rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
From the BBC website:
Leeds boss Marcelo Bielsa was also critical of the Super League proposal.
“It shouldn’t surprise us,” he told the BBC. “In all walks of life the powerful look after their own and don’t worry about the rest of us.
“The big teams are also created due to the opposition of the other teams. In the search for higher economic earnings they forget about the rest. The powerful are more rich and the weak are poorer. It doesn’t do good to football in general.”
Among other groups, the players of these clubs have been completely bypassed. Ok, some if not all of them are pretty rich in their own right but they have no option really but to follow the clubs if they want to stay in the big time.
But can someone tell me why the government has jumped right in and is showing so much interest? Is it just to gain a bit of popularity?
Maybe he needs telling that he doesn’t have to be an economist to see that capitalism needs to go. Indeed, economists are probably among the last people who’d say this.
In his wildlife programmes he talks of humans causing the problems, but on primetime viewing he probably wouldn’t get away with putting the finger on capitalism directly even if he thought so.
A similar fuss was made when the Premier League started. And when the European Cup became the Champions League. Cynicism, betrayal of grass roots etc. etc. Admittedly without (as far as I can remember) the government sticking their oar in. And without the prospect of a league where most clubs will never get relegated and will be able to play one another ad infinitum.
Let’s not forget UEFA have their own plans for lining their pockets further by bloating the Champions League. And of course the World Cup keeps getting bigger.
When the hoo-ha dies down fans of these big clubs will still shell out for replica shirts and tickets to watch their much-loved idols, most of whom move on after two or three years anyway. The cynicism on one side is matched by the naivete on the other. But isn’t that a reflection of life in general under capitalism?
I had my second jab today and one of the people on duty told me I might need a booster later in the year. As it’s unlikely this would be taken out of current stocks (the shelf life of the vaccines seems to be about 6 months), maybe a programme of manufacturing lucrative repeat jabs is already becoming reality.
All of which makes little old UK’s targets to be carbon neutral somewhat pointless, even if achievable.
Added to which the mentality of most eco types seems to be that we can all only do our bit by recycling, avoiding products with dodgy ingredients, and setting up yet another conservation group, leaving the bigger problems to the big boys.
Just idle musing, but if socialism had been established before the digital age happened, I wonder if it would ever have come about? After all it’s almost totally a response to the commercial demands of advanced capitalism. Though it would have come in useful for say large scale referendums.
“Do you assume that the masses can’t do physics?”
Well, I’m one of the masses and my physics is fairly rudimentary (‘O’ level standard, much of it forgotten now).
How about you, LBird? You’re one of the masses aren’t you? How much physics can you do? Are you self-taught, do you have a first class degree in it, or are you proposing to get one before the socialist revolution?
How much physics do we all need to know before we can start the revolution? How about chemistry, biology, quantum mechanics, musical theory and the rules of football? Do you have an estimate of how long it will all take?
Please tell.
Well, using a keyboard or keypad also requires manual (and mental) dexterity. When computers were new, learning to use one was quite a task for many, adults and children alike. Ditto using a mouse.
Skills come and go and many are specific to a particular age. Not being able to cut a quill (or even hold a pen if you never need to) doesn’t make you dumber.
I don’t know whether we’re a typical family but we help our grandkids with all sorts of activities, including painting and drawing, as do their parents and, I’m sure, many parents the world over. I teach them to play guitar and operate a model railway (not at the same time though). Come to think of it, I have some quills and parchment somewhere and may one day get round to showing them how to cut a quill and write Carolingian minuscules, and no doubt they will find it fascinating for an hour or so but then want to move on to something else.
But they also play Roblox or whatever on their tablets, and go on and on about dinosaurs or Lego Friends or whatever the latest marketing fad is. Just like I used to go on about Dinky toys and Meccano.
In a socialist society I’m sure there will be a blossoming of interest in all sorts of forgotten activities. Maybe even making ink from gall will get a revival and we’ll all dress up in Medieval clothing and write illuminated manuscripts. I could think of worse ways to spend the time, until you get cramp in your hand.
All cracking stuff. This argument has gone way past the full half hour. It’s just been gainsaying for some time now though.
The working class will, of course, collectively decide for itself when it is ready to establish democratic common ownership and will itself determine just how democratic democracy needs to be. But if that means waiting for everyone to gain the same profound knowledge of things scientific (not to mention artistic, musical, sporting etc.) we’ll be waiting a very long time indeed, probably until everyone is telepathic or (more likely) we are extinct.
This attitude suggests that a future socialist world would be based on fear and a total lack of trust of anyone for anyone else, leading to a need for everyone to know everything for fear of being hoodwinked.
If the SPGB are impossibilists, how to describe this view?
Language is constantly evolving. I really liked PJS’s Pathfinders article on that subject in this month’s SS.
Not even an arch conservative language professor would use the word “ye” in earnest nowadays when speaking standard English, or “thee” or “thou”. “You” is now used as subject, object, singular and plural. Good! I don’t see a problem if the word “you” does become “u” over time. Easier to write (especially if you’re not too good with a pen).
Some say that emoticons are a sign of dumbing down – they are not replacing the alphabet, they are a rich addition to it and express more in a concise way. Not that you have to like them.
Can’t hold a pen? How many people can cut and sharpen a quill, or mix their own ink, or, for that matter, fill a fountain pen? We simply don’t need to now. It doesn’t make us dumber, any more than not knowing where Katmandu is.
