Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
BD – You ask for evidence – have you never seen Danny Dyer’s documentary series called ‘The Real Football Factories’? Football gangs have long been associated with all kinds of criminality. When I started this post I did indeed think that nobody, especially a socialist, could possibly whitewash the notoriously criminal and violent history of football culture – but here you are. Your attempts to ridicule anyone who points out the reality of this history is just living in a cloud cuckoo land. I get that it’s your religion but get real and answer me this – why has no other sport been associated with such levels of violence and criminality? Football culture is obviously a barrier to socialist consciousness.
It would seem that any evidence from my own experience, because it’s not shared by ‘15.7 million people’, is irrelevant and not worth your consideration. Can’t you see that many of your examples of sick cultures in this country have parallels in football gangs? The Party is always wondering why socialist consciousness is almost non existent and that’s partly because 15.7 million are obsessed with a commodity called football that brings out the very opposite of the socialist conscious we are trying to achieve – TM’s ‘bread and circuses’. If you can’t see that then you’re at a level of denial that rational debate can’t reach. And why is asking you about the nature of your involvement with the game ‘none of my business?’ Actually my accusation of you ‘white-washing’ football culture was a tongue in cheek joke but it seems it was true. At least I got you to admit, that ‘I didn’t say that all aspects of the game are beyond reproach’ – truly a magnificent understatement.
BD – It seems to me that you’re in denial about the history of football culture in this country. Are you saying there’s absolutely no substance to my criticisms? My father was a football coach/manager in the 1960s and I was dragged along to most games. He was successful and they won several titles so I had a pretty comprehensive knowledge of a game that I had no interest in. I could tell you many horror stories about what happened. When my old man died I thought I’d contact his old club to see if a representative would like to attend his internment – I was ignored, that’s football. Many years later I was in a pub where the local team were celebrating a victory and one of them was actually bragging about how many fouls he had committed – that’s football. Your rose tinted view of the game bares no resemblance to the reality I lived. What actual experience of the game do you have?
‘but your probably too blinkered and stupid to consider these things’. Very comradely statement I must say. I’m sorry I dared to criticize your religion. I think you’re one of those always proving how working class you are and anyone who dares to criticize your taste must be ‘blinkered and stupid’. There was a time when even in the the ‘civilized’ city of Cambridge all the pubs closed down because there was a home game. I’m glad things have improved (according to you) but the upcoming tribal hysteria that will be apparent on Saturday evening will prove my point.
BD – You wouldn’t be attempting to whitewash ‘football culture’ in this country – would you? In my experience it is the sickest, racist, atavistic and most violent sub-culture in this country. The game is boring – continuous one end to the other where a ‘pin-ball machine’ like bit of luck decides the result by a goal or two. And why do you think the mega-rich invest so much money and time in it? Because it provides one of the most successful political distractions available. You’ll be telling me next that the Olympic games brings people and cultures together; no it doesn’t – it imposes a mono culture on the world.
TM – Sports are fine as long as we don’t export the infantile pleasure we get from them into the real world of economics and politics. Of course there won’t be any ‘international’ sports competitions because there won’t be any nations. I quite like the idea that opposing teams will represent different styles and tactics – which, of course, happens now in sports like cricket and football – The ‘West Indies’ play a very different kind of game than do Australia and England as do Brazil in football. It would be a clash of cultures, techniques and bragging rights – all for fun.
Paula – ‘Since the football is currently capturing the minds of millions,…’
That’s the problem – mass distraction using tribalism. We should expose it for what it is, not indulge it.TM – ‘I said it’s a waste of time because you simply repeat things without taking any cognisance of my points.’
Give me one example of where I have done that? Let me try to summarize your position in contrast to my own: You don’t believe that there was a loss of material culture and progress in Western Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. I believe that there is ample evidence of that – whether or not it deserves the title of the ‘Dark Ages’, I agree, is debatable. You believe that the merchant capitalism of the medieval period is commensurate with the industrial capitalism we have today whereas I believe the differences are profound and consequential. Likewise you believe the medieval state was comparable with modern nation states whereas, again, I think the differences are of great political importance. I am interested in your contention that Catholic states did transform into capitalism without the need for a protestant Reformation but wasn’t their own ‘counter Reformation’ a reaction to the need for change resulting from the convulsions of the Reformation? You highlight continuity whereas I emphasize revolutionary change. No doubt you will disagree with this summation but that’s how I see things. Perhaps we can discuss the class nature of the ‘gentleman historians’ of the past and their obvious ideological bias?CDM – ‘I think that the SPGB pamphlet, Socialism and Religion, is more than enough for the working class.’
Fortunately you and the SPGB don’t get to decide what is ‘more than enough for the working class’. Such arrogance is not helpful.TM – It’s not my logic because, like you, I depend on historians to provide me with information that I base my interpretations on. My information is that England had a permanent standing army after the crushing of the counter revolution in 1688. Cromwell’s New Model Army was, likewise, a standing army. As for your petulant assertion that this thread ‘is a waste of time’ this has not been my experience and I can only conclude that if anyone dares to disagree with you on anything that, for you, it’s a waste of time. Rather infantile don’t you think?
TM – I don’t think it helps not to recognize the difference between a ‘state’ and a ‘nation-state’. The latter acquires its legitimacy (ideologically speaking) from its population and their shared identity and not from an autocrat or God (religious leaders). We still hear the call for ‘independence’ as if it’s some kind of remedy for all capitalism’s ills. It is of interest that during the 30 years war most of the fighting was done by mercenaries and not by those who were loyal to a religion or country. Nation states with standing armies changed all that. Of course I see this all as ideological nonsense but the reason why the working class murder each other periodically for the interests of the bourgeoisie can, partly, be understood historically.
TM – ‘Whatever an individual or community believed, the reality was only one central allegiance.’
Yes but that ‘central allegiance’ changed from one of fear and superstition to one of national pride and cultural/racial superiority. I think you underestimate the power of nationalism without which even capitalism would falter – that’s why it remains the greatest enemy of socialism.
TM -Did the inhabitants of the peninsular think of themselves as ‘Spanish’ or were they still very regional (Castilian or Aragonese etc.). This is one of the distinctions historians make between Medieval states and the modern conception of a nation state. Although it has to be said that the whole conception of a ‘nation-state’ is problematic in terms of definition but obviously very successful for the bourgeoisie politically.
