It is an attribute we acquire as socialists, it comes with the territory…to look at society and be critical of it and propose improvements to it. Okay in capitalism that for you is acceptable but now you question its validity within socialist society, that people will not continue to be critical of our cultures and will not continue to advocate for it to adapt and evolve for the better. Here in Thailand there is a version of keepy-uppy. Acrobatic skills with a ball that you rarely see in football these days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepak_takraw
Quite funny that you say that production will be a social decision not a personal choice and then list what appears to be your personal choice for micro brewery ale, hooch and artisan pies. I hadn't realised that you had been tasked with writing the blueprint for Socialism, I must have missed that conference report. As I said earlier it is interesting how those who demand that we should be free to go back to small scale artisan production don't seem to be able to conceive that in a socialist society with DEMOCRATIC PRODUCTION it is conceivable that the majority may prefer mass produced food stuffs and keg fizz!In terms of being judgmental, I think you confuse making judgments and having an analytical approach to being judge mental in the sense of having an opinion on the behaviour and choices of others that are not in accordance with your own. As an example, and this may appall you, I would much rather see a hard crunching but fair, Dave Mackay style tackle than a game of keepie up.
Yes, i purposefully laid out how certain social decisions can be by-passed so that actions of some will have minimum impact on others, following your own earlier prescription.If you think the present production system is going to be sustainable in socialism then i fear you are not following the current environment debate or health discussions. It certainly won't be a rationally organised socialism if nothing changes fundamentally.My scenario is i believe exactly the democratic practice socialism will bring to society…local and community rather than a transnational determining the flavour of some gassy refrigerated lager…or multinational fast food chain choosing our diet… or some tv channel ignoring particular sports due to lack of audience because the sponsors don't receive advertising. Actually once again being a relative newcomer to the forum you would have missed the many threads where i have suggested that the party is amiss in not having a clearer projection of what socialism will be like and that we should not be reluctant to produce a blueprint. I have not been inconsistent on this thread on the matter. And i do seek to change conference decisions to permit more literature on the subject of future society. We have to ignite imaginations. You do me an injustice. A couple of times i have said this topic is purely speculative, similar to a pub discussion. No-one can be right or wrong in it. If i have opinions then should i keep them to myself? Have i denied any other the liberty to express their own opinions. Or accused them of not being qualified to suggest them? No, but i have questioned them and i have done so quite reasonably, imho, and politely. That is what comradely debate is all about. I raised a few important questions to take the thread forward.
Quote:And who will decide if it is too much except by public expressions of approval or disapproval and again the problem we face, how public opinion going to be determined. What will be the mechanisms for deciding and the organs for enforcement? When does freedom stop being a free-for-all?As for football styles, so speaks the old fashioned "stopper" centre-half in what was the 2-3-5 i grew up with. Wouldn't we all like a return to the dribbling wizard forwards, the 5 feet-nothing outside rights and lefts etc. etc.. But today football demands athletes. I once saw George Best at 3am on a Saturday morning very much worse of wear, later at 3pm he was on the field for Hibs running circles around the opposition…but nothing like for the full 90 minutes…he wasn't simply fit enough because of his drinking…he came on as a substitute and then was substituted… The history of football is fascinating…Its origins in local businesses using it as a diversion for their employees and using the adulation those clubs received as their own ego-trips as owners and directors. Not much has changed in essence except that they have been astoundingly successful in achieving what they set off to do.It has always been galling to me that on a Saturday,as i went to attend a protest, i would pass ten-fold more folk on their way to the local stadium…All the emotion that should be focused on solving the problem of the world was satisfied by seeing their club climb a few positions in the league…Nor shall i mention the rise of nationalism as "my" country play another country. See my personal blog again on Scotland's Game of Shamehttp://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2007/05/blood-upon-grass.htmlIn my time, i met people with an encyclopedic knowledge of football results and players but who would turn to me, and say, with pride "i'm not clever enough or interested enough to be bothered with politics" and then they pay now astronomical amounts for season tickets and to follow their side abroad. Something is wrong with their priorities and multi-millionaires are rubbing their hands with glee. As i said being judgmental does come with the territory when we have more pressing goals than running around a field kicking a ball to score a goal. But am i saying that sport and leisure and recreation and culture and pastimes and the arts and hobbies are unimportant – no…the rich tapestry of life and politically we should be centred on participating…Recall the political ramblers demanding the freedom of the dales and heaths, the Clarion bike clubs, the gardening allotment campaigns … all the self improvement clubs and societies…I am thoroughly uplifted everytime i see a football crowd raise a banner – and they should realise just how much they will be effected considering the mulit-ethnicity of teams these days if migrants are stopped – saying "refugees are welcome here". Or as the Green Brigade did to the Celtic club director John Reid, warmonger Labour minister – "you are not welcome here."
Oh, Tim, I almost forgot, at one time, Edinburgh Br had enough members and sympathisers to raise their own football team for a local Sunday league.They called themselves "Capital", a pun on Edinburgh being the capital city and, of course, Marx's 'Capital', very appropriate for a branch of the Socialist Party football side. I had resigned at the time but me and some mates had a take-on game with them…we were up i think 6-0 by half-time…then we had a few joints, coughed up our lungs, wished we had some water to compensate for our hang-overs due to the previous night binge and in the second half we got beat 12-6 (15-6? 20-6? ), i forget now…
Re my message #10 Anastasia Yankova "Kickboxing is a gentlemen's duel. When the opponent falls, the referee stops the fight. In the MMA when the opponent falls, your task is to ensure they don’t get up until you win." …in plain language…you keep on hitting a helpless opponent
"But John Oswald, why is female boxing becoming more popular?"The female fascination with the sport that, in some cases, goes beyond spectating. And female boxing is as old as male boxing, that`s true. And it fascinates males too, to watch women! "Might not be relevant but a consensual sado-masochistic sex ring used this as a defence but they were still convicted. It has gone through the appeals up to European human rights court and voluntarily permitting someone to harm you was found to be illegal. "Are we talking here about socialism having law courts, etc., like capitalism, with someone (?) making laws? Granted, those who commit violence will have to be restrained, although how this will work will be up to people in socialism. I fail to see how, in all justness, prohibitions can be applied in the case of mutually consenting activities. For instance, we would have to stop trophy hunting, because the lion doesn`t give consent. But boxing is mutually consenting and doesn`t exist otherwise. (At the moment it is true that economic factors – i.e. poverty – forces destitute males to box and also leads to capitalism`s professional sporting championships, where the participants are desperate to win and risk their lives doing so – but all that will be gone in socialism. There would only remain voluntary sport, in which risks are explained and understood. Even now, the vast majority of boxers don`t do it out of poverty, but out of passion. Millions join boxing gyms and pay to box, receiving no monetary reward for it!)
I`m in fact amazed how a voluntary activity such as boxing can engender such frenzied debate by socialists, who are little, or not at all concerned about cruelty to other animal species!
alanjjohnstone wrote:Re my message #10 Anastasia Yankova "Kickboxing is a gentlemen's duel. When the opponent falls, the referee stops the fight. In the MMA when the opponent falls, your task is to ensure they don’t get up until you win." …in plain language…you keep on hitting a helpless opponentInteresting to note that this format in boxing was the introduction of the Marquess of Queensberry. Previously, in bare-knuckle boxing, the boxer dropped whenever he wanted and the round would end at that point: be it one minute`s fighting or an hour! There was no being obliged to get up or forfeit. If you wanted to rest, you simply sat down. This was but one of the ways in which bare-knuckle boxing was safer than modern gloved boxing. (See Shaw).
"Can anyone tell me the name of a prominent fighter who was already wealthy when entering the sport? "Yes. Lord Byron!You`re thinking in terms of sport as it is today. Fun is not allowed. But I`ve had fun in boxing and, like many others, I`m a bookworm, not an athlete.Capitalism`s sport ethos laughs at the likes of me who do things for fun. It says you have to be an athlete to do things, and have to be doing it to win something.In socialism, sport – including combat sports – would only be for fun!
Quote:Even now, the vast majority of boxers don`t do it out of poverty, but out of passion. Millions join boxing gyms and pay to box, receiving no monetary reward for it!)No, i think they box to get out of poverty and easy enough to determine…where are the locations of the boxing gyms…in the slums and the ghettoes. Of course there is another name for boxing – prizefighting. A proficient amateur boxer invariably aspire to the professional game and for the riches it affords.Boxing and poverty may not be synonymous but i still hazard to say the link is strong. It remains the quickest way out of poverty for many young fit men (and increasingly) womenSo to my question about a prominent boxer who was wealthy when entering the sport and you offer Lord Byron – i rest my case.First recorded organised boxing match – between some aristocrat's butler and butcher – that says it allBefore Queensberry there were the Broughton rules where as you say, you can drop to your knees at any time for a rest and respite. but this according to Wiki was "unmanly" and already new rules were introduced to stop it in advance of the introduction of Queensberry. Why are socialists focused on boxing? Perhaps, it is exemplifies capitalism…an individual doing harm to another for a reward, whether it is status but more often than not monetary, for the entertainment very often of the rich and powerful. Much like a mercenary soldier. And should we forget the racial undertones and Jack London's introduction of the phrase, "the great white hope"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.