Chomsky on sports [Archive]

Hegemonicretribution

22nd March 2009, 21:39

Some good points made, however, I think it would be wrong to construe sports as a waste of time in the face of larger social issues. Rather, I see them as a reaction to a perceived incapacity to change the social and political issues which are faced by the working class.

You aren't winning at work, at home, at life pretty much for a lot of people because success is determined (currently) in terms of things that are inaccessible for most people. Yes it would be nice if all that energy was turned into an effort to alleviate one's situation. The problem is that when you take away from someone one of the only outlets which grants a chance at victory, at solidarity, at shared glory, then you take away more than just a wasteful activity.

Say for example you convince some people to focus their intellectual activity on politics rather than sport. What is the outcome? Division, hoplelessness (with available approaches) and a realisation that real change will not be brought about by all this effort. It offers you another chance to lose. If I was to choose an opiate of the masses I would sooner that it be an artificially high importance placed on physical exellence, than adherence to an organised religion.

Essentially if all the pleasures of the working class were sidelined to accelerate revolutionary progress, then great. Is this going to happen? Nope. In a society where pleasures are enjoyed by the 'successful' it would be heartless to remove the pleasures available to almost everyone. This is not a good way to seek solidarity with people who know they are getting sold short. Furthermore, I do not see why sport cannot be very fruitful in a post-revolutionary world.

Television, the internet, porn, smoking, drugs, sports....take all these things away and existence will begin to look even bleaker for a lot of people. The goal is to reduce reliance on these activities, as well as presenting a possible means of making other pleasures viable. It is not cancelling the only remaining pleasures in a hope that it will spur people on. If you took such an approach, then you would quickly find that people would turn on you for denying them these escapes from the drudgery of everyday life. Especially whilst they are being enjoyed by the bourgeoisie.

I am not suggesting the impossibility of change, rather I am stipulating that you will achieve more if you work with what the situation is, rather than what it would be nice to be like. That situation is one where people like sport, I don't see that this is necessarily a counter-revolutionary vice, so deal with it and move on. If you don't like sports then good for you.

ComradeOm

22nd March 2009, 22:36

in some ways he is right though.

Can you imagine how socially advanced the working class would be if it paid the same attention to progressive fields like science, the arts, and leftist politics that it does to sports trivia?Bullshit. Chomsky's argument is rooted in a deep intellectual snobbery, and rather nonsensical, but still focused on institutional issues. He managed, unlike yourself, to avoid the Chernyshevsky-esque dream of fundamentally changing people and their nature. That is, their grand transformation into a mass of cold revolutionary machines with no time for the 'distractions' of ordinary life

A mass of automatons mechanically reciting political creeds does not equal "socially advanced". The idea that sports somehow provide a distraction from more worthy pursuits ignores the reality that for countless workers worldwide sport is in itself a hugely important and productive part of their lives. It is the drudgery of work, of capitalism, that instead distracts people from the more pleasurable aspects of life

Cumannach

22nd March 2009, 22:55

This is the same chomsky that says bringing his grandkids to a baseball game is one of the things he loves about america. don't ask me where he said that. Anyway, I guess I better go dump my girlfriend since romance is a distraction from the oppressive nature of our social system. And I better stop reading cervantes, a frivolous distraction, very jingoistic also. And it's time to curb my interest in irrelevant linguistics. I hate chomsky at this stage.

Dr Mindbender

22nd March 2009, 23:00

Bullshit. Chomsky's argument is rooted in a deep intellectual snobbery, and rather nonsensical, but still focused on institutional issues. He managed, unlike yourself, to avoid the Chernyshevsky-esque dream of fundamentally changing people and their nature. That is, their grand transformation into a mass of cold revolutionary machines with no time for the 'distractions' of ordinary life

A mass of automatons mechanically reciting political creeds does not equal "socially advanced". The idea that sports somehow provide a distraction from more worthy pursuits ignores the reality that for countless workers worldwide sport is in itself a hugely important and productive part of their lives. It is the drudgery of work, of capitalism, that instead distracts people from the more pleasurable aspects of life

I think you're taking me out of context. I don't want the workers to become soviet-esque mindless politik drones, i already said that sports distraction in moderation was okay. However moderation isnt what we've got.

Besides which, what we deem to be 'ordinary life' is a seperate social debate. The capitalists dictate to us what ordinary life equates to because they have control over the media apparatus. As a technocrat, I want the sciences and arts to become entrenched in 'everyday life'.

I suppose next you will try and defend the fascination we have for other figures in the limelight, like Posh Spice or Paris Hilton? Why not? How is that a cut below sports figure worship?

Pogue

22nd March 2009, 23:03

Pirate turtle the 11th

22nd March 2009, 23:03

Oh for fucks sake. Sports are fun to play and to watch. They are exciting , entertaining , and a great way to bond. I am not going to go on some puritan rampage where i cease sports , pornography , eating monster munch (etc) for the glory of the revolution. The revolution is made by the working class not by holy then thou wankers.

Dr Mindbender

22nd March 2009, 23:08

social system. And I better stop reading cervantes, a frivolous distraction, e.

But you dont turn up at Cervantes house every saturday spending copious amounts to 'cheer him on', nor do you spend large sums on replicas of his clothing every several months with the name of a japanese electronics company on the front.

I think thats the main gripe that the sports folk are missing here, you are an easilly milked cash cow and you dont even see it.

Pirate turtle the 11th

22nd March 2009, 23:08

I think you could have a conciouss working class culture with an interest in sport. But its clearly an opiate and interesting how interested and engaged people are in it whilst also being so apathetic to politics.

Thats because sport has something that currently leftist politics dosent have , intrest , we arnt fucking interesting we can be intresting by being relevant. This means no distrubting pamplets on which fundi group we should support and why the sect down the road is wrong and should be cheer leading for the current armed group on the otherside of the world that some persudo leftist middle class students happen to support.

No we need to be community and union wise and target issues that fucking effect people here and now. Not talking as if you learnt to speak from having the 19th centuray dictionary played on a repeating tape to you as a baby also helps.

Jack

22nd March 2009, 23:09

Left wing football teams anyone?

Pirate turtle the 11th

22nd March 2009, 23:13

But you dont turn up at Cervantes house every saturday spending copious amounts to 'cheer him on', nor do you spend large sums on replicas of his clothing every several months with the name of a japanese electronics company on the front.

I think thats the main gripe that the sports folk are missing here, you are an easilly milked cash cow and you dont even see it.

Surely the issue here is the commercialization of sport rather then sport itself?

Dr Mindbender

22nd March 2009, 23:17

Surely the issue here is the commercialization of sport rather then sport itself?

I think its a double edged sword.

If sports wasnt so profitable i doubt the companies would be so eager to push it our faces, hence the proletarian fascination for it.

Pirate turtle the 11th

22nd March 2009, 23:23

I think its a double edged sword.

If sports wasnt so profitable i doubt the companies would be so eager to push it our faces, hence the proletarian fascination for it.

I dont think the facination is because of advertising but rather that its fun. A computer game can be advertised over and over but if its shit no one is going to buy the second. Not to mention that sport was popular before it was hugely commercialized (read up on medevial football it was bassicly a riot with a ball in the middle)

ComradeOm

22nd March 2009, 23:27

I think you're taking me out of context. I don't want the workers to become soviet-esque mindless politik drones, i already said that sports distraction in moderation was okay. However moderation isnt what we've gotSo people are allowed a certain number of hours watching or following their favoured sport per week? After that its back to the science lab or museum? Let me know when that happens

Until then I'm going to stick with the countless numbers of people who go out training in the evening or playing at the weekend or even just cheering their team on and enjoying themselves. Why? Because its part of their life and part of their community. Its also part of their history - as long as people have had free time they have had sports and the enjoyment that comes with

As a technocrat, I want the sciences and arts to become entrenched in 'everyday life'Ah, so it is simple snobbery. Your problem is that people aren't interested in your hobbies; which are somehow more virtuous than those shared by the vast majority of the working class. Yeah

I suppose next you will try and defend the fascination we have for other figures in the limelight, like Posh Spice or Paris Hilton? Why not? How is that a cut below sports figure worship?I take it that you have never played in a single match or even watched one. Of any sport. If you had then the difference would be obvious

But its clearly an opiate and interesting how interested and engaged people are in it whilst also being so apathetic to politics. "Clearly an opiate"? Explain. In more than one line please

As for the "apathy to politics", I think its absolute ridiculous to blame sports for either your failure in organisation or the material conditions of society. You think that people need just put down the hurleys and then they'll suddenly pick up copies of Kapital?

Left wing football teams anyone? See Livorno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.S._Livorno_Calcio) and St. Pauli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_St._Pauli) as notable examples

Wanted Man

22nd March 2009, 23:36

What a misguided thread. Most people have things that they are terribly interested in, even if they are "distractions to left politics". :rolleyes: A lot of people like rock bands. Oooh, long-haired dudes making noise on guitars, clearly utterly irrelevant compared to Kapital. That we have a Music forum on RevLeft is disgraceful!

Oh, and I know a lot of people who are utterly obsessed with anime. Children's cartoons showing spiky-haired guys who often defend traditional values. Opiate!

Maybe we should pay less attention to all those things on RevLeft. Because that's what it's all about, isn't it? Get. Over. It.

JimmyJazz

22nd March 2009, 23:45

Every Evening to Party Work

Module

23rd March 2009, 01:03

Another intellectual who dislikes sport. Few characteristics are more indicative of a fundamental isolation from the working class. I'd wager that those morons applauding were not workersErm... you need to like sport to be working class? :rolleyes:

Regardless, he was not saying that he dislikes sport, but it's obvious that it serves a specific purpose and often fills a certain position in people's lives.
People like to care about things which are not really of any importance. It's easy, it's interesting. It gives their every day lives meaning where other more important aspects of life, say, working, politics, economics, do not - it's something they can be actively involved in, emotionally and intellectually.
It's not just sport, it could be anything. For a lot of people it's gangs, subcultures and fashion, etc. etc.
"Snobbery", give me a break. God forbid he point out sausage rolls are unhealthy, also - unhealthy?! B-but... working class people eat sausage rolls! Blasphemer!

PRC-UTE

23rd March 2009, 01:15

I've all my life been one of those sport obsessed male working class types. that's what I'd mostly do with my mates in our spare time.

I love everything from GAA to baseball. give me anything with balls and competition and I"m happy :lol:

anyway, if you really want to get political about it. look at the fundraising done for shell to sea using football, or the huge numbers of politically oriented football supporters around the world. though imo there's nothing wrong with enjoying a sport just for the sake of it.

Dr Mindbender

23rd March 2009, 01:48

So people are allowed a certain number of hours watching or following their favoured sport per week? After that its back to the science lab or museum? Let me know when that happens
I think spending copious amounts of time in any distraction is self destructive.

The difference being, some areas of attention generate more social development than others. I feel it's vital to allocate our time based on prioritising what disciplines generate most progress. It doesnt mean eradicating sport, competitive or otherwise.

I think the reason why there isnt the same stigma attached to sports fixation as there are say, video game or internet addiction is because sports are deemed a social stereotype, and a gender defining one at that.

Until then I'm going to stick with the countless numbers of people who go out training in the evening or playing at the weekend or even just cheering their team on and enjoying themselves. Why? Because its part of their life and part of their community. ... ...blah blah...

Ah, so it is simple snobbery. Your problem is that people aren't interested in your hobbies; which are somehow more virtuous than those shared by the vast majority of the working class. Yeah

No, its not snobbery its realism. If everyone in society spent their entire time obsessing about sports how much further along would we be?

I take it that you have never played in a single match or even watched one. Of any sport. If you had then the difference would be obvious

Youd be wrong on both counts, and i've probably seen more social chauvinism on the football pitch than i have off it. At my school, the football pitch was little more than a training ground to weed out the weak (ie to select those who would be the victims of social ostracisation between physical education classes) while those who were successful in the sporting stakes had their arses licked by the headmaster and senior staff every assembly morning.

...so you'll forgive me if i have a bit of a downer about competitive sports. I'm sure my tale isnt an isolated one.

GracchusBabeuf

23rd March 2009, 05:24

To pitch in my two cents, I have seen in some team sports the high level of competition and devotedness to a leader inculcated in the members of a team. Could not this same things be reflected in workers when working for a corporation or for the state? The levels of "national" or even club-level chauvinism generated among spectators should also not be totally ignored.

This however is not to say there are no positive aspects to team sports. Sport is a double edged sword. It can be easily used by nationalists to validate their viewpoints. Also I guess team sports can bring together working classes of different countries or clubs as long as the games are played in a "sporting" way, that is, just for the love of that sport.

I don't think blindly rooting for a particular team because one is told to do so is really in the interest of the proletariat. In fact such "loyalty" can be used easily by bosses to manipulate the working classes to do their bidding.

ComradeOm

23rd March 2009, 13:15

Erm... you need to like sport to be working class? :rolleyes:No. However an active dislike of sport is a characteristic much more common amongst the intelligentsia. What with their deep disconnection from the proletariat and all

"Snobbery", give me a break. God forbid he point out sausage rolls are unhealthy, also - unhealthy?! B-but... working class people eat sausage rolls! Blasphemer!Now suggest that the eating of sausages is an institutionalised form of capitalist indoctrination (who do you think is making a profit from all your sausage eating!!!!) and that eating tofu is a revolutionary alternative

But yes, Chomsky's argument that people are wasting their intelligence, as if it was somehow a finite resource, on remembering sporting events of the past when they could be doing something far more useful, such as buying his books no doubt, is deeply snobbish and elitist. It assumes that the day to day activities of ordinary workers are somehow inferior to those of Chomsky, who have already left this primitive stage behind. In effect he's asking us all to renounce our daily activities and join him in the deep contemplation of the intellectual. Here's the reality - any proletarian revolution is going to be carried out by proletarians. That means sausage eating and football watching workers, not intellectuals or those particularly well versed in economics

I think spending copious amounts of time in any distraction is self destructive.

The difference being, some areas of attention generate more social development than others. I feel it's vital to allocate our time based on prioritising what disciplines generate most progress. It doesnt mean eradicating sport, competitive or otherwise.So too much time on anything is bad. Unless its one of your 'good ones' that are somehow more progressive. Excuse me if I use my own standards as to what "generates progress" in the form of cohesiveness, teamplay, and community spirit

I think the reason why there isnt the same stigma attached to sports fixation as there are say, video game or internet addiction is because sports are deemed a social stereotype, and a gender defining one at thatI think the reason why there isn't the same stigma attached to sports fixation when compared to computer games - aside from that generated by intellectuals (who could never understand activity not directly connected with the brain) and neo-Calvinists - is roughly a century in the difference :rolleyes:

...so you'll forgive me if i have a bit of a downer about competitive sports. I'm sure my tale isnt an isolated oneOf course its not. I went through the same thing (being truly lacking in any footballing talent whatsoever) but I have not allowed such personal experiences to colour my view of life. In fact, while almost equally bad at all sports, I threw myself into many as a child and today I avidly follow a number of sides, both local and international. All because I enjoy the both exercise and the incredible sense of community/camaraderie that sport engenders

Now you are telling me that my time would have been much better served reading up on economics, or science, or the arts as if these were all mutually exclusive with sports. To be honest, and continuing in this personal vein, I'm willing to bet that I'm considerably more well read than yourself in each of these fields. This is despite spending much of my youth either bounding round a pitch or cheering my team on in the pub or accounting for any other number of hobbies and pastimes

In fact I would go so far as to say that sport has immeasurably enriched my life. To give one example: as someone to whom conversation does not come easily or naturally to, you have no idea just how liberating it is to walk into a room and be able to make small talk about the weekend's games or strike up a new friendship on the pitch or in the stands

I don't think blindly rooting for a particular team because one is told to do so is really in the interest of the proletariat. In fact such "loyalty" can be used easily by bosses to manipulate the working classes to do their bidding.You mean the bosses might wheel out Christiano Ronaldo to tell striking workers to go back to work? Do you take us all for morons or something?

Pogue

23rd March 2009, 14:40

Thats because sport has something that currently leftist politics dosent have , intrest , we arnt fucking interesting we can be intresting by being relevant. This means no distrubting pamplets on which fundi group we should support and why the sect down the road is wrong and should be cheer leading for the current armed group on the otherside of the world that some persudo leftist middle class students happen to support.

No we need to be community and union wise and target issues that fucking effect people here and now. Not talking as if you learnt to speak from having the 19th centuray dictionary played on a repeating tape to you as a baby also helps.

Yes, obviously, thats why I'm involved in union and community organising, but I still find it tineresting how much care and attwntion goes into sport and how much it divides and distracts people. I'm a regular player and watcher of football and love terrace culture and football banter.

Wanted Man

23rd March 2009, 16:00

Youd be wrong on both counts, and i've probably seen more social chauvinism on the football pitch than i have off it. At my school, the football pitch was little more than a training ground to weed out the weak (ie to select those who would be the victims of social ostracisation between physical education classes) while those who were successful in the sporting stakes had their arses licked by the headmaster and senior staff every assembly morning.

...so you'll forgive me if i have a bit of a downer about competitive sports. I'm sure my tale isnt an isolated one.
This is a problem of the combination of the worst aspects of competitive sports with the worst aspects of education in our society. It's not a problem of the exercise of sports itself. Of course it's a familiar tale to many, most of us aren't Billy Dane or Roy Race. But it's different from the exercise of sports itself, or the very positive effect that it can have if the specific influences of capitalist society are removed from the equation.

GracchusBabeuf

23rd March 2009, 17:02

You mean the bosses might wheel out Christiano Ronaldo to tell striking workers to go back to work? Do you take us all for morons or something?If Christiano Ronaldo is pushed down one's throat from childhood, it is likely his followers will make irrational decisions based on his recommendations. Have you heard of the advertising industry? Why only striking workers? Don't you think there may be other aspects to workers' lifes than just strikes?

Wanted Man

23rd March 2009, 17:17

What are you trying to say? Does Ronaldo have "followers"? Pray tell, what kind of horrible influence do they get from him? Do they make asses of themselves by standing with their legs wide all the time too?

GracchusBabeuf

23rd March 2009, 17:21

cop an Attitude

23rd March 2009, 18:03

Left wing football teams anyone?

we got a baseball team already :D

http://www.nationalsportsbeat.com/images/logos/mlb/Cincinnati_Reds.jpg

Wanted Man

23rd March 2009, 19:02

http://the17thman.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/ronaldo_for_nike.jpg
:)
I don't see the problem. Apart from using celebrities to advertise for clothing brands. That comes with the territory, it doesn't make sport evil.

GracchusBabeuf

23rd March 2009, 20:06

I don't see the problem. Apart from using celebrities to advertise for clothing brands. That comes with the territory, it doesn't make sport evil.If you have read my earlier posts, you would realize that never suggested such a thing.

No. However an active dislike of sport is a characteristic much more common amongst the intelligentsia. What with their deep disconnection from the proletariat and all

http://www.iww.org/en/taxonomy/term/493/all

ComradeOm

23rd March 2009, 20:21

Why only striking workers? Don't you think there may be other aspects to workers' lifes than just strikes?Two reasons. One because you expressly mentioned bosses "manipulating the working classes to do their bidding" and two, because I don't give a damn if someone takes Ronaldo's advice on buying hair gel or football boots. However the idea of him having an influence on any serious decision that one takes with their life (be it getting a mortgage, proposing to the girlfriend, or ending a strike, etc, etc) is absolutely ludicrous. Believe it or not people very rarely "blindly root for a particular team" to the point of absolute stupidity

http://www.iww.org/en/taxonomy/term/493/allhttp://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2912626.html

GracchusBabeuf

23rd March 2009, 21:00

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2912626.htmlIs this a joke? A Marxist using a right-wing attack piece.:D

ComradeOm

23rd March 2009, 21:34

Is this a joke? A Marxist using a right-wing attack piece.:DYou're challenging the factual accuracy of the piece? Or what exactly do you think Chomsky does with his speakers fees? The man is an intellectual and an academic so its hardly surprising when he reveals his distance from the working class

Elect Marx

23rd March 2009, 22:10

Another intellectual who dislikes sport. Few characteristics are more indicative of a fundamental isolation from the working class. I'd wager that those morons applauding were not workers

What kind of leftist are you? Supporting the working class isn't about doing what is popular among them. Disliking sports is a sign of isolation?

This is what Chomsky said:

This is an oversimplification, but for the eighty percent or whatever they are, the main thing is to divert them. To get them to watch National Football League. And to worry about "Mother With Child With Six Heads," or whatever you pick up on the supermarket stands and so on. Or look at astrology. Or get involved in fundamentalist stuff or something or other. Just get them away. Get them away from things that matter. And for that it's important to reduce their capacity to think.
Take, say, sports -- that's another crucial example of the indoctrination system, in my view. For one thing because it -- you know, it offers people something to pay attention to that's of no importance. [audience laughs] That keeps them from worrying about -- [applause] keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about. And in fact it's striking to see the intelligence that's used by ordinary people in [discussions of] sports [as opposed to political and social issues]. I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in -- they have the most exotic information [more laughter] and understanding about all kind of arcane issues. And the press undoubtedly does a lot with this.
You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laughter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense. But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on.
Bullshit. Chomsky's argument is rooted in a deep intellectual snobbery, and rather nonsensical, but still focused on institutional issues. He managed, unlike yourself, to avoid the Chernyshevsky-esque dream of fundamentally changing people and their nature. That is, their grand transformation into a mass of cold revolutionary machines with no time for the 'distractions' of ordinary lifeYou aren't even addressing his argument. Chomsky is saying sports are pushed on people, as a distraction from significant political issues.

A mass of automatons mechanically reciting political creeds does not equal "socially advanced". The idea that sports somehow provide a distraction from more worthy pursuits ignores the reality that for countless workers worldwide sport is in itself a hugely important and productive part of their lives. It is the drudgery of work, of capitalism, that instead distracts people from the more pleasurable aspects of lifeNo, sports aren't important at all because they don't effect anything in our lives, and you have no justification for your statement. The only importance of sports is the obsession people have over them. I have played some basket ball and it is good exercise, but spectators sports are shear distraction. You could be doing any number of activities that are productive and entertaining. I wont begrudge people their escapes, but spectator sports are not socially productive, at best, they make you feel good.

Oh for fucks sake. Sports are fun to play and to watch. They are exciting , entertaining , and a great way to bond. I am not going to go on some puritan rampage where i cease sports , pornography , eating monster munch (etc) for the glory of the revolution. The revolution is made by the working class not by holy then thou wankers

Sports can be fun to play and I enjoy them at times but watching them? I would rather watch paint dry, what a fucking waste of time. If you enjoy it though, that's your thing. How about bonding over something real? Take a hike with someone and learn who they are, discuss the world and build a relationship. Not a game, not a fun time, real life.

GracchusBabeuf

23rd March 2009, 22:27

You're challenging the factual accuracy of the piece? Or what exactly do you think Chomsky does with his speakers fees? The man is an intellectual and an academic so its hardly surprising when he reveals his distance from the working classAre you an pulling my leg or have you never read any Marxist theory? Taking fees for speaking does not make one a capitalist. What do you think a capitalist is? A rich guy? The article is so devoid of any real content, but just shows how the right wing purposely distorts Marxism to suit their needs.

Also, let us not try to put his IWW membership into the memory hole, ok?

JimmyJazz

23rd March 2009, 22:37

GracchusBabeuf

23rd March 2009, 23:44

Comrade Om is owning in this thread.

Working class revolutions have taken place in countries where entrenched orthodox religion, a bourgeois monopoly on the media, centuries-old patriarchy and fierce racism all existed. Give me a break with this "if only we didn't have sports" crap, please. :)I am not against sports. I love to play many sports and watch them and don't see why workers should not do so either. Please don't conflate my previous posts with hatred of sports.

Cumannach

23rd March 2009, 23:57

Chomsky is a prat like all anarchists but linking to the hoover institution :D fair play

JimmyJazz

24th March 2009, 00:00

I am not against sports. I love to play many sports and watch them and don't see why workers should not do so either. Please don't conflate my previous posts with hatred of sports.

No, if I meant anyone in particular, I meant Chomsky.

And it's not that I don't see how sports can be a distraction, either; of course they can. Anything can. But picking out sports from all the things that divide and hold back the working class, when it is so comparably insignificant to the type of things I listed in my last post, just strikes me as extremely inane cultural criticism.

ComradeOm

24th March 2009, 00:08

Are you an pulling my leg or have you never read any Marxist theory? Taking fees for speaking does not make one a capitalist. What do you think a capitalist is? A rich guy?Of course not. Chomsky is an intellectual and an academic (who has done very well out of both fields) but not once did I suggest that he was somehow a capitalist. Unless of course you want to go into how his trust is investing his wealth. But that's not necessary when considering my basic point as stated above

The article is so devoid of any real content, but just shows how the right wing purposely distorts Marxism to suit their needs.The article shows how Chomsky is an extremely wealthy individual who makes use of bourgeois institutions and loopholes to safeguard his fortune. There's no need to take anything out of it than the specific figures and practices mentioned. If you want to argue these then feel free to produce counter figures. I'm more than open to being proven wrong on this count

Also, let us not try to put his IWW membership into the memory hole, ok? You trying to tell me that Chomsky is a worker? Or do the IWW now organise amongst the intelligentsia?

Let's not beat around the bush here. Chomsky is an academic and an intellectual. He makes millions off his books and his speaking tours. He's a very wealthy man. He tells people to vote Democrat. Now why on earth would anyone assume that this man knows anything about the working class?

What kind of leftist are you? Supporting the working class isn't about doing what is popular among them. Disliking sports is a sign of isolation?Read what I said. Again. Disliking sports is a common characteristic of the intelligentsia. Chomsky is a member of this class. Hence it is no great surprise that he has no interests in sports

You aren't even addressing his argument. Chomsky is saying sports are pushed on people, as a distraction from significant political issuesThe old 'opiate' argument has been mentioned already in this thread. I'm fairly sure I addressed it in my above posts. What hasn't been mentioned, I think, is the idea that the state "pushes" sports on people as a form of indoctrination. I suspect the reason that people have not latched onto this particular line of thinking is that it is completely absurd from a European perspective. Football emerged as a genuine mass activity in the last years of the 20th C and its entire history has been intertwined with that of the urban proletariat. Even today clubs throughout Europe proudly bear the names of the towns and factories that founded them over a century ago. They are grassroots organisations with extremely deep connections to the local community and long traditions of working class empowerment. To argue that these clubs are somehow the tool of the bourgeois state - which they developed independently of and often predate - just doesn't make any sense

And that's not even going into the likes of the GAA which developed in the face of active state hostility

I wont begrudge people their escapes, but spectator sports are not socially productive, at best, they make you feel good.I take it you have absolutely no experience with local sports clubs. I'll never understand just how people can be so dismissive of an activity that draws a community together and organises it around a common goal, a common passion

And frankly if something makes you feel good that's enough reason to applaud it. We can't all be miserable eejits spending our Saturday afternoons reading Kapital. Some of us would rather be out making the best of what we have and refusing to give into neo-Puritan sentiment

Sports can be fun to play and I enjoy them at times but watching them? I would rather watch paint dry, what a fucking waste of timeAnd that about says it all. You don't like sport and so neither should anybody else. Fuck those workers for whom it forms an important part of their daily lives. The lot of them are wrong and you are right

Vanguard1917

24th March 2009, 01:06

You mean the bosses might wheel out Christiano Ronaldo to tell striking workers to go back to work? Do you take us all for morons or something?

:laugh:

Bring back George Best and it's a deal.

If Christiano Ronaldo is pushed down one's throat from childhood, it is likely his followers will make irrational decisions based on his recommendations. Have you heard of the advertising industry? Why only striking workers? Don't you think there may be other aspects to workers' lifes than just strikes?

Grown men and women aren't impressionable little children. We need to view workers with a bit more respect than that.

GracchusBabeuf

24th March 2009, 03:05

Of course not. Chomsky is an intellectual and an academic (who has done very well out of both fields) but not once did I suggest that he was somehow a capitalist. Unless of course you want to go into how his trust is investing his wealth. But that's not necessary when considering my basic point as stated aboveThe article you linked to did suggest that he was a "closet capitalist". Anyhow, unless you have any specific criticisms of Chomsky's writings or theory, please start another thread for it. I'd be glad to learn from you. It seems that right now, you don't have anything else other than ad hominem attacks.

The article shows how Chomsky is an extremely wealthy individual who makes use of bourgeois institutions and loopholes to safeguard his fortune.
I didn't know socialism was the same as aceticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asceticism). I am learning something new everyday it seems. As to whether an academic qualifies as proletariat or petit-bourgeois, that is an open question and would require some discussion. As to his endorsements of Democratic candidates, he is not the leader of any party whose members need to follow his every wish and command. Everyone is free to do as they please. If you have read his books, it should be clear that he considers both Democratic and Republican parties as factions of a single business party and he has criticized American liberalism a lot. By taking statements out of context, one can make anyone, even Karl Marx, a liberal or whatever.

do the IWW now organise amongst the intelligentsia?Are you saying the IWW website (http://www.iww.org/en/taxonomy/term/493/all) is lying?

ComradeOm

24th March 2009, 12:05

Anyhow, unless you have any specific criticisms of Chomsky's writings or theory, please start another thread for it. I'd be glad to learn from you. It seems that right now, you don't have anything else other than ad hominem attacksNo. This is not about Chomsky's theories - or rather it is based on your original post but not this particular point - but his "isolation from the working class". Now I've 'suggested' that this is a man worth over $2 million, who charges thousands of dollars for his speeches, and has set up his very own trust fund. He cannot possibly understand the conditions of the working class and is in no position to lecture on the importance of sport to this class

Now stop dancing and either challenge the figures or the conclusions drawn from them

I didn't know socialism was the same as aceticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asceticism)Haven't you been reading this thread? All worldly pleasures must go in the pursuit of revolutionary perfection :rolleyes:

Are you saying the IWW website (http://www.iww.org/en/taxonomy/term/493/all) is lying?Are you saying, on the basis of this website, that Chomsky is indeed a worker? Fair play to the man, it must be tough fitting his academic work and speaking tours around those eight hour shifts. Of course the possible alternative is that the IWW does indeed organise amongst the intelligentsia now, which does disappoint me

Pogue

24th March 2009, 12:54

Chomsky is a prat like all anarchists but linking to the hoover institution :D fair play

Why are we all prats?

Pogue

24th March 2009, 12:57

No. This is not about Chomsky's theories - or rather it is based on your original post but not this particular point - but his "isolation from the working class". Now I've 'suggested' that this is a man worth over $2 million, who charges thousands of dollars for his speeches, and has set up his very own trust fund. He cannot possibly understand the conditions of the working class and is in no position to lecture on the importance of sport to this class

Now stop dancing and either challenge the figures or the conclusions drawn from them

Haven't you been reading this thread? All worldly pleasures must go in the pursuit of revolutionary perfection :rolleyes:

Are you saying, on the basis of this website, that Chomsky is indeed a worker? Fair play to the man, it must be tough fitting his academic work and speaking tours around those eight hour shifts. Of course the possible alternative is that the IWW does indeed organise amongst the intelligentsia now, which does disappoint me

So we shouldn't let clever people join our union? :confused:

He's a professor and lecturer. So he is employed, and paid money. So he is a worker. He certainly doesn't employ anyone.

I love how you think we should restrict influential anarchists on the basis that they are clever and use their knowledge to educate other people. What sort of union would not let anarchists in?

ComradeOm

24th March 2009, 13:11

So we shouldn't let clever people join our union? :confused:Have you read any of my posts? You can see them above, they're the ones in which I rail against Chomsky the intellectual and Chomsky the academic. Show me the one where I rail against 'Chomsky the clever person'. Unless of course you've read these and have proceeded under the assumption that only intellectuals are clever and that the rest of us are dull-witted peons eagerly awaiting greybeards to descend from the mountains to share the fruit of their magnificent craniums

So that's an emphatic no, I do not wish to see unions discriminate on the basis of intelligence. I do however sincerely wish that they'd start discriminating on the basis of class. Non-workers have no place in a workers' union

He's a professor and lecturer. So he is employed, and paid money. So he is a worker. He certainly doesn't employ anyoneWell I guess that Chomsky does belong in your workers' union after all. Along with bank managers, professional sportsmen, stockbrokers, the President of the United States, and priests. I mean, they all get paid money, right? They're all workers, no?

I love how you think we should restrict influential anarchists on the basis that they are clever and use their knowledge to educate other peopleSo you're not in favour of workers educating themselves?

Don't bother answering that, I'm just messing with you (:lol:). Although it does say something about your conception of intellectuals and their role in society

What sort of union would not let anarchists in?If those anarchists are intellectuals then preferably any workers' union

Although interestingly enough I think yourself and Cumannach are the only ones to draw attention to Chomsky's anarchism. Certainly I've not mentioned it to date

Elect Marx

24th March 2009, 14:32

I have had plenty of experience building rapport with people through physical activities. ComradeOm's position of labeling anyone who disagrees with him inexperienced, is very offensive. Look at the posts and notice his failure to actually address the content, in favor of gross generalizations. He does not recognize teachers and people that work in human services to be workers. His reactionary anti-intellectualism throughout this thread is very telling. This sort of us-and-them, I'm really a worker and you're not, game is very tedious.

GracchusBabeuf

24th March 2009, 20:59

Now stop dancing and either challenge the figures or the conclusions drawn from themSure thing. Now, let me see... *Looking at Chomsky's bank records and credit reports*.... Well, these indicate that ComradeOm is the real rich capitalist!;)

Haven't you been reading this thread? All worldly pleasures must go in the pursuit of revolutionary perfection :rolleyes:You must be writing these posts from a cave?:rolleyes:

Are you saying, on the basis of this website, that Chomsky is indeed a worker? Fair play to the man, it must be tough fitting his academic work and speaking tours around those eight hour shifts. Of course the possible alternative is that the IWW does indeed organise amongst the intelligentsia now, which does disappoint meSo, according to you, working classes cannot form part of the intelligentsia?

You are also assuming Chomsky is part of the intelligentsia. I don't know where you live. But in the US, Chomsky is completely censored in all mainstream media and his very existence is never mentioned in any media outlet. How does that make him part of any "intelligentsia"?

Also how do you define a worker? Marxists.org defines it as (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat):

"The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour power and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death,whose sole existence depends on the demand for labour...
Where does it mention that income levels make one a worker or capitalist or whatever? Where does it mention that if one has a certain income level, one " cannot possibly understand the conditions of the working class".

Also, pray tell me what do you think Chomsky is, if he is not a worker? Do you think intellectuals form another class separate from the proletariat and the bourgeoisie? If so, do let me know if are pulling these things out of a hat or if you have any sources for such an assertion.

GracchusBabeuf

24th March 2009, 21:58

See also: related thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/roar-crowd-sports-t104660/index.html).

ComradeOm

24th March 2009, 22:27

Sure thing. Now, let me see... *Looking at Chomsky's bank records and credit reports*.... Well, these indicate that ComradeOm is the real rich capitalist!;)Pretty much what I was waiting for. Until you can prove otherwise we'll work off the assumption that Chomsky is worth millions and has established trust funds to manage/invest this wealth

So, according to you, working classes cannot form part of the intelligentsia?The working class develops its own intelligentsia independent of bourgeois structures. As it is, someone from a working class background who enters academia today, on a professional basis, is is no longer selling their labour and thus no longer a member of the proletariat. Their position relative to the mode of production has altered

You are also assuming Chomsky is part of the intelligentsia. I don't know where you live. But in the US, Chomsky is completely censored in all mainstream media and his very existence is never mentioned in any media outlet. How does that make him part of any "intelligentsia"?Really? Are his books pulled from the shelves? Is he forbidden to speak on the airwaves? Please. Are people really disputing the fact that Noam Chomsky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/18/books.highereducation) is an intellectual?

Where does it mention that income levels make one a worker or capitalist or whatever? Where does it mention that if one has a certain income level, one " cannot possibly understand the conditions of the working class"To use the same quote that you provided, a worker is someone who "lives entirely from the sale of their labour power". That is the sale of labour to "produce a use-value of any description" (Kapital, Ch.6). To make it as simple as possible, a worker sells his labour in the process of producing a good/service which is then sold as a commodity by the capitalist. This role in the relations of production, not arbitrary income levels, is what defines a worker

This is certainly not the model for Chomsky's employment as he does not sell his labour for anything. As an academic he is supported by MIT while the massive proceeds from his intellectual musings are fully under his control

Also, pray tell me what do you think Chomsky is, if he is not a worker? Do you think intellectuals form another class separate from the proletariat and the bourgeoisie? If so, do let me know if are pulling these things out of a hat or if you have any sources for such an assertion.Hmmm? The intelligentsia is, by definition, a social class. Opinions differ as to whether it is a distinct class in its own right or, as I believe, a substratum of existing classes. That is, an intelligentsia can develop from both the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Everyone has the potential to become an intellectual but it becomes the defining social function of relatively few. I don't agree with all his conclusions but Gramsci is the man to deal with on this topic

GracchusBabeuf

24th March 2009, 23:20

Pretty much what I was waiting for. Until you can prove otherwise we'll work off the assumption that Chomsky is worth millions and has established trust funds to manage/invest this wealthFine.:rolleyes: Do you admit that you are advocating asceticism and not socialism?

Really? Are his books pulled from the shelves? Is he forbidden to speak on the airwaves? Please. Are people really disputing the fact that Noam Chomsky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/18/books.highereducation) is an intellectual?
Try to find any mention of him in mainstream American media, which was what I originally mentioned. I do not question his being an intellectual.

As it is, someone from a working class background who enters academia today, on a professional basis, is is no longer selling their labour and thus no longer a member of the proletariat.How are they not selling their labor? Are there going to be any academics in your socialist vision for the future?

This is certainly not the model for Chomsky's employment as he does not sell his labour for anything. As an academic he is supported by MIT while the massive proceeds from his intellectual musings are fully under his control
Are "intellectual musings", in other words, books, not labor, then? Also are you aware you are defining workers as only those working in factories? That seems to be an incredibly narrow definition and that would include many workers who are employed as teachers etc in the academic industry.

When most Marxist writers and theorists have been explicitly academics and intellectuals themselves, by your logic all of their works have no value and they should have no say in the conditions of workers. By your logic or your lack of it, all those who teach in any academic institution are "not workers" and thus should not be considered competent of understanding anything about workers' struggles. Are you going to advocate abolishing all schools and colleges next?

Do comment on this as well (http://www.revleft.com/vb/roar-crowd-sports-t104660/index.html).

ComradeOm

25th March 2009, 00:10

Fine.:rolleyes: Do you admit that you are advocating asceticism and not socialism?Chomsky did not get rich by selling his labour. He did it by selling millions of books and charging for speaking tours. Hence he is not proletarian. Really, how many workers do you know who are worth a couple of million? You do not make that sort of money selling your labour power

As for the "asceticism" comment, the only people pushing that here are yourself, Chomsky, and the others who have fallen silent

How are they not selling their labor?Think about that question. Perhaps reverse it - how is Chomsky selling his labour? What commodity is he producing? And who has control over his produce?

That seems to be an incredibly narrow definition and that would include many workers who are employed as teachers etc in the academic industryYou were the one who wanted to talk in terms of Marxist definitions. By this standard the intellectual is simply not a proletarian. If you don't like the definition then take it up with Marx or make up your own. Perhaps "lives entirely from the sale of their labour power plus Noam Chomsky"? ;)

Of course the issue of teachers is one that occasionally causes confusion and no little debate. However they are not intellectuals as they do produce surplus value, albeit in the slightly indirect form of educating a workforce, and discussions typically revolve around whether they should be categorised as petit-bourgeois or proletarian. For what its worth, I tend to agree with the latter

When most Marxist writers and theorists have been explicitly academics and intellectuals themselves, by your logic all of their works have no value and they should have no say in the conditions of workers"No value"? Where exactly did I say that?

As it is, few Marxist revolutionaries of note were as ignorant as to tell the proletariat just which pastimes were acceptable or what minute details of their lives should be changed. And really that is the crux of the matter - I'm not faulting Chomsky for his historical analyses, his linguistic work, or his critiques of the US government but rather his distance from the everyday lives of the workers. This is something that few Marxist intellectuals of the 19th or early 20th C would have had the luxury of - by and large their lot was prison, poverty, and exile. Class struggle was something every Marxist of note was intimately acquainted with

So in short, if Chomsky talks about linguistics then I take note. If he talks about the daily struggle or habits of the "everyman" then I approach with extreme scepticism

By your logic or your lack of it, all those who teach in any academic institution are "not workers" and thus should not be considered competent of understanding anything about workers' struggles. Are you going to advocate abolishing all schools and colleges next?There's no need to go to school to learn about workers' struggles. Which is why I'd be very surprised if they were teaching that in schools. Intellectuals and academics are valued for their area of expertise... problems only occur when they step outside of that

Listen, I'm more than happy to keep batting these away but your efforts to paint my corner as some sort of "reactionary anti-intellectualism", to quote Elect Marx (who I hear is definitely not a worker), which abhors any form of learning or teaching is turning into quite the effort in strawman construction

Comrade_XRD

25th March 2009, 00:29

Chomsky is right. I've always thought these thoughts as a child. It doesn't matter if your rich or poor, this stuff is shoved down your throat constantly. From your very first t-ball game to gym class in high school, your trained to keep your mind on a damn ball. Ever watch the athletic kids in gym class? Ever see how they react like animals around a ball, a plaything, a toy? They're like dogs playing fetch, and the sad part is some people spend the better part of their lives doing it (and getting paid pretty damn well for it). Everything is about a damn ball. Those athletes that make the six figure paychecks don't give a damn about their fans, they're quick to deceive and run to the team that offers them the better contract. And..us the proles are destined to be bombarded by their propaganda. Their football sundays, their basketball mondays, their NASCAR (another feeble sport, people complain about the gas crises yet we have people getting paid to burn the crap out of a crap load of fuel....oh and its all about people driving in one circle for hours) saturdays....it never ends. People will kill and damage property if their teams don't win. It's a dangerous habit. But, this isn't even the half of it. What about those jocks that consistently score 1000 points lower than the rest of us on SATs and easily get their way into top colleges? :cursing:

GracchusBabeuf

25th March 2009, 00:47

In the article I originally quoted, he was mentioning how the ruling class manipulated the working classes. That does not equal telling the ruling class how to live. By repeatedly engaging in strawmen, you are just showing your prejudices and not discussing anything worth of substance.

As it is, few Marxist revolutionaries of note were as ignorant as to tell the proletariat just which pastimes were acceptable or what minute details of their lives should be changed. Where exactly has Chomsky done that? Where has he dictated to workers what pastimes to follow? Can you produce quotes to substantiate your assertions? I'd also oppose such a thing, but I'd be interested to see if he has actually done that.

This is something that few Marxist intellectuals of the 19th or early 20th C would have had the luxury of - by and large their lot was prison, poverty, and exile.We are unfortunately not living in the 19th or 20th century anymore. This is the age where almost noone is interested in class struggle or socialism at all.

So in short, if Chomsky talks about linguistics then I take note. If he talks about the daily struggle or habits of the "everyman" then I approach with extreme scepticism
Only if he talks about such things. But where does he do that?

Listen, I'm more than happy to keep batting these away but your efforts to paint my corner as some sort of "reactionary anti-intellectualism", to quote Elect Marx (who I hear is definitely not a worker), which abhors any form of learning or teaching is turning into quite the effort in strawman constructionDo I need to remind you that it is you who seem to be interested in ad hominem attacks by linking articles written by right-wing capitalists and again you who are persisting in constructing strawmen by repeatedly conflating income with class. "workers earning 2 million"??

Elect Marx

25th March 2009, 01:54

to quote Elect Marx (who I hear is definitely not a worker), which abhors any form of learning or teaching is turning into quite the effort in strawman construction

First off, that isn't a quote. Did you come to the conclusion that I am not a worker because I am not in love with sports or because I don't agree with your unjustified assertions? Either way, your reasoning may need some adjustment.

Only if he talks about such things. But where does he do that?

Chomsky started out in the field of linguistics.

RASHskins

25th March 2009, 08:55

It truly is amazing how so many people on here don't see how important a problem it is just how disconnected intellectuals are from the working class. I hear everyone say "we are not relevant" well maybe this disconnection is a big fucking part of that. I mean this is still a fucking "workers" revolution am i wrong:laugh:. So using something that is popular among most workers as a way to relate to them (and show them you actually understand and can relate to them) is pretty fucking important to gaining a popular movement. Also average teachers are definitely not like "chomsky". They have no 2 million to fall back on and have to work to sustain their life. I'd also like to point out that since chomsky does have 2 million why isn't he giving free speeches to everyone.

ComradeOm

25th March 2009, 13:12

In the article I originally quoted, he was mentioning how the ruling class manipulated the working classes. That does not equal telling the ruling class how to live...

Where exactly has Chomsky done that? Where has he dictated to workers what pastimes to follow? Can you produce quotes to substantiate your assertions? I'd also oppose such a thing, but I'd be interested to see if he has actually done that.Chomsky: "You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laughter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense"

Following a sports team doesn't make any sense? Then why do ordinary people do it... of course they are being manipulated by a bourgeois state and media" If these factors were not present, ie if there was no deliberate campaign of indoctrination, then people would not play sports. Sport is an opiate whose sole purpose is to "keep [people] from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about" and channel their intelligence into "arcane issues" and away from more worthy topics

There inference is obvious. Sport is a form of 'manufactured consent' that has duped people and made them think that it actually matters or is worthwhile. Contrast to the worldly Chomsky for whom it "doesn't make sense". Should this form of indoctrination cease then people would surely abandon their sports and take up "science or the arts", to quote a previous poster, or, from Chomsky, "political and social issues"

What do you think I have been arguing about this whole time? The entire quote that you presented smacks of the condensing snobbery of an intellectual disappointed that people are choosing to waste their time on trivial issues rather than those of which he approves. Now I've argued the logic of that quote, I've argued with others' logic, and I've argued that Chomsky is a removed intellectual. What next?

Only if he talks about such things. But where does he do that?As noted above, the whole quote you provided is Chomsky straying well outside his field of expertise. He knows nothing about sports and he knows nothing about the daily life of a worker. Why exactly should I pay any attention to him at all?

Do I need to remind you that it is you who seem to be interested in ad hominem attacks by linking articles written by right-wing capitalists and again you who are persisting in constructing strawmen by repeatedly conflating income with class. "workers earning 2 million"??Don't you try and go down that road with me. You brought up the Marxist definitions of class and I have been more than happy to work through them. Now that you've been proven to be incorrect (an intellectual as a worker, WTF?) you're again reaching for the sky with these strawmen

Point out to me just where I "conflate income with class". Go on, do it. I suspect that the closest you'll come is my groundbreaking assertion that selling one's labour power is not conductive to accumulating great wealth. When you're done with that how about you trawl through these few posts where I have, with far more patience than could be expected, spelt out to you just what the Marxist definition of a proletarian is and why an intellectual such as Chomsky does not qualify

I'm also disappointed in that I thought we'd gotten over your inability to produce counter figures as to Chomsky's wealth. Either accept those figures or produce your own.

Module

25th March 2009, 14:40

Sports can be fun to play and I enjoy them at times but watching them? I would rather watch paint dry, what a fucking waste of time. If you enjoy it though, that's your thing. How about bonding over something real? Take a hike with someone and learn who they are, discuss the world and build a relationship. Not a game, not a fun time, real life. How is playing a sport and watching a sport any different in how it relates to "real life"..? They're both just enjoyable recreational activities.
'Turn off the football, guys, let's go hiking!' is something my old Geography teacher would say to his family, no doubt.
How on earth do you think that watching football is a substitute for any other regular relationship...? You think football fans 'bond' with or reject the other people in their lives simply on the basis of whether or not they support their team? The idea that people who enjoy watching the football ignore 'real life', don't have meaningful relationships with other people or "waste" their lives doing something they enjoy is just absurd, and what a bloody patronising and pretentious thing to say.

And I would vaguely agree with you up until that point.

GracchusBabeuf

25th March 2009, 18:08

Why exactly should I pay any attention to him at all?
Don't.

I'm not interested in discussing Chomsky anymore.

Elect Marx

25th March 2009, 19:03

How is playing a sport and watching a sport any different in how it relates to "real life"..? They're both just enjoyable recreational activities.
'Turn off the football, guys, let's go hiking!' is something my old Geography teacher would say to his family, no doubt.
How on earth do you think that watching football is a substitute for any other regular relationship...? You think football fans 'bond' with or reject the other people in their lives simply on the basis of whether or not they support their team? The idea that people who enjoy watching the football ignore 'real life', don't have meaningful relationships with other people or "waste" their lives doing something they enjoy is just absurd, and what a bloody patronising and pretentious thing to say.

And I would vaguely agree with you up until that point.

I understand where you are coming from. I honestly don't know a great deal about sports worldwide, and I never claimed to. My point was that watching sports or engaging and pontificating about sports consumes a great deal of many people's lives. I am certainly not universally condemning sports or any of the irrational positions I have been painted into.

Where I live, football (American) is a religion; just look up Nebraska football. The attempts to make this a black and white issue, show a basic failure of consciousness and a personal agenda that smacks of cultural chauvinism. Honestly, there are more productive things to do in life than sports, but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for it; life isn't simply about being productive and no one here argued it is. Chomsky is essentially right, that when working class people devote a large amount of time and effort to sports, it cannot be allocated elsewhere. This is opportunity cost, basic economics. So yes, pushing for more sports involvement is in a sense good for the ruling class agenda, though that may not be universal true.

apathy maybe

25th March 2009, 19:16

Firstly, I just want to say this shouldn't be in Shit Chat, it is clearly a theoretical thread.

Secondly, I agree, why the fuck should I care about sports? Why should I care if "my" team wins or loses? It doesn't matter fuck to me. Am I suddenly anti-worker because I don't like watching sport? Of course not.

Thirdly, bread and circuses, mass produce, mass marketed sport is a type of circus.

25th March 2009, 19:48

Firstly, I just want to say this shouldn't be in Shit Chat, it is clearly a theoretical thread.

This is not shit-chat.Even if the forum is under chit-chat, its a serious forum, which has nothing to do with chit-chat, it just couldnt be set anywhere else, so it was placed under chit-chat.This concerns sports so this is the appropriate forum.

Secondly, I agree, why the fuck should I care about sports? Why should I care if "my" team wins or loses? It doesn't matter fuck to me. Am I suddenly anti-worker because I don't like watching sport? Of course not.

I dont disagree, bit you are not anti-worker if you do watch sports.I will respond to the whole thread when i find the time and "courage" to get for one more time to this conversation.

Thirdly, bread and circuses, mass produce, mass marketed sport is a type of circus.

Its an entertainment, a hobby, something that a lot of people do like, i do not think its equal with the "circus", sports have a lot of differences.

Fuserg9:star: