Is it rational to be anti-olympics "now?"

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm currently in school in Vancouver. When the Olympics were due to arrive, it didn't seem like a great idea. However, they were happening. Now that millions have been invested in preparation, we do not stand to gain a profit. We stand to recoup losses from a poor investment.

Why do leftists, at least in the Vancouver area, seem to be against the Olympics still? I know some freedoms are being curtailed temporarily and such, but that is to be expected. Why not advocate "finishing the Olympics but giving the profits to the poor?"

I can't see any sense, from the perspective of the utility of the poor, where opposing the Olympics now is worthwhile? And protesting the Olympics while it's in progress? It was a good symbol for awhile. Now it just seems ridiculous to me.

Perhaps it's just the Vancouver area or my limited exposure, but it seems like leftists have no idea how to protest effective and, more importantly, protest things that actually matter "when" they matter.

[Leninid]

i am from greece.

the olympics here in athens in 2004 were used as an excuse to install cameras, violate all sorts of rights, pass various laws, and have a zepelin fly above our heads recording everything.

at the same time, they are an imperialism-fest, with "athletes" excreting anabolics and other drugs from every pore of their body, "competing" in stadiums with more adds than grass to run on.

games like that also wake up a crazy nationalistic feeling in lots of people- as if the workers should give a shit that someone run some distance a bit faster than another guy who comes from another place.

marx, i hate the olympics <_<

[danyboy27]

i am still waiting for the winter beach voley competition.

[FreeFocus]

Attacks on the homeless. Surveillance. Capitalist excess and silly escapades. They're taking place on unceded Native territory (British Columbia).

Why support them?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why not advocate "finishing the Olympics but giving the profits to the poor?"

I think that's the right idea - emphasize how tax money goes to enrich a few and then leave the population and city broke. I don't think that it's a reform we could really win at this point, but it's useful in making our point.

As far as the timing... well when the olympic planning is going on, the entire establishment gets behind how great the Olympics or a new stadium (most US cities have gone through this scam with pro-sports teams in the last 20 years) is going to be a huge boom for the local economy, make jobs, and so on. Of course it's important to protest it then, but you probably going to be ignored. Now that it's on, it's a little easier to tell people it's a rip-off and you can point to specific examples of how the public was robbed for rich developers and corporations.

Here's a quote from an article by Dave Zirin's article on opposing the Olympics coming to Chicago.


No Games Chicago organizer Alison McKenna said to me, "I oppose the Olympics coming to Chicago because instead of putting money toward what people really need, money will be funneled to real estate developers who will be tearing down Washington Park and other important community resources. I oppose the Olympics coming to Chicago because the nonprofit child-welfare agency that I work for had to sustain budget cuts and layoffs, while Chicago has spent $48.2 million on the 2016 Olympic bid, as of July 2009."

Check out these articles by radical sportswriter Dave Zirin:

Chicago Olympics (http://www.edgeofsports.com/2009-09-29-456/index.html)

China Olympics (http://www.edgeofsports.com/2008-08-04-366/index.html)

[Bitter Ashes]

i am from greece.

the olympics here in athens in 2004 were used as an excuse to install cameras, violate all sorts of rights, pass various laws, and have a zepelin fly above our heads recording everything.

at the same time, they are an imperialism-fest, with "athletes" excreting anabolics and other drugs from every pore of their body, "competing" in stadiums with more adds than grass to run on.

games like that also wake up a crazy nationalistic feeling in lots of people- as if the workers should give a shit that someone run some distance a bit faster than another guy who comes from another place.

marx, i hate the olympics <_<
I was in Greece that year too a few weeks after the games, although not on the mainland. Despite bieng on an island a long ferry and coach trip away from any of the sites, I had noticed that prices had shot up on everying from accomidation to a loaf of bread was drasticly more expensive than 12 months earlier in the same area. The locals told me it was down to the Olympic Games, because the wholesalers had put up the prices to catch more tourists, but never bothered to drop them down again. Fine, I was a tourist at the time and I could afford it back then, but I had to wonder how the locals coped with it and whether there'd been any passing on of the profits to them (unlikely) so that they could afford to buy the very things they were producing and selling.

To go a little further on the oppressive laws bieng instated for the games, there's a new one just been passed that states that the police can enter your house without a warrant and seize any literature that may disrupt the games' corporate intentions. They say that's intended to prevent somebody putting a giant Pepsi advert in thier window near the games site, but in practice it could easily be used to seize political leaflets, or posters, or do searches of properties that would normaly be illegal.

I've got all the reasons already stated for opposing the 2012 games in London, but I've got two more to add actualy.

1) The working conditions at the 2012 site are awful! The IWW's published the situation for constuction workers there and it's shocking stuff.

2) The whole of the UK is going to pay tonnes of tax so that the rich and slightly better off Londoners can have the games in London. I'm 200 miles away and my goverment means testing will agree that I stand no chance of affording a ticket, so why do I have to pay extra income tax on my wages, council tax on my flat and VAT on everything I buy to fund the place?

[Havet]

i
the olympics here in athens in 2004 were used as an excuse to install cameras, violate all sorts of rights, pass various laws, and have a zepelin fly above our heads recording everything.

games like that also wake up a crazy nationalistic feeling in lots of people


This

[Trystan]

I don't want the Olympics in 2012. The only people it will benefit are A) the corporations who use it to advertise and B) smaller businesses in London. And pretty much only in fucking London.

Besides, all it is is a few people running around and throwing things onto some grass. Do they really need the new stadium for that? The large stadiums are almost never full during the Olympics. And why not spend the money on something that actually matters - like jobs or education?

[Jazzratt]

It seems a better question is whether it is rational to be pro-olympics.

[yuon]

What I don't understand is why there is such a fuss about people using drugs in the games.

I mean, who cares? They already do all sorts of crazy shit like living in oxygen tents (err, with reduced oxygen) or training at higher altitudes.

primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[1] (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.08/nike.html)

It used to be that professionals weren't allowed to compete either.

There was also a prevailing concept of fairness, in which practicing or training was considered tantamount to cheating.[101] Those who practiced a sport professionally were considered to have an unfair advantage over those who practiced it merely as a hobby.[101]

The exclusion of professionals caused several controversies throughout the history of the modern Olympics. The 1912 Olympic pentathlon and decathlon champion Jim Thorpe was stripped of his medals when it was discovered that he had played semi-professional baseball before the Olympics. His medals were restored by the IOC in 1983 on compassionate grounds.[102] Swiss and Austrian skiers boycotted the 1936 Winter Olympics in support of their skiing teachers, who were not allowed to compete because they earned money with their sport and were thus considered professionals.[103]
So, with all these changes to the rules, why not one more that says, "whatever you want dude". After all, it's not like 'ordinary' people can compete anyway.

[RGacky3]

at the same time, they are an imperialism-fest, with "athletes" excreting anabolics and other drugs from every pore of their body, "competing" in stadiums with more adds than grass to run on.

games like that also wake up a crazy nationalistic feeling in lots of people- as if the workers should give a shit that someone run some distance a bit faster than another guy who comes from another place.


Imperialism-fest? What the hell are you talking about, jeez, why do people feel the need to politicize EVERYTHING, even freaking sports, also I think its hillareous that you put quotation marks around athletes.

Workers, or anyone, "give a shit" that someone runs faster than another because its fun to watch physical competition. My God, why is this even an issue.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Attacks on the homeless. Surveillance. Capitalist excess and silly escapades. They're taking place on unceded Native territory (British Columbia).

Why support them?

Attacks on the homeless, sure. However, given the influx of people coming to Vancouver, wouldn't the homeless come out on the winning end of the situation?

Surveillance is temporary and, honestly, understandable for large events.

Native Territory as a "problem" resolves around the assumption that people can morally "own" land (1) and that land should be passed down through generations (2). Both of these assumptions are false.

I still think it is more pragmatic to demand Olympic revenue go to the homeless (even though it won't be done, nor will protesting stop the Olympics). If the point is to educate people about how to spend money properly, that point was relevant before the Olympics was this far in. Now, it's a significant profit loss to discontinue the Olympics. A profit that could theoretically aid the homeless.

If that profit was to go to the homeless, I'm sure it would more than compensate for their current inconveniences and surveillance. This is assuming protests should be about arguing for "ideals" rather than symbols (the Olympics themselves).

[Bitter Ashes]

Attacks on the homeless, sure. However, given the influx of people coming to Vancouver, wouldn't the homeless come out on the winning end of the situation?
What makes you think that? Vancouver's treasury will swell, but can you honestly see the politicans standing up and saying "With the money raised we're going to get people off the streets!". I certainly cant. I know you suggest protesting for the homeless, but with working class solidarity so wounded from glorifiying capitalist "sucesses" to the not so well off. such as the Olympics, it's unlikely you'll get far.


Surveillance is temporary and, honestly, understandable for large events.
If you look at the history of where surviellance and other oppressive laws have been enacted for an event, you'll find that these things do not disapear after the event is over. If anything, it's the green light they've been waiting for to push these policies forward.

[#FF0000]

My God, why is this even an issue.

Did you just sort of hop right over every other response in this thread

[Bud Struggle]

How this for anti-political? I heard on the radio that they are planning to build a wall up above the Copacabana beach to keep all the poor people living in the cardboard houses from "visiting and spoiling" the games.

[RGacky3]

Did you just sort of hop right over every other response in this thread

No I did'nt, they are just mundane and rediculous, you can tell someone who is complately detached from real class struggles when they complain about mundane pointless stuff, like sports.

[Plagueround]

Native Territory as a "problem" resolves around the assumption that people can morally "own" land (1) and that land should be passed down through generations (2). Both of these assumptions are false.


Yeah, those silly natives, always wanting a place to live and shit. The reason natives were given a small portion of the land they once occupied is because settlers wouldn't adhere to their conception of land ownership...you know the idea that no one should own the land and it should be shared by all?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Yeah, those silly natives, always wanting a place to live and shit. The reason natives were given a small portion of the land they once occupied is because settlers wouldn't adhere to their conception of land ownership...you know the idea that no one should own the land and it should be shared by all?

It's my understanding that most Natives in Canada have places to live. More specifically, they can live anywhere in Canada.

I agree that land should be shared by all. They don't want land shared by all, for the most part. They want control of the land to be shared amongst themselves, not amongst non-Native Canadians.

[Plagueround]

No I did'nt, they are just mundane and rediculous, you can tell someone who is complately detached from real class struggles when they complain about mundane pointless stuff, like sports.


Because opposing a massive forced eviction of the poor from their homes so people can build stadiums, and a struggle to not let the state continue to trample all over the few remaining rights of indigenous people, is mundane and ridiculous.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I enjoy the olympics.

There are several occasions where I root for the US (baseball b/c no major leaguers are involved, marathons, hockey, and jeremy wagner), and there are other times I really enjoy seeing the US get taken down (basketball, or would enjoy it if someone could fucking top phelps).

I really enjoy it when some athlete from somewhere like Rhodesia beats all the major countries. It's sweet.

[Plagueround]

It's my understanding that most Natives in Canada have places to live. More specifically, they can live anywhere in Canada.

Historically this was not the case, hence the reason for reservations and reserves. Now that they've been "freed" to live wherever, should they be required to cede what little land is left to the Canadian state for whatever purpose it wants? I agree, as a socialist and a native, that if the racial and class divisions that led to reservations were abolished, perhaps we could look at the situation differently. However, the state agreed long ago not to touch that land, and the idea that we should defer to the state because they're the larger power is ridiculous. I also find it offensive that, because they now have the right to move around, that that somehow translates to it being ok to subject them to encroachment of areas they do inhabit, as well as the notion that we should look the other way when both natives and non-natives are being forcibly evicted to make room for sports.


I agree that land should be shared by all. They don't want land shared by all, for the most part. They want control of the land to be shared amongst themselves, not amongst non-Native Canadians.Again, with class antagonism and outright racism still driving much of the discourse between natives and settlers, to allow the state to break down their legitimate claim to the land they live on. To allow people to control the use of this land without native input or consent is invasion, not an attempt to share anything. For your apparent support for the brutality of the Canadian settler state, you really should consider taking "anarcho-communist" out of your user title.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Again, with class antagonism and outright racism still driving much of the discourse between natives and settlers, to allow the state to break down their legitimate claim to the land they live on. To allow people to control the use of this land without native input or consent is invasion, not an attempt to share anything. For your apparent support for the brutality of the Canadian settler state, you really should consider taking "anarcho-communist" out of your user title.

I'm not supporting brutality here. I am simply saying I have difficulty understanding your point. Here is the way I see it:

1. Natives receive benefits other Canadians do not.
2. All Canadians should receive the same benefits. More specifically, we should get the same benefits as Natives, not take their benefits away.
3. Natives have the right to complete political control over the land they inhabit.
4. Natives should have the right to enter and exit Canada. However, there must be some manner of dealing with sovereignty issues between federal and provincial governments. Either they have to be "not-Canadian" or a province, perhaps. I am not expert on how to resolve such disputes.

Random point: Is the government actually forcibly moving Natives from their homes for the purposes of the Olympics. If so, can you provide more information.

5. If you know anything about Canada, you would know we are taught absolutely nothing about Native culture so my ignorance is understandable.
6. What exactly do Natives "want" from the average Canadian?

I am no expert. But I do know Canada is failing Native people, and, honestly, so are the communities themselves in many cases. I know Natives who specifically tell me the money given by the government goes through their representatives, outside Canadian jurisdiction, and pocket the funds.

How is Canada supposed to help Natives then not be involved in their affairs? If Canada is forcibly removing Natives from their homes for the Olympics, I'll jump on board with the Anti-Olympic bandwagon, most likely. I have simply never heard anything about that. I have simply heard slogans like "no Olympics on Native Land." Well, ignoring issues of ownership, I've encountered Natives who claim they own Canada. So I really can't make anything out of random political slogans.

Is the government actually going to people's homes, saying they need to move, poorly or well compensating them, et cetera? What exactly is the situation.

I'm an anarchist, but I am trying to consider things from a utilitarian analysis. What are the pros and cons of the situation. Sometimes bad things can be justifiable by good ends - i.e revolutions.

Anyway, I don't intend to come off across as harsh or disrespectful towards Natives. Keep in mind that the average Canadian, especially where I was raised, was fairly negative towards Natives. So I certainly didn't get an enlightening education on Native affairs and potential solutions.

[Jethro Tull]

However, given the influx of people coming to Vancouver, wouldn't the homeless come out on the winning end of the situation?

that makes no sense. try logic.


Surveillance is temporary

what reason do you have to believe that?


and, honestly, understandable for large events.

yes, understandable from the point of view of the capitalists, who want the olympics to go undisrupted.


Native Territory as a "problem" resolves around the assumption that people can morally "own" land

that's great, can i use your toothbrush to wipe my ass?

that's basically what the olympics are doing. they're using the indigenous peoples' land to wipe their collective asses. they're leaving a massive shit-stain across the land. they're clearing forests, destroying waterfalls, to make room for condos and tourist traps. is that moral?


land should be passed down through generations

everyone has a right to live where their ancestors have lived for generations. that doesn't mean that europeans, africans, asians, etc. aren't allowed to live on north america, but it does mean it's wrong for people to be forced off their land to make room for capitalist developments...


I still think it is more pragmatic to demand Olympic revenue go to the homeless (even though it won't be done

then why is it pragmatic? what is pragmatic about making ridiculous demands that won't be met?


nor will protesting stop the Olympics

that's not the point, the point is to build an anti-capitalist resistance, so that maybe we can fully disrupt the olympics, or the g-∞ or what have you, by, say, 2030....


If the point is to educate people about how to spend money

the point is to abolish money.


Now, it's a significant profit loss to discontinue the Olympics.

that's a good thing. we want our enemies to waste their resources.


A profit that could theoretically aid the homeless.

theoretically, yes. in reality, no.

besides, philanthropy is stealing wholesale and giving away retail. capitalist "aid" is psychological warfare deployed to strenghten loyalty to the state. the only way to "aid" the homeless, is for all workers, homeless and non-homeless, to mobilize against capitalism.


If that profit was to go to the homeless, I'm sure it would more than compensate for their current inconveniences and surveillance.

to paraphrase ben franklin, anyone who's willing to trade constant surveillance for shitty, state-subsidized housing is a fucking idiot.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Nobody has a right to live where their ancestors lived if someone already lives their. Or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?

Protesting the Olympics as a whole to build up resistance seems difficult. The idea is that the leftist movement should be proposing things that are in the interests of the working class. Given that the infrastructure of the Olympics is already established, it seems rational to advocate acquiring that profit.

There is no reason to believe surveillance won't be removed from an area if its purpose is to protect things during a specific event. If it's true that this isn't usually the case, then ask "why is it a worry." Being watched on a camera isn't problematic in and of itself. I don't walk into a store with surveillance and worry. Why should we be worried about the specific security/surveillance being put into certain areas?

My point is advocating "no Olympics" seems to put the authorities in an easy situation. They already invested everything. Most of the evil destruction already happened (I was against the Olympics when opposition had the potential to change anything).

It's like protesting a highway over an environmental area. After the environment is scourged, there isn't much point in opposition to the highway. Isn't there a point where all the damage has been done? What use is the protesting at that point?

If we want to prevent the elite from acquiring money, would it be rational to burn public tax collection. Then later we find the average person with a lower quality of health care due to budget cuts?

If a bunch of leftists disrupt an event, causing an economic loss of one million dollars, how would that be beneficial. If Olympic protests cause a loss of economic revenue. The loss is going to come out of the taxpayer.

Is there a long-term benefit I am missing here. You hinted at it with the 2030 information, but some elaboration might be helpful.

I have no vested interest in this so people don't be too hard on me. My intention is to simply adopt the opinion that is closest to the truth. I don't have enough information to switch from my current opinion, based on the fact that sunk costs (destruction, moving people, surveillance) have already been undertaken for the most part.

From a utility perspective (utilitarianism) solely based on the considerations and interests of the average worker, it seems like there seems to be something to gain by going forth with the Olympics "at this point." Yet a great number of people are quite vehement that I am mistaken.

I appreciate the responses and would simply appreciate some more so I can resolve the dispute either by changing my view (which will require me to get information to see your reasoning more completely) or convincing myself I am already correct (which will require me to get more information to better judge the merits of the alternative viewpoint).

Thanks

[Bitter Ashes]

Protesting the Olympics as a whole to build up resistance seems difficult. The idea is that the leftist movement should be proposing things that are in the interests of the working class. Given that the infrastructure of the Olympics is already established, it seems rational to advocate acquiring that profit.
It's really not in the intests of the working class though is it? The bourgeois make a tonne of money. The state is granted new powers to oppress us and the average worker cant even afford to go visit the stadium. We lose a lot and get very very little in return.


There is no reason to believe surveillance won't be removed from an area if its purpose is to protect things during a specific event. If it's true that this isn't usually the case, then ask "why is it a worry." Being watched on a camera isn't problematic in and of itself. I don't walk into a store with surveillance and worry. Why should we be worried about the specific security/surveillance being put into certain areas?
Except that every oportunity that a goverment has had to remove the legislation and aparatus of surviellance culture, they have kept it afterwards. Greece did it, Tokyo did it, France did it. it doesnt just apply to cameras either. It's the stuff like the police bieng able to enter your home and search without a warrant if they believe you may make your disagreement with the state vocal. If it's disagreeing with the Olympics that is enough to warrant that, then god help anyone who disagrees with capitalism!

[Bud Struggle]

It's really not in the intests of the working class though is it?

Except it's the working class that is interested in sports. They are one ones that support football and baseball and basketball in the US and soccer (football) in Europe and the rest of the world. Those aren't the bourgeoise that are cheering on their favorite teams.

While amybe sports in general and the Olympics in particular aren't good for a particular area aroun the stadiums--they are something that is enjoyed by the working class as a whole.

[bcbm]

From a utility perspective (utilitarianism) solely based on the considerations and interests of the average worker, it seems like there seems to be something to gain by going forth with the Olympics "at this point."

so you're basically saying that if our initial efforts fail to stop projects by the bosses that are harmful to us, we should just resign ourselves to that failure and start begging for scraps?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

so you're basically saying that if our initial efforts fail to stop projects by the bosses that are harmful to us, we should just resign ourselves to that failure and start begging for scraps?

Essentially, yes. Wasn't the initial anti-olympic effort the equivalent of "begging" for them to stop. Since when is non-violent protest, assuming it desires an end, equivalent to anything other than begging. You don't have the power in the relationship. You protest to try and gain some power. You "hope" they will take you into consideration and reform or change their position.

Protests always seem to include a degree of begging unless your intention is simply to make your objections heard, which it usually isn't.

[Jazzratt]

Except it's the working class that is interested in sports. They are one ones that support football and baseball and basketball in the US and soccer (football) in Europe and the rest of the world. Those aren't the bourgeoise that are cheering on their favorite teams.

While amybe sports in general and the Olympics in particular aren't good for a particular area aroun the stadiums--they are something that is enjoyed by the working class as a whole.

:blink: So workers should have to suffer shitty working conditions, gentrification, wage deflation and the myriad problems highlighted by Ranma and others just so that workers that enjoy sports get their spectacle?

It's hilarious, by the way, that you talk of workers as if they are the sole supporters of sports teams (true we are a majority of them, but we're a majority of the whole bleeding world) as if things like the corporate box (http://www.wembleystadium.com/seatsandboxes/seatsandboxes/corporateBoxes.htm) did not exist.

[Radical]

Isent it enough that the Olympics is a Capitalist Compeition fest of gaining profit?

I support Competition to an extent. But not when the idea is to make profit out of it.

[Jethro Tull]

Nobody has a right to live where their ancestors lived if someone already lives their.

yes, exactly.for example, european jews have a right to return to their ancestral levantine homeland but not at the expense of the arabs who have been living there for thousands of years. in the case of cascadia, and the rest of north america, the indians were the ones forced off the land. no one's advocating the displacement whites, blacks, etc. there's enough space in north america for everyone to live amacably.


The idea is that the leftist movement should be proposing things that are in the interests of the working class.

i don't give a shit about "the leftist movement", but rather than making proposals, the communist movement should be building power, increasing the amount of power we have over our individual lives.


Given that the infrastructure of the Olympics is already established, it seems rational to advocate acquiring that profit.

we have no control over how the profits are spent. your solution is more delusional than the distant prospect of fully disrupting the 2010 olympics. we should be attacking the infastructure, not concocting pipe dreams about how we would be spending it. the goal of communists is not to become the new treasurers, but to abolish wage, alienated labor, etc. and create an entirely new mode of life.


There is no reason to believe surveillance won't be removed from an area if its purpose is to protect things during a specific event.

why? the capitalist state is always interested in the further development of a permanent surveillance infastructure. it would be less efficient to dismantle the surveillance provisions that have been set up for the olympics, it would make more sense to deploy at least some of the resources on a permanent basis. it's like you're arguing that technology developed by the military won't be used by the police. all surveillance development accomplished by our adversaries puts us at a disadvantage. this seems really rudamentary.


Being watched on a camera isn't problematic in and of itself.

yes it is. filming someone without their permission is a violation of their personal privacy.


I don't walk into a store with surveillance and worry.

then you're not thinking critically about the society we live in. arguably, you're not an anarchist or a communist.


Why should we be worried about the specific security/surveillance being put into certain areas?

because it gives the capitalists more power. it makes resistance harder, it makes petty crime (which many people depend on to survive) harder, it makes it easier for the state to harass and imprison random people.
opposition had the potential to change anything).


After the environment is scourged, there isn't much point in opposition to the highway.

yes there is. once the environment is scourged, it needs to be healed and repaired. also, there's something to be said for holding the perpetrators accountable. if someone raped me, i wouldn't think "oh, the rape has already been committed", i would think "this person who raped me needs to be deterred from raping people in the future by suffering the consequences of his action".


Isn't there a point where all the damage has been done?

no. more damage can always be done. this is pessimistic and defeatist.


What use is the protesting at that point?

to confront the capitalists, make them lose profits, reach out to the community, etc.


If we want to prevent the elite from acquiring money, would it be rational to burn public tax collection.[ Then later we find the average person with a lower quality of health care due to budget cuts?

this makes no sense. the vast majority of taxes do not go towards health care, they go towards police, military, infastructure development, etc. we need to develop our own alternatives to centralized medicine and other examples capitalist biopower, anyway. stop thinking like the oppressor.


If a bunch of leftists disrupt an event, causing an economic loss of one million dollars, how would that be beneficial.

less profits for the capitalists, duh.


If Olympic protests cause a loss of economic revenue. The loss is going to come out of the taxpayer.

the taxpayers have already had their money stolen from them. now it's just an issue of how much profit the capitalists make. tax resistance is an important part of communist resistance, we can't stress out over how money that's stolen from us is spent, we have to stop the theft.


Is there a long-term benefit I am missing here. You hinted at it with the 2030 information, but some elaboration might be helpful.

if there was no confrontation it would be incredibly demoralizing and would put us in a weaker position for disrupting the 2012 olympics, the 2014 olympics, etc.

[bcbm]

Essentially, yes.

and you're trying to present this as "rational?"


Wasn't the initial anti-olympic effort the equivalent of "begging" for them to stop.

initial? the struggle is ongoing and its aim is to use whatever means available to halt or otherwise disrupt the olympics. there was no begging to the authorities but, rather, telling them "do this and there will be trouble."


Since when is non-violent protest, assuming it desires an end, equivalent to anything other than begging.

non-violent protest? one of the slogans from the olympic resistance is "riot 2010." there is a diverse set of tactics being used.

"The VPD was more active at the unveiling, making seven arrests of 'hooligans with masked faces', according to a February 13 police news release. The release claimed that activists disrupted the event and threw eggs, balloons full of paint, and papier-mâché balls filled with rocks 'at police and participants'."

http://www.straight.com/article-72087/countdown-to-controversy

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Ok, I'll change my mind on the surveillance issue. I'm also opposed to the treatment of Natives and homeless. You've convinced me there. I am still having problems with reconciling disrupting the Olympics with "benefiting the working class."

So acquiring power by protesting "the Olympics" is the goal. Even though the majority of tax money won't go back to the taxpayer, some of it will. However, we're saying the benefits outweigh the costs with respect to that. I'm not 100% sure there, but I'll assume it anyway.

Now we've got things in place to make the Olympics happen. However, the removal or profit from the elite and the acquiring of revolutionary power trumps the small compensation gained from Olympic revenue to the taxpayer.

So the capitalist might be stealing bread. Even though he stole it, he plans on giving some back to those he stole from. To send a message not to steal again, you need to disregard the small return for the long-term benefits of equal political power.

I "think" I get it now. I appreciate the explanations. I'd be interested in more information on the negativity of surveillance with respect to small businesses and the like? Is it negative because it perpetuates poverty and reinforces the class system? Or am I missing something.

I "think" I understand the matter at hand now. Correct me if I'm mistaken. I'd also be interested in more information regarding Natives, particularly in Canada, and how communist theory should interpret this situation.

Thanks. It's always a fun experience (for someone as crazy as me) to change your opinion. I have a certain degree of trust in those who are amongst the left to "know the issues," but I won't adopt a viewpoint until I think I've understood it. I've always been particularly unenlightened when it comes to minorities (such as Natives) and how they fit in to communist theory.

[JimmyJazz]

For anyone skeptical that the poor residents of an Olympic host city get genuinely screwed by the whole affair, I suggest you read the chapter on pre-olympics Beijing in Evil Paradises: Dreamworlds of NeoLiberalism by Mike Davis. Incidentally, it will also give you a pretty bleak insight into the nature of the modern Chinese state, for which property takes a clear precedence over people.

[RGacky3]

Those aren't the bourgeoise that are cheering on their favorite teams.


Thats because there are much much much less bourgeoisie than working class people, sports is'nt (for the most part) class based.

[Bud Struggle]

Thats because there are much much much less bourgeoisie than working class people, sports is'nt (for the most part) class based.

OK that's a fair point--but the vast number of people that enjoy sports are Proletarians. If Communist try to take away sports from the workers they'll never succeed. People like their games.

[RGacky3]

No ones trying to take sports away from anyone ...

[Bitter Ashes]

There are existing stadiums across the world that can host the games without having to beef up security legislation, exploit workers to build and generaly make life worse for the workers in that area.

How much of a difference would this make to 99.99999999% of sports fans? None. Most of them are workers who couldnt afford to go to the games if it was on thier front doorstep anyway and watch it on TV instead. Heck, my Dad was a Liverpool supporter who lived in Anfield. He watched the matches on TV because it cost to much for a ticket.

The richest workers who are in league with the bourgeois would get a bit upset about it I'm sure, but valued workers are a rarity and tbh if the bourgeois value them it's probably because they're weapons to be used against less valued workers.

[Bud Struggle]

:blink: So workers should have to suffer shitty working conditions, gentrification, wage deflation and the myriad problems highlighted by Ranma and others just so that workers that enjoy sports get their spectacle?

It's hilarious, by the way, that you talk of workers as if they are the sole supporters of sports teams (true we are a majority of them, but we're a majority of the whole bleeding world) as if things like the corporate box (http://www.wembleystadium.com/seatsandboxes/seatsandboxes/corporateBoxes.htm) did not exist.

Yea, yea, yea. But it's NOT just about money. It's about happiness. And in America (and I'm sure elsewhere with different teams and different sports) what the Dolphins do on any Autumn weekend is VASTLY important to a great deal of Proletarians.

It's not and this or that situation. You can still have sports and Olympics--we just don't have to make them all about drinking Coca-Cola or wearing Nike.

And I've been to boxes at (the old) Yankee stadium and in the Meadowlands--people MAY have been playing games on the fields below but its nothing anyone would notice.

Keep sports and make them for the people--I have no problem with that.

[Jethro Tull]

OK that's a fair point--but the vast number of people that enjoy sports are Proletarians. If Communist try to take away sports from the workers they'll never succeed. People like their games.

this argument may work on the vast majority of self proclaimed communists who confuse the word "proletarian" as a synonym for "good". the minority of us who no longer have the wool pulled over our eyes can just point out that being in a socio-economic class does not prevent you from supporting things that are against your obvious interests.

also, this is not about sports, but about totalitarian, ecologically draining spectacles. competitive sports will always be an important aspect of any healthy society, organizing sporting events is a worthwhile communist activity.

[Jazzratt]

Yea, yea, yea. But it's NOT just about money. It's about happiness. And in America (and I'm sure elsewhere with different teams and different sports) what the Dolphins do on any Autumn weekend is VASTLY important to a great deal of Proletarians.

Every so often I take an interest in football, it's okay to watch and everything, but this doesn't mean I am going to support the construction of brand new stadium the construction of which is going to be a money sink and the completion of which will herald the coming of an increase in security thugs/rent-a-cops coupled with general gentrification and forcing local workers out of the area. I also know very few fans, no matter how avid, that have actually attended a match in person and of those who have few can attend them regularly.


It's not and this or that situation. You can still have sports and Olympics--we just don't have to make them all about drinking Coca-Cola or wearing Nike.

I'm not saying ban all sports or even that we should never build stadiums. It's simply that right now there are other, more important things and that trying to do this stuff at the expense of workers is simply wrong.


And I've been to boxes at (the old) Yankee stadium and in the Meadowlands--people MAY have been playing games on the fields below but its nothing anyone would notice.

Having never been in there I have no idea if your experience is typical, but it's hard to imagine that the majority of corproate box denezins do not have an interest in sport, even in a peripheral sense. Incidentally golf, polo and all those kinds of things seem to be cared about exclusively by the rich (except in the case of golf, where some of the fans are simply old).


Keep sports and make them for the people--I have no problem with that.

Obviously I aim, eventually, for everything to be "for the people". I'm glad I have your permission with sports.:lol:

[Comrade Anarchist]

The olympics are nationalistic "games" that the rulling classes use to keep us entertained and pissed at the rest of the world. They use the olympics to navigate us into the police state and promote corporate interests.