Should boxing and other combat sports be banned in an ideal society?

[RedSonRising]

I'd rather people not post their opinions on this matter in the other thread that actually discusses the sport. But it is worthy of discussion so a space should be provided for this debate.

Do you think combat sports, which include mixed martial arts, kick boxing, boxing, wrestling, and various oriental martial arts should be banned?

Are they dangerous and prevalent enough to you to warrant legally limiting individuals from participating in professional competition?

Are they exploitative right now to the point that its presence does more harm than good for those who engage it?

Should we limit post-revolutionary members of society from competing in these combat sports?

[Johnny Kerosene]

Fuck no. Of course I am anarchist, so that should explain a lot.

[JucheDPRK]

There should be legislation to protect the participants from serious bodily harm, but I see no problem with people engaging in such activities, in fact, it should be encouraged.

[Comrade J]

Said everything I wanna say about this for now in the boxing thread, perhaps an admin could move mine and RED DAVE's posts into this thread?

[lines]

Combat sports like boxing shouldn't be for peoples entertainment. Combat sports are for military training. So they should be banned for entertainment purposes but they would be necessary to train people in the military. The danger of combat sports is evident in the amount of people who get brain damage from those activities.

[danyboy27]

Combat sports like boxing shouldn't be for peoples entertainment. Combat sports are for military training. So they should be banned for entertainment purposes but they would be necessary to train people in the military. The danger of combat sports is evident in the amount of people who get brain damage from those activities.

no.

if 2 people want to fight eachother for the sake of it, and dont mind me watching, i dont see the problem.

[Sasha]

The danger of combat sports is evident in the amount of people who get brain damage from those activities.

actually this is not true, significant brain dammage is only found in professional boxing, an sport that encourages extremely long (now up to 12 rounds, 15 till the 1980's, even unlimited before that) slugging matches to the head.
in all other combat sports who have normally 2 (mma) or 3 (kickboxing) to max 5 (muaythai) rounds serious brain damage is virtually unheard of.

other problems are the kind of damage, its way worse to get prolonged repetitive blows to your head that dont knock you out like in professional boxing than an clean KO knee like in kickboxing.
also, i believe professional boxing doesnt have an knockdown limit, 2 knockdowns in kickboxing in 1 round is an automatic TKO
also good refereeing and good rules are essential, in professional boxing fighters where (are?) often allowed to fight again very shortly after an fight they went KO in. in kickboxing you are automaticly excluded from fighting for several months after an KO.
so the problem is, again, like always, capitalism and its influence not the actual concept of MA's

[Ele'ill]

As soon as it's banned it'll go under the radar and continue without the possibility of increased/proper protection and medical attention for the combatants.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

If people wish to beat each other up for points then let them do just that.

[Niall]

No, contact sports should not be banned, IMO. They are well governed and the fighters are well looked after, so there shouldnt be a problem

[IndependentCitizen]

MMA and boxing are quite heavily regulated (some argue not enough though). If people train most of their lives, and are willing to fight for other people's entertainment, then why shouldn't they?

I train in MMA - I love it. But I'll never use the training to beat anyone up in the streets incase they start on me.


In an ideal world, there'd be no need for military training because there'd be NO NEED FOR A MILITARY.

[Kamos]

Of course not, why should they be banned? To the "brain damage" argument, working with radioactive material in a laboratory carries significant health risks. Should we close down all nuclear research and forbid the conduction of any more (thereby also depriving ourselves of the #1 energy source of Earth)?

[IndependentCitizen]

Of course not, why should they be banned? To the "brain damage" argument, working with radioactive material in a laboratory carries significant health risks. Should we close down all nuclear research and forbid the conduction of any more (thereby also depriving ourselves of the #1 energy source of Earth)?

^^this + those engaging in such activities more than likely already know of the risks.

Also, I'd hope to see free Brazilian Jiu Jitsu lessons for women. Brilliant ground based self-defence. If some waster wants to rape you, pull him into your guard, and unleash a triangle and choke the bastard out. http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~dmh/WEBSITE-BJJ-Vids/2006-03-Jiu-Jitsu-Tourney-Vids/0603-No-Gi-Finals-Triangle.jpg The scum bag rapist will be crying when he wakes up.

[Rooster]

Don't most people partake in boxing as a way to get out of the ghetto? Isn't that the commonly mentioned caused for being a boxer?

[F9]

Of course no!Its a sport of competitive athletes who know where they step into and they are trained to take whatever they "get".

[Rooster]

Yeah but, fundamentally, it's entertainment. It's two people punching each other in the head for the entertainment of other people.

[red cat]

Martial arts are very useful not only for self defence but also for keeping a person fit. Most of the problems concerning martial arts today are due to their commercialization. A socialist state should ban the professional form of martial arts. Those who are interested should be allowed to pursue martial arts as a hobby, not a profession.

Voted for partially banned.

[IndependentCitizen]

Wow, so much for a revolution "freeing the people" if you're banning it as a profession. We should also ban football, rugby, American football and etc from being played professionally, because that's so capitalist

[Queercommie Girl]

Personally I don't like violence for its own sake. Violence for me is only a means to an end. (E.g. the revolutionary army) But I don't oppose violent sports enough to actually advocate banning them. Also, some forms of such sports might be useful to some extent for self-defence. Martial arts have existed in countries like China for thousands of years.

However, I explicitly advocate heavy regulation and transparency in such professions, as well as worker's democratic control. I also oppose the commercialisation of violent sports that we see today in capitalist society, like red cat said.

[Queercommie Girl]

Wow, so much for a revolution "freeing the people" if you're banning it as a profession.

Depends. I wouldn't call for the ban of the profession as a whole, but in socialist society sportsmen must never be allowed to make huge amounts of money, no matter how good they are.

We must oppose the commercialisation of sports in capitalist society in general.

[Queercommie Girl]

We should also ban football, rugby, American football and etc from being played professionally, because that's so capitalist


Nope playing sports professionally is not capitalist, sportsmen earning ridiculous amounts of money is certainly capitalist. A communist society cannot have "rich people" and "poor people". Everyone must be economically equal.

Basically I don't have a problem with people playing whatever they wish to play, but I do have a problem with some people (whoever they are and whatever they do, it's not just limited to sports certainly) earning too much money. I'm a very anti-rich kind of socialist.

[IndependentCitizen]

Depends. I wouldn't call for the ban of the profession as a whole, but in socialist society sportsmen must never be allowed to make huge amounts of money, no matter how good they are.

We must oppose the commercialisation of sports in capitalist society in general.

No, I don't agree with using it to gain vast amount of money. But turning it into a hobby, and banning profession means that you're essentially going to eventually take out the competitiveness of them. Would banning of professional sports mean you'd be eradicating championships? Yes, pretty much.

In a socialist society, you wouldn't be working most of the day. Which gives you more time to do what you love. So would their be opposition to people collectively owning a gym to train and compete against other gyms?

[Queercommie Girl]

No, I don't agree with using it to gain vast amount of money. But turning it into a hobby, and banning profession means that you're essentially going to eventually take out the competitiveness of them. Would banning of professional sports mean you'd be eradicating championships? Yes, pretty much.

In a socialist society, you wouldn't be working most of the day. Which gives you more time to do what you love. So would their be opposition to people collectively owning a gym to train and compete against other gyms?

As I said, I don't advocate banning any professions intrinsically, whether they are sports, arts or sciences, or any other hobby etc. Provided no-one becomes significantly richer than the mass of ordinary workers and the professions are under firm democratic control by all people, rather than just some kind of "exclusive club" for the elites.

[IndependentCitizen]

As I said, I don't advocate banning any professions intrinsically, whether they are sports, arts or sciences, or any other hobby etc. Provided no-one becomes significantly richer than the mass of ordinary workers and the professions are under firm democratic control by all people, rather than just some kind of "exclusive club" for the elites.

I assume you had agreed to banning, since you liked redcat's post which advocates the banning of said sport.


If there was a socialist society, then there'd be no worry for what you're saying as gyms would be democratically controlled by the users.

[Queercommie Girl]

I assume you had agreed to banning, since you liked redcat's post which advocates the banning of said sport.


I don't think that's what red cat meant. He was referring to "professional sports" as they exist now under commercialised capitalism, not any sport in general. Obviously a socialist revolution would imply radical changes in the field of sports too.



If there was a socialist society, then there'd be no worry for what you're saying as gyms would be democratically controlled by the users.


I don't really mind as long as they don't undermine worker's democracy or economic equality in socialism.

[RED DAVE]

As soon as it's banned it'll go under the radar and continue without the possibility of increased/proper protection and medical attention for the combatants.Then by all means we should (a) remove all protective labor laws and (b) remove the bans on cockfighting.

RED DAVE

[Comrade J]

Love to know how you managed to link all those things together Dave.

[Queercommie Girl]

Whether or not something should be banned (in the general sense, not just regarding violent sports) is obviously a mass democratic decision under socialism. The democratically organised working class has the full right to explicitly advocate banning something, just like it has the full right to explicitly oppose banning something. The views of a few individuals shouldn't dictate matters, one way or another. All individuals can do is to make proposals in favour of something, or against something.

The rights of the collective outweigh the rights of the individual. If the vast majority of ordinary workers actually support banning something, then perhaps it really should be banned, even if a few individuals are against it. In this case though I think it would be difficult for Red Dave to convince the majority of workers that boxing should be banned. However, Red Dave must be given the right to spread his ideas among the people, should he so wish to.

[red cat]

I don't think that's what red cat meant. He was referring to "professional sports" as they exist now under commercialised capitalism, not any sport in general. Obviously a socialist revolution would imply radical changes in the field of sports too.

To be frank, I hate the idea of being paid to hit someone. When you choose martial arts as your profession, you automatically want to perform as well as possible in the few minutes on the ring. This leads to overworking yourself as well as hitting your opponent very seriously.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Wow, so much for a revolution "freeing the people" if you're banning it as a profession. We should also ban football, rugby, American football and etc from being played professionally, because that's so capitalist

Shouldn't people be encouraged to engage in these sort of activities because they really want to instead of the profit motive though? As much as a country like Cuba has its problems (it is far from a socialist paradise), the way the state deals with sports is quite good. Boxing and baseball are the most popular sports in Cuba, and they are not commercialised, people do them because for the sheer enjoyment of it and for the competition aspect too. Cuba still ranks among the best in the world for baseball players and boxers.

To hell with banning sports, working class people should have more things to do, not less. The person who said boxing can be a means of escaping the ghetto is spot on. When I was growing up, ALL of my friends were always in some sort of trouble, either with their family, or with the police, or with school, but I managed to avoid most of that because I was more interested in boxing, playing football, and learning the drums. Only trouble I ever really got into as a kid was with my teachers at school.

[Meridian]

I don't like the idealism coupled with arrogance evident in some of these threads.

"Should boxing be banned?"
"Should people wear so and so clothes?"
"Personally I advocate outlawing religions"
"I am for banning television"

Just to throw out some hypothetical examples. Such statements have nothing to do with communism, and are anti-materialist if you believe them to be qualifiers for an "ideal society" you have cooked up that we should somehow try to achieve, and revealing of character if you practice imposing such relatively arbitrary rules on things you, for whatever reason, happen to dislike.

[RED DAVE]

Love to know how you managed to link all those things together Dave.It was in response to this:


As soon as it's banned it'll go under the radar and continue without the possibility of increased/proper protection and medical attention for the combatants.Cockfighting continues even though its banned and some brutal forms of labor exploitation and lack of proper care continue as well.

RED DAVE

[Commissar Rykov]

No combat sports should not be banned. I have never understood why so many Leftists are so damn ban happy.

[IndependentCitizen]

Shouldn't people be encouraged to engage in these sort of activities because they really want to instead of the profit motive though? As much as a country like Cuba has its problems (it is far from a socialist paradise), the way the state deals with sports is quite good. Boxing and baseball are the most popular sports in Cuba, and they are not commercialised, people do them because for the sheer enjoyment of it and for the competition aspect too. Cuba still ranks among the best in the world for baseball players and boxers.

To hell with banning sports, working class people should have more things to do, not less. The person who said boxing can be a means of escaping the ghetto is spot on. When I was growing up, ALL of my friends were always in some sort of trouble, either with their family, or with the police, or with school, but I managed to avoid most of that because I was more interested in boxing, playing football, and learning the drums. Only trouble I ever really got into as a kid was with my teachers at school.

Well, if Cuba has succeeded, then we can succeed :D I agree with comrades about the commercialisation - because that makes it for sheer profit. But I don't know too much about Cuba's cultural policies and etc.

I suppose under socialism, regulation and the fighter's health would be much more highly regarded. Nothing will remove the dangers of the sport, but we can help try to prevent them as much as possible.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't like the idealism coupled with arrogance evident in some of these threads.

"Should boxing be banned?"
"Should people wear so and so clothes?"
"Personally I advocate outlawing religions"
"I am for banning television"

Just to throw out some hypothetical examples. Such statements have nothing to do with communism, and are anti-materialist if you believe them to be qualifiers for an "ideal society" you have cooked up that we should somehow try to achieve, and revealing of character if you practice imposing such relatively arbitrary rules on things you, for whatever reason, happen to dislike.

It doesn't matter, people have the right to propose banning something, just like you have the right to oppose such proposals. Whether or not the masses accept such proposals is another matter, of course. But it's not "anti-materialist" if the vast majority of people really do vote to ban something, let's say pedophilia for instance.

As I said, it's arrogant for both sides (both proponents and opponents of "banning something") to simply dictate to others that their particular views are right, instead of having respect for the whole range of opinions out there. Having respect for other people's opinions even when they differ vastly from your own is one of the things that underpin any healthy democracy. Personally I disagree with Red Dave's proposal, but I can see where he is coming from.

A communist society is equally far away from a hypothetical society where "everything is banned" as it from a hypothetical society where "everything is permitted". There are no intrinsic metaphysical positions on anything, worker's democracy in the collective sense should always have the last word.

[Queercommie Girl]

Shouldn't people be encouraged to engage in these sort of activities because they really want to instead of the profit motive though? As much as a country like Cuba has its problems (it is far from a socialist paradise), the way the state deals with sports is quite good. Boxing and baseball are the most popular sports in Cuba, and they are not commercialised, people do them because for the sheer enjoyment of it and for the competition aspect too. Cuba still ranks among the best in the world for baseball players and boxers.

To hell with banning sports, working class people should have more things to do, not less. The person who said boxing can be a means of escaping the ghetto is spot on. When I was growing up, ALL of my friends were always in some sort of trouble, either with their family, or with the police, or with school, but I managed to avoid most of that because I was more interested in boxing, playing football, and learning the drums. Only trouble I ever really got into as a kid was with my teachers at school.

I don't support banning sports, but I don't really agree with the "state" actively encouraging them either. There are people who just aren't very into any kind of sports at a personal level, (like me for instance) and making playing sports into some kind of "official socialist culture" could alienate people who are interested in different things.

I just think the socialist "state" shouldn't directly meddle in any kind of cultural affairs in any "official" sense. Politically I'm a Leninist but culturally I'm an anarchist. There is no such thing as a singular "official socialist culture". To a significant extent people should be allowed to do or not do whatever they like.

[RedSonRising]

I don't support banning sports, but I don't really agree with the "state" actively encouraging them either. There are people who just aren't very into any kind of sports at a personal level, (like me for instance) and making playing sports into some kind of "official socialist culture" could alienate people who are interested in different things.

I just think the socialist "state" shouldn't directly meddle in any kind of cultural affairs in any "official" sense. Politically I'm a Leninist but culturally I'm an anarchist. There is no such thing as a singular "official socialist culture". To a significant extent people should be allowed to do or not do whatever they like.

I agree with your premise that a majority under a socialist political framework would be the ultimate deciders in establishing such rules, however the question applies to what you as an individual would want out of society. Sure, the majority will rule in a classless society, but how would you want them to decide?

[Comrade J]

A friend of mine (not a Marxist) once told me about a Marxist text she had read for university about how governments in capitalist states fund sport so much, both to encourage participation and also support. The reason being, it placates the working class from the reality of a difficult life - exercise releases energy and is pacifying, and many people live for the next weekend's game to see if their team wins, very much an opiate of sorts.

I have nothing against sport as such, although most of it is really boring, but I agree that states shouldn't be intervening in it.

[Meridian]

A communist society is equally far away from a hypothetical society where "everything is banned" as it from a hypothetical society where "everything is permitted". There are no intrinsic metaphysical positions on anything, worker's democracy in the collective sense should always have the last word.
I agree, that was what I was trying to say.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't support banning sports, but I don't really agree with the "state" actively encouraging them either. There are people who just aren't very into any kind of sports at a personal level, (like me for instance) and making playing sports into some kind of "official socialist culture" could alienate people who are interested in different things.

I just think the socialist "state" shouldn't directly meddle in any kind of cultural affairs in any "official" sense. Politically I'm a Leninist but culturally I'm an anarchist. There is no such thing as a singular "official socialist culture". To a significant extent people should be allowed to do or not do whatever they like.
But nobody said sports should become part of a state administered culture. I'm not proposing that the state forcibly remove you from your home and send you to watch the big game, or that a six month cricket camp should be on the compulsory national curriculum for under 16s...if you're not into sports then you don't have to have anything to do with them. But sports are good for your physical and mental health, good for making new friends, good for lots of things, I don't see any harm in simply encouraging physical activity....but then, I also don't see any harm in the state encouraging people to eat their veggies, maybe I need to rethink my position on that one too, after all, some people don't like veggies.

[gorillafuck]

No, of course not. There's no good reason to.

Some people will never accept that other people enjoy different things than them.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I'd like to get in the ring with whoever voted for an outright ban

Own up and explain yourself, comrade!

[Ele'ill]

Then by all means we should (a) remove all protective labor laws

lol what?



and (b) remove the bans on cockfighting.

And also reinstate pit fighting where various neighborhoods train children to fight and then throw them against one another. They're willing to fight, right? Or is that all they've known? Or in the case of cockfighting, a biological reaction in the brain of the animal to fight another male? Or in the case of dog fighting- the dogs which are animal aggressive get further encouragement to engage in behavior that suits the manipulation of human power structures. The dogs that won't fight and the dogs that lose get burned alive, beaten to death, used as bait dogs etc..


If two roosters could train for months and then meet up on their own accord, bump spurs in mutual respect and engage in a fight with rules etc.. then I would be thinking 'Wow, RED DAVE is right, cock fighting is exactly like MMA' but seeing how it's not the same at all I'm going to have to question your analogy.

[JucheDPRK]

If a young person wants to learn a sport or martial art then this is only a good thing.
If someone wants to pay the money they have earned to see said young person perform this is only a good thing, the money will go to the young person and the venue holder to cover the constant capital of maintenance.
In this scenario literally no one gets hurt, the family have a nice day out seeing their favourite athlete, the sportsmen engage in their favourite sport, in reality however, the family are exploited by the capitalist venue owner and sponsorship deals made with the money they produced.
The only sport inherently bad is a blood sport and boxing, MMA, wrestling ect. aint no blood sports.

[Thirsty Crow]

We must oppose the commercialisation of sports in capitalist society in general.
But how would you go about opposing a social and economic phenomenon which has already occured and produced its results? Or did you mean we should oppose further commercialization, specifically of those sports which did not receive a lot of "economic attention"?
But, in the end, in what way would that vocal and active opposition lead to a productive intervention into class struggle? In what way would it enable rising class consciousness?

As far as the initial point is concerned, I wouldn't advocate outright ban on contact sports (Mariel put it well - you ban it, it probably goes underground), but I'd advocate social regulation in concord with the basic social form of workers' direct control over production (in planning and day-to-day decisions regarding production).

[Ele'ill]

Much of this discussion is revolving around the existence of money in a post revolution society. Perhaps that's where this discussion should start.

[Johnny Kerosene]

no.

if 2 people want to fight eachother for the sake of it, and dont mind me watching, i dont see the problem.

Exactly. Fighting for the sake of fighting is a hell of a lot of fun as well.

[MattShizzle]

Much of this discussion is revolving around the existence of money in a post revolution society. Perhaps that's where this discussion should start.

True, but unfortunately our society isn't there so there are people who see something like this as the only way out of poverty and get their brains ruined. I'm in favor of an outright ban as it is little different from the Roman gladatorial games in our present society. In a post capitalist society if people wanted to participate, sure - since they would have other opportunities.

[MattShizzle]

I'd like to get in the ring with whoever voted for an outright ban

Own up and explain yourself, comrade!

Not going to happen considering I am disabled and can't even be on my feet 15 min straight. I meant in our present society where someone may very well have a choice between risking their body/brain and utter lifetime poverty. In the society we want if someone wants to do it rather than seeing it as the only way out of poverty I'd be OK with it as long as it's a mentally stable adult.

[Ele'ill]

True, but unfortunately our society isn't there so there are people who see something like this as the only way out of poverty and get their brains ruined. I'm in favor of an outright ban as it is little different from the Roman gladatorial games in our present society. In a post capitalist society if people wanted to participate, sure - since they would have other opportunities.

But I didn't think the question in the thread was 'ban now' or 'ban later' I thought it was 'in a post revolutionary atmosphere do we ban it?'.

[MattShizzle]

It asked it like that last but before that asked

Are they exploitative right now to the point that its presence does more harm than good for those who engage it?
Which in my opinion the answer is a resounding "yes."

[MattShizzle]

Though maybe a sort of gladatorial games where the most exploitative of the owner class were forced to compete against each other would be a bit entertaining. :D

[Ele'ill]

It asked it like that last but before that asked

Which in my opinion the answer is a resounding "yes."

Every industry within capitalism is currently exploitive.

[Comrade J]

"Should boxing and other combat sports be banned in an ideal society?"

No. In an 'ideal society' people will just shut the fuck up and let others do what the hell they want to their own bodies.

[Jazzratt]

An argument I've seen come up in this thread so far and in RED DAVE's posts in the other is that these sports boil down to two people fighting for the entertainment of others. What this totally ignores is that the participants, generally, quite enjoy it as well - like all sports it keeps the athletes as entertained as the audience. It's certainly not the case that these are people that have been whisked from their homes by a cackling madman with a pencil thin moustache and a top hat then forced to fight against their will.

[RedSonRising]

As a boxing fan, I was really interested to see this documentary. It shows how the sport's issues of safety have evolved over time, the ultimate price that many had to pay, but also the fighters' mentality that persists even in the face of these dangers. Many in the sport understand the risks and hold themselves personally accountable to their actions, though the tragedies are heartbreaking regardless, and need to be addressed in order to prevent harmful violence under the pretext of exploitative management. In my opinion that makes it all the more important as a fan to recognize the accomplishment of individuals who have succeeded in the sport.

If you really care about the working class individuals risking their lives, then at the very least recognize the supreme effort and artistic mastery they provide with their minds and bodies in order to forge a legacy.

QcZPxFQIxvg

[ZeroNowhere]

In an ideal society, holding that boxing and other combat sports should be banned would be banned. Because, you know, I don't like it, so it should be banned.

[Queercommie Girl]

But nobody said sports should become part of a state administered culture. I'm not proposing that the state forcibly remove you from your home and send you to watch the big game, or that a six month cricket camp should be on the compulsory national curriculum for under 16s...if you're not into sports then you don't have to have anything to do with them. But sports are good for your physical and mental health, good for making new friends, good for lots of things, I don't see any harm in simply encouraging physical activity....but then, I also don't see any harm in the state encouraging people to eat their veggies, maybe I need to rethink my position on that one too, after all, some people don't like veggies.


I'm not necessarily disputing that in the objective sense, but you are completely missing the point. There is a fundamental difference between "encouraging sports or whatever else" on a purely personal level (like to your friend who doesn't happen to like sports) and the state encouraging a particular thing in an official manner. I do not believe the state should directly interfere in cultural matters because I'm a cultural anarchist. It doesn't mean I think citizens themselves cannot try to promote a certain thing (e.g. sports) to other people in a non-political manner.

The problem isn't with promoting sports per se, it's with the state promoting sports.

Tangent: Not all sports are physical, there are also mental sports like chess and semi-mental sports like snooker. Personally I'm not anti-sports, and I do generally watch the big international events like the Olympics or the World Cup. I just don't really follow any club football or any other regular professional events in sports.

[Queercommie Girl]

The person who said boxing can be a means of escaping the ghetto is spot on.


That would be an issue in a capitalist society, but not in a socialist one.

[Queercommie Girl]

Much of this discussion is revolving around the existence of money in a post revolution society. Perhaps that's where this discussion should start.

Not necessarily. Leninism does not believe that money can be abolished any time soon after the revolution. But even when money still explicitly exists, no-one in whatever profession (including sports) can be allowed to earn huge amounts of money. Lenin once proposed that in a socialist society (that is, the transitional stage between capitalism and communism), the maximum wage difference between any 2 workers cannot exceed 4 times.

[Queercommie Girl]

But how would you go about opposing a social and economic phenomenon which has already occured and produced its results? Or did you mean we should oppose further commercialization, specifically of those sports which did not receive a lot of "economic attention"?

But, in the end, in what way would that vocal and active opposition lead to a productive intervention into class struggle? In what way would it enable rising class consciousness?


In a strategic sense, I don't think it's very productive to focus a lot on this particular issue in one's political programme at the moment, since this is not a major issue as far as fighting for socialism is concerned.

But in principle, in a socialist society no-one can earn significantly more money than another person. Economic equality is one of the fundamental attributes of genuine socialism. Wealth equals power. If some people are allowed to become super-rich relative to others, then they would also have more political power than others, and the socialist system would deform and collapse.

Whether or not something "has already occurred" or not is irrelevant. Capitalism has already occurred. Class society has already occurred. But we want to destroy them. Under socialism professional sports will continue to exist but rich sportsmen won't. People who are into sports mainly for the money rather than due to a real passion for sports obviously won't like this, but why would I give a shit about that?

In more practical terms, a concrete example: soon after the hypothetical global socialist revolution, money would still exist for a while, but the super-high pay levels and transfer fees for professional football/soccer players, for instance, would be forcefully reduced to reasonable levels by the socialist state.

[TheLeftStar]

No boxing & combat sports are good & shouldn't be banned in an ideal society!

[red cat]

Martial arts are very useful not only for self defence but also for keeping a person fit. Most of the problems concerning martial arts today are due to their commercialization. A socialist state should ban the professional form of martial arts. Those who are interested should be allowed to pursue martial arts as a hobby, not a profession.

Voted for partially banned.

Now I think that banning isn't a permanent solution for this at all. May be at some circumstances the socialist government should go for a temporary ban. But on the long run the CP should mobilize its cultural units to discourage people from engaging in professional martial arts championships etc. Permanent banning is an action that we should avoid as much as possible, though temporary and partial bans could still be used in cases like this.

[praxis1966]

Don't most people partake in boxing as a way to get out of the ghetto? Isn't that the commonly mentioned caused for being a boxer?

"Boxing is a lot of white men watching two black men beat each other up."--Muhammad Ali

Q: Chris Rock--"Do you think there will ever be another white champion?"
A: Floyd Mayweather--"Not as long as a brother's out of a job."

Then again, this could be said of almost all sport and the military as well.


Whether or not something should be banned (in the general sense, not just regarding violent sports) is obviously a mass democratic decision under socialism. The democratically organised working class has the full right to explicitly advocate banning something, just like it has the full right to explicitly oppose banning something.

First, another quote: "If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."--Anatole France

Second... Seriously? I don't see how some asshole from Mississippi or Utah has the right to tell me what I can or can't do with my body before, during, or after the revolution. After all, we are talking about two grown, consenting adults doing something they enjoy whilst being watched by other grown, consenting adults. Fair enough point about restricting wages and looking out for the health of the fighters and all that, but this portion of your argument is exactly the same kind of argument being used by advocates of Prop 8 (the same-sex marriage ban, in case you haven't heard) here in California. They all keep whining about how the will of the majority ought to be respected.

In other words, what two consenting adults do to each other, whether it's fighting or fucking, is nobody's business but theirs. The will of the majority is completely irrelevant.

[Vanguard1917]

In an ideal society, boxers themselves would decide whether they want to box or not.

[Magón]

No, boxing or any other combat sport like it, should not be banned in an ideal society. They're fun to watch sometimes, and the people who participate in them, work really hard to get where they are, and succeed in what they do. Why take that away from someone who wants to beat another person up, who wants to beat that person up, and both of whom chose to go into boxing or whatever.

[Queercommie Girl]

First, another quote: "If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."--Anatole France

Second... Seriously? I don't see how some asshole from Mississippi or Utah has the right to tell me what I can or can't do with my body before, during, or after the revolution. After all, we are talking about two grown, consenting adults doing something they enjoy whilst being watched by other grown, consenting adults. Fair enough point about restricting wages and looking out for the health of the fighters and all that, but this portion of your argument is exactly the same kind of argument being used by advocates of Prop 8 (the same-sex marriage ban, in case you haven't heard) here in California. They all keep whining about how the will of the majority ought to be respected.

In other words, what two consenting adults do to each other, whether it's fighting or fucking, is nobody's business but theirs. The will of the majority is completely irrelevant.


I was making a general point. But I wouldn't go as far as saying the will of the majority does not matter in the intrinsic sense. Socialism after all is more collectivist than it is individualistic. Hyper-individualism is a liberal trait.

It might be the case that in some parts of the world the majority don't support same-sex marriages at the moment, but I certainly don't expect this to continue in a society where everyone is sufficiently educated about queer sexuality. Similarly, if you think boxing is intrinsically a harmless thing, then why would you even expect the majority of the people to be against boxing in the long run? It doesn't make sense. If something is genuinely and objectively good, then ultimately the majority of workers will always support it. If the majority of the people don't yet support it, it's only because of the lack of education, or perhaps they are being misled by negative propaganda.

To think that the "truth" is in the hands of a small minority in an intrinsic sense is a rather elitist viewpoint. The majority may be mistaken temporarily due to lack of understanding or being misled by propaganda, but even so it is still the job of the minority to convince the majority. As a socialist who firmly believes in mass democracy, I will say that ultimately the majority is always correct.

Tangent: Why does it have to be an "asshole from Mississippi or Utah" who is anti-boxing? And I don't think you should distinguish sports based on racial lines.

[praxis1966]

I was making a general point. But I wouldn't go as far as saying the will of the majority does not matter in the intrinsic sense. Socialism after all is more collectivist than it is individualistic. Hyper-individualism is a liberal trait.

I don't think it's hyper-individualistic to suggest that personal liberties shouldn't be voted on. I would personally characterize that as anti-authoritarian; a rebuff to the "tyranny of the majority." I dunno, maybe it's just personal frustration talking when I keep hearing people say, "tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow" with regard to queer lib, marijuana legislation reform, etc...


It might be the case that in some parts of the world the majority don't support same-sex marriages at the moment, but I certainly don't expect this to continue in a society where everyone is sufficiently educated about queer sexuality. Similarly, if you think boxing is intrinsically a harmless thing, then why would you even expect the majority of the people to be against boxing in the long run? It doesn't make sense. If something is genuinely and objectively good, then ultimately the majority of workers will always support it. If the majority of the people don't yet support it, it's only because of the lack of education, or perhaps they are being misled by negative propaganda.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I don't think the majority of people would vote to ban boxing. MMA is what I really meant... which has at various points been banned in places around the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that this discussion was about combat sports in general, not just boxing.


As a socialist who firmly believes in mass democracy, I will say that ultimately the majority is always correct.

The majority of Americans believe that capitalism is the best system going, so it isn't really as absolute as you suggest. Further, if your logic holds, then all socialists are elitists... But I know what you're going to say, that they just haven't been educated enough to unshackle their minds, and I'd agree. But as a libertarian socialist, I would say that opening up individual liberties to a popular vote is a dangerous precedent that can only lead to oppression in the short term at the very least. And, if I've read you right, you as much as admit this to be the case. It's one of the failures of state socialism, IMO. I would at this point use the argument that if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one; if you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't have one; and if you don't believe in combat sports, don't participate in them. There's no need to bring voting and legislation into it.


Tangent: Why does it have to be an "asshole from Mississippi or Utah" who is anti-boxing? And I don't think you should distinguish sports based on racial lines.

Huh? No, I just mentioned them because that's where arguably the most hardline reactionaries live. I could've easily said Arizona, which is where Sen. John McCain (and Prop 187) is from, a guy who once called MMA "human cockfighting" which "ought to be banned." But the references to Mississippi and Utah were meant to drive home the point about queer lib more than they were about boxing as well as the point that all politics are personal, and the suggestion that one person has the right to vote on another's liberty is inherently authoritarian. To put it another way, anyone who would presume the right to vote for a ban of the sports in question is essentially saying, "I know better than you do what's in your best interests... Let me handle this."

As for the point about distinguishing sports along racial lines, that's a fair enough criticism and not really the point I was trying to make. I really think that they're a way out of poverty more generally speaking. With slight modifications, those quotes could have just as easily applied to a Cockney person living in London's East End and football/soccer.

[Queercommie Girl]

I would personally characterize that as anti-authoritarian; a rebuff to the "tyranny of the majority."


Authoritarianism is mostly in the form of a small minority lording over a majority, like a so-called "vanguard party" over the rest of the people, not the other way around.



Perhaps I should have been clearer. I don't think the majority of people would vote to ban boxing. MMA is what I really meant... which has at various points been banned in places around the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that this discussion was about combat sports in general, not just boxing.
This thread (if you look at the title for instance) is about boxing in general.

Personally I couldn't care less what kind of sports people choose the engage in. But it's true I don't like violence for its own sake (as opposed to necessary violence for self-defense and just war), so I don't think the state should ever actively promote and encourage sports like MMA either, even if it's not banned.



The majority of Americans believe that capitalism is the best system going, so it isn't really as absolute as you suggest. Further, if your logic holds, then all socialists are elitists... But I know what you're going to say, that they just haven't been educated enough to unshackle their minds, and I'd agree. But as a libertarian socialist, I would say that opening up individual liberties to a popular vote is a dangerous precedent that can only lead to oppression in the short term at the very least.
Well, that's in America. In many European countries and Third World countries, a higher proportion of the population are sympathetic to leftist and socialist ideas. But yes I would say that ideologically many Americans today have been brainwashed by capitalist propaganda.

I'm neither a libertarian socialist nor an authoritarian socialist, I am more of a democratic socialist (revolutionary). I believe in collective democracy, not individual liberalism or elitist authoritarianism. I don't like either the idea of "every individual doing whatever he/she likes" or the idea of "a small elitist vanguard leading everyone else". I prefer a society built upon the principles of mass consensus and mass democracy.

And yes, I do think utopian socialists and ultra-leftist socialists who refuse to engage with the skeptical masses on their own level have to a significant extent lost touch with concrete reality, and are indeed ideological elitists.

Lastly, I don't advocate mass voting to decide whether or not to ban something at the present time under capitalism, which is obviously going to be highly distorted, but only in a genuine socialist society in the future.



And, if I've read you right, you as much as admit this to be the case. It's one of the failures of state socialism, IMO. I would at this point use the argument that if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one; if you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't have one; and if you don't believe in combat sports, don't participate in them. There's no need to bring voting and legislation into it.
Where would you draw the line? What about when a child and an adult both consciously agree to have sex? (Not forced or coerced in any way) Should that be considered as a type of "individual liberty" too?

[praxis1966]

Right, well, it actually sounds like you and I are a lot closer together than I had initially anticipated. The one primary concern I have is the following.


Where would you draw the line? What about when a child and an adult both consciously agree to have sex? (Not forced or coerced in any way) Should that be considered as a type of "individual liberty" too?

Every time I spoke about individual liberty I was talking about the activities of consenting adults. Children aren't adults, and as such can't really give 'consent' as you and I would understand it. Therefore, I don't think that really constitutes the same thing.

PS Look at the thread title. It says "boxing and other combat sports," which pretty well covers MMA.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Q: Chris Rock--"Do you think there will ever be another white champion?"
A: Floyd Mayweather--"Not as long as a brother's out of a job."



This is a funny quote, but there are white world champions: The Klitschko's have dominated the heavyweight division for the best part of a decade now; Lucian Bute is, IMO, the best super middleweight in the world right now; Carl Froch is another super middleweight world champion, although I cannot stand watching the guy fight because he makes me too nervous; Nathan Cleverly is a very good young Light middleweight... etc etc. Id say that the balance between black and white world champions is about 50:50. Also - a future heavyweight world champion is David Price - a white guy from Liverpool. MARK MY WORDS - CALLED!

Not that it matters, anyway.

(I apologise if i'm condescending to you, by the way. Im assuming you don't know much about boxing which. Apologies if you were merely being tongue in cheek.)


But anyway, in response to the poll: No boxing shouldnt be banned, that would just force it underground. Nor do I believe it's legality should be voted on democratically as it is not a matter of central importance to how society is run, therefore it is not the business of people that have nothing to do with it to ban it.


Edit: Actually, by the time a socialist utopia is finally implemented on Earth, there may be no need to ban Boxing because it's pretty much dying on it's arse anyway. Its heyday was really in the 80's - Buster Douglas was paid $45 million to fight Evander Holyfield. David Haye is receiving around a quarter of that for his fight with Klitschko.

Still not bad for a nights work, though.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

^ Er, yeah... not that I take any pride in the fact that there are as many white world champions as there are black world champions. ^

I realise there are forums that cater for that sort of attitude. They seem like an angry lot, though. Maybe Momma never gave them no nipple???

[pastradamus]

No, I boxed for years. Boxing, is a sport. When the fight ended you shook hands with the opponent - thats what sport is all about. I never resigned a single ounce of hatred for anyone I have ever met in the ring. Its a sport.

[pastradamus]

Its heyday was really in the 80's - Buster Douglas was paid $45 million to fight Evander Holyfield. David Haye is receiving around a quarter of that for his fight with Klitschko.

Still not bad for a nights work, though.

Well, when Holyfield ko'd Buster Douglas in 1990 it was a much more exciting prospect that Klitschko and Haye - who simply arent as good as Holyfield and Douglas were back then.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not a huge fan of boxing myself, but if people want to do it then I see no good reason why it shouldn't take its place alongside other sports and athletic activities.

Besides, if boxing was banned, would that mean martial arts would be banned also? I'd say that such things are more "combat-oriented" than boxing.

I do like to shoot, however. Is that a "combat-oriented sport"? True, I did only shoot targets at a range, but the skills I learned could also be applied to living targets.

If anything, I think "combat sports" should be encouraged in a post/revolutionary society, especially since large volunteer armies are out of the question. It's easier to put up a defence if large portions of the population actually do know one end of a rifle from the other.

[pastradamus]

I do like to shoot, however. Is that a "combat-oriented sport"? True, I did only shoot targets at a range, but the skills I learned could also be applied to living targets.


Yep, shooting is an olympic-recognised sport. It requires a great amount of skill and training to perfect it as an art so I would say fair play.

[Psy]

Wow, so much for a revolution "freeing the people" if you're banning it as a profession. We should also ban football, rugby, American football and etc from being played professionally, because that's so capitalist

It is not banning because it is capitalist but for health and safety reasons. It would make no sense for the communist world to allocate anything to boxing as it is nothing but a liability in higher costs for health care. Thus a communist world would not really have to ban boxing as boxing equipment just wouldn't get produced as it would be counter-productive transforming labor power into injuries that would have to be fixed with more labor power.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is not banning because it is capitalist but for health and safety reasons. It would make no sense for the communist world to allocate anything to boxing as it is nothing but a liability in higher costs for health care. Thus a communist world would not really have to ban boxing as boxing equipment just wouldn't get produced as it would be counter-productive transforming labor power into injuries that would have to be fixed with more labor power.

Proper equipment and the appropriate use thereof would actually serve to reduce healthcare costs by reducing the occurrence of injury.

I think more people would end up injured in bare-knuckle boxing matches in back alleys than they would if adequate facilities were available.

[Psy]

Proper equipment and the appropriate use thereof would actually serve to reduce healthcare costs by reducing the occurrence of injury.

I think more people would end up injured in bare-knuckle boxing matches in back alleys than they would if adequate facilities were available.

Even with proper equipment there is significant risk of injury this is because of how boxing is scored, if it was a strait competition based on how many hits a boxer can get within a time limit without having to hurt the opponent then it would be possible to engineer boxing equipment to keep the boxers relativity safe as the ability of a boxer to withstand blows wouldn't factor into a match.

Really wrestling is better since at least wrestling is fake and the wrestlers are not trying to hurt each other (yet accidents still happen) thus when everything goes right all the wrestlers leave the ring as healthy as the went in.

[Dimitri Molotov]

I think combative or aggressive sports such as boxing should be encouraged and definitely not limited. I am an Anarcho-Communist and a high school student, and I can't tell you how many times I have seen violence solve a problem compared to the bullshit and punishments the school tries to do. I am against murder and capital punishment obviously, but if someone is giving you shit I think a good kick in the face will do the job. I think America as a whole is being sissified way too much. Back a few decades ago when our parents went to school kids used to fight all the time, but nowadays you can't throw a punch without out of school suspension for a week. Hell, my friend got suspended from school on the last day of school for refusing to take his sun glasses off as he walked out of the building.

If you look around all over the rest of the world, tons of other countries are engaging in armed revolutions all over the place, overthrowing their governments, rioting, protesting, etc. Here in the good ol' USA, we turn to the ***** ass silly nanny politicians to solve our problems. Neither of the two main parties have accomplished jack shit, and I don't think they intent to. Most people are too stupid to realize that voting changes nothing anymore, not anything of relevance or significant change anyway. Our government will murder people every day, both inside our country and outside it, and nobody gives a damn. But as soon as someone says we should start a riot or even a revolution people look at you like your some kind of murderer or terrorist.

I am sick of voting and I am sick of being passive. Every time we try to protest riot police show up with gas and batons and beat the flaming shit out of us. It infuriates me how people are okay with this. We need to stand up and raise our fists, start throwing bricks, tear down the walls and borders that contain and divide us. Take the throne that the corporate pigs rule us from and stick it up their putrid lying ass. Sorry everyone for going off on a tangent, but basically my point is that we should not teach our kids that violence is always a bad thing, and we need to make sure they grow up knowing not to take any shit or to take matters into their own hands when the system doesn't work for them. Viva La Revolution, Comrades! :blackA: :hammersickle:

[Queercommie Girl]

I think combative or aggressive sports such as boxing should be encouraged and definitely not limited. I am an Anarcho-Communist and a high school student, and I can't tell you how many times I have seen violence solve a problem compared to the bullshit and punishments the school tries to do. I am against murder and capital punishment obviously, but if someone is giving you shit I think a good kick in the face will do the job. I think America as a whole is being sissified way too much. Back a few decades ago when our parents went to school kids used to fight all the time, but nowadays you can't throw a punch without out of school suspension for a week. Hell, my friend got suspended from school on the last day of school for refusing to take his sun glasses off as he walked out of the building.


That's a rather sexist statement. I'm fucking sick and tired of people who think one must be "macho and tough" in order to be a communist.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not an absolute pacifist and I don't oppose sports like boxing in principle, so I'm not necessarily opposing your idea per se, but at the very least you should be gender-neutral about it. Sounds like you don't think women can fight back for themselves. Maybe what you need is a good thrashing by a woman. :rolleyes:

And you really don't want to be going along the same lines as this quasi-fascist guy here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/family-describes-anti-t155961/index.html

Family Describes "Anti-Sissy" Therapy

[pastradamus]

I'm not an absolute pacifist and I don't oppose sports like boxing in principle, so I'm not necessarily opposing your idea per se, but at the very least you should be gender-neutral about it. Sounds like you don't think women can fight back for themselves. Maybe what you need is a good thrashing by a woman. :rolleyes:

And you really don't want to be going along the same lines as this quasi-fascist guy here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/family-describes-anti-t155961/index.html

Family Describes "Anti-Sissy" Therapy

In recent years the world of boxing, having been a male-dominated sport since it was created has become more open to women. One of Irelands top sports people is female boxer Katie taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Taylor).

I was delighted to hear she stood up to the scum bags of the World Olympic commitee who had the idea of making female boxers wear a tight-fitting vest and short skirt in order to "sex up" the sport. She's even willing to sacrifice her olympic gold medel bid next year if it is introduced.

http://www.examiner.ie/sport/other-sport/taylor-ready-to-sacrifice-olympic-dream-152950.html

[Queercommie Girl]

I was delighted to hear she stood up to the scum bags of the World Olympic commitee who had the idea of making female boxers wear a tight-fitting vest and short skirt in order to "sex up" the sport. She's even willing to sacrifice her olympic gold medel bid next year if it is introduced.


I don't see anything wrong with sexy clothing intrinsically at all, I think they can be a good thing, but I agree that the boxing ring is not the right context to wear them.

[Salyut]

What about fencing?

[Queercommie Girl]

What about fencing?

Personally I think fencing is more cool and stylish than boxing. :cool:

[Fawkes]

I think combative or aggressive sports such as boxing should be encouraged and definitely not limited. I am an Anarcho-Communist and a high school student, and I can't tell you how many times I have seen violence solve a problem compared to the bullshit and punishments the school tries to do. I am against murder and capital punishment obviously, but if someone is giving you shit I think a good kick in the face will do the job. I think America as a whole is being sissified way too much. Back a few decades ago when our parents went to school kids used to fight all the time, but nowadays you can't throw a punch without out of school suspension for a week. Hell, my friend got suspended from school on the last day of school for refusing to take his sun glasses off as he walked out of the building.



Yeah, cause physical assault and abuse is tantamount to rockin the stunna shades indoors. But yeah bro, I totally agree, our culture is filled with a bunch of little sissy ass pussies. Talk shit n get hit, *****, that's what I say. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity) oh wait...... :rolleyes:


This reminds me of a kid I overheard a few days ago claiming that NYC's recent ban smoking in parks and public plazas was the work of guys with a "missing chromosome of testosterone" (scientific accuracy ftw)

[RedSonRising]

This reminds me of a kid I overheard a few days ago claiming that NYC's recent ban smoking in parks and public plazas was the work of guys with a "missing chromosome of testosterone" (scientific accuracy ftw)

:laugh:

[Vendetta]

Why in hell would you ban boxing? :confused:

[Misanthrope]

The working class should have a right to self defense, that includes being properly trained to use their firsts, knees, elbows and shins. The fact that people want these sports banned is nothing more then pacifist bullshit. Go ahead call me a "macho" or "tough guy" but the revolution isn't child's play, to quote Bakunin.

[Misanthrope]

Yeah, cause physical assault and abuse is tantamount to rockin the stunna shades indoors. But yeah bro, I totally agree, our culture is filled with a bunch of little sissy ass pussies. Talk shit n get hit, *****, that's what I say. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity) oh wait...... :rolleyes:




He is not saying it in that sense. He is saying no on stands up for what they believe in anymore in American youth. Sometimes you have to fight, sometimes you feel the need to fight, to stand up for what you believe, for protection. Children used to look up to fighters as heroes and role models, they would settle things with their fists. Now they look up to gangster rappers and settle things with guns. Combative sports are good for you.

People will have arguments and they will fight it's a fact of life. You can always say "well after the revolution this won't happen because that's a product of poverty blah blah blah blah". Give me a break guys, there will still be fights, with gloves or not.

[Means to a end]

No.

[Psy]

The working class should have a right to self defense, that includes being properly trained to use their firsts, knees, elbows and shins. The fact that people want these sports banned is nothing more then pacifist bullshit. Go ahead call me a "macho" or "tough guy" but the revolution isn't child's play, to quote Bakunin.

Boxing isn't self-defense and self-defense training has far less injuries as the goal is to train the techniques not harm people.

[Fawkes]

He is not saying it in that sense. He is saying no on stands up for what they believe in anymore in American youth. Sometimes you have to fight, sometimes you feel the need to fight, to stand up for what you believe, for protection.


No, he said American youth are becoming "sissified", i.e. soft and feminine. Come on, you're really gonna try to say that's not a sexist statement? There's a difference between standing up for what you believe in and being a macho tough guy, which is exactly what his word choice evoked.


Children used to look up to fighters as heroes and role models, they would settle things with their fists. Now they look up to gangster rappers and settle things with guns.
Seriously? You honestly think the most productive means to settle most disputes is through "your fists"? And yeah, I forgot that being against gratuitous physical violence equates to supporting guns and gangsters.


Combative sports are good for you.

People will have arguments and they will fight it's a fact of life. You can always say "well after the revolution this won't happen because that's a product of poverty blah blah blah blah". Give me a break guys, there will still be fights, with gloves or not.
...when did anyone say that people won't fight in a post-capitalist society? I have nothing against combative sports in essence, in fact, I boxed and wrestled in high school. What I am against is people being termed "sissies" because they don't eagerly jump to violence as a means to solve conflicts. I hate tough guys and I hate fighting. If your revolution is one which seeks to restore/maintain heteronormativity and gender binaries with all of their wonderfully oppressive trappings, you can expect to see me fighting you in all of my sissy glory.



Also, boxing is a sport, not a self-defense system.



Edit: and as for the topic at hand: no, of course boxing should not be banned

[Misanthrope]

Boxing isn't self-defense and self-defense training has far less injuries as the goal is to train the techniques not harm people.

Those "peaceful" and zen eastern martial arts are not practical at all, ie hapkido ect. All martial arts are aimed at harming someone, you know causing pain? Name one that doesn't and prove it's practicality. Boxing is a self defense technique and a very effective one at that.

http://www.break.com/index/turkish_man_fights_mob.html

That constant motion, balance and footwork is boxing. You don't throw a punch at my boxing gym before you can take a proper stance. The attackers kept trying to grab him but straight punches and movement made them unable too. So did this person not defend himself from a mob of attackers using boxing? IS THAT NOT SELF DEFENSE?

Boxing trains techniques as well, there is no aim to hurt someone in a sparring match or class. There aren't any injuries in ineffective martial arts because they don't practice in real life situations and THAT IS WHY THEY'RE INEFFECTIVE!!!!!

[Misanthrope]

No, he said American youth are becoming "sissified", i.e. soft and feminine. Come on, you're really gonna try to say that's not a sexist statement? There's a difference between standing up for what you believe in and being a macho tough guy, which is exactly what his word choice evoked.

Hope you got my rep message.. I shouldn't have tried to defend him because I really twisted it for my own argument. He should explain himself.



Seriously? You honestly think the most productive means to settle most disputes is through "your fists"? And yeah, I forgot that being against gratuitous physical violence equates to supporting guns and gangsters.

No I'm just saying that street fights are inevitable, mind as well be prepared.

I was saying that the American youth has shifted from combat sports to obsessing over guns and gangsters. Which is detrimental to society. My point is, if people are going to fight, it's safer and less harmful to others if they do it with their fists not weapons. There is nothing wrong with knowing and practicing combative sports or fighting.




...when did anyone say that people won't fight in a post-capitalist society? I have nothing against combative sports in essence, in fact, I boxed and wrestled in high school. What I am against is people being termed "sissies" because they don't eagerly jump to violence as a means to solve conflicts. I hate tough guys and I hate fighting. If your revolution is one which seeks to restore/maintain heteronormativity and gender binaries with all of their wonderfully oppressive trappings, you can expect to see me fighting you in all of my sissy glory.

Like I said I just jumped on to that guy's post because I saw it as a chance to vent about combative sports and their place, or lack thereof in American youth society. In no way was I trying to support his use of the world "sissy". Nor do I advocate violence as primary choice to end a conflict, at least in every day situations. What I do oppose is trying to negotiate with the capitalists, I oppose pacifism.




Also, boxing is a sport, not a self-defense system.


see my previous post. Just because boxers don't wear gis and meditate ect, doesn't exclude them from being a martial art. Almost all traditional martial arts are also sports.

[Psy]

Those "peaceful" and zen eastern martial arts are not practical at all, ie hapkido ect. All martial arts are aimed at harming someone, you know causing pain? Name one that doesn't and prove it's practicality. Boxing is a self defense technique and a very effective one at that.

http://www.break.com/index/turkish_man_fights_mob.html

That constant motion, balance and footwork is boxing. You don't throw a punch at my boxing gym before you can take a proper stance. The attackers kept trying to grab him but straight punches and movement made them unable too. So did this person not defend himself from a mob of attackers using boxing? IS THAT NOT SELF DEFENSE?

Boxing trains techniques as well, there is no aim to hurt someone in a sparring match or class. There aren't any injuries in ineffective martial arts because they don't practice in real life situations and THAT IS WHY THEY'RE INEFFECTIVE!!!!!

Those are all very well but it requires padding to avoid injury and in professional matches the ability to withstand a hit matters thus you tend to get more injuries then in police self-defense training where while they train with clubs they are using far more padding and the point is simply land hits not knock down their training opponent. There are also more advanced club training where they don't use padding even then the point is quick disarms and its more like wrestling where it is choreographed and they are mostly going through motions with no real force behind them.

[Vendetta]

UFC

End of argument.

[Queercommie Girl]

The working class should have a right to self defense, that includes being properly trained to use their firsts, knees, elbows and shins. The fact that people want these sports banned is nothing more then pacifist bullshit. Go ahead call me a "macho" or "tough guy" but the revolution isn't child's play, to quote Bakunin.


For serious working class warfare fists won't be enough.

"Political power comes from the barrel of a gun" - Mao Zedong

Every working class and mass revolution in history have involved guns and even heavier firearms, from the Paris Commune to the revolutions in the Third World today.

And warfare isn't primarily about "honour", it's primarily about victory. In war, there is nothing more honourable than victory.

There is a reason why firearms were invented in the first place. To fight more effectively.

[Queercommie Girl]

Those "peaceful" and zen eastern martial arts are not practical at all,

There are plenty of non-peaceful Eastern martial arts forms too, so take your ridiculous Orientalist bullshit elsewhere.

Ever heard of Bruce Lee? :rolleyes:

Each has its place in the grander scheme of things.

Besides Psy wasn't even talking about "eastern martial arts" at all.

[Queercommie Girl]

Boxing isn't self-defense and self-defense training has far less injuries as the goal is to train the techniques not harm people.

I agree. Modern self-defense training is much more of a precise science than a sport or an art. It has little to do with either sports like boxing or art forms like peaceful Eastern martial arts like Taiji.

[Queercommie Girl]

He is not saying it in that sense. He is saying no on stands up for what they believe in anymore in American youth.


You are missing the point. He should have been gender-neutral about it.

Do you think women cannot become effective fighters and must always be protected by men or something?



People will have arguments and they will fight it's a fact of life. You can always say "well after the revolution this won't happen because that's a product of poverty blah blah blah blah". Give me a break guys, there will still be fights, with gloves or not.
Well to some extent it is the product of poverty. Have you ever read Marx?

No-one is saying a post-revolutionary society will be utopian or "perfect" or anything like that, but seriously if a socialist revolution cannot significantly improve the human condition, then what is the fucking point of fighting for a revolution in the first place?

That's not "utopian", that's pragmatic. Serious people only do certain things because they are deemed to be useful.

I don't have a "revolution fetish". I'm not attracted to socialism due to some aesthetic reason, because it looks "cool" and "macho" or some shit like that. I'm a serious pragmatist and utilitarian and the only reason I'm interested in socialism is because I think it can genuinely bring about a more just and equal world. I never waste my efforts and time on something which I think is useless.

[Misanthrope]

For serious working class warfare fists won't be enough.

"Political power comes from the barrel of a gun" - Mao Zedong

Every working class and mass revolution in history have involved guns and even heavier firearms, from the Paris Commune to the revolutions in the Third World today.

And warfare isn't primarily about "honour", it's primarily about victory. In war, there is nothing more honourable than victory.

Oh really? War is fought with guns?? Please explain this concept further. :rolleyes: How did you get all that out of the "the working class should learn self-defense". You think I believe fists will be enough to combat capitalists and their modern warfare machine? Seriously? ......



There are plenty of non-peaceful Eastern martial arts forms too, so take your ridiculous Orientalist bullshit elsewhere.

Each has its place in the grander scheme of things.

What I was referring to was hapkido, aikido ect.. martial arts that focus on you not hurting your opponent rather neutralizing them. Martial arts that don't "hurt" anyone. It's not about being orientalist, it's realizing those tactics for self defense are ineffective on the street and there are few genuine dojos. Why does that anger you so much?



I agree. Modern self-defense training is much more of a precise science than a sport or an art. It has little to do with either sports like boxing or art forms like peaceful Eastern martial arts like Taiji.

What exactly is modern self-defense training? Modern self-defense is no more then "mma gyms" and mcdojos.


Do you think women cannot become effective fighters and must always be protected by men or something?

Did I say that anywhere in my post? I spar women in boxing (OH NO BOXING, SO BARBARIC I KNOW). Stop putting words into my mouth..


Well to some extent it is the product of poverty. Have you ever read Marx?


Little petty arguments are a product of poverty? Arguments that have no material basis? And yes I have read Marx, why else would I be here?

Just because poverty will theoretically be nonexistent, human emotions such as anger, frustration ect and impulsiveness will continue to exist.

Not once did I ever mention gender in my posts... all of it was implied by you and others...shows who really looks through a sexist lens.

[Queercommie Girl]

Oh really? War is fought with guns?? Please explain this concept further. :rolleyes:


Your attempt at sarcasm is really quite poor...



How did you get all that out of the "the working class should learn self-defense". You think I believe fists will be enough to combat capitalists and their modern warfare machine? Seriously? ......
I don't know, I only judge people by their words, not by assumptions. That's what your post sounded like.



What I was referring to was hapkido, aikido ect.. martial arts that focus on you not hurting your opponent rather neutralizing them. Martial arts that don't "hurt" anyone. It's not about being orientalist, it's realizing those tactics for self defense are ineffective on the street and there are few genuine dojos. Why does that anger you so much?
Because there is a fundamental difference in labelling some forms of eastern martial arts as "ineffective" because they are too peaceful and labelling all forms of eastern martial arts as such, which frankly is what your post sounded like.

The fact of the matter is, eastern martial arts is an extremely rich and comprehensive category, and every potential form of martial arts is present in it, from the peaceful to the violent. It's totally impossible to generalise about eastern martial arts as a whole. Your comment sounded like you have no respect for Asian martial arts as a whole, rather than just criticising some forms of it.

The implicit implication it seems, is that you think "eastern cultures" in general are "weaker" compared with say "western cultures".



What exactly is modern self-defense training? Modern self-defense is no more then "mma gyms" and mcdojos.
So why don't police forces train with boxing?



Did I say that anywhere in my post? I spar women in boxing (OH NO BOXING, SO BARBARIC I KNOW). Stop putting words into my mouth..
Now you are putting words into my mouth. When did I say boxing was "barbaric"?



Little petty arguments are a product of poverty?
Yes, and obviously a boxing match is required to settle every little ridiculous petty argument in society. :rolleyes:

I think it's much more productive to settle most differences in a non-violent manner.



Arguments that have no material basis?
In the ultimate sense, everything has a material basis. For instance, people who are socio-economically insecure are statistically speaking more prone to anger and violence. That's an objective scientific fact. People also tend to fight with each other more when resources are scarce.

Humans are ultimately animals, and all animals have a natural instinctive tendency to take the path of least resistance. A serious, full-scale violent fight is very expensive in biological terms and wastes a lot of resources. Not to mention the risk of serious injury or even death. This is why many species of animals have evolved complex display rituals to substitute for real fighting. This is also partly why homo sapiens evolved verbal argumentation (like on RevLeft) to substitute for physical violence. When there are plenty of resources for everyone, there will be significantly less need for real physical fights, because all animals, including humans, naturally take the path of least resistance and generally will not use more resources than they have to, to get what they want.



Just because poverty will theoretically be nonexistent, human emotions such as anger, frustration ect and impulsiveness will continue to exist.Human emotions are never purely abstract, but are fundamentally underpinned by socio-economic conditions.

As socio-economic conditions change, certain forms of human emotions will increase in frequency, while certain other forms of human emotions will decrease in frequency.

Besides, having certain emotions like anger doesn't imply one must resort to literal violence to express them.

And even "masculinity" has a lot more dimensions than just "anger and violence".

Also, poverty will only be "theoretically" non-existent in communism?

Utopianism is wrong, but so is Anti-Utopianism and the pessimistic attitude that nothing can ever significantly improve in human society. In fact, such an attitude is inherently non-socialist.



Not once did I ever mention gender in my posts... all of it was implied by you and others...shows who really looks through a sexist lens.
The other poster made an explicitly sexist comment, and you did not criticise him. Rather you seemed to have praised him without any criticism. What's more, you even seem to be apologising for him and his statement. Failure to criticise obvious sexism makes people suspicious that you might be a sexist too. It's common sense.

[Misanthrope]

Your attempt at sarcasm is really quite poor...

I don't know, I only judge people by their words, not by assumptions. That's what your post sounded like. My point was, hand to hand combat is going to be apart of any revolution as it is in any war.



Because there is a fundamental difference in labelling some forms of eastern martial arts as "ineffective" because they are too peaceful and labelling all forms of eastern martial arts as such, which frankly is what your post sounded like.

This is a thread about combat sports which you obviously know nothing about. Non-combat sport martial arts are ineffective because they lack real life experience, they don't put any emphasis on full speed, full contact fighting which result in injury.




The fact of the matter is, eastern martial arts is an extremely rich and comprehensive category, and every potential form of martial arts is present in it, from the peaceful to the violent. It's totally impossible to generalise about eastern martial arts as a whole. Your comment sounded like you have no respect for Asian martial arts as a whole, rather than just criticising some forms of it.

Yes but there is a fine line called combat sports which is what this thread is about. I was referring to peaceful arts that so many people think are effective but are not for reasons previously stated.



So why don't police forces train with boxing?

Now you are putting words into my mouth. When did I say boxing was "barbaric"?

It wasn't a direct shot at you.

Because they have tazers, guns, clubs.. weapons...

and anyone who attacks them physically will be shot before they are even in the position of unarming them



Yes, and obviously a boxing match is required to settle every little ridiculous petty argument in society. :rolleyes:

I think it's much more productive to settle most differences in a non-violent manner.

I've addressed this in a previous post.


"Nor do I advocate violence as primary choice to end a conflict, at least in every day situations."






In the ultimate sense, everything has a material basis. For instance, people who are socio-economically insecure are statistically speaking more prone to anger and violence. That's an objective scientific fact. People also tend to fight with each other more when resources are scarce.

Humans are ultimately animals, and all animals have a natural instinctive tendency to take the path of least resistance. A serious, full-scale violent fight is very expensive in biological terms and wastes a lot of resources. Not to mention the risk of serious injury or even death. This is why many species of animals have evolved complex display rituals to substitute for real fighting. This is also partly why homo sapiens evolved verbal argumentation (like on RevLeft) to substitute for physical violence. When there are plenty of resources for everyone, there will be significantly less need for real physical fights, because all animals, including humans, naturally take the path of least resistance and generally will not use more resources than they have to, to get what they want. So only "poor" people get in fights? "Rich" people never experience anger? There will always be violence amongst peers no matter what the economic conditions. You seriously wrote that much about why fighting should not be the first resort to solving a problem? You didn't even read my previous posts.



Human emotions are never purely abstract, but are fundamentally underpinned by socio-economic conditions.

As socio-economic conditions change, certain forms of human emotions will increase in frequency, while certain other forms of human emotions will decrease in frequency. But they won't disappear completely.



Besides, having certain emotions like anger doesn't imply one must resort to literal violence to express them.

but it could resort to violence which brings me back to my argument: combative sports are beneficial to know and practice.



And even "masculinity" has a lot more dimensions than just "anger and violence".

Again implying that I have a view of fighting out of anger and impulsiveness equating to masculinity...



The other poster made an explicitly sexist comment, and you did not criticise him. Rather you seemed to have praised him without any criticism. Failure to criticise obvious sexism makes people suspicious that you might be a sexist too. It's common sense.

I've explained myself in regards to that in previous posts which you obviously haven't read.


Utopianism is wrong, but so is Anti-Utopianism and the pessimistic attitude that nothing can ever significantly improve in human society. In fact, such an attitude is inherently non-socialist. I'm not being pessimistic just realistic. As long as humans are interacting with one another, disagreements will happen and you should always be prepared for the worst. I don't see how realizing fights and disagreements will always happen is anti-socialist when we as socialists are raising the biggest fight the world has seen, the fight to topple the capitalist dictatorship.

[Vendetta]

For serious working class warfare fists won't be enough.

It will be if we all strive to be more like Ivan Drago!

K5fXbEivWec

:cool:

[Queercommie Girl]

This is a thread about combat sports which you obviously know nothing about. Non-combat sport martial arts are ineffective because they lack real life experience, they don't put any emphasis on full speed, full contact fighting which result in injury.

Yes but there is a fine line called combat sports which is what this thread is about. I was referring to peaceful arts that so many people think are effective but are not for reasons previously stated.


Yes but why make the assumption that only "eastern" martial arts are non-combative while "western" martial arts (like that Turkish thing you showed) aren't? I don't really care about your comment about combat sports or whatever in general, the only thing I have an issue with is your Orientalist assumption that "eastern martial arts" are non-combative while "western martial arts" are not.

Yes, non-combat sport martial arts are ineffective (that is, when judged by the standards of combat efficiency), but why do you assume they are "eastern"? Why associated "ineffectiveness" with "oriental-ness"? The "ineffective self-defence training" you talk about are western in origin, no?

I guess you have never seen eastern martial arts which are actually combative?

Also, do you know Asian history? You know the Turks originally came from Mongolia right? Much of Turkish culture is in fact East Asian in origin.



It wasn't a direct shot at you.
Well, you replied to my post, so it's a natural assumption.



Because they have tazers, guns, clubs.. weapons...

and anyone who attacks them physically will be shot before they are even in the position of unarming them
Yes, but rather than calling them "cowardly" or whatever, it might be more effective to think about ways to let revolutionary forces get their hands on some of these weapons too.

Sometimes certain sections of the rank-and-file police can be turned over to the side of the revolution. In the October Revolution, even the army turned over to a significant extent. In the student movement in 1989 China, workers who worked in firearms factories wanted to give a large number of guns to the students, which they unfortunately refused.



So only "poor" people get in fights? "Rich" people never experience anger?
It is a statistical fact that those who are severely impoverished are more prone to literal physical violence compared with the middle classes or the rich. Everyone can get angry, but there is a fundamental difference between merely getting angry and acting out one's angry using direct violence. I'm not talking about the emotion of anger here, I'm talking about actual violence.



There will always be violence amongst peers no matter what the economic conditions.
Qualitatively perhaps, but quantitatively under certain socio-economic conditions it can still be significantly reduced.



You seriously wrote that much about why fighting should not be the first resort to solving a problem? You didn't even read my previous posts.
I did read your posts, but I was trying to make the point that it is scientifically possible to significant reduce violence under certain socio-economic conditions.

And yes, sometimes I write a lot. I'm a kind of nerdy person. :lol:



But they won't disappear completely.
So? Did I ever say that? Do I look like an utopianist to you?

Fact is, despite the fact that Utopians and Anti-Utopians seem to be diammetrically opposed to each other, they both make the same mistake, they both tend to see the world in solely qualitative and black-and-white binary dualistic terms.

I don't care about quality, only quantity. I don't believe violence can ever be completely eliminated. But as an utilitarian pragmatist, I believe violence can be significantly reduced under certain socio-economic conditions (i.e. socialism), which for me is good enough. I'm not a "perfectionist".



but it could resort to violence which brings me back to my argument: combative sports are beneficial to know and practice.
Did I ever say that combative sports have no beneficial elements at all or that they should be banned? No.



Again implying that I have a view of fighting out of anger and impulsiveness equating to masculinity...
No, I was only making a general statement, it was not directed at you personally.



I've explained myself in regards to that in previous posts which you obviously haven't read.
I have read them. To be frank I'm generally a forgiving person so I won't hold this one point against you personally so much. But I still have to say that people should be more critical (quantitatively speaking) of such statements, especially in light of the reactionary roles they play in homophobic and transphobic propaganda.



I'm not being pessimistic just realistic. As long as humans are interacting with one another, disagreements will happen and you should always be prepared for the worst. I don't see how realizing fights and disagreements will always happen is anti-socialist when we as socialists are raising the biggest fight the world has seen, the fight to topple the capitalist dictatorship.
As I said before, it is wrong to ignore quantity solely in favour of quality. This is a general philosophical principle. It's like saying there is no difference between the murder of one person and the genocidal massacre of a million just because in both cases innocent people have died. It's like saying using a few racist slurs and the "n word" is just as bad as lynching a black person because in both cases racism is involved...Wrong. Numbers and quantity do matter a lot.

I don't disagree that there will always be violence in the human world qualitatively speaking. But it doesn't mean they can't be significantly reduced in quantity under socialist socio-economic conditions. In fact, according to Marxist analysis we should expect them to be.

Yes, we are raising the biggest war (not just "fight") today against the global capitalist empire. But we do this so that future generations no longer have to suffer in a world plagued by so much injustice, inequality and violence. As Mao Zedong once said: "The ultimate goal of revolutionary warfare is the end of all wars". (Note of course the difference between systematic warfare which can indeed end in a socialist society and generalised violence which probably won't)

On the other hand, if for all of our efforts and sacrifices, the post-revolutionary world is still filled with injustice, inequality and violence, still filled with human suffering, then we would have lost anyway, even if we completely destroyed capitalism. All of our efforts would have been in vain. The ultimate goal of socialism is to significantly improve the human condition in every area, not merely ending the present mode of oppression but replace it with a new one.

[Misanthrope]

Yes why make the assumption that only "eastern" martial arts are non-combative while "western" martial arts (like that Turkish thing you showed) aren't? I don't really care about your comment about combat sports or whatever in general, the only thing I have an issue with is your Orientalist assumption that "eastern martial arts" are non-combative while "western martial arts" are not. I never said that. There are eastern combative sports, see Judo, Karate, JJJ, Muay Thai, Sambo, TKD... all emphasizing on competition and sparring. Very effective arts. You made an assumption based on your lack of knowledge of combative sports that I was referring to all Eastern arts as non-combative which that can't even be argued, see Muay Thai and full contact Karate, and even judo which is a type of wrestling.



but why do you assume they are "eastern"? Why associated "ineffectiveness" with "oriental-ness"? The "ineffective self-defence training" you talk about are western in origin, no?


Hapkido, aikido... ect are ineffective not because they are oriental but for reasons previous stated. Yes the training is western in origin but the art is from eastern origins. Which is completely irrelevant because my comment was in regards to "modern arts". It doesn't matter if it is eastern or western in origin, it matter if it practices combat sport situations.




I guess you have never seen eastern martial arts which are actually combative? ^^^^^^



Also, do you know Asian history? You know the Turks originally came from Mongolia right? Much of Turkish culture is in fact East Asian in origin.




Point being? I'm not an orientalist.




Yes, but rather than calling them "cowardly" or whatever, it might be more effective to think about ways to let revolutionary forces get their hands on some of these weapons too. Well.. first off the police are cowards but not because they use weapons, that's a completely different topic. I have never argued that it is cowardly to use weapons in times of war or self-defense, that isn't what this discussion is even about, it's what you've turned it into.



Sometimes certain sections of the rank-and-file police can be turned over to the side of the revolution. In the October Revolution, even the army turned over to a significant extent. In the student movement in 1989 China, workers who worked in firearms factories wanted to give a large number of guns to the students, which they unfortunately refused.

Okay, I'm not anti-gun. As I've said before, fuck pacifism.




It is a statistical fact that those who are severely impoverished are more prone to literal physical violence compared with the middle classes or the rich. Everyone can get angry, but there is a fundamental difference between merely getting angry and acting out one's angry using direct violence. I'm not talking about the emotion of anger here, I'm talking about actual violence.

I agree poverty breeds crime and violence. That's why the impoverished should learn combative arts and any other tool they can use for protection as a class and as an individual.






Qualitatively perhaps, but quantitatively under certain socio-economic conditions it can still be significantly reduced.

I did read your posts, but I was trying to make the point that it is scientifically possible to significant reduce violence under certain socio-economic conditions.

Which I agree with, reduced though, not eliminated.



And yes, sometimes I write a lot. I'm a kind of nerdy person. :lol:

So? Did I ever say that? Do I look like a utopianist to you?


No.



Fact is, despite the fact that Utopians and Anti-Utopians seem to be diammetrically opposed to each other, they both make the same mistake, they both tend to see the world in solely qualitative and black-and-white binary dualistic terms.






I don't care about quality, only quantity. I don't believe violence can ever be completely eliminated. But as an utilitarian pragmatist, I believe violence can be significantly reduced under certain socio-economic conditions (i.e. socialism), which for me is good enough. I'm not a "perfectionist".

Did I ever say that combative sports have no beneficial elements at all or that they should be banned? No.

No, I was only making a general statement, it was not directed at you personally.

I have read them. To be frank I'm generally a forgiving person so I won't hold this one point against you personally so much. But I still have to say that people should be more critical (quantitatively speaking) of such statements, especially in light of the reactionary roles they play in homophobic and transphobic propaganda.



As I said before, it is wrong to ignore quantity solely in favour of quality. This is a general philosophical principle. It's like saying there is no difference between the murder of one person and the genocidal massacre of a million just because in both cases innocent people have died. It's like saying using a few racist slurs and the "n word" is just as bad as lynching a black person because in both cases racism is involved...Wrong. Numbers and quantity do matter a lot.

I don't disagree that there will always be violence in the human world. But it doesn't mean they can't be significantly reduced in quantity under socialist socio-economic conditions. In fact, according to Marxist analysis we should expect them to be.

Yes, we are raising the biggest war (not just "fight") today against the global capitalist empire. But we do this so that future generations no longer have to suffer in a world plagued by so much injustice, inequality and violence. As Mao Zedong once said: "The ultimate goal of revolutionary warfare is the end of all wars". (Note of course the difference between systematic warfare which can indeed end in a socialist society and generalised violence which probably won't)

I honestly don't see what else is to be discussed. It's obvious you were mad that I praised a guy while ignoring his use of a sexist word. We obviously agree on the basic fundamentals of marxism and envision a similar society. You believed me to be a sexist because of what happened then a racist because of what I said about Eastern Martial arts, which was confused on your part. Night comrade.

[Psy]

Because they have tazers, guns, clubs.. weapons...

and anyone who attacks them physically will be shot before they are even in the position of unarming them

Actually weapon retention is a serious problem for police forces due to surprise close attacks, in fact even armed forces train on weapons retention since it is a realistic situation to have a military guards finding themselves with a opponent all of a sudden attacking from a extremely close range and trying to disarm them so they don't have to keep trying to stay out of the line of fire.

Also the real reasons police and armed force don't use boxing techniques for self-defense is they are up far more realistic threats like guns meaning if they try to back up to get distance it would just become a gun fight in most cases thus they train to stay right on the opponent so they can't effectively use their firearm either because either they can't draw it or raise it.

There is another reason, riot police find themselves fighting against multiple opponents with blunt weapons of course this training is useless as they are overrun.

[Tomhet]

As soon as it's banned it'll go under the radar and continue without the possibility of increased/proper protection and medical attention for the combatants.

Exactly, banning things doesn't get rid of them, look at drugs ffs..

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Of course I am anarchist

So is this guy:

http://combat.blog.is/users/b9/combat/img/gn_jm-11.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Monson

[Fawkes]

see my previous post. Just because boxers don't wear gis and meditate ect, doesn't exclude them from being a martial art. Almost all traditional martial arts are also sports.

I got your rep message, it's cool.

I'm not saying that boxing isn't a martial art, I'm saying it is not a self-defense system. A boxer is trained to compete effectively in a boxing match, not a street fight. It's not a system designed for self-defense, it's one designed for maximum performance in a boxing ring against a trained opponent following all of the rules and regulations of a boxing match, things which obviously aren't in place in a bar fight. Krav Maga is an example of a self-defense system as the techniques are intended for use in an unregulated and (usually) unexpected confrontation where anything is theoretically possible. Are there certain aspects of boxing that are applicable to a street fight? Of course, but it is not a system designed specifically for such usage as there are no referees or rules in a street fight. I have nothing against combat sports -- as I said previously, I wrestled in high school and did some non-competitive boxing in addition to krav maga, I'm just contesting the notion that boxing or any other combat sport = self-defense systems, because that not only delegitimizes combat sports to an extent, but it has the potentially negative ramifications of making people think that by training in something like boxing, they are prepared for whatever possible confrontations they may encounter (as a wrestler, I know first-hand that there are many aspects of boxing that actually can prove ineffective in a street fight situation, most notably the stance).

And Iseul, I agree with most of what you are saying, but WoP specified in their post that they were referring to "'peaceful' and zen eastern martial arts", not Eastern martial arts as a whole, even if they kind of took Psy's post a little out of context.

On a (barely) related note, I'm hopefully going to start sambo classes in a few weeks if I have the money :cool:

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Well, when Holyfield ko'd Buster Douglas in 1990 it was a much more exciting prospect that Klitschko and Haye - who simply arent as good as Holyfield and Douglas were back then.


I agree with that but even so when you take inflation into account its pretty incredible that the purse for the 2011 Heavyweight championship unification bout is not even a quarter of the purse for the same fight 21 years ago. It says a lot about the Heavyweight division but, yknow.... still.

[t.shonku]

Boxing and bare hand combats are very useful , they improve your cardio-vascular system and your over all health, they also are very important to build up your mental toughness which helps you to face problems of both streets and daily life.


I my self learnt Judo and Kick boxing while in school and combined them into my own version of street fighting(I used to get into fights all o often in my teenage, real world brawling is so much different from what Van Dam does in movies), one thing I can tell you for sure and that is if you seriously practice this type of sports chances are there you will never fall ill or be depressed.I would rather bust my a** in gym than lay down sick and consume costly pills

BOXING IS GREAT CARRY ON MATES !

[Queercommie Girl]

I never said that. There are eastern combative sports, see Judo, Karate, JJJ, Muay Thai, Sambo, TKD... all emphasizing on competition and sparring. Very effective arts. You made an assumption based on your lack of knowledge of combative sports that I was referring to all Eastern arts as non-combative which that can't even be argued, see Muay Thai and full contact Karate, and even judo which is a type of wrestling.


Fair enough. I would add though that non-combative or artistic sports aren't intrinsically "inferior" to combative sports at all, just that each has its own place.



I honestly don't see what else is to be discussed. It's obvious you were mad that I praised a guy while ignoring his use of a sexist word.


I think I've misread you on the "orientalist" thing, but I do think people should be more aware of sexism etc. in general rather than just "ignoring" them because the person might have made some other good points on certain issues.

[praxis1966]

(I apologise if i'm condescending to you, by the way. Im assuming you don't know much about boxing which. Apologies if you were merely being tongue in cheek.)

Yeah, I actually know quite a bit about boxing. Admittedly, I don't watch it nearly as much as I used to, but I've seen plenty of the Klitschko brothers' fights, lulz. The quote was meant to expound upon an earlier point in a humorous way...

[Mikey]

Interesting topic. I'm not sure at all.

[ColonelCossack]

I got outvoted so epicly... :blushing:

I must say it's a feeling I'm quite familiar with...

probably because I'm exceptionally weedy. :D

[Inti]

Martial arts has helped me lot in life, not just physically but also helped me to grow in other aspects as a human being. I have been into martial arts for about 20 years now, and it has helped me from being a pretty insecure boy into a happy grown up man:)

My base art is Ed Parkers Kenpo Karate, which I have never really stopped practicing, but I have trained others briefly, like Muay Thai, Kickboxing, Bujinkan, Aikido.

Nowadays and since about 4 years back, I started to practice a filipino martial art called Doce Pares Multi Style Eskrima, and its a great complement to my karate, since it has a lot of stick and knife training. Its mainly for self defence, but it also has tournaments with stick fighting and forms.

If you want, here is some examples, and perhaps you understand why I fell in love with it. Its my guilty pleasure in life:)

A demo last year
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-4T4CNf29Y

Grading in philippines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjG8Bjh_3c0

At 90+ he still rocks:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImpKmliMec

Some sparring with protection
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eHqNefb4yA

And then some crazy pain but fun stick fighting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTKqYkvmdkU

If martial arts and sport combat would be against the law, then I would become a criminal in a heartbeat!

[DeBon]

In an ideal society, would such self-defense lessons be desired for their intended purpose? Or would they be practiced for pure entertainment.

Who knows? In the far future people may look at overly-competitive sports as uncivilized. Just depends.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Hell no! I enjoy every minute of boxing...If I want to box I will box. Fuck the society that tries to prevent me. Boxers aren't gladiators who are forced to fight by someone else. Everyone knows the risks, and believe it or not they enjoy doing it. I love it. I love the running, the bag work, the sparring, and the competitions.

It's counter-revolutionary to ban any sports. Who is to say what I can or cannot do for my own enjoyment.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Hey man before boxing was a televised sport it was a rebellion.

[Red And Black Sabot]

Fuck no!
http://notesfromringside.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/monson1.jpg?w=440&h=293
Not when folks like Jeff Monson are on our side.