All Competition is Capitalist!

[luxemburg89]

Please forgive the cynicism and sarcasm, there is a serious point to this.

Football, as a sport played between two teams of 11 men, is quintessentially Capitalist. The very IDEA of 11-year-old children winning a game of football against their mates in the park is the finest example of capitalism. As comrades have pointed out the ball is not appreciating the value of its labour, it is being exploited.

I recently, without naming names, had the following statement put to me: football is a capitalist's game - now while I agreed the business side of it is disgusting; the grass roots side of it, friends playing friends, is not Capitalist. The majority of the working-class in Britain, for example, love football, as a spectator sport but also as a game to be played at leisure (in my football team we have 7 dockers). However this person in question went further: The competition displayed in football is the antithesis of Socialism. . .
Total nonsense! I have won many football matches and received no reward for it, so am I capitalist? Equally I have lost but all the other team gets is a handshake from ours, does that make them capitalist? Are we to punish people for winning games? If I lose to someone at chess does that make my opponent the enemy of Socialism? Is Lenin a Capitalist for winning his games of chess against friends and family?

The point I am making is that exploitation to succeed in competition is the antithesis of Socialism, but competition itself is not Capitalist - in many cases, such as a school sports day, it can be healthy and enjoyable for everyone. Any thoughts?

[partizan604]

If competition means struggle, fight - it's more antropological than capitalist. People compete - to be the one and only. Sports create mostly non-violent forms of struggling. Anyway we need to fight but we don't need to kill.

[kracken]

i agree, but with the comparison of football to capitalism, what about when people (schoolkids, whatever) are forced to play against their will? would that be people being forced to exploit each other( to survive) against their will? or do i have the wrong end of the stick

[RGacky3]

Thats rediculous, do soccar players exploit the other teams labor for profit? Stupid.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Competition within the Economy is Capitalist, and is the exploitive competition indicated. Playing a competitive game isn't directly Capitalist. Perhaps, because you have to buy a ball, pay tax on it, yadda yadda yadda, but even then it's only a few bucks.

[Faux Real]

Thats rediculous, do soccar players exploit the other teams labor for profit? Stupid.
Agreed!
I love sports, but hate the business side of it and ESPN. They make it seem like its all one huge stock market, and the sport itself doesn't matter.

[luxemburg89]

Thats rediculous, do soccar players exploit the other teams labor for profit? Stupid.

Yeah, I'm talking about 'soccer' it's just I call it football - sorry I wasn't clear.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who thought this was nonesense - not that the person in question would listen to any arguments, of course.


i agree, but with the comparison of football to capitalism, what about when people (schoolkids, whatever) are forced to play against their will? would that be people being forced to exploit each other( to survive) against their will? or do i have the wrong end of the stick

Not necessarily, you raise a good point. However I don't mean children forced to play. I mean, for example, in a park in Manchester 10 children might be playing a 5-a-side game wearing Manchester United shirts. The Sponser on the shirt is Capitalism, but the badge, the passion and the 5-a-side game are just natural. I mean I support my team and I'm bloody proud of it and I want them to win - I do not, however, like it when a team wins because they have more money at their disposal than others. Being a Southampton fan you come to resent the big English teams with their rediculous amounts of money :P .

[Jazzratt]

Anyone that sees competition as somehow antithetical to socialism is ignoring some important aspects of socialism - not least worker's democracy a system of competitive elections whereby one set of ideas is put in direct competition with another set.

Even ignoring that example there will still be plenty of intra-personal competitions, the only difference between competition in a socialist society and in a capitalist society is the rewards of winning and the necessity of taking part.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Are you comparing a ball to a worker?

[RevMARKSman]

Simple:

Competition in the economy aka capitalism is inefficient. The work we do to create products is something we have to do - no matter how fun you may find your dream job. A certain amount of goods must be produced - so efficiency is vital to keep everyone fed and with a decent standard of living.

Competition in sports cannot be "inefficient" because there is no production goal. The goal is to have a blast, and for most people competition (without high stakes; if they are high, you'll spend more time worrying about what you could lose than enjoying the experience) is fun. Plus, sports and team competition increase serotonin in the brain which triggers a general feeling of well-being. I've often felt an emotional high near the end of (American) football practice.

Besides that, the only argument your friend may have is that it encourages a "capitalist mindset" which is absolute bullshit. There is no "capitalist mindset" - I love competition as much as anyone else but am still a socialist.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:27 pm
Please forgive the cynicism and sarcasm, there is a serious point to this.

Football, as a sport played between two teams of 11 men, is quintessentially Capitalist. The very IDEA of 11-year-old children winning a game of football against their mates in the park is the finest example of capitalism. As comrades have pointed out the ball is not appreciating the value of its labour, it is being exploited.

I recently, without naming names, had the following statement put to me: football is a capitalist's game - now while I agreed the business side of it is disgusting; the grass roots side of it, friends playing friends, is not Capitalist. The majority of the working-class in Britain, for example, love football, as a spectator sport but also as a game to be played at leisure (in my football team we have 7 dockers). However this person in question went further: The competition displayed in football is the antithesis of Socialism. . .
Total nonsense! I have won many football matches and received no reward for it, so am I capitalist? Equally I have lost but all the other team gets is a handshake from ours, does that make them capitalist? Are we to punish people for winning games? If I lose to someone at chess does that make my opponent the enemy of Socialism? Is Lenin a Capitalist for winning his games of chess against friends and family?

The point I am making is that exploitation to succeed in competition is the antithesis of Socialism, but competition itself is not Capitalist - in many cases, such as a school sports day, it can be healthy and enjoyable for everyone. Any thoughts?
i dont know about capitalist- but there are certainly highly reactionary divide and conquer elements within working class football culture. Just look at the way in which the coloquial tribism mentality has successfully pitted working men against each other (esp. Rangers v Celtic in Scotland)! The cappies couldn't do a better job of it if they tried!

[karmaradical]

This is really a sad argument. It sounds like something from a kid who was always picked last for teams.

Capitalism is an economic theory. Sure, capitalism utilizes certain philosophies, such as competition, but so does art. Musicians are always competing against each other. So are puppies. Does this mean the guitar players and puppies are capitalist swine? possibly...

I mean, I can see how some negative shit can get into the sports industry, such as racial and nationalistic tones, as highlighted above. But other than that, sports are fun, and competition can be healthy as long as no one is being economically exploited n such.

But I doubt millions of workers are being tormented by the horrors of baseball.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:02 am
This is really a sad argument. It sounds like something from a kid who was always picked last for teams.

Capitalism is an economic theory. Sure, capitalism utilizes certain philosophies, such as competition, but so does art. Musicians are always competing against each other. So are puppies. Does this mean the guitar players and puppies are capitalist swine? possibly...

I mean, I can see how some negative shit can get into the sports industry, such as racial and nationalistic tones, as highlighted above. But other than that, sports are fun, and competition can be healthy as long as no one is being economically exploited n such.

But I doubt millions of workers are being tormented by the horrors of baseball.
Oh really, you think? Go to Glasgow or Manchester during derby day and you'll see how violent it gets! :o

If you dont believe me here is the sort of thing i'm referring to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds4rReE7zyY...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds4rReE7zyY&mode=related&search=)

Celtic fans in London
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM_ax89ge-w...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM_ax89ge-w&mode=related&search=)

[Sentinel]

I can't see competition as in some way inheritly bad. And I think there will still be competition in a communist -- moneyless, without private property -- society, but with different objectives. The main one would likely be what humans thirst for most, in any kind of society: respect.

People in capitalism compete for wealth and power. But after the basic needs have been met, it is the desire of respect that keeps the capitalist still trying to maximise his profits, making more people subject to him, etc. The respect aqcuired by these means is what would be classified as negative respect, of course. This kind of competition is therefore negative as well, and is characteristic for the capitalist system due to it's exploitative and dividing nature.

On the other hand, in a system where private property is abolished, exploitation of others is impossible and everyones working efforts benefit the collective, people will instead compete for the respect of that collective, which will be acquired by doing things beneficial for it. Those who work hardest, according to their ability, will thus be rewarded with respect. This now is positive respect, and positive competition -- the result of people no longer being alienated from their labor.

Competition in sports.. well, it's not productive but is still more on the 'positive competition' side as I see it.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Sentine[email protected] 05, 2007 04:15 pm
I can't see competition as in some way inheritly bad. And I think there will still be competition in a communist -- moneyless, without private property -- society, but with different objectives. The main one would likely be what humans thirst for most, in any kind of society: respect.

People in capitalism compete for wealth and power. But after the basic needs have been met, it is the desire of respect that keeps the capitalist still trying to maximise his profits, making more people subject to him, etc. The respect aqcuired by these means is what would be classified as negative respect, of course. This kind of competition is therefore negative as well, and is characteristic for the capitalist system due to it's exploitative and dividing nature.

On the other hand, in a system where private property is abolished, exploitation of others is impossible and everyones working efforts benefit the collective, people will instead compete for the respect of that collective, which will be acquired by doing things beneficial for it. Those who work hardest, according to their ability, will thus be rewarded with respect. This now is positive respect, and positive competition -- the result of people no longer being alienated from their labor.

Competition in sports.. well, it's not productive but is still more on the 'positive competition' side as I see it.
id like to think that the spirit of teamwork will be prevailant over competition in a communist/socialist society. Far more will be accomplished if we combine our resources, anyway.

[gilhyle]

By coincidence I read an article today by Lenin which essentially goes 'now we got a socialist government we can really introduce proper competition'!

[Red October]

This whole topic is ridiculous. Football is a game that fundamentally has no relation to economics or communism. It's a game that is played by pretty much every sort of person, all the way from monarchs down to poor children in Latin America. People need to learn to appreciate games as recreation and entertainment, and nothing more. If competition in sports is somehow capitalist, that rules out all sorts of recreation. Video games, chess, marathons, even children's games of "hide and seek" would all be capitalist. It makes no sense to declare recreation anti-worker when recreation is exactly what the workers need and have a right to.

[spartan]

money is not everything in footie. the fact is a player can cost ten million quid but he still has to go out onto the pitch and risk possible injury for ninety minutes and still play his fucking heart out or he will get the boot (or the managers mug thrown at him at the end of the game :D ) people always say stuff about teams having an unfair advantage in money (which enables them to buy the best players) while i agree somewhat the fact is that player might not fit into his new club because of a different style of footie himself and his teamates might play and also you have to put a winning team out so if they dont gel well then it is a waste of money. case in point brian clough (who was a socialist who frequently joined in miners strikes) the former manager of notts forest. he took over forest after they just avoided relegation in the old second division and only buying one new player he used the same team (that had just avoided relegation) a couple of years later to get promotion to the first division (then the highest form of competion equivilant to the premiership of today) and then win it! and you can add to that back to back european cups!!! so there you see money is not always everything in footie even today it does not have to be.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 05, 2007 10:28 pm
This whole topic is ridiculous. Football is a game that fundamentally has no relation to economics or communism. It's a game that is played by pretty much every sort of person, all the way from monarchs down to poor children in Latin America. People need to learn to appreciate games as recreation and entertainment, and nothing more. If competition in sports is somehow capitalist, that rules out all sorts of recreation. Video games, chess, marathons, even children's games of "hide and seek" would all be capitalist. It makes no sense to declare recreation anti-worker when recreation is exactly what the workers need and have a right to.
That isnt entirely true. In Scotland and Northern Ireland at least, there are many religious and political undertones in football. Celtic have become synomonous with Catholicism, Irish Republicanism and left wing politics in general while the complete reverse is true of Glasgow Rangers. There are also teams in the North of Ireland who have emulated this repugnant relationship.
This is footage of Glasgow Rangers supporters booing and shouting abuse at the Celtic goalkeeper for 'blessing' himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onGa9BuNkwo

[The-Spark]

"The process (competition) goes on, not by putting everyone in his place, but by crushing everyone that gets in the way. This is called "the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence". The fact is, however, that competition crushes, not so much the truly unfit, as those who happen to stand in the wrong place, and who lack either the special qualifications or, what is more important, the capital to survive."
- Kautsky, The Class Stuggle

[luxemburg89]

I'm glad that everyone agrees! I couldn't actually find specific examples of Socialist competition etc. You will all have argued the case better than I did I'm sure.