Opium of the people

[James]

Ok the basic argument that i would like people to give their reactions to is that - "football is an opium of the people".


This was briefly thrown "out there" in a thread in religion a few weeks ago, but was seen as off topic.


Why the hell did we go from religion to footbal?

Well firstly, you need to chill! It was only me really. My reason? Because religion is usually opposed by those on the left for two main reasons: firstly, the lack of scientific grounding for it. Although secondly, and i would say that this is perhaps more "important": it is seen as the opium of the people (Marx's words). I was just throwing the idea out there that football is a bigger opium of the english people today.
It sort of went from there. It is an interesting "problem". I think i'll start a new thread on it. Sorry for getting off topic.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...opic=44704&st=0 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44704&st=0)

I don't mean the concept, a kick around in the park, or sunday league stuff etc etc. I mean professional football. I suppose "the example" that i have in mind is England.

Here are some of the broad ideas i stated in that thread. I have edited them down a bit. 313C7 iVi4RX also made some good points regarding the subject.

"In England it [football] has a mass following (especially in the "working class"),
takes alot of time; is the subject of many conversations (an amazing amount of conversations in my opinion!); is one way in which many workers spend their money (transport, tickets, merchandise).

It is certainly not a revolutionary social force!

alot "follow it" in a manner which can only be described as fanatical.

If you wanted to be marxist (or revolutionary) about it, then you should be very critical as it, in effect, segregates the working class against itself. Indeed, football riots are internal clashes within/between the working class.
What does football do to topics of conversation? Makes it far less political for sure. Look at standard male literature which is created by and pushed by the big businesses. Typically some form of soft core pornography, combined with football. It is hardly a revolutionary catalyst.

Who owns the clubs and teams? Well of course, the capitalists.

It is in a sense, the most blatant form of class control, suppression, deradicalisation, in England! It is ultimately, the main opium.

Religion in england? Well i certainly think it has a weaker influence and grip upon the working people.
I'm confused by the reaction of some members to the subject of football. Sure play it, enjoy it. But why are you supporting what is in essence capitalism? So much of "our" capital is caught up in the thing it is appaling!

Stop defending capitalism if you want to see the end of capitalism."


Please note, my intention is not a comparison with religion per se. It is not a religious debate. It is a debate regarding "the opium of the people". A subject which is crucial to the concept of leftwing revolutionary change.
So please try and remain focused on football (not religion!); and mods, please don't move this into religion. It couldn't be more political! (i nearly put it in theory... but decided politics was more appropriate).


Thanks chaps.

[Janus]

Well, you might as well say that professional sports is the opium of the people. people in the US are just as engrossed in itas they are in England. I seriously don't understand why professional athletes are paid such exorbitant amounts of money just to play some game that only lasts a few hours. I also find it surprising how some people can remember the worthless stats about some sport while they are completely unaware of the oppression, exploitation, and other problems of this world. Yes, I understand that it's just entertainment but it should be scaled down a bit.

[OkaCrisis]

Spectator sports of all varieties operate on the basis that "some people have the time and "resources" to become crazy good at sports". The rest of us don't have the time and resources to play lots of sports or to get very good at them, so we pay "professional athletes" to be good at them for us, and then we can watch them have a good time playing games after "a long day at the office" from our livingrooms/ the pub.

It's the shift from real experience to "experiences" that are packaged and purchased, and only truly participated in from a distance.

Also, like with Ancient Rome and the Gladiators, these "distractions" divert attention from the drudgery and misery that is living everday life, selling our humanity on the "open market".

...

On this note though, I may be against spectator sports as a concept, but I am a victim of the system after all... so GO LEAFS GO! (But ignore the fact that they're sucking some serious ass lately.)

[bolshevik butcher]

I think this is a tad extreme. I quite like watching the odd football match. Does that make me someone who is unaware of the how the system works.

[fpeppett]

this is what pisses me off about some lefties (i'll prob get flamed) can't you just succumb to the fact that some people like things, just because they do!

Talk of a sport being the opium of people is just a tad stupid IMO, I can understand the theory in what you are saying, but come on its footy, yeah its got huger amounts of money in it that i strongly disagree with, but people who watch it, watch out of passion, its not a mean of control.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 04:25 PM
this is what pisses me off about some lefties (i'll prob get flamed) can't you just succumb to the fact that some people like things, just because they do!


I'm with you. Noones saying that musics the opium of the people, thats popular. I spend quite a lot of money on cds. However I wouldnt say it was an 'opium.'

[Dark Exodus]

Personally I feel that we should only be opposed to the more extreme fans and capitalists involved.
I know a lot of people that would prefer football if the teams were representative of there area, rather than of the amount of money the owners can throw around.

Also, there is nothing wrong with watching football or any other spectator sport, seeing people do something with talent (or a lack of it) will always be entertaining whether you pay to watch or not.

[The Grey Blur]

Indeed, football riots are internal clashes within/between the working class.
There is no real hooligan culture left, going to see a football match is preactically a family event now. Anyway, those 80's hooligans were all yuppies guys who benefited from the Thatcher era of greed, not the working-class.

[Intifada]

You can enjoy professional football and at the same time consciously work against the system.

Fucking hell, just look at Livorno.

This is a ridiculous thread.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I'm with clenched fist and fpeppet.

Infact, I recently did an article asking why football, amongst other sports, isn't considered an art? I won't go too deep into it and many people disagree and it's not like I'll go and protest for people to say football is an art. But it's interesting.

Sport is a form of escapism too. It doesn't cover up the problems of the world and disable people from seeing them. But for a couple of hours a week, we follow our team and it's all that matters. And please, please don't anyone humiliate themselves and say "NO! I THINK ABOUT WORLD EXPLOITATION 24/7!!!!"

I wouldn't like to go too deep into the money side. Of course, players are paid too much. But it's how the world is now in a very very specialised market. Anyway, I am no die-hard Communist, and do die-hard Communists really think disabling spectator sports would be a good thing? Then again, I'd be more than happy to see the end of a certain Russian billionaire's influence in the game. Of course, it would be better without so much money involved. But how would you propose to deal with it?

And onto the suggestion that it blocks people from seeing the world's problems. This is untrue. As Intifada said about Livorno. Many clubs, especially in Latin countries, have ardent left-wing supporters groups who display their banners, views and protests regularly. Indeed, Che himself said, "It is not just a simple game, it is a weapon of the revolution".

I'm not really sure riots between fans is in any way turning the working class on eachother in a political sense. And someone rightly pointed out that if you look at the hardcore elements of many fan groups, they are often middle class people (see a recent article in FourFourTwo magazine).

I don't think this is a ridiculous thread, as Intifada said. But it is definitely one started without too much knowledge of the topic. And that easily creates such a view which started the thread.

[communist fanatic]

Why do people treat politics like spectator sports. I watched Chomsky's video Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media and he hit the nail on the head when he said that rabid sports fans show "irrational attitudes of submission to authority." One day they frantically cheer a player of their home team (who is probably not from their city or state to begin with) and then when he goes off to another team (probably for more money) they boo him with equal intensity. You know sort of like this:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1639839.jpg



Here is what Dr. Noam Chomsky has to say on this very important issue:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sld/sld-1-10.html

Here's some Chomsky on sports he dealt with in an interview.


CHOMSKY: Well, let me give an example. When I’m driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I’m listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it’s plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it’s at a level of superficiality that’s beyond belief.

In part, this reaction may be due to my own areas of interest, but I think it’s quite accurate, basically. And I think that this concentration on such topics as sports makes a certain degree of sense. The way the system is set up, there is virtually nothing people can do anyway, without a degree of organization that’s far beyond anything that exists now, to influence the real world. They might as well live in a fantasy world, and that’s in fact what they do. I’m sure they are using their common sense and intellectual skills, but in an area which has no meaning and probably thrives because it has no meaning, as a displacement from the serious problems which one cannot influence and affect because the power happens to lie elsewhere.

Now it seems to me that the same intellectual skill and capacity for understanding and for accumulating evidence and gaining information and thinking through problems could be used -- would be used -- under different systems of governance which involve popular participation in important decision-making, in areas that really matter to human life.

There are questions that are hard. There are areas where you need specialized knowledge. I’m not suggesting a kind of anti-intellectualism. But the point is that many things can be understood quite well without a very far-reaching, specialized knowledge. And in fact even a specialized knowledge in these areas is not beyond the reach of people who happen to be interested.

So take simple cases. Take the Russian invasion of Afghanistan -- a simple case. Everybody understands immediately without any specialized knowledge that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. That’s exactly what it is. You don’t debate it; it’s not a deep point that is difficult to understand. It isn’t necessary to know the history of Afghanistan to understand the point. All right. Now let’s take the American invasion of South Vietnam. The phrase itself is very strange. I don’t think you will ever find that phrase -- I doubt if you’ll find one case in which that phrase was used in any mainstream journal, or for the most part, even in journals of the left, while the war was going on. Yet it was just as much an American invasion of South Vietnam as it is a Russian invasion of Afghanistan. By 1962, when nobody was paying any attention, American pilots -- not just mercenaries but actual American pilots -- were conducting murderous bombing raids against Vietnamese villages. That’s an American invasion of South Vietnam. The purpose of that attack was to destroy the social fabric of rural South Vietnam so as to undermine a resistance which the American-imposed client regime had evoked by its repression and was unable to control, though they had already killed perhaps eighty thousand South Vietnamese since blocking the political settlement called for in the 1954 Geneva Accords.

So there was a U.S. attack against South Vietnam in the early sixties, not to speak of later years when the United States sent an expeditionary force to occupy the country and destroy the indigenous resistance. But it was never referred to or thought of as an American invasion of South Vietnam.

I don’t know much about Russian public opinion, but I imagine if you picked a man off the street, he would be surprised to hear a reference to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. They’re defending Afghanistan against capitalist plots and bandits supported by the CIA and so on. But I don’t think he would find it difficult to understand that the United States invaded South Vietnam.

Well, these are very different societies; the mechanisms of control and indoctrination work in a totally different fashion. There’s a vast difference in the use of force versus other techniques. But the effects are very similar, and the effects extend to the intellectual elite themselves. In fact, my guess is that you would find that the intellectual elite is the most heavily indoctrinated sector, for good reasons. It’s their role as a secular priesthood to really believe the nonsense that they put forth. Other people can repeat it, but it’s not that crucial that they really believe it. But for the intellectual elite themselves, it’s crucial that they believe it because, after all, they are the guardians of the faith. Except for a very rare person who’s an outright liar, it’s hard to be a convincing exponent of the faith unless you’ve internalized it and come to believe it. I find that intellectuals just look at me with blank stares of incomprehension when I talk about the American invasion of South Vietnam. On the other hand, when I speak to general audiences, they don’t seem to have much difficulty in perceiving the essential points, once the facts are made accessible. And that’s perfectly reasonable -- that’s what should be expected in a society set up as ours is.

When I talk about, say, Cartesian common sense, what I mean is that it does not require very far-reaching, specialized knowledge to perceive that the United States was invading South Vietnam. And, in fact, to take apart the system of illusions and deception which functions to prevent understanding of contemporary reality, that’s not a task that requires extraordinary skill or understanding. It requires the kind of normal skepticism and willingness to apply one’s analytical skills that almost all people have and that they can exercise. It just happens that they exercise them in analyzing what the New England Patriots ought to do next Sunday instead of questions that really matter for human life, their own included.

QUESTION: Do you think people are inhibited by expertise?

CHOMSKY: There are also experts about football, but these people don’t defer to them. The people who call in talk with complete confidence. They don’t care if they disagree with the coach or whoever the local expert is. They have their own opinion and they conduct intelligent discussions. I think it’s an interesting phenomenon. Now I don’t think that international or domestic affairs are much more complicated. And what passes for serious intellectual discourse on these matters does not reflect any deeper level of understanding or knowledge.

One finds something similar in the case of so-called primitive cultures. What you find very often is that certain intellectual systems have been constructed of considerable intricacy, with specialized experts who know all about it and other people who don’t quite understand and so on. For example, kinship systems are elaborated to enormous complexity. Many anthropologists have tried to show that this has some functional utility in the society. But one function may just be intellectual. It’s a kind of mathematics. These are areas where you can use your intelligence to create complex and intricate systems and elaborate their properties pretty much the way we do mathematics. They don’t have mathematics and technology; they have other systems of cultural richness and complexity. I don’t want to overdraw the analogy, but something similar may be happening here.

The gas station attendant who wants to use his mind isn’t going to waste his time on international affairs, because that’s useless; he can’t do anything about it anyhow, and he might learn unpleasant things and even get into trouble. So he might as well do it where it’s fun, and not threatening -- professional football or basketball or something like that. But the skills are being used and the understanding is there and the intelligence is there. One of the functions that things like professional sports play, in our society and others, is to offer an area to deflect people’s attention from things that matter, so that the people in power can do what matters without public interference.

QUESTION: I asked a while ago whether people are inhibited by the aura of expertise. Can one turn this around -- are experts and intellectuals afraid of people who could apply the intelligence of sport to their own areas of competency in foreign affairs, social sciences, and so on?

CHOMSKY: I suspect that this is rather common. Those areas of inquiry that have to do with problems of immediate human concern do not happen to be particularly profound or inaccessible to the ordinary person lacking any special training who takes the trouble to learn something about them. Commentary on public affairs in the mainstream literature is often shallow and uninformed. Everyone who writes and speaks about these matters knows how much you can get away with as long as you keep close to received doctrine. I’m sure just about everyone exploits these privileges. I know I do. When I refer to Nazi crimes or Soviet atrocities, for example, I know that I will not be called upon to back up what I say, but a detailed scholarly apparatus is necessary if I say anything critical about the practice of one of the Holy States: the United States itself, or Israel, since it was enshrined by the intelligentsia after its 1967 victory. This freedom from the requirements of evidence or even rationality is quite a convenience, as any informed reader of the journals of public opinion, or even much of the scholarly literature, will quickly discover. It makes life easy, and permits expression of a good deal of nonsense or ignorant bias with impunity, also sheer slander. Evidence is unnecessary, argument beside the point. Thus a standard charge against American dissidents or even American liberals -- I’ve cited quite a few cases in print and have collected many others -- is that they claim that the United States is the sole source of evil in the world or other similar idiocies; the convention is that such charges are entirely legitimate when the target is someone who does not march in the appropriate parades, and they are therefore produced without even a pretense of evidence. Adherence to the party line confers the right to act in ways that would properly be regarded as scandalous on the part of any critic of received orthodoxies. Too much public awareness might lead to a demand that standards of integrity should be met, which would certainly save a lot of forests from destruction, and would send many a reputation tumbling.

The right to lie in the service of power is guarded with considerable vigor and passion. This becomes evident whenever anyone takes the trouble to demonstrate that charges against some official enemy are inaccurate or, sometimes, pure invention. The immediate reaction among the commissars is that the person is an apologist for the real crimes of official enemies. The case of Cambodia is a striking example. That the Khmer Rouge were guilty of gruesome atrocities was doubted by no one, apart from a few marginal Maoist sects. It is also

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sld/sld-contents.html

http://www.anar.newmail.ru/reader2.htm

[expatriot]

Hey- I watched "Manufacturing Consent" last night!

Personally I hate sports and I can't understand the big deal about watching football or golf or any of it. I think all televison is heroin, except the BBC news and some documentaries. Hey, sometimes it's fun to lighten up and watch some mindless entertainment but it's out of control.

Cable TV costs an average of $100 per month for premium channels in America. I have the $10 per month basic and I think I'll get rid of it all together. Special sporting events are extra such as boxing and you pay a premium for ESPN and the like.

It all supports advertising and that's why these "stars" get paid so much. They just wear the brand for millions of dollars- such as Nike and then all of the kids buy their sneakers. Not even a clue about the horrible conditions that workers in third wold countries and China have to endure to produce a Nike sneaker and the like.

So, to sum it all up. Yes, football is the opium of the masses. I agree. :marx:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I think all televison is heroin, except the BBC news and some documentaries

Oh the BBC. ALWAYS intelligent, unbiased viewing which changes it's colour scheme to suit the current governing party.

All television is heroin? You honestly think that? Or are you trying to assert yourself as some sort of hardcore anti-modern world new member?

Do you use candle light because electricity is burning the atmosphere? Do you also think we should all wear grey?

Television is one of man's most glorious creations. It's value as an educational tool is unprecedented and though there is a lot of shite, there's is also a lot of intelligent broadcasting.

Would so many people know about ancient tribal cultures, the environment, the animal world, the arts?

Thing is, i don't believe your "I HATE T.V." rant for a second. Take your fuckin "I-wanna-be-the-greatest-revolutionary-since-that-guy-Che-Castrolini" attitude somewhere where people appreciate your lies/crap opinion.

[LSD]

Socialismo, lay off the attitude.

The poster has stated an opinion and clearly you disagree, but you can do so in a calm and respectful manner.

This is the second needlessly hostile post you've made today and if you don't cut it out I'm going to start issuing warning points.

Also, please, lay off the "my post count's bigger than your post count" crap. It is so fucking tired.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

It was actually the "I'm bigger than you because I HATE TV attitude" that I was getting at.

Someone's already mentioned the distorted attitude of (presumably under 21 year old) "lefties". It's plain annoying.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

A couple of people also seem to have posted views which stem from them not liking sports, being slightly jealous that so many people love and can play sports and are therefore bitter and start saying how pointless it all is.

It's that pompousness that winds me up.

[expatriot]

I guess I'm not entitled to my opinion, in your opinion.

No, I burn candles because I like the scent and I think people should all wear whatever they like.

I thought this was a board for opinions and ideas. If you need to react to my comments in such an angry way you must be either very self righteous or a total fascist.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Ahhh of course. The guy who reacts angrily to pompous opinions and loves sport is.....a self-righteous fascist!

[expatriot]

Maybe TV is different where you come from but here it is truly the idiot tube. Nothing but non-stop commercials for Viagra, Cars and Fast Food..Reality Shows, the worst situation comedy shows imaginable and Soap Operas.

I am not pompous at all. I am just commenting on the culture, which in my opinion is completely degenerate- at least in America it is. Not only that, I think it's a form of mind control for the masses to sedate them so they won't mind so much what is going on in their government. After all, things aren't so bad.. there's no war on the news- just Football and it's all a good time.


I like to watch the world news on BBC at night to see what's going on around the world- biased as it is, it's nothing like the political talking heads non-stop here in America.

I don't judge anyone on here. I could care less if someone likes sports and watches TV all day. It's really none of my business. As I said, I'm just stating my opinion.

And I'm not a 21 yr old leftist. I'm 50 years old. I'll bet you'll have a field day with that information.

[James]

clenched fist:
"I think this is a tad extreme. I quite like watching the odd football match. Does that make me someone who is unaware of the how the system works."

No not really. Simily, is someone who believes in a form of religion always unaware of how the system works?


I'm with you. Noones saying that musics the opium of the people, thats popular. I spend quite a lot of money on cds. However I wouldnt say it was an 'opium.'

I would say that alot of music can contribute toward revolution. Although it must be considered how the media ingeneral is a means of propaganda. So it can be used to shape people's opinons. So could be used as an anti revolutionary force.

Although i think a big difference is that music doesn't prompt you to join an "army" which is against other fundamentally working class "armies". It doesn't promote a form of communitarianism that is counter productive toward revolution (i'll go over how football does this again a bit further down).


fpeppett

"Talk of a sport being the opium of people is just a tad stupid IMO, I can understand the theory in what you are saying, but come on its footy, yeah its got huger amounts of money in it that i strongly disagree with, but people who watch it, watch out of passion, its not a mean of control.

I can see where you are coming from. Please note i am not claiming that sports are counter productive to the possibility of a revolution. I can't stand it when it is proposed that competitive sports be watered down at school for example.
I like and engage in competitive sport.

I gave an example though of how proffessional english football can do this. Let me make my main points again, as they seem to have got confused a little.


- mass following, especially in the "working class"
- takes alot of time;/focus/resources of the individual (is the subject of many conversations)
- alot "follow it" in a manner which can only be described as fanatical.
- segregates the working class against itself. (football riots are internal clashes within/between the working class). Also promotes bigoted nationalism. Take England and Germany.
- Look at standard male literature which is created by and pushed by the big businesses. Typically some form of soft core pornography, combined with football. It is hardly a revolutionary catalyst.
- Who owns the clubs and teams? Well of course, the capitalists.

It is certainly not a revolutionary social force. It is in a sense, the most blatant form of class control, suppression, deradicalisation, in England.
It is ultimately, the main opium (Something that numbs or stupefies - dictionary.com).


watch out of passion, its not a mean of control.

Why do they get into it? Alot get into it because it is simply accepted as the thing to do. I enjoy sports, i enjoy playing football. I don't follow a team though - because i was never socially conditioned to do so (neither of my parents were ever into it). Not saying that this is the only way that people become football fans, but it certainly does seem a big factor.
People follow religion out of passion.
Being a football fan is a means of control - it numbs you.

socialsmo

All television is heroin? You honestly think that? Or are you trying to assert yourself as some sort of hardcore anti-modern world new member?



Whilst i enjoy tv, i know that it seriously prevents me from doing actual stuff!
I think red hot chilli peppers sum it up well in "throw away your televisiion"


A couple of people also seem to have posted views which stem from them not liking sports, being slightly jealous that so many people love and can play sports and are therefore bitter and start saying how pointless it all is.

It's that pompousness that winds me up.


Well not me.
I give reasons to support the argument that football is the opium of the masses.




Incidently i'm not sure on the matter. I'm not convinced that all religion acts as an opium either. Or is the biggest opium. Its just a concept i was playing around with (indeed i'm not even a revolutionary). Although i must say, some of the so called revolutionaries seem to be very conservative in their marxism!!!

[ricardsju]

It is a Opiate/Opium only if people are over indulging in it, so I can't see where people are comeing from by claming others are just "anti-sport apart from if they them-selfs are over indulging in it. If you remain in moderation then there is nothing wrong with following sport its the same with anything really. But then there is no fine decided line between light harmless escapism that everyone needs to remain sane in this crazed world and blatant Opiate escapism.

[Dark Exodus]

Whilst i enjoy tv, i know that it seriously prevents me from doing actual stuff!
I think red hot chilli peppers sum it up well in "throw away your televisiion"


What about historical/fantasty/sci-fi programs? You are never going to experience those, television is fine. I see it as escapism along with books, films and computer games.

Currently television has a very low amount of enjoyable content, but that is just a result of Capitalism.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Ok so it seems US television is what was getting criticised. And as I'm from Wales, I can't comment and therefore should probably say I was wrong for commenting on it. Though I wasn't aware American T.V. was being talked about.

James, firstly, I wasn't talking of you when I was on about people who didn't like/get/play sports. I did read your post and understood that you took part in sports.


richardsju
What in god's name is "opiate escapism"? Escapism is escapism. There's no diffeent level of it. Unless you mean how much time it consumes. A football match consumes you for a few hours. When you hear it on the news or in the paper, it doesn't really consume you in the escapist way that watching it does. And maybe on big match days, against local rivals or title contenders, you are looking forward to it and talking about it the whole day. But as someone said, this doesn't mean you aren't aware of anything else. Indeed, like we've said, some teams are even looking forward to certain matches for the reason that they're going PURELY to get riled up about their political sloganing etc.

I do agree with what James said about someone's comment about music. There is a difference. As a pure artistic form of expression, music is certainly more culturally valuable than sports.


James
-We've said that the hardcore elements of rioting in football is often middle-class based. So saying it segregates the working class in that sense is not true. And, indeed, you're not looking at the other side of it: look at the people it unites.
-As for your point about the fanatical following, this is true for, what?, three or four hours a week? When people are going about their daily business, though fuly aware of their love for their team, they can also be completely aware of the things you say it distracts them from.
-What you say about, presumably, the likes of The Sun, The Sport etc is of course true. But this isn't the fault of sport. This is the fault of the red-tops dumbing down British people for their need to make money. Don't forget it full of dribble-worthy news coverage as well.

[James]

-We've said that the hardcore elements of rioting in football is often middle-class based.

Well to be fair what someone said, and you agreed with, was that in the 80s football holigans were yuppies.
From my own experiance, the more hardcore football fans are WC. In a sense though it doesn't matter, because it is obvious that some of the WC do participate in the whole football "thing". Riots was just one extreme example of how the "sides" are tought to think that it is "us" against "them".

So yes, it is true to say that it segregates the people.


And, indeed, you're not looking at the other side of it: look at the people it unites.

Whaaaaat. lol, well that applies to religion too you see. I don't think you are arguing that though!

No, that is a rather weak point i'm afraid. They are united, against another.



-As for your point about the fanatical following, this is true for, what?, three or four hours a week? When people are going about their daily business, though fuly aware of their love for their team, they can also be completely aware of the things you say it distracts them from.

You have managed to really dum down my point to an interesting extreme!

"- takes alot of time;/focus/resources of the individual (is the subject of many conversations)
- alot "follow it" in a manner which can only be described as fanatical. "

The point still stands that many follow it "fanatically". They have a fanatical "us versus them" mentality, which also acts as escapism. It doesn't just take place during a match, it takes place in numerous conversations every day. etc etc


-What you say about, presumably, the likes of The Sun, The Sport etc is of course true.

The sun has an enormous readership (a bit more than 3 times larger than the daily mails). So it can't just be shrugged off. I'm not sure what the readership is for the other tabloids, and mags such as FHM (for him mag), loaded, nuts etc etc

The format tends to be focused on porn, football, and novelty stories.




But this isn't the fault of sport.

You need to read my posts again. Start from the start, and read them slowly. I didn't say that it was the fault of sport.

[Intifada]

(James)

People follow religion out of passion.
Being a football fan is a means of control - it numbs you.


I am a passionate Manchester United fan, and am fanatical about football in general, yet support working-class revolution wholeheartedly.

I know others who also share a love for football and support the working-classes, worldwide.

As far as I am aware, it has not "numbed" me, nor has it "numbed" them.

Your argument is crap, simply put.

Religion, as an institution, has always acted against any form of revolutionary liberation of the working class, and poor as a whole.

Even Oscar Romero faced opposition from the Catholic Church in his battle against the fascists in El Salvador.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Nice to see another Red on here! In the non-political sense of course. Do you buy RedIssue? This is written by the so-called "hardcore" element of United support, middle-class, but all talk from a left-wing perspective about the money in the game etc. Very interesting. And, of course, they think Rio is a dickhead!

I agree with Intifada's post. Not just because he's United too. Religion actively condemns revolutionary action. There's no comparison with sport. The poor need to be poor so that they can look to "God" to see them through. If everyone was liberated, educated and not living with so many problems, they wouldn't turn to "God. This is not true of sport. Certainly not of football.

James
You talk of this mentality of "us" and "them" that football creates. But it is purely in the spectrum of football that it is kept. I hope Leeds fans suffer badly in their hearts because their football team does shit. I wouldn't wish them any real hurt or a life of poverty or a life being exploited.


You need to read my posts again. Start from the start, and read them slowly. I didn't say that it was the fault of sport.

Religion is the "opiate of the people" because it is "religion's" fault. It seeks to be that way. So to suggest that sport is the "opiate" of the people is to suggest that sport is at fault.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 20 2006, 04:51 PM
Nice to see another Red on here! In the non-political sense of course. Do you buy RedIssue? This is written by the so-called "hardcore" element of United support, middle-class, but all talk from a left-wing perspective about the money in the game etc. Very interesting. And, of course, they think Rio is a dickhead!
I have read it a couple of times.

But I don't buy it regularly.

Rio is an overpaid idiot (which can be said of a lot of footballers). It's no wonder that he is playing so crap at the moment. His wage has led to complacency.

Anyway, this is a tad offtopic so let us get back to the thread's real purpose.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Well it was intended to be on the thread's topic: i.e. the hardcore of United following being largely middle-class with the means to produce a monthly fanzine.

And I hope Vidic gives Ferdinand the competition so that he gets his arse in gear. The oppurtunistic bastard.

[James]

Initfada

Your argument rests on your personal experiance. It seems hihgly unlikely that you are the norm,. If you were, then football would be a truely "revolutionary" thing. It quite clearly isn't though. So, to quote a really brainy and cool revolutionary who supports capitalism (can you get any more? man u! hehe), "Your argument is crap, simply put."


sociolismoy


actively condemns revolutionary action. There's no comparison with sport.

The problem that you have is that you think i'm comparing football with religion.
Which i am quite clearly not (beyond the theory that both can be used by the upper classes to keep the plebs happy and content).


I wouldn't wish them any real hurt or a life of poverty or a life being exploited.


Again, your personal experiance doesn't really translate as "the norm". You shall find that football per se has been used on more than one occasion beat the crap out of another, on the grounds that they are "the enemy". Indeed, a few have even been murdered because of it.



So to suggest that sport

I'm getting TIREd of you not reading my posts. You are being silly.
I havn't made such a generalisation. Look back at my first post - i clearly state what form of football i'm refering to as a possible "opium".


suggest that sport is at fault.

Well it all comes down to how it works out in practise. It is currently one of the biggest businesses in England. And it has many plebs well and truely hooked!

So not only does it act as a form of escapism, that keeps the plebs happy and from questioning/discussing important things (see sun, nuts etc etc: the popular press); but it also acts as a form of addiction (you get sucked in, you become a fanatic, you spend money on it constantly blah blah blah)!

In the end, the only people that benefit are the fat cats at the top, and the system in general!
I understand why this disgusts "revolutionaries" whom engage in this most capitalist institution (proffessional football). Didn't think that you yourself was the "enemy of the movement"! did you!

[Intifada]

(James)

Your argument rests on your personal experiance. It seems hihgly unlikely that you are the norm,. If you were, then football would be a truely "revolutionary" thing. It quite clearly isn't though. So, to quote a really brainy and cool revolutionary who supports capitalism (can you get any more? man u! hehe), "Your argument is crap, simply put."

My original point still stands.

You can enjoy professional football and at the same time consciously work against the system.

Football is not a set of rules which determine how a person lives. It is entertainment, and if you think that it falls under the "opiate" category, then you must argue that all entertainment is a drug.


In the end, the only people that benefit are the fat cats at the top, and the system in general!


Let's all walk around naked then.

Let's not buy foodstuffs from supermarkets.

Everything we buy benefits the fat cats at the top.

You cannot completely boycott Capitalism.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 20 2006, 06:49 PM
And I hope Vidic gives Ferdinand the competition so that he gets his arse in gear. The oppurtunistic bastard.
Vidic looks like a true hard-man and no-nonsense defender.

I saw footage of him against Spain for Serbia.

True quality, and one for the future.

Now we need a defensive midfielder.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

It is currently one of the biggest businesses in England. And it has many plebs well and truely hooked!

Films, music.....massive businesses. I know I agreed with you that music is different because it is purely an art form, but the the size of the business isn't really relevant.


In the end, the only people that benefit are the fat cats at the top, and the system in general!

Firstly, it's not true that the only people that benefit are the fat cats. Oh, unless of course you think that all that matters is money? The enjoyment, entertainment, escapism and unity with supporters and the club comes as part of the benefit for the fans.

Secondly, if you go on a protest, distribute flyers....anything, you will eventually be benefitting some "fat cat" who owns a paper company. A printing company maybe. Everything we give money to, except (theoretically) taxes, benefits some "fat cat". So that's as irrelevant as the previous quote.


And in answer to the rest of your points, I would have said exactly what Intifada has said.

[James]

My original point still stands.
You can enjoy professional football and at the same time consciously work against the system.

Fair enough. You can.
I think the existance of christian socialists also demonstrates that no "opium of the people" works 100%.




Football is not a set of rules which determine how a person lives.

Getting tired of repeating myself...
I didn't say it did.



It is entertainment, and if you think that it falls under the "opiate" category, then you must argue that all entertainment is a drug.

Well maybe it is.




Let's all walk around naked then.

Let's not buy foodstuffs from supermarkets.

Everything we buy benefits the fat cats at the top.

You cannot completely boycott Capitalism.

Didn't say you could. Stop putting words in my mouth.
There is a difference between supporting capitalism indirectly through the requirements of life: and then buying into a massive franchise that you don't need.
Bread and clothes on one hand: Versus: professional football.
you have wierd priorities!

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Bread and clothes on one hand: Versus: professional football.
you have wierd priorities!

And you're talking about people twisting what you said?! Do you work for the Labour Party?

The point was, EVERYTHING has a fat cat scooping the spoils.

[Tormented by Treachery]

I would not argue so much that athletics are the opiate of the masses, but I think a definite case for the media being an opiate can be made. For instance, every American newspaper was covering the 'War on Christmas' while Bush's ratings were slipping, the word Impeachment was lingering on the air, and Halliburton was getting richer. Things level off a bit in Iraq, and boom, War on Christmas is over. Even news outlets seem to engage more in personal attacks (O'Reilly smearing and Olbermann naming world's worst) than actual debate on politics. The showmanship involved in 'News' today, combined with the incessant coverage of sports and Hollywood happenings, that is what is numbing the minds of the people. IMO.

[ricardsju]

james
I mean there are different levels of sedation that each individual succumbs to when involved in escapism, plus enthusiasm is shown in different ways depending on ones location.

--
FYI this is what sport is like in my country:

Rugby is heavily encourage near to the point that is a "state sport" much like Monotheism in the US is heavily encourage to the point that the US is a Monotheist country(bloodly big loopholes that you would think would be fixed by now!).

There are about 6 national matchs and 6 provincial matchs (a extra 6 more if you come from another province, plus countless "freindlys"(non-ranked) for both national and provincial) for normal rugby alone(there is also rugby league). Here is what you will more likey to notice while they are on:

That there are 2 times the traffic on the road before the game(going to the stadium or friends).
Everyone asking you who you think will win(looking at you like your crazy if you don't know who is playing).
Xmas eve like queue before game for booze and chips etc.
Only 5% traffic on the road while the game is on.
Replaces normal programs on free tv no-matter what the time its on if its live or whats happening(they would have left the rugby on if 911 was happening at the same time).
There are 3 times the traffic on the road after the game(most driving drunk in a crazy rush).
replays after a few hours on free tv if it was on sky (pay tv)
Everyone asking you what you think of what happen in the game for the next few days (looking at you like your crazy if you didn't watch it).

FYI two MPs and our PM missed a day or so of APEC as she was busy geting the rights to the rugby world cup.
The US has patriotism we have pride of our rugby team!

(If anyone from New Zealand reads this i am going to be so badly flamed... )

[freedumb]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:08 AM
james
I mean there are different levels of sedation that each individual succumbs to when involved in escapism, plus enthusiasm is shown in different ways depending on ones location.

--
FYI this is what sport is like in my country:

Rugby is heavily encourage near to the point that is a "state sport" much like Monotheism in the US is heavily encourage to the point that the US is a Monotheist country(bloodly big loopholes that you would think would be fixed by now!).

There are about 6 national matchs and 6 provincial matchs (a extra 6 more if you come from another province, plus countless "freindlys"(non-ranked) for both national and provincial) for normal rugby alone(there is also rugby league). Here is what you will more likey to notice while they are on:

That there are 2 times the traffic on the road before the game(going to the stadium or friends).
Everyone asking you who you think will win(looking at you like your crazy if you don't know who is playing).
Xmas eve like queue before game for booze and chips etc.
Only 5% traffic on the road while the game is on.
Replaces normal programs on free tv no-matter what the time its on if its live or whats happening(they would have left the rugby on if 911 was happening at the same time).
There are 3 times the traffic on the road after the game(most driving drunk in a crazy rush).
replays after a few hours on free tv if it was on sky (pay tv)
Everyone asking you what you think of what happen in the game for the next few days (looking at you like your crazy if you didn't watch it).

FYI two MPs and our PM missed a day or so of APEC as she was busy geting the rights to the rugby world cup.
The US has patriotism we have pride of our rugby team!

(If anyone from New Zealand reads this i am going to be so badly flamed... )
much the same is true of the football codes in Australia. There is a general fanatacism about spectator sport which i believe is unhealthy and undemocratic.

Sport distracts the general population from caring about issues that affect them and their society. Sporting events encourage ferocious competition and general division between the working class over what is essentially a game.. nothing more.

I respect those who are active in sport and enjoy participating in it, everyone has their own interests/hobbies and it is not my business to stop people from enjoying them.

The business media tend to encourage the coverage and overemphasise the importance of sport, no doubt aiming to keep the public as stupid and senile as possible.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:00 PM
I think the existance of christian socialists also demonstrates that no "opium of the people" works 100%.
Socialism is not Marxism though.


I didn't say it did.

Then it isn't really an opiate, is it?


Well maybe it is.


Fact of the matter is that one can be a Marxist and enjoy entertainment such as football.


Didn't say you could. Stop putting words in my mouth.


I was not "putting words" into your mouth, I was merely highlighting the fallacy of your argument.

You cannot boycott fat cats in the world we live in.

[fpeppett]

heyy, just to let people know for about 4 quid (pounds) i watch all the footy I can over illeagal streaming on the internet!!

Just search anything in google like 'watch football' and you'll get a site theres quite a few.

All in chinese commentary, but still 4 quid for a years membership to a wider variety of games than sky have to offer is very good!!


Tad off topic, but still fucking Sky over, which is always a good thing

[James]

Socialism is not Marxism though.

No doubt there are marxists who hold some form of religion. It certainly is not the norm though. Nor is it the norm that football fans are highly politicalised radicals who just can't wait to overthrow capitalist oppression (no, they are more interested in how much money "their club" should spend on bringing in other workers to play for "them").



Then it isn't really an opiate, is it?

Gee, and i thought that posting a dictionary defition of opium earlier would solve this problem. Look up the word. And then read my posts again in this thread. Then chill-lax for a few hours: and then come back again and read my posts. Then you should be able to answer that "point" all on your ownsome. There's a good boy.



fact of the matter is that one can be a Marxist and enjoy entertainment such as football.

Again: putting words in my mouth.
I didn't argue that a marxist couldn't.
Come on dear, read my posts before replying.



I was not "putting words" into your mouth, I was merely highlighting the fallacy of your argument.

You cannot boycott fat cats in the world we live in.


It seems to be more that you were having a tantrum because i suggested that you participate in/support a capitalist form of oppression/exploitation!

You were putting words in my mouth. As i said: "Didn't say you could [and i didn't. Go and reread my posts]. Stop putting words in my mouth. There is a difference between supporting capitalism indirectly through the requirements of life: and then buying into a massive franchise that you don't need. Bread and clothes on one hand: Versus: professional football. you have wierd priorities!"

I'm not arguing that football per se is an opium. etc etc: this is clear in my earlier posts.
blah blah blah

[Atlas Swallowed]

Hockey is my opium.......Awwwwwwww.........Hockey............Aw wwwwwww