swappies & having a laugh

[Nigel Irritable]

well first of there is no rule about it, some are a bit nuts about the national taem, others like myself could not give a flying fuck about it and some don't cos they are internationalists.

A minute ago it was most don't because of "internationalism and all that"!

i'd be surprised it it was not the same in the SP.

Nah, we have two factions on this vital question - those who cheer for their national side and those who don't give a shit about soccer. Certainly I'm unaware of a single member taking a "revolutionary defeatist" position on the matter.

unless you lot all have to support shelbourne.

Unfortunately not, but I believe that a few years ago somebody managed to get a motion about supporting the domestic league past a hungover conference some morning. And there are a lot of Shels and Bohs fans in the Dublin branches.

and i don't believe anyone has ever said getting rid of competitive sports or boozers.

The competetive sports issue was dealt with in the ISJ and the notion that all such sports will be replaced by cooperative activities with no winners or losers has to my knowledge never been repudiated.

 

[flypanam]

well those that don't it is bout internationialism and not giving a feck. well its good to see that we have a much more rounded debate in my lot 3 positions.

as for irish football best thing to happen to it was RTE showing english games, i've been to enuff monaghan united games to know its shite.

ah id say that article was a PO

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Socialism will not be a society where 22 men still play football (far less where another 30,000 people will pay to watch them) or men and women crash up and down a swimming pool competing against each other and the clock. Physical recreation and play are about the enjoyment of one's body, human company and the environment. Sport is not. It is about competing, doing better than the next person, being the best. It is about obeying arbitrary rules an ideal preparation for the capitalist productive process.

Seems pretty clear to me. And certainly not prefaced by any stuff about this not reflecting the views of the SWP.

As for domestic football, well if all you've seen is Monaghan United, no wonder you think its rubbish.

 

[mk12]

What a fucking shit article. Thank god Bambery is in a minority in the SWP with that viewpoint.

 

[rednblack]

What a fucking shit article. Thank god Bambery is in a minority in the SWP with that viewpoint.

he wasnt when i was a member...

bunch of nutters

 

[hibee]

What a fucking shit article. Thank god Bambery is in a minority in the SWP with that viewpoint.

Seen that article before. Quite possibly the most witless thing I've ever read.

 

[sihhi]

Here it is in its all its glory:

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj73/bambery.htm

Using Trotsky:

Trotsky, in Problems Of Everyday Life, attempted to deal with the issue of creating not just a new society but new men and women. There is little or no mention of sport because in the primitive stage of Russian society this scarcely existed for the Russian working class. Nevertheless, there are three points which have some bearing on sport:

(2) Everyone knows that physical requirements are very much more limited than spiritual ones. An excessive gratification of physical requirements quickly leads to satiety. Spiritual requirements, however, know no frontiers. But in order that spiritual requirements may flourish it is necessary that physical requirements be fully satisfied.38
(3) ...meaningless ritual, which lies on the consciousness like an inert burden, cannot be destroyed by criticism alone; it can be supplanted by new forms of life, new amusements, new and more cultured theatres.39

To come to this conclusion:

But socialists should follow the example of the Bolsheviks in pulling out of all sports competitions based on nationalism, such as the Olympics. Our aim is human liberation and a world of truly endless possibilities, a world in which future generations will look back in wonder at something like the Olympics and ask only one question * Why?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Isn't it rather more likely that people will look back at Chris Bamberry and ask only one question * Why?

 

[flimsier]

It had never occurred to me before this thread that the Irish SWP shared that particularly "quirk" of the British SWP. Are the Irish lot planning on abolishing competitive sport under socialism too?

There's nothing on 'abolishing' though.

There is quite a lot on the fact that alienation means that 30,000 people watch competitive football and get caught up in it. In addition that they will find better things to do in a free society.

I don't see a problem with that. A bit like saying there'll be fewer alcohol or drug problems in a socialist society.

No-one has suggested anyone will be stopped from playing competitive sport, nor people stopped watching it. Just that people will have better things to do. Lots of them.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Nah, we have two factions on this vital question - those who cheer for their national side and those who don't give a shit about soccer. Certainly I'm unaware of a single member taking a "revolutionary defeatist" position on the matter.

I agree completely with flimsier's take on the abolition question. Amazing that other lefties find it such an odd notion.

But why does this comment of N.I.'s just about sum up the SP and nationalism for me? So there are two types of SPer, those who can't stand footie (fair enough) and those who support their national squad (not the end of the world)...and that's it! Not a single member who would have an instinct to oppose the national idea in sport, presumably not in the English SP either. I've always known that the ridiculous SP 'federal socialist world' non-position on the national question meant accomodation to the nationalism of whoever they're talking to. So in Ireland when they talk to Loyalist workers it's a 'socialist federation of the British Isles' and when they're talking to those in favour of a united Ireland it's couched as 'an Irish socialist federation'. But it's little anecdotes like this - that there are no members, none at all who have even the gut instinct to stand up against the gingo mentality that surrounds International football, except to say ah football is crap - that complete the picture of the Millie/SP mentality for me.

 

[audiotech]

That's not cricket.

 

[Pickman's model]

thankfully, not all sw readers are such arses as the lot who wrote in last week.

I was shocked to see the letters about binge drinking (Letters, 10 September). The government defines binge drinking as having three pints in one session, something I — and doubtless many other readers — have enjoyed after a protest.

Drinking and protest are inextricably linked in Britain. The industrialists’ model towns without pubs were publess because pubs have for centuries been centres of sedition.

Pubs are also centres of community, and it is not just disappointing, but an attack on the working class, when our pubs are closed, demolished and replaced with yuppie flats, or gentrified with locals priced out or barred.

The extensions in pub hours only return us to the situation before the First World War. Karl Marx frequently enjoyed a late night drink — and so do I!

Edward McKenna, East London

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7335

 

[cockneyrebel]

A communist society would be so fundamentally different that it would be very hard to say how much sport would change. But the chances are, if society fundamentally changes, then that would have a big impact on sport. Not sure why people think that what Bambery is saying is such a big deal. As flimsier said, he's not saying anything will be banned, it's just his take on thinking that competitive sport will dwindle away in a classless society. Not so sure myself, but I don't think it's right to portray him as some kind of puritan, as that doesn't seem to be the angle that the article is coming from.

I don't agree with a "revolutionary defeatist" line on sport, but haven't supported England in sport since Euro 96. I agree with posters on here who say that people supporting a national team doesn't make someone nationalist, but personally I found being surrounded by flag waving, jingoistic, national anthem singing bollox did my head in more and more. Also fucked me off how black and Asian mates/family found it uncomfortable going into certain pubs near me whenever the Euros/World Cup was on because they feel alienated by the whole St Georges bullshit. Again that's no fault of your average England football supporter, but took away the enjoyment for me.

Supporting football teams can be alienating if you think about it too much. I've had a Palace season ticket for about 16 years, and taken part in endless debates about the team, manager, chairman, transfers etc But when you sit back you realise that you have hardly any influence in to any of it, especially in the modern game, and as flimsier says, makes you think maybe there are better things to be doing with your life. In terms of playing, personally I've always found it much more of a laugh when people weren't acting as if we were playing in the Premiership......

As it goes Steve Coppell seemed to back up Chris Bambery last night

The trouble is you don't have time to enjoy it. We have another game on Saturday so we have to go straight back into preparation mode.

 

[Groucho]

The 'revolutionary defeatest' position on international sport is one that causes the most aggressive debate within the SWP and is a question on which there is no 'line'.

I am full square behind the revolutionary defeatest position. Why should identify with one team rather than another purely on the basis of nation? I am an internationalist. I favour no borders, no countries. Support for 'our' national team is a concession to nationalism. It is exceptance that we English all have our Britishness in common as opposed to non-English who are different (and less deserving of support in sporting events?). I have nothing in common wwith the boss class except language. I have more in common with workers of any nationality, including a common interest to end nations and nationalism.

Will competitive sport wither away under socialism? Maybe, maybe not. It will however, it will undoubtedly change.

it is hardly the most important issue in the World. It was always debated at joke meetings at Skegness or at the last meeting before the xmas hols. (We wouldn't abolish xmas either!)

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Supporting football teams can be alienating if you think about it too much.

I thought that was an incredibly sensible post cockney.

There's a difference between saying that in a future communist society where alienation is so greatly reduced people won't need to follow teams quite so obsessively and saying people are wrong for doing it now. We are products of the society we live in and having a marxist analysis don't cure us of alienation! I can theoretically imagine a world where, for example, the Old Firm won't exist but if anyone tried to stop me watching Celtic play now I'd smack them in the gob (figuratively of course!).

Similarily I know theoretically that the bourgeois family is an oppressive and repressive institution and that the whole area of human sexuality and relationships will be much freer and inventive in a future society. But that doesn't stop me wearing a wedding ring now and getting nasty when I've had a few beers and some bloke tries to chat up my missus

 

[cockneyrebel]

Similarily I know theoretically that the bourgeois family is an oppressive and repressive institution and that the whole area of human sexuality and relationships will be much freer and inventive in a future society. But that doesn't stop me wearing a wedding ring now and getting nasty when I've had a few beers and some bloke tries to chat up my missus

Also doesn't stop virtually anyone I've been out with wanting to smack me in the gob when I try and turn the channel over to watch football

Groucho I agree that support for national teams is used to shore up nationalism and patriotism. But the theory of revolutionary defeatism was developed in terms of defeat for your own country (if imperialist) in times of war. I think it's a bit flippant to say that you can apply that to a football match, which has different dynamics.

 

[articul8]

I am full square behind the revolutionary defeatest position. Why should identify with one team rather than another purely on the basis of nation? I am an internationalist. I favour no borders, no countries. Support for 'our' national team is a concession to nationalism. It is exceptance that we English all have our Britishness in common as opposed to non-English who are different (and less deserving of support in sporting events?). I have nothing in common wwith the boss class except language. I have more in common with workers of any nationality, including a common interest to end nations and nationalism.

All very worthy, I'm sure, but you're just not in the real world on this.
You wouldn't ask Respect supporting muslims not to support the Pakistan cricket team, I assume?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

All very worthy, I'm sure, but you're just not in the real world on this.
You wouldn't ask Respect supporting muslims not to support the Pakistan cricket team, I assume?

I'm probly out on a limb here and Groucho might not agree but I take the revo defeatist position to it's logical conclusion. Namely it don't apply to non-imperialist countries. In fact when they're playing imperialist coutries you have a duty to be a defencist to use the leninspeak. If a person of Pakistani origin living in the UK wants to support Pakistan when they play England then that's fine by me (and this has the nice side effect of allowing me to support Ireland vs England!)

 

[bolshiebhoy]

I think it's a bit flippant to say that you can apply that to a football match, which has different dynamics.

You think? Don't you remember the athmosphere around the England-Argentina game at the world cup? If Becks had missed that non-penalty I would have been sorely tempted to jump up and down in my local, were it not for the fact I would have been hung on the spot.

 

[hibee]

For one thing I don't buy the idea that sport is a product of capitalism and will wither away in a new society. Yes the way it is organised, managed and structured (most obviously the Murdochification of football) will reflect the wider social context, but sport predates capitalism and will outlive it. The whole premise than competitive insitincts are conditioned in people by capitalism is utter nonsense, as anyone who has ever bothered to pick up a history book will tell you.

As for wanting your country's national side to lose in the name of "revolutionary defeatism", well, that just shows how many million miles away are the left from the working class.

Is Scotland too imperialist to support?

 

[cockneyrebel]

You think? Don't you remember the athmosphere around the England-Argentina game at the world cup? If Becks had missed that non-penalty I would have been sorely tempted to jump up and down in my local, were it not for the fact I would have been hung on the spot.

I remember walking through Brighton pissed out of my head with a Geordie mate chanting "Maradonna" before world cup match in 98 (he didn't give a fuck about football, but just got wound up with all the St Georges bollox). I reckon we would have been lynched if we'd done it afterwards. Mind you he is a big, bald bastard with a black belt in Kung Fu, so he could of at least given me some time to leg it

But don't you think the dynamics behind a war and a football match are different?!

 

[cockneyrebel]

As for wanting your country's national side to lose in the name of "revolutionary defeatism", well, that just shows how many million miles away are the left from the working class.

You could say the same thing about imperialist wars as well though. Or socialism for that matter. Just because the majority of the working class doesn't currently agree with what a left organisation is saying doesn't mean they should drop those ideas. As said I think it's a bit much to say you can apply revolutionary socialism to a football match, but I don't agree with your logic.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

But don't you think the dynamics behind a war and a football match are different?!

In one sense it's bloody obvious that they're different. But then again, one of the things about every major capitalist war is the feelgood factor of 'shared community' that people talk about when the war kicks off, not unlike the 'harmless' sense of pride that people take around the 3 lions. The scale is different but the insidiousness of the thing comparable.

 

[cockneyrebel]

You might have a point there....

Also it's not just the thing of feeling together of the basis of nationalism, but also the sense of hostility towards people who don't wanna join in (Norman Tebbitt's cricket test being a good example)....as said most of my black and Asian mates/family feel uncomfortable whenever the St Georges flags bollox kicks in around sporting events.....

 

[bolshiebhoy]

All the more so when it's the "people's game" we're talking about. Just because something is popular among the working class doesn't make the attitudes that surround it working class attitudes. Making folk heroes out of players who've escaped their class isn't a sin against marx but it's not something that makes our side any stronger either. Populism can be enjoyable (I've got tonnes of Henrik Larsson memorabilia and used to quite happily join in the mass bowing in front of celtic hero Lubo Moravcik) but it's got nothing to do with socialism.

 

[Groucho]

I'm probly out on a limb here and Groucho might not agree but I take the revo defeatist position to it's logical conclusion. Namely it don't apply to non-imperialist countries. In fact when they're playing imperialist coutries you have a duty to be a defencist to use the leninspeak. If a person of Pakistani origin living in the UK wants to support Pakistan when they play England then that's fine by me (and this has the nice side effect of allowing me to support Ireland vs England!)

I see nothing to disagree with.

No-one is going to be campaigning at football grounds or outside cricket matches for people to dump their favourite sport or teams.

As for whether competitive sport will wither away. There is a difference between commercial sport and play.

Will people still kick a ball about? Will people play chess? Will people form teams to play games? Will there be a notion of winners and losers? How important will it be to be one or the other? Will there be prizes and forfeits? I am sure the answer is yes to many of these questions. It is surely the case that the natural impulse to play is grotesquelly distorted by the financial and commercial competitive and nationalistic overriding influences of capitalism.

My Dad gave up on premier league football because of the overriding influence of money. (And because he supported Brighton who were crap) He prefers to support his local team. He cites the fact that he knows and gets to know some of the players personally as a better reason to support a team than the colour shirt. He cites also the fact that he can have a pint or three with the rival supporters and wind each other up with hardly a blow being struck, and rarely a bottle being smashed into someone's face ('and then it's usually locals over some woman.') In the olden days it used to be like that at Brighton matches before the hooligans were invented (says my Dad) and before some assett stripper bought the team and sold all the decent players and then the ground from under their feet. He's not a socialist. In fact he's a bit of a nationalist, but premier league football has alienated and outpriced him.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Not a single member who would have an instinct to oppose the national idea in sport, presumably not in the English SP either.

None that I know of. And I'm proud that nobody in the Socialist Party is so completely removed from reality, so determined to cut themselves off from working class life, and so utterly lacking in perspective and basic fucking common sense as to try to import the notion of "revolutionary defeatism" into football.

I've always known that the ridiculous SP 'federal socialist world' non-position on the national question meant accomodation to the nationalism of whoever they're talking to.

Cretin, do you think there is some way to develop a socialist society other than on the basis of a federal socialist world? It's about internationalism where it counts - in the class struggle - rather than wanking about the evils of international football and athletics competitions.

So in Ireland when they talk to Loyalist workers it's a 'socialist federation of the British Isles' and when they're talking to those in favour of a united Ireland it's couched as 'an Irish socialist federation'.

That's a lie, a smear, nothing more. Not that I expect better from you in the midst of a thread like this where a few gobshites are doing their best to make Trotskyism seem utterly ridiculous.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Cretin, do you think there is some way to develop a socialist society other than on the basis of a federal socialist world? It's about internationalism where it counts - in the class struggle - rather than wanking about the evils of international football and athletics competitions.

Ted Grant has a lot to answer for. Workerist shite. Shockingly there are marxists who waste time discussing philosphy, art and even psychoanalysis from a marxist standpoint. Get them all down the picket line now I say!

On the crucial point you get it exactly wrong. It's about internationalism not in the class struggle, we're fine when we're on our territory, it's applying it concretly to messy national struggles that overlap the nice, neat class lines you wish was all there was to reality. And no 'for a federal world socialist republic now!' is not the most useful slogan in each and every one of those torny situations. Useful if all you want to do is avoid the question.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Not being bad Nigel but are you working class? You come across on this thread as wanting to prove your organisation is so working class because lots of members support their national football team. Just a little patronising.

and so utterly lacking in perspective and basic fucking common sense

Re-read "Their Morals and Ours" for that one.....

That's a lie, a smear, nothing more. Not that I expect better from you in the midst of a thread like this where a few gobshites are doing their best to make Trotskyism seem utterly ridiculous.

Calm down dear, it's only a thread on U75. And discussing the role of nationalism in sport. Whatever next......cucumber sandwiches and afternoon tea?

 

[audiotech]

Was at Glastonbury ('peace and love') watching the world cup when Maradonna scored the 'hand of god' goal. Some bright spark shouted; 'well we won the Faklands war'. So, I go along with Orwell's point that sport is war by other means.