ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Maybe because they calculate that this is a way of retaining the votes they got in the red wall constituencies as they think everybody Oop North is a football fan.
Or maybe it’s because the super league reflects monopoly capitalism while the other clubs reflect competitive capitalism.
Actually I can’t see anything wrong in principle with a league without relegation. That was the situation with rugby in South Wales before it went or was preparing to go professional. The top 16 clubs played against other clubs as well as against each other. There wasn’t really a league table with points. They were just obliged to play each other twice, once at home and once away. All games were friendlies and all that counted was whether a club won or lost that particular game.
It is the league system with points and promotion and relegation that is part of the problem as in the end it’s a question of more money if you get promoted and less if you get relegated. It’s a reflection of competition between businesses in the market place where there are also winners and losers. In fact it is a competition for money between businesses for that’s what football clubs are.
Of course the proposed super league is also about money, a means of stabilising the income stream of the clubs involved by eliminating the risk of it being reduced through being relegated to a less money-making league. But that wasn’t the case with pre-professional rugby in South Wales.
Since then rugby has, sadly but I suppose inevitably given capitalism, gone the way of soccer
That fans don’t count for much and can be dispensed with was demonstrated by matches continuing during the pandemic without the crowd. The businesses that are football clubs continued playing for the income they got from television and advertising.
Professional sport is completely corrupted by money but what do you expect under capitalism?
Interesting that the recall procedure seems to be alive and kicking in some parts of the US, though this one seems to be harassment.
I can’t see how she (or us) can object to the principle and, if she has the support of those who elected her, she should be able to get them to vote down the recall. If not, that would mean she had lost their confidence and was no longer representative of their views.
The same thing could happen in socialism, where the right of recall is likely to be a feature of the democratic electoral system, if a delegate loses the confidence of a certain number of those who delegated them.
Revealing item in today’s Times about AstraZeneca’s supposed philanthropy in selling its vaccine at cost price;
The vaccine is being sold on a non-profit basis during the pandemic but the business is entitled to royalty and milestone payments, which could become lucrative if the virus remains active in the population over the long term.
Which no doubt is what they are banking on.
Meanwhile the compensation culture lawyers are circling, as another page reports “Bereaved may sue over jab”:
At least four of the families of people who have died after having the Covid-19 vaccine are taking advice in potential legal claims.
Lovely system capitalism, isn’t it?
There is an interview in the current New Scientist with Mark Carney, ex Governor of the Bank of England and of the Bank of Canada, headed “Rethink capitalism to solve the climate crisis.”
His proposal is for governments to make investing in CO2-causing businesses unprofitable through taxes and other restrictions so that capital will flow out of them and, he hopes, into profitable climate-friendly businesses.
I suppose this would have some effect, but “solve” the climate crisis, I doubt it.
Someone tell him to consult an encyclopaedia.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivocal%20generation
https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-difference-between-spontaneous-generation-and-biogenesis
Writing before Darwin and Pasteur, Marx was of course wrong but at the time (1844) it seemed the only materialist explanation.
“The creation of the earth has received a mighty blow from geognosy – i.e., from the science which presents the formation of the earth, the development of the earth, as a process, as a self-generation. Generatio aequivoca is the only practical refutation of the theory of creation.” (K. Marx, 1844).
Laurence Fox is standing for Mayor of London. So is Piers Corbyn. So there’s s at least one ex-Trotskyist candidate though he was in the IMG rather than the Militant Tendency which later spawned SPEW.
Good stuff Robbo. It’s the same argument that Marx used against the creationist in that quote our feathered friend is always bringing up. But that’s not surprising as our feathered friend is a creationist. He too thinks the world has been created, only he calls the creator “Social Mind” rather than “God”.
After trumpeting it as a “world beating” British achievement and accusing European governments of “vaccine nationalism” for raising questions about the AstraZenenica vaccine, now they have been forced to tell us and reveal the numbers of deaths associated with it. I bet that Oxford University regret teaming up with a dodgy pharma company to rush out a cheapo vaccine.
Competition has once again shown that it leads to cutting corners and fiddling results.
Sorry Robbo, but it looks as if you are going to have to spell out again for our feathered friend that, even though an individual outside of society couldn’t be said to have a mind, as only individuals have brains only individuals (not human society) are capable of having minds.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I can’t conceive of a what “a social mind”, as distinct from individual minds with ideas derived from society, would be.
Is our feathered friend saying that all living humans together constitute a biological organism with a brain and an ability to think and act as one? And that it is this entity that has created, sustains and can change reality as the external world experienced by individual humans?
