Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It is interesting that in effect part of what the Trots had been arguing for years has come to pass.
Many Trotskyist groups argued, back in the day, that it was right to support the Labour Party and other leftist parties, despite knowing that their reforms will come to nothing, knowing fully well that they will not provide the milk and honey they promised as this would expose the uselessness of their reforms.
Once the shells had fallen from their eyes the Trotskyists will be able to whip on their ordinary labourist clothes and reveal their superhero costume and say to the workers, yes “but you can still have the milk and honey because we the political caped crusaders can lead you to that promised land.”
I even had one member of the Militant group “explain” to me that the “only way to deal with reformism was to support it.” he followed that on with the priceless “That, comrade is how the dialectic works! It’s the inter-penetration of the opposites”.
Sadly for these early Harry Potter wannabees, their magical spells didn’t quite work out. Some of the workers have grown tired of being promised the grassy uplands by leftist parties and being let down and have started to believe the spells chanted by wizards of the far right racist left.
Coming back to Robbo’s original post, I do think that the growth of the far right is rather over stated in some countries. I think what has happened in some cases is that there has been a split between the general coalition within the right wing parties of what in the UK was known as one nation conservatives and what Cameron once described as “the swivel eyed loon” faction of the conservative/right wing. I think certainly in the UK, the views of parties such as reform were similar to views espoused in large groups within the conservative support, if not their leadership. In the UK since 1945 roughly 52-55% of voters have voted for what would generally be described as progressive parties (LAB, Lib, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid, etc.) and about 45-48% have voted for right wing parties, usually the conservatives. If you look at he UK polls the split is still about the same.
It is similar in other countries, the rise of Independent Ireland, a right wing party in the Republic of Ireland has been commensurate with a fall of the two traditional conservative parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. In France the same thing has more or less happened. You cannot really argue that the Gaulists did not have their share of right wing populists within their ranks. It seems that on the right the swivel eyed loon faction has become the dominant faction within the right across areas of Europe.
Robbo asks how do we reason with the irrational? I think that there is an assumption that rationality and irrationality are two different states of mind, however I would argue that at times we are all rational and at times we are irrational. We all have irrational thoughts, from lucky numbers to thinking everything in our lives has gone wrong, to believing in little green men. Most people with irrational thoughts have some degree of rationality that you can touch base with and build rationality into it. I know someone who was really into the whole QAnon crap, but talking with her calmly and gently putting forward factual explanations, counter arguments, etc. etc over several years has led to her being far ore rational in her political arguments, whilst I cannot say she is now about to join the party, she will accept at least some of our views and thoughts. Changing minds is a slow process , but we cannot afford to write off a section of the working class as unreachable.
Apologies, TM if my language was a little agricultural, you were being patronising, but my response was inappropriate
“Please read the thread before commenting. Thank you.”
You wrote “most academics”, not most academics in a particular field,
Please write carefully before posting, you patronising twat
TM, I assumed that you meant all academics in terms of all those involved in any academic work, rather than those who are involved in what has sometimes been described as “paleo Christianity”, bible history studies, etc.
In terms of the wider group of people I was thinking of, I would think the vast majority of academics, physicists, chemists, engineers, geographers, artists, etc. could give a flying feck.
Christianity is dying on its arse, regardless of the propagandists of religion say, whilst trying to use dodgy statistics to claim otherwise.
The fact that there are a higher proportion of fundamentalist involved in many Christian groups is not because that viewpoint is growing, it’s because they are they becoming more and more the only ones left.
Despite the propaganda the same process seems to be seen in UK Muslim communities. I work with young people in a city that has a big Muslim population. I see more and more young people choosing to marry non Muslims, dressing less conservatively and when in conversation they often say they attend mosque to keep their parents happy.
I found a survey somewhere which was carried out confidentially and about 23% of “Muslim” respondents stated they were either agnostic or atheist
TM“And the majority of academics in universities still hold that there was an historical Jesus”
Would be interested in reading the research that supports this statement
Binface manifesto announced, his proposal regarding cosy crime novels might well gain traction
https://countbinface.com/“And then, after him, the recommencement of Project Ukraine.”
My view is we are at the cusp of the end of the American Empire, to be eclipsed by either Chinese or possibly India hegemony. Can’t see any current US president getting too involved with the Ukraine, they have their own pot to piss in.
The Gulf of Hormuz situation has a smell of Suez to me. France, Britain and Israel took on an imperial venture and were humiliated because the US didn’t follow suit.
Don’t see Trump as playing the role of the debonair Anthony Eden maybe he’s more Guy Mollet.
“Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.“
From the wiki page
FC St. Pauli is considered one of the most left-wing football clubs in the world, with a long-standing commitment to anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, and LGBTQ+ rights. The club’s culture is closely linked to the St. Pauli district of Hamburg, an area historically associated with alternative lifestyles and the red-light district, the Reeperbahn. Its distinct political identity began to develop in the mid-1980s, when local residents, squatters, and left-wing activists rallied behind the team in response to a growing far-right presence among rival Hamburger SV supporters, establishing St. Pauli as a refuge for fans opposed to right-wing extremism in German football. The club operates under a democratic, member-driven structure, and its fans actively engage in political and social causes, including support for refugees, marginalised groups, and local community initiatives.
The skull and crossbones, or Jolly Roger, was adopted in the late 1980s after a local punk singer, Doc Mabuse, displayed the flag at a match. Originally a symbol of the club’s underdog status, it became associated with St. Pauli’s anti-establishment values. By the end of the 1980s, attendances at Millerntor Stadium increased significantly, aided by the club’s promotion from the third division to the Bundesliga in 1988.
St. Pauli emphasises inclusivity and social responsibility, and these principles are central to both its operations and its fan culture. Fans frequently display banners opposing fascism, racism, homophobia, and sexism, while the club operates under a democratic, membership-driven structure that allows supporters to vote on major decisions. In 1989, St. Pauli fans staged a boycott that successfully blocked plans to integrate the stadium into a sports dome featuring a hotel and shopping centre, reinforcing the club’s commitment to prioritising social and political values over financial gain. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, St. Pauli formalised its political commitments; on 28 October 1991, at the football club’s annual general meeting, the decision was made to ban neo-Nazis from the stadium and to make anti-fascism club policy. The club also promotes multicultural engagement and grassroots activism, supporting refugees, marginalised youth, and local squatter communities. It has hosted initiatives such as the FIFI Wild Cup, an alternative to the 2006 World Cup for nations not recognised by FIFA, and during the European refugee crisis of the mid-2010s, the club allowed refugees to stay overnight at the Millerntor Stadium and supported fundraising efforts for organisations assisting migrants in the Mediterranean. St. Pauli has also acted in response to fan protests over sexism. In 2002, advertisements for the men’s magazine Maxim were removed from the Millerntor-Stadion due to their depictions of women. In 2011, the club banned lap dancers from performing for guests in a corporate suite belonging to a local lap dance club, following complaints from supporters. These actions, along with the club’s broader social and political initiatives, have contributed to the establishment of over 400 official supporter clubs worldwide.
” Bijou Drains, football is more than ‘a bit of distraction for many people.”.
Howard, I would say that it is more than a distraction for some people, rather than many people.
There are lots of people who have “obsessional” involvement with certain things, but manage to have other things in their lives, including politics. My brother is absolutely obsessed with the rock band “The Who”, he has recordings and books galore, he has posters and books everywhere. He is also a talented musician has a collection of guitars, is a guitar geek and plays in a band and has a season ticket at St James’ Park. Despite these “more than distractions” he manages to be the secretary of his local Labour Party, heavily involved with the retired members branch of his union and be an active trustee for a credit union.
As well as being an active Socialist, I am also a keen bridge player, attend ballroom dancing sessions regularly, make my own sausages, black puddings, white puddings and cure bacon (sorry to upset the vegans, but I do have a fantastic recipe for vegan haggis if any one wants it), am a keen cook and am starting to brew my own beer. This is along side being a keen follow of both the soccer variety of football and Gaelic football (please, please, please can Mayo finally win the All Ireland on Sunday)
You see it is possible to watch and play football and do other things and I am not alone in this. At one time I played football in an 11 a side team that contained 4 party members and 2 sympathisers. This involved training once a week a playing one at the weekend. This was all undertaken whilst all being at that time very active socialists.
I know fellow socialists who have lots of other hobbies and distractions. In my time in the party I have come across many members who are keen and very talented musicians, members who love crosswords, members who are keen card players, a collector of antique books, at least one who was an extremely talented table tennis player, a member who dances Argentinian Tango properly (which is bloody hard), a model railway fan and TM said his father had a passion for Rugby.
There is an element of tribalism attached to some parts of football support, that is undeniable, but even at last week’s World Cup final you could see lots of areas of the stadium where Spanish and Argentinian fans were mixed together. If you go to most football grounds in England on before and after matches, you will likely see fans from both sides mingling together and drinking in the same pubs. There are notable exceptions, such as Derby matches, etc. But as a general rule this is now the case across England.
Thank you, Paula, no need to apologise. As Wez made his final points, I will make, hopefully, post my final thoughts and leave the posting to other areas of discussion.
A few points:Wez – “Mussolini made football the totem of Fascism and invested and centralized the game which, as a result, won two world cups in the ’30s.”
Whilst I know that Mussolini put investment into Italian football, to say that as a result of this Italy won the World Cup is a massive simplification and as usual Wez has used a sophism to prove a point. That Mussolini put in investment is true, that Italy won two world cups is also true, however to say that one was as a result of the other, that there was a direct cause and effect between the two is far from the full story. Other very much more important factors in the Italian victories, in my opinion, were:
All of the 4 of “Home Nations” refused to take part, because they felt that “The Home Internationals” series were far more prestigious and important. Whilst this might seem a bit jingoistic, the attendances at the home internationals were far higher than the The World Cup by a significant margin. For example the Scotland/England match of 1931 drew an attendance of 136,259 whilst the World cup final of 1934 attracted 50,000 and the 1938 Final attracted a mere 45,000. Taking into account that the Home Internationals were annual events and the World cup took place every 4 years, the Home Nations maybe had a point. The absence of what were at that time four of the best teams in the world at that time, may well have been more important than Mussolini’s patronage. (for Perspective, and I’m sure Paula may actually like that I made this point, Scotland were unbeaten against none British Island teams from May 1931, until May 1947).
Another factor that, in my opinion, which was far more important than Mussolini’s patronage was the long standing tradition of the Italian football International teams to include non Italian players in their teams 7 South Americans were included in the 1934 WC squads and 4 South American or other Europeans in 1938
Probably even more importantly than the points made so far and the impact of Mussolini’s patronage for the Italian victories were the withdrawals of practically all South American nations for both of the tournaments. Only Argentina and Brazil attended the 1934 tournament (the holders Uruguay, Peru and Chile all refused to be part of that tournament) and only Brazil attended the 1938 tournament, this was due to a huge fall out between European football and S American football, the S Americans thought that the tournament should alternate between Europe and S America.
Therefore to say there was a simple cause and effect is, as so often with Wez’s comments, a massive simplification.
If it is possible to condemn Football as the “sickest, most racist, most atavistic and most violent, culture” on the basis of strong support from Mussolini, then surely the same should be said about Rugby. Mussolini rebranded rugby union as palla ovale (“oval ball”), deciding it was an evolution of the Roman game harpastum. The game was used as a vehicle for Fascist unity, and by 1927 rugby union had its own propaganda committee. However, Mussolini also turned to volata, a kind of handball. Volata never caught on and in 1933 the effort was officially abandoned. After the decline of the volata project, his supporters turned back to rugby in the years leading up to the Second World War as an alternative to soccer, which they saw as an effete English influence.
Rugby Union was also heavily supported by the Semi fascistic Petain regime, which allowed the French RU to confiscate all of the assets of the French Rugby League, as Rugby League was seen as a Left Wing sport. To date no compensation has been paid to the French RL which is a cause of a bitter dispute between the two codes which continues to this day. Another authoritarian regime, the one under Ceaușescu in Romania, also did a lot to support and promote Rugby Union as part of his regime’s attempt to use sport as a political tool
Also if football has no place in our culture because of the fact that some fascists groups have attempted to use and manipulate the sport, then Theatre and film must also have no place. Under Benito Mussolini, theatre was co-opted as a crucial tool for state propaganda. The regime aggressively promoted nationalist values, militarism, and historical parallels between Fascist Italy and the Roman Empire. Mussolini even co-authored several historical dramas himself to popularise his ideology and elevate the “new fascist man”, whilst Hitler and Goebbels use of film and drama needs no further illustration.
Moving on to the old chestnut of bread and circuses. Juvenal originally used the term to describe the process by which emperors handed out grain and paid for or subsidised expensive circuses as an attempt to bribe the populous into acquiescence and to gain political power. Apart from pointing out that professional football is not in any meaningful way subsided and that I have yet to attend any football match where I have been given grain, or indeed any kind of food for free, a more apt comparison to 1st Century Rome is the subsidies given to “high art” Opera, Ballet, Theatre, etc. All of those cultural activities are heavily subsidised by the state often as a result of lobbying by more affluent sections of society as a means to buy support for the influence those sections bring. These are the real bread and circuses. Does Wez think Socialists should shun these areas of the art, refuse to accept the enjoyment those subsidies provide?
In conclusion, yes, football does provide a distraction from the grim reality of capitalism. So does a walk in the park, a trip to the pub, a cup of tea with an old friend, pampering a pet, watching subsidised theatre, a quick “roll in the hay” with a consenting adult, etc. Should we abstain from these activities as well? Wez says of football that “football as giving us ‘hope and enjoyment’ is testament to its role as distraction, What’s wrong with the occasional distraction, the odd bit of hope and enjoyment? Feck knows we need it.
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.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).
