What to do with sports?

[cu247]

I don't know if I'm posting in the right place, but anyway, I think you guys could help me out with this stupid and pointless question.

What would happen to sports in a communist society? I was bored the other day and tought about that..they promote kind of capitalist values of competition and domination over the others, sports teams are owned by corporations and rich entreprises, they promote nationalism in a certain way. So, what would we do with them? I don't want them to disappear because I really like playing street hockey with friends. So what would happen?

[El Burro]

I don't see anything wrong with healthy athletic competition, and I'm not convinced that competition is a wholly capitalist value either.

I'm sure sports will be around for a loooong time, and if anything they'd be a bit healthier in a communist society. If you take the money out of them, sports would likely become a lot more diffuse, less about consuming a spectacle and more about participation. It's good to get outside in the sun, run around, sweat, work as a team, and compete with others! That's how people have interacted since time immemorial. Communism isn't about creating a bunch of boring robots out of people, it's the realization of a material human community.

[dernier combat]

National teams would likely cease to exist (most team sports today are generally played by teams organized on a city basis, anyway), and obviously they wouldn't be owned by businesses or individuals (likely there would be some sort of voluntary association instead).

[MaximMK]

People still can organize teams in cities and compete against each other but it wont be a profession just a hobby for free time and entertainment.

[caramelpence]

I say ban them.

[Tommy4ever]

Would it necessarily be wrong to have professional sportsmen who earn a workers' wage?

I don't see any reason why not. They provide a service - entertainement - just like a hairdresser provides a service. Communism in no way looks to abolish services. If you want to get rid of professional sports then you might get rid of all forms of entertainment. Television? Who need it! Theatres? Go to hell!

Do you see the problems with that?

Sportsmen work just as hard as an actor or a broadcaster and should be treated just the same as anyone who provides a service and entertainment.

I just think they should be given a workers' wage.

[Blake's Baby]

I say ban them.

Come on. OP has a low post-count, and this is learning. We're supposed to be on best behaviour (that means you too, Niccolo Rossi; I see that little 'thank you' down there).

I don't think there would be 'wages' in a communist society, but I'm apparently one of those mad communists who thinks that communism means 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'. So no money after the revolution, which means no sports-stars on a 'workers' wage'.

Would people still indulge in sports after the revolution? Sure, why not, physical excecise is healthy, and it can be enjoyable if you like that sort of thing, I'm told. Could people get away with kicking a bit of pig every Saturday and caim they were materially contributing to society? I'd say they were taking the piss to be honest and should find something more useful to do, at least for a good chunk of the rest of the time.

[Tommy4ever]

OK, fine Blake'sBaby.

But sportsmen do work for the whole week (training etc) not just at the weekends ....

I assume that you will do away with actors and broadcasters too? Right? Afterall, they aren't contributing enough to society and must be abolished by the glorius revolution? Right?

Of course not! People should still have work in providing society with entertainment. Whats the fucking point of a revolution if your going to go and make everyone's lives less enjoyable by taking away some entertainment that they really cherish?

[Blake's Baby]

Sorry Tommy, you're talking out of your arse. I haven't said I'd abolish anything except money. I said I'd argue that anyone who claimed that being a sportsman constituted materially benefitting society was taking the piss. And yet you read that as 'I assume you'd do away with actors... etc'. Well you assume too much and erroneously, so wind your neck in.

[Tommy4ever]

Its just the same situation Blake. An actor and a sportsmen basically have an identical role in society. So if you think one of them is taking the piss then logically the other must as well.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You should check out Edge of Sports which is a blog by a socialist sportswriter.

http://www.edgeofsports.com/ (http://www.edgeofsports.com/)

He's written a few short and entertaining books about politics and professional sports and I think it's really well-done. He really puts things in perspective and one thing I love about his writing is that he takes people's frustrations about pro-sports away from blaming "high paid athletes" and points the finger at the incredibly better-paid sports owners.

I agree with what other people have been saying here. There's nothing wrong with competition based on bragging rights or personal/team pride... there's a whole hell of a lot wrong with competition based on making a handful of people huge piles of profit. So that means for us, competition for jobs and housing and everything else; for the capitalists, competition for profits that destroys the lives of workers and leads to imperialist conflicts; and in sports competition means athletes destroying their bodies, having to focus only on training and their sport rather than being a well-rounded person (i.e. college athletes who are encouraged not to actually learn anything because it might interfere with their ability to train as much as pro-athletes).

Sports without the profit motive will be better, more enjoyable, not be plastered with advertising, and healthier persuits for pro-athletes.

On the question of if there will be "pro" sports or just more causal sports - I think that people's definitions of being "an artists" or "an athlete" will change as more people have the free-time to peruse art or other things and have more access to the equipment needed to record music, make films, or play sports. But in the short-term, why the hell not keep a great athlete playing full-time if they want? In a generation after the revolution, things might be different, but right-after, I think people will probably decide that pro-sports are worth keeping and reorganizing in a non profit-driven manner.

[F9]

If dear Emma Goldman would allow me to change her quote
“If I can't do sports - I don't want to be part of your revolution”

Of course and sports will stay around, there is NOTHING wrong or suspicious with sports, the only wrong thing may comes from the way some people approach it but if we would ban something on that basis we would ban everything...Movies, plays,games, literature etc etc.

[Blake's Baby]

Its just the same situation Blake. An actor and a sportsmen basically have an identical role in society. So if you think one of them is taking the piss then logically the other must as well.

I disagree that being an actor and being a sportsman are 'the same situation' and that they have an 'identical role in society'. I have yet to see any biting satire delivered at the end of a football boot, for instance. Footie, or pole-vaulting, or tiddly-winks, tell us nothing about the human condition, about what it means to be human, which art does. So sport and art are really not the same, and your 'logic' fails.

I have not said that thinking they are taking the piss is the same as abolishing as you insinuated, so there's somewhere else your argument fails. I would argue that anyone who claims kicking a ball is materially contributing to society is taking the piss. Instead of bringing actors into the argument, why not explain exactly what is so beneficial about someone kicking a ball, as opposed to say, making furniture (useful)? Or even masturbation (enjoyable)?

Then, you can explain at what point after the revolution that I'm the one who gets to decide. I will continue to argue that people who enjoy sport should be able to practice it for its own sake, but that the notion of 'specialists' in sport is one that should be given up as socially reactionary. That's as far as it goes, so you can rein in your fantasies of me closing down the Edinburgh Festival and leading a mob of Philistines to burn the Royal Opera House.

[graymouser]

I think the funny thing here is that nobody's raised the question of workers' control. I think that this would have to be the key to how sports should be organized - run by players' councils, with control over their own conditions, safety and so on. Compensation wouldn't be as exorbitant as it is in the major leagues today, but for instance people play in what are today the minor leagues of baseball making what are fairly considered peanuts. Players could create a less extreme gap between the minor and major leagues (and remove the free-work aspect of the college athletic system entirely) and instead have democratic control over the whole system, instead of responding to the whims of owners and unaccountable "front offices."

[Ned Kelly]

I say ban them.

This is actually the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day, how can you possibly justify banning sport?

[caramelpence]

This is actually the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day, how can you possibly justify banning sport?

Uh, because they're a tool of the bourgeoisie, obviously? They brainwash the masses with football so the glorious proletariat won't rebel. It's just like with pop music. What are you, some kind of fascist-reformist? :confused: Why would you support brainwashing?

[hatzel]

Uh, because they're a tool of the bourgeoisie, obviously? They brainwash the masses with football so the glorious proletariat won't rebel. It's just like with pop music. What are you, some kind of fascist-reformist? :confused: Why would you support brainwashing?

I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic here...

[IndependentCitizen]

Competition can be fun, and rewarding. Knowing your training has put you to a peak of physical fitness. Capitalism exploits athletes for their own financial gain at the expense of the sports-person.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Would it necessarily be wrong to have professional sportsmen who earn a workers' wage?

I don't see any reason why not. They provide a service - entertainement - just like a hairdresser provides a service. Communism in no way looks to abolish services. If you want to get rid of professional sports then you might get rid of all forms of entertainment. Television? Who need it! Theatres? Go to hell!

Do you see the problems with that?

Sportsmen work just as hard as an actor or a broadcaster and should be treated just the same as anyone who provides a service and entertainment.

I just think they should be given a workers' wage.

I think there's alot of confusion here.

I suppose this is meant to be in the context of a 'lower phase of communism' where the principle of 'each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' isn't a reality yet.

Well, eh.

I think the problem isn't whether or not a professional sports person 'contributes to society'. The problem is with 'professional sports person'. Communism will mean the death of the division of labour. Rear cattle in the morning, fish in the afternoon, write poetry in the evening and all that jazz.

Now I'm well aware of the commitment it takes to be the elite in any athletic pursuit. I mean, I'm not just talking about soccer or other games that are highly reliant on skills specific training. Olympic weightlifters for example probably have some of the most extreme demands of any competative athlete in turns of training frequency (lifting as often as 3 times a day, 6 days a week as in the Bulgarian Model), training intensities (regularly using over (90% of 1RM), dietry demands (I've known a guy who when he was training at the Australian Institute of Sport at age 17 was consuming 11,000 calories a day... and that's not a typo).

The point being though that sports would be something more people could participate in more actively. I mean, it's not easy to train very seriously if you do physical work 10 hours a day... At the same time, we're talking about a society premised on the free and full development of all persons' creative, intellectual and physical faculties. A society no longer governed by clock in cards and productivity indexes and where people can be given time to train and eat and recovery and do what it takes to succeed in their (in this case) athletic endeavours.

Anyway, yeah, I'm not very poetic or shit. But I hope you get the gist of it

If people wanna argue that Cristiano Ronaldo or some **** can get paid a 'workers wage', then they can get fucked. Fuck 'workers wage'. Fuck Ronaldo

Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Oi caramelpence, play any sports? Other than cricket what sports do Marxist-Humanists play?

Nic.

[Zanthorus]

Rear cattle in the morning, fish in the afternoon, write poetry in the evening and all that jazz.

Just so we're clear, that passage from 'The German Ideology' is not intended to be serious. The clue is in the fact that all the activities described in the passage are typical rural activities (Apart from being a 'critical critic' obviously, people with delusions of philosophical grandeur exist either side of the town/country divide). It's highly unlikely unlikely that Marx was being serious in describing Communism as an idyllicised pre-industrial life considering that for the most part he despised that kind of thing (Actually, according to Terrell Carver, the main bulk of the passage is in Engels' hand and likely intended to be a send up of Fourierism. The passage about the 'critical critic' is in Marx's hand. Carver hypothesised that Marx was expanding on the joke to show that the activities described were the kind fit only for a 'critical critic').

[LewisQ]

A communist society would not engage in the active destruction of culture which the abolition of full-time sports would entail. Although they have been debased horribly under capitalism, sports (football in particular) do offer a foretaste of what a society in which everyone can fully develop their skills would look like. Pretty much everyone can afford a ball or something that approximates to one, and many of the great players grew up in poverty with football as their only creative outlet.

We would still have athletic competition and friendly partisanship under communism. However, the impulse to riot would be eliminated by the fullness of lives outside the stadium and the sense of shared humanity which such a society would inculcate.

[ZeroNowhere]

Just so we're clear, that passage from 'The German Ideology' is not intended to be serious. The clue is in the fact that all the activities described in the passage are typical rural activities (Apart from being a 'critical critic' obviously, people with delusions of philosophical grandeur exist either side of the town/country divide). It's highly unlikely unlikely that Marx was being serious in describing Communism as an idyllicised pre-industrial life considering that for the most part he despised that kind of thing (Actually, according to Terrell Carver, the main bulk of the passage is in Engels' hand and likely intended to be a send up of Fourierism. The passage about the 'critical critic' is in Marx's hand. Carver hypothesised that Marx was expanding on the joke to show that the activities described were the kind fit only for a 'critical critic').According to Humphrey McQueen:

Marx studded his writings with a comparable density of allusions to the ideas and terminologies of philosophers, historians and political economists. For example, when he likened life under communism where everyone would be able “to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening and criticize after dinner.” In the first three activities, Marx was mocking Adam Smith and almost every vulgar economist for their “unimaginative fantasies.” The post-prandial critical criticising was another dig at the Holy Family of Young Hegelians.I'm not sure which is more accurate, but in all likelihood Marx was just making fun of everybody.

[graymouser]

I think the problem isn't whether or not a professional sports person 'contributes to society'. The problem is with 'professional sports person'. Communism will mean the death of the division of labour. Rear cattle in the morning, fish in the afternoon, write poetry in the evening and all that jazz.

Now I'm well aware of the commitment it takes to be the elite in any athletic pursuit. I mean, I'm not just talking about soccer or other games that are highly reliant on skills specific training. Olympic weightlifters for example probably have some of the most extreme demands of any competative athlete in turns of training frequency (lifting as often as 3 times a day, 6 days a week as in the Bulgarian Model), training intensities (regularly using over (90% of 1RM), dietry demands (I've known a guy who when he was training at the Australian Institute of Sport at age 17 was consuming 11,000 calories a day... and that's not a typo).

The point being though that sports would be something more people could participate in more actively. I mean, it's not easy to train very seriously if you do physical work 10 hours a day... At the same time, we're talking about a society premised on the free and full development of all persons' creative, intellectual and physical faculties. A society no longer governed by clock in cards and productivity indexes and where people can be given time to train and eat and recovery and do what it takes to succeed in their (in this case) athletic endeavours.
This raises some pretty interesting questions IMO, which should be addressed.

I think it's far too simplistic to say that "communism will mean the death of division of labour" and attempt to apply that to too many different fields. A person can only become technically competent at so many things - and some take more training than others. Now, there are things that we could do to diminish this; for instance, the more 3-D imaging and manufacturing technique can be used to modularize home-building, the less you'd need skilled trades (machinists, carpenters, roofers etc). But these are things that would have to "wither away" with technological sophistication and the replacement of the existing building stock. Likewise auto mechanics, and so on. Even doctoral training could probably be shortened (but not eliminated) through increases in diagnostic and treatment technology.

But this doesn't apply to everything across the board. With sports, it's a specific skill competition. While there may be more leagues, etc there would still be people who wanted to play at the highest levels, and people who wanted to see them. What you wouldn't have is the ownership structure, the advertisements and the money interests in the whole game. Realistically you could have a "for the game's sake" league where local players compete much like today but without the profit model. It might change dramatically with time, but that's up to the people who play in it, and whether or not society as a whole wants to dedicate resources to it.

[Tommy4ever]

I disagree that being an actor and being a sportsman are 'the same situation' and that they have an 'identical role in society'. I have yet to see any biting satire delivered at the end of a football boot, for instance. Footie, or pole-vaulting, or tiddly-winks, tell us nothing about the human condition, about what it means to be human, which art does. So sport and art are really not the same, and your 'logic' fails.

I have not said that thinking they are taking the piss is the same as abolishing as you insinuated, so there's somewhere else your argument fails. I would argue that anyone who claims kicking a ball is materially contributing to society is taking the piss. Instead of bringing actors into the argument, why not explain exactly what is so beneficial about someone kicking a ball, as opposed to say, making furniture (useful)? Or even masturbation (enjoyable)?

Then, you can explain at what point after the revolution that I'm the one who gets to decide. I will continue to argue that people who enjoy sport should be able to practice it for its own sake, but that the notion of 'specialists' in sport is one that should be given up as socially reactionary. That's as far as it goes, so you can rein in your fantasies of me closing down the Edinburgh Festival and leading a mob of Philistines to burn the Royal Opera House.

I'm sorry for insinuating you wanted to ban sport. That's just what came across.

As for your claim that sportsmen are lesser than actors - that's totally wrong.

Whilst I wouldn't argue that sport can be artistic there are many who can appreciate certain things of beauty or great physical achievement on the pitch. There are also many who don't give a fuck about the artistic merit or a particular costume drama. It seems both of thes people are philistines.

But what is art simply isn't the question here. The question is whether entertainment is important in a communist society. Of course it bloody is! Whether you like it or not most actors are involved in productions of little or no artistic merit (Holyoaks anyone?), their primary function is to entertain. In that sense they are absolutely no different to sportsmen. Likewise they serve a very similar role to people who design commuter games etc. Do these people contribute anything to the furthering of society? Not really. Do they entertain us and make our lives more enjoyable? Yes. If they provide a sufficient enough amount of entertainment for a sufficient number of people then it shouldn't matter if they have no artistic merit, they should be supported by society because that society wants them.

[Olentzero]

You should check out Edge of Sports which is a blog by a socialist sportswriter.

http://www.edgeofsports.com/ (http://www.edgeofsports.com/)Aw, c'mon, Jimmie - don't play coy. Say his name out loud and proud: David Zirin of the International Socialist Organization, author of What's My Name Fool, A People's History of Sports, Welcome to the Terrordome, and Bad Sports. Carrying on a proud tradition of socialist sports analysis begun by Lester Rodney some 80 years ago in the pages of the Communist Party's Daily Worker. If anyone's got an answer as to what should be done with sports, David does. Check his books and his blog out.

(Full disclosure: I've known him personally for almost 20 years now and the man is a friggin' Marxist powerhouse. Catch him at Socialism 2011 in Chicago!)

[Blake's Baby]

...

As for your claim that sportsmen are lesser than actors - that's totally wrong...

Yes indeed, it's totally wrong to say that claimed "sportsmen are lesser than actors". I did no such thing.


...Whilst I wouldn't argue that sport can be artistic there are many who can appreciate certain things of beauty or great physical achievement on the pitch. There are also many who don't give a fuck about the artistic merit or a particular costume drama. It seems both of thes people are philistines.

But what is art simply isn't the question here. The question is whether entertainment is important in a communist society. Of course it bloody is! Whether you like it or not most actors are involved in productions of little or no artistic merit (Holyoaks anyone?), their primary function is to entertain...

Oh come on. Their primary purpose in society is to make money for studios while the 'entertainment industry' goes about on its merry way re-inforcing the dominant ideology and providing a distraction.


... In that sense they are absolutely no different to sportsmen. Likewise they serve a very similar role to people who design commuter games etc. Do these people contribute anything to the furthering of society? Not really. Do they entertain us and make our lives more enjoyable? Yes. If they provide a sufficient enough amount of entertainment for a sufficient number of people then it shouldn't matter if they have no artistic merit, they should be supported by society because that society wants them.

And I will continue to argue after the revolution that sport has no intrinsic use (except individually as an excercise regime). And if society doesn't want them, or, as I suggested earlier, thinks that on the whole they'd be more socially useful if the did a bit of real work, then, that's what they should do. But I can't really see how we could make them do that, so it's kinda moot really.

[Magón]

Anyone who seriously says sports must be gotten rid of, or at least put to the side as a "hobby" or "exercise regiment", needs to have their head examined.

Not everyone is cut out to work at a factory, or be a producer of cars, lamps, etc., nor does everyone see those as being a fun job. I thought in Communism, actual fucking Communism mind you, that people were free to choose the job of their liking because it both gave them something obviously to do, and it was something they wanted to do of their own free will. Well I'm sorry to break this to those who oppose sports as a profession so much, but even in a Communist society, where there is no mega corporations, or big bucks to be made, the main point of why people who enjoy sports, and partake in it on a professional level, is because they want to do it!

Getting rid of the corporations, ads, etc., would just cut out all the worthless fat of sports, and show why people really play the game: BECAUSE IT'S WHAT THEY LIKE TO DO MOST OF THEIR DAYS! If I was a kid growing up in a Communist Society, and I grew up with a big enough liking towards a sport, then I'd probably shoot for trying to make myself good enough, and strong enough, for when I try out for a team. And I'm not sure if people who oppose sports know this, but if you ask any sportsman who plays a sport, on any level, they'll tell you that they've always wanted to become a Football player, Baseball player, Rugby player, etc. and that they've been practicing and playing since they were kids.

Not everyone is cut out for working in the factories, or whatever, some people want to be out somewhere, swinging a bat, kicking a ball, and doing whatever, because it's fun to them, and it's also an entertaining pass time for others. The real problem with sports is that they have too much corporate fat on them. In Communism, this will obviously just be cut away and actual sports can be played.

[Blake's Baby]

Anyone who seriously says sports must be gotten rid of, or at least put to the side as a "hobby" or "exercise regiment", needs to have their head examined...

I'd take your opinions on mental health more seriously if you weren't an 'Anarcho-Trotskyist' and a member of the 'bomb throwers' Internacional'. Or, indeed, knew the difference between a regimen and a regiment.

There will be no 'professional' sportsmen and women after the revolution because there will be no professional anything after the revolution.

Your argument for sport is 'I like it and you're mad'. Way to go, I'm really impressed.

[Magón]

I'd take your opinions on mental health more seriously if you weren't an 'Anarcho-Trotskyist' and a member of the 'bomb throwers' Internacional'. Or, indeed, knew the difference between a regimen and a regiment.

Your lack of sarcasm and jokes is very low by your serious tone with me being an actual "Anarcho-Trotskyist" and member of the "Bomb throwers Internacional". And a little slip up of words isn't something uncommon, most people do it regardless of what they're talking about.


There will be no 'professional' sportsmen and women after the revolution because there will be no professional anything after the revolution.

Well that kind of makes going into something you enjoy pointless doesn't it? I mean, I'm not the biggest sports oriented person out there, I'm more interested in mechanics and stuff. If I was living in a communist society, Mechanics would be my profession and focus of work wherever I might be in the world.


Your argument for sport is 'I like it and you're mad'. Way to go, I'm really impressed.

Thanks, but most of you who are saying sports should be banned, or can't be a profession sound just as bad. "I hate sports, you can't have them or make it something you want to do for most of your life," isn't any better of a defense.

[Terminator X]

Aw, c'mon, Jimmie - don't play coy. Say his name out lout and proud: David Zirin of the International Socialist Organization, author of What's My Name Fool, A People's History of Sports, Welcome to the Terrordome, and Bad Sports. Carrying on a proud tradition of socialist sports analysis begun by Lester Rodney some 80 years ago in the pages of the Communist Party's Daily Worker. If anyone's got an answer as to what should be done with sports, David does. Check his books and his blog out.

(Full disclosure: I've known him personally for almost 20 years now and the man is a friggin' Marxist powerhouse. Catch him at Socialism 2011 in Chicago!)

Count me among the admirers of Zirin - he's a great dude and is also more than willing to engage in good-natured debate and sports talk on his FB page. I've had some good convos with him on there.

Having a left-wing voice in the sports media is essential, as the jingoistic, patriotic slant of most mainstream sports announcers/writers can get damn near intolerable.

[Blake's Baby]

Your lack of sarcasm and jokes is very low by your serious tone with me being an actual "Anarcho-Trotskyist" and member of the "Bomb throwers Internacional". And a little slip up of words isn't something uncommon, most people do it regardless of what they're talking about...

Fair enough on the 'regimen/regiment' thing. You're right, we all make mistakes. Accusing me (as it was me who mentioned sport as excercise) of being in need of psychiatric evaluation, however, wasn't a mistake, it's just lazy and stupid name-calling. Isn't it?




...

Well that kind of makes going into something you enjoy pointless doesn't it? I mean, I'm not the biggest sports oriented person out there, I'm more interested in mechanics and stuff. If I was living in a communist society, Mechanics would be my profession and focus of work wherever I might be in the world...

Because you enjoy it. No-where have I said that I think that people can't or shouldn't enjoy sport.



...
Thanks, but most of you who are saying sports should be banned, or can't be a profession sound just as bad. "I hate sports, you can't have them or make it something you want to do for most of your life," isn't any better of a defense.

Except, no-where have I said that sport should be banned. I have said that I don't think people dedicating themselves to sport is socially useful. If you're arguing against something, it's polite to at least try to find out what it is you're arguing against. Conversely, it's not very polite (or indeed useful, or even sporting for that matter) to claim that the person whose argument you don't even seem to understand is mentally unsound.

[Magón]

Fair enough on the 'regimen/regiment' thing. You're right, we all make mistakes. Accusing me (as it was me who mentioned sport as excercise) of being in need of psychiatric evaluation, however, wasn't a mistake, it's just lazy and stupid name-calling. Isn't it?

Could have been, but I was tired at the time and really the whole "should only be an exercise regimen," point is something most people I meet or know, who think sports should go away as nothing more then exercise, usually have other screwed up and fucked ideas in their head, because professions will go away.


Because you enjoy it. No-where have I said that I think that people can't or shouldn't enjoy sport.

Well there's really no difference in enjoyment of a sport, and a profession. That's just splitting hairs really. I go into a profession because I enjoy it, and that's what I want to do with my life.


Except, no-where have I said that sport should be banned. I have said that I don't think people dedicating themselves to sport is socially useful.

Really? Sports aren't socially useful? One of the main points of sports, is that you get to meet other people with the same level of enjoyment as you do, towards that sport, from all over the place.


If you're arguing against something, it's polite to at least try to find out what it is you're arguing against. Conversely, it's not very polite (or indeed useful, or even sporting for that matter) to claim that the person whose argument you don't even seem to understand is mentally unsound.

Well I'm not a very sportsman-like person in some cases, and most of what I was trying to get at with the whole mentally unsound remark, was that it's stupid to think that sports should only be an exercise regimen, instead of being able to be a profession, and most of the time it ends up with the person against sports, or whatever the topic might be, saying sports should ultimately be banned all together. So It was really just me trying to get the jump on it, before the topic could really regress to that point.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Just so we're clear, that passage from 'The German Ideology' is not intended to be serious. The clue is in the fact that all the activities described in the passage are typical rural activities (Apart from being a 'critical critic' obviously, people with delusions of philosophical grandeur exist either side of the town/country divide). It's highly unlikely unlikely that Marx was being serious in describing Communism as an idyllicised pre-industrial life considering that for the most part he despised that kind of thing (Actually, according to Terrell Carver, the main bulk of the passage is in Engels' hand and likely intended to be a send up of Fourierism. The passage about the 'critical critic' is in Marx's hand. Carver hypothesised that Marx was expanding on the joke to show that the activities described were the kind fit only for a 'critical critic').

Well yeah dude. It's intended as a metaphor, or atleast that's how I interpretted it as and what I imply when I said it in my post.

FYI, I'd take rearing cattle and fishing over selling insurance or working as a telephone operator or some shit any day.

Nic.

[Tim Finnegan]

I agree with what other people have been saying here. There's nothing wrong with competition based on bragging rights or personal/team pride... there's a whole hell of a lot wrong with competition based on making a handful of people huge piles of profit. So that means for us, competition for jobs and housing and everything else; for the capitalists, competition for profits that destroys the lives of workers and leads to imperialist conflicts; and in sports competition means athletes destroying their bodies, having to focus only on training and their sport rather than being a well-rounded person (i.e. college athletes who are encouraged not to actually learn anything because it might interfere with their ability to train as much as pro-athletes).
Very true. It's worth remembering, as well, that sports pre-date the emergence of capitalist accumulation, and not just among whatever aristocracy was kicking around at the time. That sports are now seen as reflective of a competitive bourgeois individualism is a product of their existing under a hegemonic ideology of competitive individualism, rather than any innate quality.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think it's far too simplistic to say that "communism will mean the death of division of labour" and attempt to apply that to too many different fields. A person can only become technically competent at so many things - and some take more training than others. Now, there are things that we could do to diminish this; for instance, the more 3-D imaging and manufacturing technique can be used to modularize home-building, the less you'd need skilled trades (machinists, carpenters, roofers etc). But these are things that would have to "wither away" with technological sophistication and the replacement of the existing building stock. Likewise auto mechanics, and so on. Even doctoral training could probably be shortened (but not eliminated) through increases in diagnostic and treatment technology.

You are right of course. I think it's necessary to distinguish between a technical division of labour, which is an inescapably human condition defined by our finite physical and mental capacities, and the division of labour as it has been brought to a head by capitalism.


Realistically you could have a "for the game's sake" league where local players compete much like today but without the profit model. It might change dramatically with time, but that's up to the people who play in itI bloody well hope so

EDIT: But I mean, even then. Why 'league' and not 'leagues'. Speaking from my own background, powerlifting is a notoriously fractured and divided sport. I suppose some of the mentals on this forum would call it 'sectarian'. In the US there are literally dozens of powerlifting organisations/leagues/federations each with their own set of rules regarding drug-testing (with or without), weight classes, gear (multi-ply, single-ply, raw) and even judging and administration (head off bench, squat depth, deadlift bar length and whip). Point being, in a society that embodies the free-association of producers, sport would also revolve around such a free association. Sporting feds would no longer have to recieve big business sponsorships and government approval to assert their monopoly on the sport. Athletes would be able to come together and compete according to common agreed standards and be judged by their peers. I think communism would mean a flourishing of sport and the highest point of human athletic achievement, where the limits of human potential can be truly challanged.

Nic.

[Dunk]

I think there would be a renaissance of just about every creative and community oriented activity imaginable in a post-revolutionary society. Suddenly, sports wouldn't be under the control of the rich businessmen or women, and it would be under the control of local athletes and coaches. One of my good friends plays for the Carolina Panthers, and I recently had a conversation with him about owners, and this is what he said of all workers, regardless of industry, working for owners; "Ain't that some slave shit?" I told him I couldn't agree more. Instead of my friend entering a draft and getting picked up by the Carolina Panthers, he'd probably get even more playing time for, say, the post-revolution communally owned and operated Cleveland Browns. Maybe then the Browns could focus on winning rather than the bottom line. You'd probably have way more interest in sports if local athletes were playing, not to mention if fucking beer wasn't twelve dollars, or hot dogs for eight dollars.

Human liberation isn't going to mean people are going to want to stop playing sports. We want to stop being oppressed and exploited, we don't want to stop enjoying ourselves and having fun.

[Stand Your Ground]

I think there's alot of confusion here.

I suppose this is meant to be in the context of a 'lower phase of communism' where the principle of 'each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' isn't a reality yet.

Well, eh.

I think the problem isn't whether or not a professional sports person 'contributes to society'. The problem is with 'professional sports person'. Communism will mean the death of the division of labour. Rear cattle in the morning, fish in the afternoon, write poetry in the evening and all that jazz.

Now I'm well aware of the commitment it takes to be the elite in any athletic pursuit. I mean, I'm not just talking about soccer or other games that are highly reliant on skills specific training. Olympic weightlifters for example probably have some of the most extreme demands of any competative athlete in turns of training frequency (lifting as often as 3 times a day, 6 days a week as in the Bulgarian Model), training intensities (regularly using over (90% of 1RM), dietry demands (I've known a guy who when he was training at the Australian Institute of Sport at age 17 was consuming 11,000 calories a day... and that's not a typo).

The point being though that sports would be something more people could participate in more actively. I mean, it's not easy to train very seriously if you do physical work 10 hours a day... At the same time, we're talking about a society premised on the free and full development of all persons' creative, intellectual and physical faculties. A society no longer governed by clock in cards and productivity indexes and where people can be given time to train and eat and recovery and do what it takes to succeed in their (in this case) athletic endeavours.

Anyway, yeah, I'm not very poetic or shit. But I hope you get the gist of it

If people wanna argue that Cristiano Ronaldo or some **** can get paid a 'workers wage', then they can get fucked. Fuck 'workers wage'. Fuck Ronaldo

Nic.
What's with that?

[Niccolò Rossi]

What's with that?

Fucken wah wah wah

Did I offend you?

Nic.

[black magick hustla]

the only sport left will be first division sex

[hatzel]

What's with that?

To be honest, there are few words in the English language which describe Christiano Ronaldo better than that...