World Cup
- This topic has 136 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 2 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Rodshaw, Funnily enough, I had the same experience of not being asked about my view of football during my application to join the party in 1982. Perhaps this crucial question about socialist consciousness was inadvertently overlooked in that period of time.
I also enjoyed the article.
I do think that there is an awful lot of emphasis on the 92 league clubs and especially on the Premier League, when discussions take place about football and its impact on the general public. Although the Premier League has a big impact with an average of around 800,000 people attending Premier League matches per week, there are still over 300,000 people attend the non league teams that operate within the top 5 levels of the non league pyramid, with even more attending games below that level.
Attendances in non league football are growing year on year and it seems to be that a significant number of spectators are choosing to leave the glitz and glamour of the elite game and enjoy football in a way which has probably more connections to their own lived experience.
BD – Why do you keep mentioning the Nazis? Was fascist violence a big thing in this country in the ’30s? If your talking about Germany it has no relationship with English cultural history and so is irrelevant to our debate (although,as I’ve said, I don’t know the extent of Mosley’s gangs instigating street violence). It is said that as soon as the Nazis are mentioned that those who reference them know they’re losing the debate. I’ve never heard of hoards of boxing fans rampaging through the streets at weekends – your being desperate and ridiculous comparing the two sports in this respect.
Was Fascist violence was a big thing in the 1930s? Are you genuinely asking that question? Surely you have a know about the amount of very serious right wing violence occurred in the 1930s.
And not just in the 1930s. The NF violence in the UK in the 1970s was incredible and in the 1980s our branch was regularly the scene of attempts to intimidate us by far right nutters.
If you don’t think that nazi inspired violence has any part of the modern UK, who the hell do you think has been attempting to burn down asylum seeker accommodation and trashing towns and cities across the country, the bloody Women’s Institute
https://youtu.be/_BlkTSKqE_8?is=hZ__Qo4cHC2iZSJ8 Love train – get on board combrades!!!
BD – I know a great deal about the rise of Nazism in Germany in the ’30s but not so much about Fascism in this country. I doubt that it was as intense and lasted so long as football violence did in this country (50 years give or take). You’re not going to like this but wasn’t right wing thuggery in the ’70s and ’80s connected with football culture? Actually you’re not really the correct person to answer this given your bias. And so it continues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFDJOH1kcA
Wez – “I doubt that it was as intense and lasted so long as football violence did in this country”
Genuine question, are you being serious?
The British union of Fascists were active across all cities across the UK from the mid 1920’s to the outbreak of the 2nd World War.
My Dad and his uncles were involved in the anti Fascist movement in the 30’s.
If you think this is comparable with a few hundred or even thousands of football hooligans running around Cambridge, closing a few pubs, you need to give your head a wobble.
If you are unaware of what went on in the late 1920’s and 1930’s you seriously need to do some reading.
This is an account of what was going on in the North East. This was a very small part of the fascist campaign.
My old fella (my dad) wasn’t a member of the SPGB but I am proud when he explained to me why he was there at many of the anti fascist protests in the 1930’s, especially at the famous Newcastle Town Moor event.
I knew a few of his old friends who ended up fighting in the Spanish Civil War. He and his marras chased the BUF off Newcastle’s Town Moor
This as an account of what happened in my part of the world. It was much worse in other parts of the UK
I’m honestly surprised that you are unaware of this.
If you think this is even slightly comparable to what you described as “football culture”, which we have established includes junior football, local leagues football, the hundreds of thousands who attend non-league football games, and the 16 million people who play, watch and volunteer as part of “football culture” I would really appreciate an explanation of why think this way.
“The fascist campaign reached a watershed in the early summer of 1934. An unsuccessful Blackshirt attack on an ILP May Day rally in Gateshead effectively decided their fate. The fascists were planning a major rally with Mosley at Newcastle’s Town Moor during Race Week and a series of meetings were arranged to promote the rally. In response to the May Day attack, on 13 May several thousand anti-fascists, led by the AFL in “plainclothes”, stopped a fascist meeting in Newcastle, followed them back to their Headquarters and laid siege to it – with broken glass and blood everywhere.
The next night the BUF meeting was in Gateshead. Thousands turned out to oppose it and it was forced to close down early, and only a large police presence prevented the thousands who followed them back over the Tyne from getting hold of the fascists. Once again the BUF HQ was put under heavy siege. On 1st June the Gateshead BUF office was wrecked (probably by the AFL), Beckett and Moran were moved out of Newcastle in disgrace, and with fierce opposition promised, Mosley’s Race Week Rally was cancelled.
Attempts were made by the BUF to move their operations to North Shields, but this failed after two rallies got turned over in the summer of 1934. The fascists were in disarray, unable to do what they wanted, and Newcastle BUF duly split in August ’34. They did reorganise in 1935, and Mosley spoke at Newcastle City Hall in May, but the opposition was so loud that he stormed out after only 15 minutes.
Other smaller meetings were tried but the tide had turned, in July 400 miners smashed a BUF meeting in Sunderland. In November Mosley had one more try with a rally in South Shields, next to the Arab “quarter”, hoping to start a race riot. Fascist stewards were bussed in from all over the country, but the anti-fascists mobilised thousands, and with fighting inside and outside the hall, and fascist buses bricked on their way out, the meeting wasn’t a success.
After 1935, BUF activity petered out in the North East, the fascists being mainly confined to London from then on. Undoubtedly, without the level of opposition they faced, the outcome would have been different.”
BD – All very fascinating but what has it got to do with football culture from the 1960s till today? Again you ignore the evidence that many of the right wing thugs of that time were the same people as the football hooligans. Do you deny the evidence presented in the video I linked you with? In a separate conversation do you think the Fascists in this country were close to achieving political power – I’ve always thought they were a ‘busted flush’ from the start (separate thread needed). Do you deny that football fans were and are a fertile hunting ground for right wing movements not only in this country but, it seems, worldwide? I think the explanation put forward by the psychologist in the video was spot on? Your thoughts?
I have never denied that the hooligan firms were fertile recruitment grounds for the Fascists, where did I ever say that????
What I am saying that for you to say that what you describe as “football culture” and “football hooliganism” are co-terminus and that one is the same as the other is a nonsense. All haddocks are fish, that does not mean that all fish are haddocks. All football gangs were football fans, but not all football fans were in football gangs. It’s really not that hard to understand?
Stereotyping ALL of what you call “football culture” and saying, using superlative adjectives, that this football culture is the sickest, most racist, etc. culture in the country, is also a nonsense. I have pointed out that there are other cultures in the country are sicker, more racist, more atavistic and more violent than football as a whole. This does not in any way excuse football violence but is an attempt to balance the negatives of “football culture” with the neutral and positive aspects of football. For example, over 2,000 people attended the St Johnstone v Greenock Morton match today at the start of the Scottish Football season. They went to the match, many drank beer, no doubt a few of them drank bovril and had cups of team. Some had crisps, some ate pies. It might be safely inferred that they enjoyed themselves (otherwise they wouldn’t keep coming back). There were no arrests, no fighting, no racism, etc. Some of them had a laugh and a joke with their friends. Is that the sickest, most racist, most atavistic and most violent thing that happened in the UK, or could it be that you have indulged yourself in embarrassing hyperbole?
In terms of why people became part of football gangs I think the reasons are often different for different people. Funnily enough I did a bit of work with one of the Premier League’s Charitable foundations and observed a lot of the anti gang work they were involved with. The football gangs and related violence has reduced massively to what it was in the peak year in the late 70s through to the 80s, but it still exists to a lesser extent and gang culture outside of football is still a big, big issue.
A lot of the kids I observed were looking for support and security, some sense of belonging, some sense of safety in numbers, some sense of shared identity. Some kids get involved with gangs because friends are involved and they want to be like them, some find status in being a gang member or even more status.
The “psychology” presented by the clip you have linked is actually not very psychological at all. It offers more description that analysis. It does not really provide any psychological underpinnings for the process of gang membership. Stating that it is part of “identity fusion” provides a little insight, but generally speaking all groups of people who come together in shared ways often go through the same process. The researcher stated that this was “explaining the pro group behaviour”. To me, that doesn’t really provide a need for such pro group behaviour in the first place.
As such it is quite simplistic. A more reasoned way of looking at this would be to examine why it was that groups of generally youngsters want to feel part of something, part of something important, share that sense of belonging and camaraderie. My own take on that is that any study of this phenomenon needs to take into account, alienation, attachment and resilience.
We live in a society that creates high levels of alienation, the worker is alienated from the product of his labour, but more than that social alienation occurs across all sections of our lives and the atomisation of our social existence, people are spending less in social activities due to work stresses, long hours, etc. The internet produces a kind of social interaction, which although it isn’t full and real contact provides a small degree of contact and which also can be carried out by people who are time poor.
Social Resilience is a term used to describe the ways in which we use social relationships to allow us to feel secure and be able to get through the stresses and strains of life. Sometimes described as bouncebackability. Studies on resilience identify factors that support resilience, that feeling of being safe.
Three broad factors have been associated with resilience:
Individual characteristics (including temperament, competence, self-efficacy and self-esteem)
Family support and
A supportive person or agency outside the family
(Brown & Rhodes, 1991; Compas, 1987; Garmezy, 1994; Matson, 2001; Werner & Smith, 1982).This relates easily to the model of attachment developed by people such as John Bowlby. Bowlby’s concept of inner working models explains the long-term impact of early attachment experiences (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980). These models are constructed from the infant’s experience of interaction, and Sroufe (1988) argues that “Such models concerning the availability of others and, in turn, the self as worthy or unworthy of care, provide a basic context for subsequent transactions with the environment, most particularly social relationships”
What that means is that whilst many of us grow up in a protective and loving environment where we develop strong feelings of being protected, nurtured and cared for, subsequently developing what has become known as Secure Attachments, others also developed variations of attachment, which have become known as Insecure Attachments.
Gangs, in many ways, replicate, in an often malign way, what Bowlby described as “The Secure Base”, that is to say, the warm loving and caring environment of the family provide the growing child with a model of being protected and safe. The gang provides a version of that secure base.
A common finding in research on young gang members is the attraction of the gang through promises of protection, care, identity, and belonging—attachment functions typically fulfilled by the family unit (Chalas & Grekul, 2017). Insecure or absent attachments with primary caregivers may lead to difficulty with affect and emotional regulation leading to problem behaviours. Weak attachment leads to lack of trust in members of the community and increases the likelihood of involvement in criminal activities and connection to those with similar insecure attachment (Bowlby, 1988; Parrigon et al., 2015). Additionally, gang members can become attachment figures though peer attachments are unable to provide the unconditional love necessary to be healthy attachment figures which then perpetuates attachment trauma (Neufeld & Maté, 2013). In short, gangs fulfil attachment needs and offer a space of belonging for those who otherwise feel excluded (Ainsworth, 1989; Bowlby, 1988; De Vito, 2020).
It’s time that Wes and BJ stopped arguing. I speak as moderator. Millions of workers across the world have enjoyed the World Cup. The World Cup unites but also fractures working class unity. I’ve appreciated the debate here. However, I can’t step away from the fact that football gives joy to millions and the SPGB gives us no hope or enjoyment, just despair.
BJ – Well it looks like the ‘moderator’ wants to terminate our debate so I’ll just sum up my position. I can thank BJ for introducing the political element into our discussion concerning football hooliganism. At his prompting I’ve done some research into the 1930s only to find that Mosley regarded football matches as recruiting grounds for his movement. Moreover I was unaware that Mussolini made football the totem of Fascism and invested and centralized the game which, as a result, won two world cups in the ’30s. It would seem that football and fascism have a long history going right back to the creation of the ideology. As for Paula’s assertion that: ‘the SPGB gives us no hope or enjoyment, just despair’ – I have to ask, if she feels that way, why is she a socialist? That she sees football as giving us ‘hope and enjoyment’ is testament to its role as distraction and TMs ‘bread and circuses.
Paula, After reading through the Forum’s guidance and rules, I cannot see how any of either Mine or Wez’s posting breach the guidelines in any way. I know the rules say that PMs should be used to raise issues about moderation, but the PM function was taken away during the rebuild of the forum. In my view as long as posters stay within the guidance, that is fine I think the message you sent over steps the parameters of the Moderator role.
I would also argue that:
a) The discussion itself has brought people back to make contributions to the forum. Which is a good thing.
b) A little bit of lively discussion goes along way from livening up the recent endless beige postings that have been on the forum recently.
c) if you or other posters are not enjoying the debate, they have an option of ignoring the topic and not end up reading the posts.Football a capital idea
From the June 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard
Football is now a commodity packaged and sold to make money for the clubs’ shareholders.
Football fans were given something meaty to chew on recently when the English Football Association appointed an Italian, Fabio Capello, as manager of the national team. Capello, in turn, brought with him a bevvy of besuited Italian colleagues to help him to ensure that England qualify for, and preferably do well in, the next major tournament, the 2010 World Cup.Most football fans, including large sections of the press, have been tearing their hair out in frustration because the England team hasn’t been doing too well recently in comparison with the top national sides. (Let’s leave aside the fact that England isn’t strictly speaking a nation and that the United Kingdom actually has four ‘national’ teams). The crunch came when the previous manager, Steve McClaren, failed to ‘lead’ England to the 2008 European Championship finals this coming summer. He was considered not to have enough charisma or technical know-how for the job. Capello was seen as the best qualified manager to take over. The only fly in the ointment was his nationality, but for the sake of getting the right man, this was overlooked and those who would have preferred an Englishman breathed a collective sigh of resignation. At least this foreigner, with his no-nonsense approach and impressive managerial CV, might knock a bunch of spoiled, overpaid players into shape and win something.
I agree with almost everything you have said Bijou. First and foremost, you are correct that neither you nor Wez have breached the moderation rules. Second, I agree that there’s been a lively and informative discussion – which is obviously a good thing. But I tend to disagree with your contention that anyone not enjoying the debate can ignore it. As I see it, this is a uniquely valuable forum and we should treasure it. But when arguments become circular/repetitive with no end in sight, I personally get bored and frustrated. We all want the forum to be interesting and engaging. I’ve felt personally engaged in this particular discussion because I started it, but it got to a point where everything that needed to be said was said. I apologise to you and Wez. I had no right to tell you to stop arguing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.