Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Imperialism is Offsides: Bay Area communist and anarchists take it to the soccer field
Over the course of the past three months, in the hopes of building movement alliances, having fun and getting exercise, revolutionary anarchists and communists in the SF Bay Area have been preparing for a soccer tournament between people in the two tendencies. This article hopes to provide a brief look into the goals for this project and how it is looking after the first highly anticipated game.
Imperialism is Offsides:
Bay Area communist and anarchists take it to the soccer field
By Josh Warren-White and Chris Crass
Over the course of the past three months, in the hopes of building movement alliances, having fun and getting exercise, revolutionary anarchists and communists in the SF Bay Area have been preparing for a soccer tournament between people in the two tendencies. This article hopes to provide a brief look into the goals for this project and how it is looking after the first highly anticipated game.
"We've run in the streets together. We've been in meetings together. We've strategized against imperialism together. But now it's time for Bay Area Anarchists and Communists to bring our relationship to a whole new level. So we're going to build unity and work out our differences where it really matters - on the soccer field. Come support your comrades and cheer us on!" –text from original flier
The Anarchist vs. Communist tournament was kicked off Sunday, Aug 17th, in grand Bay Area style with a spirited first match. Unfortunately the game was brought to a close half way through the fourth quarter at a 2 to 2 tie by the teams’ common enemy, the police. The supposed charge: playing organized soccer without a permit. But it was clear to all present that the real reason was the fear that the coming together of two organized revolutionary tendencies had sent the state and capitalist forces (ok, so maybe the one Piedmont cop didn’t seem that scared, although he did stay behind the fence.)
The teams played impressively well, showing both the discipline and fun needed to carry our movements forward to victory. The Kronstadt FC, the anarchist team, took the field sporting their new black jerseys emblazoned with their insignia (a circle A, a black star, and a soccer ball). While the Left Wing FC, the communist team, held down their end of things with their shiny red jerseys with a fist and red star and even team numbers.
Nisha Anand from SFWAR (San Francisco Women Against Rape) and a player for Kronstadt commented that, "If you put all the players from both teams together, you have representatives from a lot of great radical social justice organizations, non-profits, and collectives in the Bay Area (examples being... Active Solidarity Collective, AK Press, Challenging White Supremacy workshops, RACE, Freedom Uprising, SOUL, POWER, Just Cause Oakland, ASATA, Underground Railroad, Code Purple AG, Direct Action to Stop the War, Legal Support to Stop the War, SFWAR, Heads Up Collective, Global Intifada, La Pena, SF Day Laborers, Campaign for Renters Rights, the Childcare Collective etc…). That is incredibly powerful stuff!"
"Since moving to the Bay Area 2 years ago," Anand continued, "I've had the opportunity to organize with folks from both the anarchist and communist teams. The right-wing attack is so huge right now and I am glad that, even though we are competing on the field, I know that folks from both teams got my back in the struggle."
Tenant organizer, Maria Poblet from Left Wing, was asked about the tournament and said, "Whether you identify as red, black, or a little of both, these soccer games offer a unique opportunity to get to know other revolutionaries. Are you fed up with the competition/profit/male driven sports standard? Here's a chance to build a truly cooperative alternative. Plus we get to develop leg muscles useful for wreaking anti-capitalist havoc! In the end it's Red and black vs. red, white and blue."
The stands were scattered with fans dressed in black and red cheering on their respective teams, and in some cases cheering both on. As black and red flags flittered in the breeze, chants to the effect of, "What do we want? Left Wing! When do we want it? Now!" and "Agitate! Agitate! Score a goal and smash the state!" filled the air. As a show of unity in struggle, at the end of the game, the communists came together and proclaimed, "TWO, FOUR, SIX, EIGHT! ANARCHISTS ARE REALLY GREAT!"
Rahula Janowski a fan for Kronstadt and a member of Heads Up shared, "My partner, my baby and I, had a great time at the soccer match. It was a great event. I got to see lots of comrades and friends, both on the field and in the stands. The whole game was exciting, but I was really impressed when, at the end of the game, the communist started chanting 'All Power to the People! Smash the State!' and the anarchists joined in. When that kind of thing happens, the capitalists and imperialists should be shaking in their boots! I can't wait to see what happens at the next game."
As the next game approaches members of both teams would like to stress that these games are about building our relationships and our larger movement. A fundamental goal of these games, in addition to having fun, is to help build non-sectarian political culture where we can learn more about each others work, find our points of unity and open space for comradely debate about differences. While we have a long history of conflict dating back to the First International and the question of state power as a means for liberation will continue to be a point of struggle and contention, we have much in common - regarding both values and enemies. We are united in our struggles against capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, heterosexism, the gender binary system and the US government.
These games are also a move to build multiracial anti-capitalist movement as the majority of the anarchist team is white and the majority of the communist team is people of color. Many of the anarchists are doing anti-racist work with white people and players from both teams have been instrumental in organizing in the global justice and anti-war movements as well as radical community based organizing and education within oppressed communities. Many working relationships already exist between players on each team in struggles for justice all across the Bay Area. Hopefully these events will only strengthen our ability to fight and win together on common ground.
Harmony Goldberg from SOUL and Left Wing noted, "It's good to be on the soccer field together, playing futbol with the same people who ran in the streets together in the days after the war started. Real unity between revolutionaries of all different ideological trends is our only hope for bringing down this empire - and this soccer tournament gives us a chance to start rewriting the old histories of tension and conflict between revolutionary anarchists and communists."
Clare Bayard from Challenging White Supremacy workshops and Kronstadt said, "There are players on both teams whose work and dedication to revolution I respect and appreciate, people I’ve fought beside for years in many campaigns. Our differences as communists and anarchists are real, but so is the range of political, creative and strategic thinking inside each team and amongst our supporters in the stands. We are a new generation, with new hope to build common ground in order to constructively engage those differences, to build broader movement instead of fracturing our opposition to the real enemies."
Fans coming to cheer on both teams please come with fun and witty revolutionary soccer chants and cheer our teams on with respect for all the players on the field. We ask that our fans join us in our work to create non-sectarian and anti-racist culture that celebrates all of our work to build movement for liberation. In the coming weeks of soccer battles we hope our relationships will continue to grow and our games will only get more exciting!
As Latin American author Edward Galeano wrote in Football in Sun and Shadow, "we lost, we won, either way we had fun."
Kick imperialist balls,
Unfurl the flags of justice,
Unity in struggle,
Fight to Win!
(This article was written by two members of the anarchist Kronstadt FC team. It is not a team statement but rather their perspectives.)
Dates, times and locations for games 2 & 3 will be released very soon... keep posted!
Bay Area communist and anarchists take it to the soccer field
By Josh Warren-White and Chris Crass
Over the course of the past three months, in the hopes of building movement alliances, having fun and getting exercise, revolutionary anarchists and communists in the SF Bay Area have been preparing for a soccer tournament between people in the two tendencies. This article hopes to provide a brief look into the goals for this project and how it is looking after the first highly anticipated game.
"We've run in the streets together. We've been in meetings together. We've strategized against imperialism together. But now it's time for Bay Area Anarchists and Communists to bring our relationship to a whole new level. So we're going to build unity and work out our differences where it really matters - on the soccer field. Come support your comrades and cheer us on!" –text from original flier
The Anarchist vs. Communist tournament was kicked off Sunday, Aug 17th, in grand Bay Area style with a spirited first match. Unfortunately the game was brought to a close half way through the fourth quarter at a 2 to 2 tie by the teams’ common enemy, the police. The supposed charge: playing organized soccer without a permit. But it was clear to all present that the real reason was the fear that the coming together of two organized revolutionary tendencies had sent the state and capitalist forces (ok, so maybe the one Piedmont cop didn’t seem that scared, although he did stay behind the fence.)
The teams played impressively well, showing both the discipline and fun needed to carry our movements forward to victory. The Kronstadt FC, the anarchist team, took the field sporting their new black jerseys emblazoned with their insignia (a circle A, a black star, and a soccer ball). While the Left Wing FC, the communist team, held down their end of things with their shiny red jerseys with a fist and red star and even team numbers.
Nisha Anand from SFWAR (San Francisco Women Against Rape) and a player for Kronstadt commented that, "If you put all the players from both teams together, you have representatives from a lot of great radical social justice organizations, non-profits, and collectives in the Bay Area (examples being... Active Solidarity Collective, AK Press, Challenging White Supremacy workshops, RACE, Freedom Uprising, SOUL, POWER, Just Cause Oakland, ASATA, Underground Railroad, Code Purple AG, Direct Action to Stop the War, Legal Support to Stop the War, SFWAR, Heads Up Collective, Global Intifada, La Pena, SF Day Laborers, Campaign for Renters Rights, the Childcare Collective etc…). That is incredibly powerful stuff!"
"Since moving to the Bay Area 2 years ago," Anand continued, "I've had the opportunity to organize with folks from both the anarchist and communist teams. The right-wing attack is so huge right now and I am glad that, even though we are competing on the field, I know that folks from both teams got my back in the struggle."
Tenant organizer, Maria Poblet from Left Wing, was asked about the tournament and said, "Whether you identify as red, black, or a little of both, these soccer games offer a unique opportunity to get to know other revolutionaries. Are you fed up with the competition/profit/male driven sports standard? Here's a chance to build a truly cooperative alternative. Plus we get to develop leg muscles useful for wreaking anti-capitalist havoc! In the end it's Red and black vs. red, white and blue."
The stands were scattered with fans dressed in black and red cheering on their respective teams, and in some cases cheering both on. As black and red flags flittered in the breeze, chants to the effect of, "What do we want? Left Wing! When do we want it? Now!" and "Agitate! Agitate! Score a goal and smash the state!" filled the air. As a show of unity in struggle, at the end of the game, the communists came together and proclaimed, "TWO, FOUR, SIX, EIGHT! ANARCHISTS ARE REALLY GREAT!"
Rahula Janowski a fan for Kronstadt and a member of Heads Up shared, "My partner, my baby and I, had a great time at the soccer match. It was a great event. I got to see lots of comrades and friends, both on the field and in the stands. The whole game was exciting, but I was really impressed when, at the end of the game, the communist started chanting 'All Power to the People! Smash the State!' and the anarchists joined in. When that kind of thing happens, the capitalists and imperialists should be shaking in their boots! I can't wait to see what happens at the next game."
As the next game approaches members of both teams would like to stress that these games are about building our relationships and our larger movement. A fundamental goal of these games, in addition to having fun, is to help build non-sectarian political culture where we can learn more about each others work, find our points of unity and open space for comradely debate about differences. While we have a long history of conflict dating back to the First International and the question of state power as a means for liberation will continue to be a point of struggle and contention, we have much in common - regarding both values and enemies. We are united in our struggles against capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, heterosexism, the gender binary system and the US government.
These games are also a move to build multiracial anti-capitalist movement as the majority of the anarchist team is white and the majority of the communist team is people of color. Many of the anarchists are doing anti-racist work with white people and players from both teams have been instrumental in organizing in the global justice and anti-war movements as well as radical community based organizing and education within oppressed communities. Many working relationships already exist between players on each team in struggles for justice all across the Bay Area. Hopefully these events will only strengthen our ability to fight and win together on common ground.
Harmony Goldberg from SOUL and Left Wing noted, "It's good to be on the soccer field together, playing futbol with the same people who ran in the streets together in the days after the war started. Real unity between revolutionaries of all different ideological trends is our only hope for bringing down this empire - and this soccer tournament gives us a chance to start rewriting the old histories of tension and conflict between revolutionary anarchists and communists."
Clare Bayard from Challenging White Supremacy workshops and Kronstadt said, "There are players on both teams whose work and dedication to revolution I respect and appreciate, people I’ve fought beside for years in many campaigns. Our differences as communists and anarchists are real, but so is the range of political, creative and strategic thinking inside each team and amongst our supporters in the stands. We are a new generation, with new hope to build common ground in order to constructively engage those differences, to build broader movement instead of fracturing our opposition to the real enemies."
Fans coming to cheer on both teams please come with fun and witty revolutionary soccer chants and cheer our teams on with respect for all the players on the field. We ask that our fans join us in our work to create non-sectarian and anti-racist culture that celebrates all of our work to build movement for liberation. In the coming weeks of soccer battles we hope our relationships will continue to grow and our games will only get more exciting!
As Latin American author Edward Galeano wrote in Football in Sun and Shadow, "we lost, we won, either way we had fun."
Kick imperialist balls,
Unfurl the flags of justice,
Unity in struggle,
Fight to Win!
(This article was written by two members of the anarchist Kronstadt FC team. It is not a team statement but rather their perspectives.)
Dates, times and locations for games 2 & 3 will be released very soon... keep posted!
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
...is just a microcosm of the dog-eat-dog capitalist world. Couldn't all of you egomaniacs put all that energy into doingrenovations on unsafe working class housing or planted an urban organic or something creative and imaginative. It's a pretty sad day when the liberals of the anarchist and leftist stripe start wearing "colors."
Maybe the Bay Area is truly the world's premier yuppie playground.
Anti-Competition Radical
Maybe the Bay Area is truly the world's premier yuppie playground.
Anti-Competition Radical
Which counter-revolutionaries were you playing, anyway? Rahula comes off sounding like a standard-issue dippy protest scene dingbat.
"The working class is way into organized sports" -- how true. Some sections of the working class are also way into wife-beating and child abuse -- so, are you going to try to justify that, too?
(I know you're not; I'm just trying to be provocative.)
"The working class is way into organized sports" -- how true. Some sections of the working class are also way into wife-beating and child abuse -- so, are you going to try to justify that, too?
(I know you're not; I'm just trying to be provocative.)
...has the most cases of wife battering of any day of the year. Is that a false analogy.
I remember reading Frank Zappa's auto-bio--and I know at the end of his life he was a pathetic liberaterian, an articulate one at that--and he equated watching sports, beer drinking with marching in miltary formation. With the exception of U.C. Berkeley Anthropology professor Alan Dundes finding that American professional football is a social manifestation of latent male homosexuality, I think Zappa hit the nail on the head.
America is all about uniforms--apparently all you soccer playing liberals are too--and competition. Community and cooperation are the anti-thesis of this society. Like someone said above, why don't you restore houses in ghettos or plant urban gardens. Be creative, not adverserial.
What a fucking waste of souls sports have become. I just you liberals would see how you are replicating the morality of the dominate society.
Get a clue!
Sports celebrate health, fitness, vitlality, teamwork, community and cooperation. In case you havn't noticed, these are good things, and ought to be encouraged.
And speaking of encouragement:
And what's with this crap about homosexuality? What's the matter, you have something against homosexuality? Homosexuality, latent or blatent, is a good thing, a very good thing, and ought to be encouraged, expecially by breeders. Why? It's good for breeders. It *really* cuts down on the competition. Sex is all about numbers. The more homosexuals there are in town, the easier it is for a breeder to score. Trust me, I know. I live in San Francisco. The only thing a breeder has to do to get laid in this town is to stand still in public for more than three minutes and not run screaming when they get chatted up.
What, you thought all those tourists came here to eat Rice-a-Roni? Pah-leeeeez. Let's be real. We San Franciscans know what we're good for. And were *good*, too. You haven't lived till you've done it with one of us. This ain't Kanas, Dorothy. Here we *know* how to do it. And forget Viagra. Try some of our sourdough bread. Half a loaf of that stuff and a couple Anchor Steams, and you're ready to go all night. Quick, run out and buy a plane ticket. You'll like it here. The food's pretty good, too.
And speaking of encouragement:
And what's with this crap about homosexuality? What's the matter, you have something against homosexuality? Homosexuality, latent or blatent, is a good thing, a very good thing, and ought to be encouraged, expecially by breeders. Why? It's good for breeders. It *really* cuts down on the competition. Sex is all about numbers. The more homosexuals there are in town, the easier it is for a breeder to score. Trust me, I know. I live in San Francisco. The only thing a breeder has to do to get laid in this town is to stand still in public for more than three minutes and not run screaming when they get chatted up.
What, you thought all those tourists came here to eat Rice-a-Roni? Pah-leeeeez. Let's be real. We San Franciscans know what we're good for. And were *good*, too. You haven't lived till you've done it with one of us. This ain't Kanas, Dorothy. Here we *know* how to do it. And forget Viagra. Try some of our sourdough bread. Half a loaf of that stuff and a couple Anchor Steams, and you're ready to go all night. Quick, run out and buy a plane ticket. You'll like it here. The food's pretty good, too.
"Super Bowl Sunday has the most cases of wife battering of any day of the year. Is that a false analogy."
It's not an analogy. But it is false.
On Jan. 27 1993, a news conference was called in Pasadena, Calif., site of the forthcoming Super Bowl game, by a coalition of women's groups. At the news conference, reporters were informed that Super Bowl Sunday "is the biggest day of the year for violence against women." Forty percent more women would be battered on that day, said Sheila Kuehl of the California Women's Law Center, citing a study done at Virginia's Old Dominion University.
On Jan. 28, Lenore Walker, a Denver psychologist and author of The Battered Woman, appeared on Good Morning America claiming to have compiled a 10-year record showing a sharp increase in violent incidents against women on Super Bowl Sundays. And on Jan. 29, a story in the Boston Globe reported that women's shelter and hotlines are "flooded with more calls from victims (on Super Bowl Sunday) than on any other day of the year."
In this roiling sea of media credulity was a lone island of professional integrity. Ken Ringle, a Washington Post staff writer, took the time to call around. When he asked Janet Katz, professor of sociology and criminal justice at Old Dominion and one of the principal authors of the study cited by Kuehl, about the connection between violence and football games, she said: "That's not what we found at all." Instead, she told him, they had found that an increase in emergency-room admissions "was not associated with the occurrence of football games in general."
Despite Ringle's expose, however, the Super Bowl "statistic" will be with us for a while, doing its divisive work of generating fear and resentment.
It's not an analogy. But it is false.
On Jan. 27 1993, a news conference was called in Pasadena, Calif., site of the forthcoming Super Bowl game, by a coalition of women's groups. At the news conference, reporters were informed that Super Bowl Sunday "is the biggest day of the year for violence against women." Forty percent more women would be battered on that day, said Sheila Kuehl of the California Women's Law Center, citing a study done at Virginia's Old Dominion University.
On Jan. 28, Lenore Walker, a Denver psychologist and author of The Battered Woman, appeared on Good Morning America claiming to have compiled a 10-year record showing a sharp increase in violent incidents against women on Super Bowl Sundays. And on Jan. 29, a story in the Boston Globe reported that women's shelter and hotlines are "flooded with more calls from victims (on Super Bowl Sunday) than on any other day of the year."
In this roiling sea of media credulity was a lone island of professional integrity. Ken Ringle, a Washington Post staff writer, took the time to call around. When he asked Janet Katz, professor of sociology and criminal justice at Old Dominion and one of the principal authors of the study cited by Kuehl, about the connection between violence and football games, she said: "That's not what we found at all." Instead, she told him, they had found that an increase in emergency-room admissions "was not associated with the occurrence of football games in general."
Despite Ringle's expose, however, the Super Bowl "statistic" will be with us for a while, doing its divisive work of generating fear and resentment.
nessie: if like football, fine, but stop making it out to be some political imperative.
i recently heard (of all things) a right-wing radio talk show host refer to the "sports industrial complex". that's what it is: a huge capitalist enterprise that cons and black-mails and lies to get cities to subsidize them, while making hundreds of millions in profits and offering virtually nothing in return.
in the case of football, former players have an average life-span of around 55 years. many are basically crippled once their careers are over.
reading about the Romanowski fight during a recent Raiders practise, and its aftermath, really disgusted me. he smashed another player's face, caving it in and breaking teeth. the guy he fucked up is a third-stringer who's career is most likely now over. the Raiders just gave Romanowski a tap on the wrist (despite prior similar episodes throughout his career) because he's a star. it's all about money, and you, nessie, think being a good radical requires that one pay homage to this shit?
i recently heard (of all things) a right-wing radio talk show host refer to the "sports industrial complex". that's what it is: a huge capitalist enterprise that cons and black-mails and lies to get cities to subsidize them, while making hundreds of millions in profits and offering virtually nothing in return.
in the case of football, former players have an average life-span of around 55 years. many are basically crippled once their careers are over.
reading about the Romanowski fight during a recent Raiders practise, and its aftermath, really disgusted me. he smashed another player's face, caving it in and breaking teeth. the guy he fucked up is a third-stringer who's career is most likely now over. the Raiders just gave Romanowski a tap on the wrist (despite prior similar episodes throughout his career) because he's a star. it's all about money, and you, nessie, think being a good radical requires that one pay homage to this shit?
Translation: What nessie means is that he has no objection to disgusting scumbags as long as they're on his side.
Nessie, that's one of your most preposterous and gratuitously tangential posts ever.
<<Sports fans are the single largest demographic on the planet.>>
No, the single largest demographic on the planet is composed of people that don't believe the world can be changed. Should we suck up to this demographic as well?
If you *sincerely* like sports, bully for you. But to council radicals that they must refrain from criticizing or critiquing the role, and nature, of sports (and in particular, professional team sports) in this society lest they offend is ludicrous. Why, according to that logic, we should all go around with american flags hanging from our butts!
It's strange that your argument for why anarchists and radicals should embrace sports is at its core nationalistic. Romanowski is on *our* side? And whose side will he be on when he's offered more money and ditches the Raiders? The anarchists and radicals residing in his new team's town?
<<Sports fans are the single largest demographic on the planet.>>
No, the single largest demographic on the planet is composed of people that don't believe the world can be changed. Should we suck up to this demographic as well?
If you *sincerely* like sports, bully for you. But to council radicals that they must refrain from criticizing or critiquing the role, and nature, of sports (and in particular, professional team sports) in this society lest they offend is ludicrous. Why, according to that logic, we should all go around with american flags hanging from our butts!
It's strange that your argument for why anarchists and radicals should embrace sports is at its core nationalistic. Romanowski is on *our* side? And whose side will he be on when he's offered more money and ditches the Raiders? The anarchists and radicals residing in his new team's town?
That is definitely my favorite nessie post. Reasonable, and above all, very human. Nicely done.
I don't have any criticism of sports as such. I used to be a jock and that's still in me somewhat. But I don't think that radicals are obligated to think sports are great or pretend to if they don't.
I hate pandering. And most people don't like being pandered to. If it's a matter of "connecting" with the average guy that you're concerned about, i'd say that ultimately the fact that you're a sportsphile won't make a difference--and *pretending* to like sports will be seen through and viewed as creepy. I can imagine normative joe saying: "Why the fuck is that guy who hates capitalism acting like he cares about football? He obviously doesn't, but he thinks I do. He must think I'm an imbecile. Fuck him."
You maintain that pro sports *as sports* can be disconnected from the fact that they are also a massive capitalist enterprise. I disagree. Sports come as a package--a total experience, if you will. The rythm of the game is forced to conform to the need to fit in ads (which i think partly explains why pro soccer has yet to make it big in the US). Ads are everywhere--on TV or at the game. The players have no loyalty to the team, and the team has no loyalty to any player--it's all about money. Big market teams are almost invariably better because they have more money. I could go on.
As far as "Romo" is concerned: if it weren't all about money he be gone. sure, without money there'd still be competitition (which i don't have a problem with, per se, within reason), but there'd be room for other "values" to come to the fore (such as it's not acceptable to cave your team-mates face in). I'm not one to moralize like this, but i think it sends a despicable message to the "youth." It's another example of the way capitalism degrades everything.
I would say that you can't disconnect them.
I hate pandering. And most people don't like being pandered to. If it's a matter of "connecting" with the average guy that you're concerned about, i'd say that ultimately the fact that you're a sportsphile won't make a difference--and *pretending* to like sports will be seen through and viewed as creepy. I can imagine normative joe saying: "Why the fuck is that guy who hates capitalism acting like he cares about football? He obviously doesn't, but he thinks I do. He must think I'm an imbecile. Fuck him."
You maintain that pro sports *as sports* can be disconnected from the fact that they are also a massive capitalist enterprise. I disagree. Sports come as a package--a total experience, if you will. The rythm of the game is forced to conform to the need to fit in ads (which i think partly explains why pro soccer has yet to make it big in the US). Ads are everywhere--on TV or at the game. The players have no loyalty to the team, and the team has no loyalty to any player--it's all about money. Big market teams are almost invariably better because they have more money. I could go on.
As far as "Romo" is concerned: if it weren't all about money he be gone. sure, without money there'd still be competitition (which i don't have a problem with, per se, within reason), but there'd be room for other "values" to come to the fore (such as it's not acceptable to cave your team-mates face in). I'm not one to moralize like this, but i think it sends a despicable message to the "youth." It's another example of the way capitalism degrades everything.
I would say that you can't disconnect them.
is this the same aaron who is at every political event in the bay area? the one who looks like colonel sanders?
and all you liberals keep talking about human nature like youre the ace sociologist on the block. nessie says competition is natural. hey wannabe gangsta rapper, try reading kropotkins *mutual aid*. and give up your fantasies that ww2 was the *good war* to end fascism. it was about inter capitalist competition and dividing up the world for the strongest thugs.
your rationalizing and defense of mainstream american culture disgusts me. next you will tell us nascar is another form of *healthy* competition because motor sports are the most popular form of sports competition on the globe.
and both you and aaron aarons are wrong...the biggest single social force on the planet is the proletariat. its the one true force capable of overthrowing capitalism.
for human cooperation not inhuman competition
and all you liberals keep talking about human nature like youre the ace sociologist on the block. nessie says competition is natural. hey wannabe gangsta rapper, try reading kropotkins *mutual aid*. and give up your fantasies that ww2 was the *good war* to end fascism. it was about inter capitalist competition and dividing up the world for the strongest thugs.
your rationalizing and defense of mainstream american culture disgusts me. next you will tell us nascar is another form of *healthy* competition because motor sports are the most popular form of sports competition on the globe.
and both you and aaron aarons are wrong...the biggest single social force on the planet is the proletariat. its the one true force capable of overthrowing capitalism.
for human cooperation not inhuman competition
No, I'm not Aaron Aarons (but how did you know, Nessie?).
My last line about "not disconnecting them" wasn't meant to be included--it was detritus that i pushed down the thread and forgot to delete.
I said that capitalism degrades everything it touches, not that it is only capitalism which can degrade things. Per the "romo" affair, the culture that allows him to stay on, and not get kicked off the team despite caving in a fellow team-mate's face, is one in which the money imperative is crucial, as it ceaselessly incentives callousness, avarice, and brutality.
I still think that you are unwarrantedly sanguine about sports in this culture. I also think that if I had to choose (which i don't) between being a boho-elitist and a pander-bear, I'd choose the former.
My last line about "not disconnecting them" wasn't meant to be included--it was detritus that i pushed down the thread and forgot to delete.
I said that capitalism degrades everything it touches, not that it is only capitalism which can degrade things. Per the "romo" affair, the culture that allows him to stay on, and not get kicked off the team despite caving in a fellow team-mate's face, is one in which the money imperative is crucial, as it ceaselessly incentives callousness, avarice, and brutality.
I still think that you are unwarrantedly sanguine about sports in this culture. I also think that if I had to choose (which i don't) between being a boho-elitist and a pander-bear, I'd choose the former.
"Pentagon thanks NFL for support of troops
(May 16, 2003) -- General Richard B. Myers, U.S. Air Force and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, greeted NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue and NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw during their May 16 visit to the Pentagon.
Gen. Myers expressed appreciation and thanks on behalf of America's men and women in uniform to the NFL for their sponsorship and commitment to the nation's armed forces.
"
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/6375027
The NFL not only is the epitome of Capitalism its also very closely tied to the US armed forces. The recent National Football League's kickoff concert on the National Mall Sept. 4 is the sickest thing I have heard of.
"Thousands of military service members are invited to attend the National Football League- sponsored concert extravaganza with Aerosmith, Britney Spears and others today on the Mall, but if they want to be in the front row -- or anywhere near it -- they had better wear their uniforms.
...
The NFL has asked the Defense Department to get 25,000 uniformed military members and their families to the Mall and has offered them priority viewing for the free concert. The event celebrates the start of the NFL regular season -- the game tonight between the Washington Redskins and the New York Jets at FedEx Field.
...
"You're going to get closer to the front if you're wearing a uniform," said Maj. Paul Trapp, a spokesman for Operation Tribute to Freedom, a Pentagon program overseeing the event."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19923-2003Sep3.html
also see
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2003/n09052003_200309052.html
and
http://ww2.pstripes.osd.mil/01/may01/moregalaxy.html
and
http://www.defendamerica.mil/otf/index.html
Playing sports with a friend or watching your friends play is fun and doesnt hurt anyone. But professional sports is everything we stand against. If you support professional sports you are basically supporting the PR wing of the military industrial complex (and thats not in the abstract; the NFL meets with the Joint chiefs and plans events to promote wars...).
(May 16, 2003) -- General Richard B. Myers, U.S. Air Force and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, greeted NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue and NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw during their May 16 visit to the Pentagon.
Gen. Myers expressed appreciation and thanks on behalf of America's men and women in uniform to the NFL for their sponsorship and commitment to the nation's armed forces.
"
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/6375027
The NFL not only is the epitome of Capitalism its also very closely tied to the US armed forces. The recent National Football League's kickoff concert on the National Mall Sept. 4 is the sickest thing I have heard of.
"Thousands of military service members are invited to attend the National Football League- sponsored concert extravaganza with Aerosmith, Britney Spears and others today on the Mall, but if they want to be in the front row -- or anywhere near it -- they had better wear their uniforms.
...
The NFL has asked the Defense Department to get 25,000 uniformed military members and their families to the Mall and has offered them priority viewing for the free concert. The event celebrates the start of the NFL regular season -- the game tonight between the Washington Redskins and the New York Jets at FedEx Field.
...
"You're going to get closer to the front if you're wearing a uniform," said Maj. Paul Trapp, a spokesman for Operation Tribute to Freedom, a Pentagon program overseeing the event."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19923-2003Sep3.html
also see
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2003/n09052003_200309052.html
and
http://ww2.pstripes.osd.mil/01/may01/moregalaxy.html
and
http://www.defendamerica.mil/otf/index.html
Playing sports with a friend or watching your friends play is fun and doesnt hurt anyone. But professional sports is everything we stand against. If you support professional sports you are basically supporting the PR wing of the military industrial complex (and thats not in the abstract; the NFL meets with the Joint chiefs and plans events to promote wars...).
"South Arlington, Va.: How did it happen that the Department of Defense, Department of Interior AND the NFL are all sponsoring this event? It seems a little kitchen-sinkie, if you know what I mean. Is this really going to help DC get the Super Bowl in '08?
Ty Stewart: We are absolutely thrilled to have worked closely with the National Park Service and the Dept. of Defense on this event. It could not have happened without them. The NPS will be able to showcase the beauty of the monuments to a national television audience and kick off the Take Pride in America volunteerism program. The NFL has a longstanding tradition of honoring America's servicemen and women through its games and in light of this past year's events and the location of the kickoff game, it was appropriate for us to directly honor America's troops again.
...
Arlington, Va.: If you're so bent on saluting the troops, why don't you pack up the entire extravaganza and do it in Baghdad for them? Or is that backdrop a little too much reality for Pepsi, Coors and Britney?
Ty Stewart: Indeed, the event will be broadcast live through the Armed Services Network to active military bases all around the world. We're pleased to host over 20,000 of our troops at the event tomorrow, many of whom have returned from duty. They will justly be the VIPs at the event and have front and center reserved seating. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15821-2003Sep2.html
Ty Stewart: We are absolutely thrilled to have worked closely with the National Park Service and the Dept. of Defense on this event. It could not have happened without them. The NPS will be able to showcase the beauty of the monuments to a national television audience and kick off the Take Pride in America volunteerism program. The NFL has a longstanding tradition of honoring America's servicemen and women through its games and in light of this past year's events and the location of the kickoff game, it was appropriate for us to directly honor America's troops again.
...
Arlington, Va.: If you're so bent on saluting the troops, why don't you pack up the entire extravaganza and do it in Baghdad for them? Or is that backdrop a little too much reality for Pepsi, Coors and Britney?
Ty Stewart: Indeed, the event will be broadcast live through the Armed Services Network to active military bases all around the world. We're pleased to host over 20,000 of our troops at the event tomorrow, many of whom have returned from duty. They will justly be the VIPs at the event and have front and center reserved seating. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15821-2003Sep2.html
Organizationally its hard to agree with
http://www.fifa.com/en/organisation/index.html
but FIFA isnt tied to the US military and does far less marketing for other corporations than the NBA, NFL, or NHL. There are ties to horrible right wing leaders in individual clubs but as a whle the organization doesnt have the political slant American popular sports do.
Real anarchists who have to watch sports watch the game the rest of the world calls football. Watching American football is like voting Republican. Watching basketball is like voting Democrat. Watching soccer is kinda like voting for Nader. Yeah, anarchists shouldnt vote (and really shouldnt vote for a Capitalist) but at least Nader and soccer are the lesser of three evils and both were not behind the war in Iraq.
http://www.fifa.com/en/organisation/index.html
but FIFA isnt tied to the US military and does far less marketing for other corporations than the NBA, NFL, or NHL. There are ties to horrible right wing leaders in individual clubs but as a whle the organization doesnt have the political slant American popular sports do.
Real anarchists who have to watch sports watch the game the rest of the world calls football. Watching American football is like voting Republican. Watching basketball is like voting Democrat. Watching soccer is kinda like voting for Nader. Yeah, anarchists shouldnt vote (and really shouldnt vote for a Capitalist) but at least Nader and soccer are the lesser of three evils and both were not behind the war in Iraq.
" But hey, if you followed football, you?d already know that."
Are you saying you support the PR wing of the US military? Watching people play football is one thing but watching the NFL is like sending money to Rumsfeld.
Are you saying you support the PR wing of the US military? Watching people play football is one thing but watching the NFL is like sending money to Rumsfeld.
If you pay to go to a NFL game, some money goes to the NFL that then goes into promoting the war in Iraq.
If you watch the NFL on TV, you (as a viewer) are being sold by advertisers to TV stations which are then using the money to pay for transmission of NFL games. The money still ends up promoting the war in Iraq.
Yeah, a lot of companies support the war in Iraq, but even Bechtel isnt openly promoting it in the way the NFL is.
If you watch the NFL on TV, you (as a viewer) are being sold by advertisers to TV stations which are then using the money to pay for transmission of NFL games. The money still ends up promoting the war in Iraq.
Yeah, a lot of companies support the war in Iraq, but even Bechtel isnt openly promoting it in the way the NFL is.
The National Football League's kickoff concert on the National Mall is more of an example of the NFL using the war in Iraq to promote football. If you look at who runs things in this country you could almost have a conspiracy theory that the whole war in Iraq was just a PR stunt to promote America's favorite TV show. :P
Do you people who wax so self righteous about the commodification of sports, also limit the music you like to groups who haven't gotten a recording contract yet and don't charge admission to their shows?
"Do you people who wax so self righteous about the commodification of sports, also limit the music you like "
People who dont like the Republican party and Bush tend to avoid Clearchannel radio stations. Its the same things as avoding the NFL. The NFL is definitely worse than Clearchannel when it comes to promoting wars.
People who dont like the Republican party and Bush tend to avoid Clearchannel radio stations. Its the same things as avoding the NFL. The NFL is definitely worse than Clearchannel when it comes to promoting wars.
How do anarchists actually watch NFL games? Do you change the channel when the soldiers come out on the field and they start playing nationalistic music? Or do you take that in with the game as just an innocent display of ultranationalism.
One could compare watching an NFL game to listening to music. I dont know many anarchists who like neonazi christian rock or songs glorifying wars in the MIddle East. You can pretend listening to racist rock music is just an innocent consumption in a capitalist society that is no worse than any other form of consumption but like watching NFL games its promoting some pretty nasty values.
One could compare watching an NFL game to listening to music. I dont know many anarchists who like neonazi christian rock or songs glorifying wars in the MIddle East. You can pretend listening to racist rock music is just an innocent consumption in a capitalist society that is no worse than any other form of consumption but like watching NFL games its promoting some pretty nasty values.
As it relates to professional sports (and, to a increasing extent, college sports as well), the rhythm of the games, the loyalty of the players, and the composition of the teams are sharply influenced and even shaped by money considerations--but that isn't all. Sports are a massive profit frontier for capital, and if we are to analyze it we need to view sports as a total experience--the "sports experience"--which we can't understand unless we take the following into consideration:
1) Entrance fees, with the exception of some seats at baseball games, are prohibitively expensive for people on fixed incomes.
2) The best seats are bought up by rich people and/or corporations.
3) "Fans" are subjected to a constant barrage of visual and aural advertisements from begining to end.
4) Food and beverages are ridiculously expensive.
Baseball is the cheapest professional sport that I'm aware of--but a family of four that goes to an A's game from, say, Richmond and wants middling (2nd deck) seats and to eat a bit of food and buy a pennant for Jr. will have these expenses (crudely drawn):
Tickets: $50
Parking: $10 (?)
Food (hot dogs, couple of beers, sodas, some fries): $40
Souvenir: $8
Conservative total: $100
1) Entrance fees, with the exception of some seats at baseball games, are prohibitively expensive for people on fixed incomes.
2) The best seats are bought up by rich people and/or corporations.
3) "Fans" are subjected to a constant barrage of visual and aural advertisements from begining to end.
4) Food and beverages are ridiculously expensive.
Baseball is the cheapest professional sport that I'm aware of--but a family of four that goes to an A's game from, say, Richmond and wants middling (2nd deck) seats and to eat a bit of food and buy a pennant for Jr. will have these expenses (crudely drawn):
Tickets: $50
Parking: $10 (?)
Food (hot dogs, couple of beers, sodas, some fries): $40
Souvenir: $8
Conservative total: $100
I hate the "now we have them trapped lets extort them by over charging for the food."
the parking is a function of the amount of people who want to leave their cars in a small area. (ie some people will have to miss out jsut because of hte logistics of it)
the ticket fee is at least somthing that you know about before you decide to come (so people can make a rational decision about it).
I guess if you were an anarchist and you chose not to value things that require specilized skills (such as sports) you might effectively be supoporting your anarchist vision.
If you do like things that require things that require specilized skills (as far as consumer goods go) you are unknowingly bestowing power upon those poeple who have those skills.
the parking is a function of the amount of people who want to leave their cars in a small area. (ie some people will have to miss out jsut because of hte logistics of it)
the ticket fee is at least somthing that you know about before you decide to come (so people can make a rational decision about it).
I guess if you were an anarchist and you chose not to value things that require specilized skills (such as sports) you might effectively be supoporting your anarchist vision.
If you do like things that require things that require specilized skills (as far as consumer goods go) you are unknowingly bestowing power upon those poeple who have those skills.
<<I guess if you were an anarchist and you chose not to value things that require specilized skills (such as sports) you might effectively be supoporting your anarchist vision.>>
that's dumb, scottie.
in a society of freedom and plentitude--that has abolished all the anti-social, self-replicating and circularly-justifying work endemic to capitalist civilization, in the process, freeing people up to live full lives and engage in work that is creative, socially vivifiying and personally gratifying--the money imperative would be excised from sports: meaning that those who now play sports ONLY for the money would quit--and seek out a different form of self-expression. My guess is that most would continue to play for the love of the sport (which would no longer be corrupted by capitalism) and the accolades of the "fans."
(heart surgeons and developers of new medicines, e.g., might be showered with gifts and love and have techniques and new inventions named after them--to illustrate how "specialized skills" would be embraced, acknowledged and encouraged in a non-capitalist [anarchist, socialist, communist, whatever] world. it's time to widen your social imagination's band-width, scottie. stop being such a philliistine!)
that's dumb, scottie.
in a society of freedom and plentitude--that has abolished all the anti-social, self-replicating and circularly-justifying work endemic to capitalist civilization, in the process, freeing people up to live full lives and engage in work that is creative, socially vivifiying and personally gratifying--the money imperative would be excised from sports: meaning that those who now play sports ONLY for the money would quit--and seek out a different form of self-expression. My guess is that most would continue to play for the love of the sport (which would no longer be corrupted by capitalism) and the accolades of the "fans."
(heart surgeons and developers of new medicines, e.g., might be showered with gifts and love and have techniques and new inventions named after them--to illustrate how "specialized skills" would be embraced, acknowledged and encouraged in a non-capitalist [anarchist, socialist, communist, whatever] world. it's time to widen your social imagination's band-width, scottie. stop being such a philliistine!)
Knowledge and valuable skills are power in as far as a person with a special skill like hunting would tend to become a leader in a primitive tribe long before the idea of money existed. The inequality carried in that are what were replaced by capitalism as a relatively more fair system.
"in a society of freedom and plenitude"
modern history would say Russian communism had issues with maintaining the freedom and plenitude in the absence of some sort of a market system. Maybe you dispute that.
" meaning that those who now play sports ONLY for the money would quit--"
You can watch armature sports right now there is no need for you to "value" the slightly higher quality of sport that professionalism creates. Watch only armature sports and you will support your vision. watch professional sports and you support the opposite vision.
A good proportion inequality in the world is a function of people wanting to buy stuff that they don’t need. If those things are based on specialised skills they cause inequality.
"(heart surgeons and developers of new medicines, e.g., might be showered with gifts and love and have techniques and new inventions named after them--"
aren’t you then creating the same inequality that you are fighting against? money is just paper after all (who cares?) it is the things you can get because you have money that is the "problem". these are the gifts love and most importantly POWER that you can buy with it.
Anyway those who study to be heart surgeons and developers of new medicines are usually those who are naturally quite smart and good at quite a few jobs. Those two jobs well particularly the surgeon one are ones that most people would not want to do because it takes a long time to study them and they are fairly disgusting however their parents tell them to do it because its a guaranteed way of getting a good long term job.
"to illustrate how "specialized skills" would be embraced, acknowledged and encouraged in a non-capitalist [anarchist, socialist, communist, whatever] world. it's time to widen your social imagination's band-width, Scottie. stop being such a philistine!) "
ha-ha I take all of your insults with good humour Aaron.
One non capitalist system that might work is the benign 1984 system where the government (as represented by a computer) keeps a moral counter on every person. Maybe you will need an equally sophisticated motivation system (getting closer to 1984 by the minute)
Unfortunately unless you have a very sophisticated method of evaluating how important each function is to society then individuals will tend to shower their affection on the wrong people (for example notice how they shower affection on Michael Jackson or P Diddy).
How would you solve that problem?
"in a society of freedom and plenitude"
modern history would say Russian communism had issues with maintaining the freedom and plenitude in the absence of some sort of a market system. Maybe you dispute that.
" meaning that those who now play sports ONLY for the money would quit--"
You can watch armature sports right now there is no need for you to "value" the slightly higher quality of sport that professionalism creates. Watch only armature sports and you will support your vision. watch professional sports and you support the opposite vision.
A good proportion inequality in the world is a function of people wanting to buy stuff that they don’t need. If those things are based on specialised skills they cause inequality.
"(heart surgeons and developers of new medicines, e.g., might be showered with gifts and love and have techniques and new inventions named after them--"
aren’t you then creating the same inequality that you are fighting against? money is just paper after all (who cares?) it is the things you can get because you have money that is the "problem". these are the gifts love and most importantly POWER that you can buy with it.
Anyway those who study to be heart surgeons and developers of new medicines are usually those who are naturally quite smart and good at quite a few jobs. Those two jobs well particularly the surgeon one are ones that most people would not want to do because it takes a long time to study them and they are fairly disgusting however their parents tell them to do it because its a guaranteed way of getting a good long term job.
"to illustrate how "specialized skills" would be embraced, acknowledged and encouraged in a non-capitalist [anarchist, socialist, communist, whatever] world. it's time to widen your social imagination's band-width, Scottie. stop being such a philistine!) "
ha-ha I take all of your insults with good humour Aaron.
One non capitalist system that might work is the benign 1984 system where the government (as represented by a computer) keeps a moral counter on every person. Maybe you will need an equally sophisticated motivation system (getting closer to 1984 by the minute)
Unfortunately unless you have a very sophisticated method of evaluating how important each function is to society then individuals will tend to shower their affection on the wrong people (for example notice how they shower affection on Michael Jackson or P Diddy).
How would you solve that problem?
in a society of freedom and plentitude--that has abolished all the anti-social, self-replicating and circularly-justifying work endemic to capitalist civilization,
if you are so opposed to capitalism, where did you buy your soccer ball at?
and, isn't having a soccer team of Anarchist be diametrically opposed to the Anarchist philosophy?
(how can you have an organized event made up of people who believe in a random social order??)
if you are so opposed to capitalism, where did you buy your soccer ball at?
and, isn't having a soccer team of Anarchist be diametrically opposed to the Anarchist philosophy?
(how can you have an organized event made up of people who believe in a random social order??)
how does an Anarchist hold a job?
People don't hold jobs. Jobs hold people.
so how do you live? explain the Anarchist life style.
It's a life.
Sports DO suck! Just because the "working class" like them doesn't make them acceptable. They (the masses, the rabid mobs, the hysterical crowds) liked gladiator fights, witch burnings, and bullfights. So what?
I might be outnumbered but I'm not wrong.
I might be outnumbered but I'm not wrong.
For more information:
http://www.sportssuck.org
earlier in this thread, nessie says the only scumbag bigger than stalin is hitler. well, winston churchill was a bigger scumbag than stalin and hitler put together. george bush today is a bigger scumbag than all three put together. george washington was also a very big scumbag, although technological limitations of his time prevented him from being as big a scum bag as the current george "dubya."
what makes hitler so shocking and significant to white people is he did to other white people what white people had previously only done to non-white people.
that's something i learned from the uhuru movement, and part of why i'm in the uhuru movement today.
what makes hitler so shocking and significant to white people is he did to other white people what white people had previously only done to non-white people.
that's something i learned from the uhuru movement, and part of why i'm in the uhuru movement today.
Mathew if it is possible to compare "scumbagness" (which is debatable) then presumably one would use a scale such as how much harm did they cause or how many people did they kill or somthing along that line.
If you are saying winston churchill (or bush or even washington) was worse than Hitler and stalin I am interested to hear what your criteria you are using to measure it. that is if you have any at all.
If you are saying winston churchill (or bush or even washington) was worse than Hitler and stalin I am interested to hear what your criteria you are using to measure it. that is if you have any at all.
nessie is my favourite four-eyed, grey-haired gimp (and badass).
but i wonder if this historical recounting is correct:
"Take Stalin, for example, scumbag extrordinair. Scummier bags you can't find, except of course Hitler himself. If the rest of the Allies had refused to work with Stalin, just because he was a scumbag, you and I would be speaking German today, or else Japanese."
I've always heard it that many Russians died unnecessarily because the Brit and U.S. allies let the Germans fight the Russians, in a divide and conquer approach as they hated both. (Of course, many in the corporate world of the U.S. loved Hitler...that's a big part of why Pearl Harbor was necessary, to get "us" into the war.)
Wasn't there some time when a truce was called in WW I or WW II and soldiers came out on the fields and played football (soccer) with one another, before they had to go back to their foxholes and prepare to kill other boys just like them across the way?
but i wonder if this historical recounting is correct:
"Take Stalin, for example, scumbag extrordinair. Scummier bags you can't find, except of course Hitler himself. If the rest of the Allies had refused to work with Stalin, just because he was a scumbag, you and I would be speaking German today, or else Japanese."
I've always heard it that many Russians died unnecessarily because the Brit and U.S. allies let the Germans fight the Russians, in a divide and conquer approach as they hated both. (Of course, many in the corporate world of the U.S. loved Hitler...that's a big part of why Pearl Harbor was necessary, to get "us" into the war.)
Wasn't there some time when a truce was called in WW I or WW II and soldiers came out on the fields and played football (soccer) with one another, before they had to go back to their foxholes and prepare to kill other boys just like them across the way?
someone cynically tossed a troll and titled it "too much time on your hands":
"in a society of freedom and plentitude--that has abolished all the anti-social, self-replicating and circularly-justifying work endemic to capitalist civilization, if you are so opposed to capitalism, where did you buy your soccer ball at?
and, isn't having a soccer team of Anarchist be diametrically opposed to the Anarchist philosophy?
(how can you have an organized event made up of people who believe in a random social order??)"
Freedom? I won't begin to address that here, if you aren't aware of the fundamental lack of freedom in this society then you need special attention to overcome pathological indoctrination.
As for buying a soccer ball, many people make their own playing balls around the world, and throughout history. If I had more time on my hands, I'd like to try too. Capitalism as a system is so insidiously cancerous that it affects everything we do now; it steals our time and our souls. So yes, people wander into shops and buy pre-made balls, which are no longer locally made.
And Anarchists can "can you have an organized event " because we are self- and communally-organizing. We're actually rather good at this when we need to be. There are many types of Anarchism, which I'll define here generally as intentionally breaking down compulsory hierarchies in the pursuit of self-governance.
Anarchists on the field can make collective decisions in ways that can outmatch top-down strategies. But submitting to the advice of a coach or team captain, consensually, for the purpose of a tactical advantage, is not contradictory with anarchism per se. I look at Anarchism as the natural healthy relation between people (which this capitalist society does not allow to develop). In natural and healthy relations, some people have special knowledge due to natural aptitude, affinity, or experience, and others may choose to accept that knowledge and act on it. Over time, working together, people may develop practices based on strengths, weaknesses, and preferences, and come to rely on one another for various roles in the pursuit of survival as well as fulfillment, and so be happy anarchists with a functional community.
Trust is key, and that is why your capitalist society which robs my time and my life focuses so heavily on destroying as well as exploiting, trust.
"in a society of freedom and plentitude--that has abolished all the anti-social, self-replicating and circularly-justifying work endemic to capitalist civilization, if you are so opposed to capitalism, where did you buy your soccer ball at?
and, isn't having a soccer team of Anarchist be diametrically opposed to the Anarchist philosophy?
(how can you have an organized event made up of people who believe in a random social order??)"
Freedom? I won't begin to address that here, if you aren't aware of the fundamental lack of freedom in this society then you need special attention to overcome pathological indoctrination.
As for buying a soccer ball, many people make their own playing balls around the world, and throughout history. If I had more time on my hands, I'd like to try too. Capitalism as a system is so insidiously cancerous that it affects everything we do now; it steals our time and our souls. So yes, people wander into shops and buy pre-made balls, which are no longer locally made.
And Anarchists can "can you have an organized event " because we are self- and communally-organizing. We're actually rather good at this when we need to be. There are many types of Anarchism, which I'll define here generally as intentionally breaking down compulsory hierarchies in the pursuit of self-governance.
Anarchists on the field can make collective decisions in ways that can outmatch top-down strategies. But submitting to the advice of a coach or team captain, consensually, for the purpose of a tactical advantage, is not contradictory with anarchism per se. I look at Anarchism as the natural healthy relation between people (which this capitalist society does not allow to develop). In natural and healthy relations, some people have special knowledge due to natural aptitude, affinity, or experience, and others may choose to accept that knowledge and act on it. Over time, working together, people may develop practices based on strengths, weaknesses, and preferences, and come to rely on one another for various roles in the pursuit of survival as well as fulfillment, and so be happy anarchists with a functional community.
Trust is key, and that is why your capitalist society which robs my time and my life focuses so heavily on destroying as well as exploiting, trust.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/christmastruce.htm
There's no doubt that it actually happened - the unofficial Christmas Truce of 1914 - but even today many people are not entirely sure of the detail and extent of the remarkable hiatus in the war that took place for a few hours during the fifth month of that first year of conflict.
For the most part the truce was observed by British and German soldiers in the southern part of the Ypres Salient in Belgium.
However it was observed elsewhere on the Western Front and by other combatants, notably by the French and Belgians, although the very fact that the Germans were sited on the territory belonging to France and Belgium inhibited any great displays of seasonal goodwill towards their German opponents.
[cont.]
There's no doubt that it actually happened - the unofficial Christmas Truce of 1914 - but even today many people are not entirely sure of the detail and extent of the remarkable hiatus in the war that took place for a few hours during the fifth month of that first year of conflict.
For the most part the truce was observed by British and German soldiers in the southern part of the Ypres Salient in Belgium.
However it was observed elsewhere on the Western Front and by other combatants, notably by the French and Belgians, although the very fact that the Germans were sited on the territory belonging to France and Belgium inhibited any great displays of seasonal goodwill towards their German opponents.
[cont.]
>> And Anarchists can "can you have an organized event " because we are self- and communally-organizing. We're actually rather good at this when we need to be. There are many types of Anarchism, which I'll define here generally as intentionally breaking down compulsory hierarchies in the pursuit of self-governance.
- theoretically you are being controled by rules even when you play a soccer game. when the group exceeds a certain size then your sheepy natue (that allows you to have a game at all) will be overtaken by the effect of information gaps and selfishness and some people will start wanting to pick up the ball and run with it and others will start making grid-iron tackles.
(Note that even if you are not at all selfish differences in information will result in some people seeing the good of the group in a different way to others and anarchism would mean that the individual should not pay lip service to the group authority when this happens.)
If that does not happen it is a result of either mindless sheepness or the control of an authority that is contrary to anarchism.
>>>>But submitting to the advice of a coach or team captain, consensually, for the purpose of a tactical advantage, is not contradictory with anarchism per se.
A) it is
B) the above is exactly what most people are doing in the context of individuals giving legitimacy to the state.
- theoretically you are being controled by rules even when you play a soccer game. when the group exceeds a certain size then your sheepy natue (that allows you to have a game at all) will be overtaken by the effect of information gaps and selfishness and some people will start wanting to pick up the ball and run with it and others will start making grid-iron tackles.
(Note that even if you are not at all selfish differences in information will result in some people seeing the good of the group in a different way to others and anarchism would mean that the individual should not pay lip service to the group authority when this happens.)
If that does not happen it is a result of either mindless sheepness or the control of an authority that is contrary to anarchism.
>>>>But submitting to the advice of a coach or team captain, consensually, for the purpose of a tactical advantage, is not contradictory with anarchism per se.
A) it is
B) the above is exactly what most people are doing in the context of individuals giving legitimacy to the state.
"the above is exactly what most people are doing in the context of individuals giving legitimacy to the state."
People choose to play soccer and choose to play according to a certain set of rules. People do not choose to be ruled by a state. Someone who doesnt like a coach at a game can stop playing wheras if you dont like the state you cant stop being ruled by it. Thats a very big difference. It similar to the difference between doing work for someone and being their slave, you can try to compare the two things but there is little in common.
If you are helping a friend fix their house you could stop halfway through and leave them high and dry since there is no outside authority saying you have to help your friend. But, if you did stop helping them at a bad time they might stop being your friend, so the social pressure acts to keep things in line. The same is true for a soccer game. Anyone could choose to stop following the rules but nobody would want to play with you if you did that so by choosing to play you choose to follow the rules. Under a state rules are not purely social and there is an authority that rules without the consent of all those being ruled.
People choose to play soccer and choose to play according to a certain set of rules. People do not choose to be ruled by a state. Someone who doesnt like a coach at a game can stop playing wheras if you dont like the state you cant stop being ruled by it. Thats a very big difference. It similar to the difference between doing work for someone and being their slave, you can try to compare the two things but there is little in common.
If you are helping a friend fix their house you could stop halfway through and leave them high and dry since there is no outside authority saying you have to help your friend. But, if you did stop helping them at a bad time they might stop being your friend, so the social pressure acts to keep things in line. The same is true for a soccer game. Anyone could choose to stop following the rules but nobody would want to play with you if you did that so by choosing to play you choose to follow the rules. Under a state rules are not purely social and there is an authority that rules without the consent of all those being ruled.
"People choose to play soccer and choose to play according to a certain set of rules. People do not choose to be ruled by a state."
> If you dont want to play by the rules of soccer you will most likely need to leave the soccer field.
> If you dont want to play by the rules of the state you may need to leave the state.
The difference between the soccer game and the state is just a matter of scale as opposed to a clear distinction.
The choice "not to play soccer" denies the individual the acess to the people and the soccer field which is a resource being used by the group the "soccer players.
when you talk about the state you are refering to all of the soccer fields and basically all of the other people. so not surprisingly the individual who refuses to participate is denied acess to most of the resources. However I would be somewhat surprised if a individual went into the bush and became self sufficient (in any of the few areas that are not "soccer fields of the state") and the government of a country chased after him in order to force him to participate.
>> It similar to the difference between doing work for someone and being their slave, you can try to compare the two things but there is little in common.
- living outside of a state reduces your options just as living within a state reduces options. for example if a friend and I were independant of a "soccer game" (this is a metaphore for the state) we could expect to be denied the option of playing a good game of soccer (one on one is a bit boring) but if I was in the game I could expect to be denied the ability to play 1-1 basketball (it would get in the way of the soccer).
>>If you are helping a friend fix their house you could stop halfway through and leave them high and dry since there is no outside authority saying you have to help your friend. But, if you did stop helping them at a bad time they might stop being your friend, so the social pressure acts to keep things in line.
- haha sounds like neoclassical theory the justification for free market capitalism
they call that "Game theory"...It depends on how many games you plan on playing with each neighbour.
As populations grow you are less likely to play as many games with the same people and less ability for an individual to correctly attribute levels of trust to the thousands of individuals that they deal with.
Furthermore your basic assumption is that individuals are viewing this system from a, "fear of retaliation by the neighbour", point of view. Just think where else that could lead for example blackmail and all the other things you are trying to fix in the current system.
> If you dont want to play by the rules of soccer you will most likely need to leave the soccer field.
> If you dont want to play by the rules of the state you may need to leave the state.
The difference between the soccer game and the state is just a matter of scale as opposed to a clear distinction.
The choice "not to play soccer" denies the individual the acess to the people and the soccer field which is a resource being used by the group the "soccer players.
when you talk about the state you are refering to all of the soccer fields and basically all of the other people. so not surprisingly the individual who refuses to participate is denied acess to most of the resources. However I would be somewhat surprised if a individual went into the bush and became self sufficient (in any of the few areas that are not "soccer fields of the state") and the government of a country chased after him in order to force him to participate.
>> It similar to the difference between doing work for someone and being their slave, you can try to compare the two things but there is little in common.
- living outside of a state reduces your options just as living within a state reduces options. for example if a friend and I were independant of a "soccer game" (this is a metaphore for the state) we could expect to be denied the option of playing a good game of soccer (one on one is a bit boring) but if I was in the game I could expect to be denied the ability to play 1-1 basketball (it would get in the way of the soccer).
>>If you are helping a friend fix their house you could stop halfway through and leave them high and dry since there is no outside authority saying you have to help your friend. But, if you did stop helping them at a bad time they might stop being your friend, so the social pressure acts to keep things in line.
- haha sounds like neoclassical theory the justification for free market capitalism
they call that "Game theory"...It depends on how many games you plan on playing with each neighbour.
As populations grow you are less likely to play as many games with the same people and less ability for an individual to correctly attribute levels of trust to the thousands of individuals that they deal with.
Furthermore your basic assumption is that individuals are viewing this system from a, "fear of retaliation by the neighbour", point of view. Just think where else that could lead for example blackmail and all the other things you are trying to fix in the current system.
"would be somewhat surprised if a individual went into the bush and became self sufficient.."
ok where does one go to get away from the state? I know of no plave that is currently not under some legal ownership, and while one could perhaps live in a National Forest without getting caught you would probablyu eventually get kicked off if you built a house and started farming. The whole world is populated and there is currently nowhere one can go and build a city without being part of some country.
"As populations grow you are less likely to play as many games with the same people ..."
On a day to day level everyone DOES have to exist like this. If you are walking through a large city fear of the police is not what keeps you from randomly assaulting a passerby. Informal rules are what hold large groups of people together not laws.
"Just think where else that could lead for example blackmail and all the other things you are trying to fix in the current system."
Well rule by organized crime (protection rackets by the police, political decissions made as a result of large donations) is not the same as anarchism. Anarchism is explicitly antiCapitalist so the ideas is to organize society on an informal level to prevent concentration of power. Informal rules already govern most societies (religion and culture) and in most respects the informal rules enforce themselves more strongly than the ones enforced by the police.
ok where does one go to get away from the state? I know of no plave that is currently not under some legal ownership, and while one could perhaps live in a National Forest without getting caught you would probablyu eventually get kicked off if you built a house and started farming. The whole world is populated and there is currently nowhere one can go and build a city without being part of some country.
"As populations grow you are less likely to play as many games with the same people ..."
On a day to day level everyone DOES have to exist like this. If you are walking through a large city fear of the police is not what keeps you from randomly assaulting a passerby. Informal rules are what hold large groups of people together not laws.
"Just think where else that could lead for example blackmail and all the other things you are trying to fix in the current system."
Well rule by organized crime (protection rackets by the police, political decissions made as a result of large donations) is not the same as anarchism. Anarchism is explicitly antiCapitalist so the ideas is to organize society on an informal level to prevent concentration of power. Informal rules already govern most societies (religion and culture) and in most respects the informal rules enforce themselves more strongly than the ones enforced by the police.
> ok where does one go to get away from the state?
In an anarchist situation the situation becomes "where can one go to get away from the other individuals".
Obviously the more you want to get away from humanity the more inconspicuous you have to become to avoid coming into conflict with it. It would be difficult to build a farm or a army or a industrial facility "just anywhere" without getting in the way of someone else’s farm or whatever.
In fact due to the fact that since no one is owning the land anymore it becomes less precise how those farms join and where there are gaps. There is an incentive to "have your neighbour on" over a few centimetres at the edge in terms of what is going to be done with it (i.e. your corn or his potatoes assuming you like corn).
However if you want to go to the Amazon you can probably burn down a section of it and build a farm there.
however note that you would be promoting environmental destruction.
The place I might go is a bushy area that appears to be a park but it could also be farm that the farmer can't clear. I could burn it and plant crops like in the Amazon I guess but the damage that might cause would make it much more likely to get my neighbours angry at me (which is the only reason the authorities would come since no one actually goes there otherwise).
The bigger the thing you want to do the more likely it will infringe upon the state or the "rest of anarchist society" which will be effectively the same thing.
If you want to build a whole independent city your problem is that the government will want to provide health care and other services for the poor in your city and deny you the ability to refuse them it. they will also want you to help to pay for the poor in other cities.
- however some African countries, for example, the state does not have authority/legitimacy over the whole of the country you could go take their land I guess. You better be ready to defend yourself though because you can expect it to be fairly lawless. The fact that you can take the land implies others can try to take it back from you.
>> If you are walking through a large city fear of the police is not what keeps you from randomly assaulting a passer-by. Informal rules are what hold large groups of people together not laws.
-- There are multiple reasons for every action. One reason that is constantly present is game theory another is social pressures of upbringing.
Police are not an alternative to these they are "in addition" to them. I.e. the fact that police exist does not make all people within that state immoral.
the police provide an additional threat to a certain group of criminals who are really entrepreneurs and are making a calculated business decision to commit crime.
as well as another group of risk adverse people for example. remove the police and not everyone will become a criminal but some people will (over time)
Secondly the state provides a clear form of legitimacy
for laws so that it is clear what things are acceptable and what aren’t. without that then it will not be clear what the social pressures are implying and those who create them will not be accountable for it.
Also it is not in the interests of an individual to seek out and punish a person who has wronged them even if it is in the interests of society (for example if someone steals your car going to steal it back is likely to risk something more valuable than the car.)
Another example is if I had a lot of weapons on my farm and I was over using land it would not be in the interest of the village nearby to argue with me about it. not that they could not win but because it would not be worth the fight.
>> Anarchism is explicitly antiCapitalist so the ideas is to organize society on an informal level to prevent concentration of power.
If you are a gang of one person a gang of two people is a concentration of power.
In an anarchist situation the situation becomes "where can one go to get away from the other individuals".
Obviously the more you want to get away from humanity the more inconspicuous you have to become to avoid coming into conflict with it. It would be difficult to build a farm or a army or a industrial facility "just anywhere" without getting in the way of someone else’s farm or whatever.
In fact due to the fact that since no one is owning the land anymore it becomes less precise how those farms join and where there are gaps. There is an incentive to "have your neighbour on" over a few centimetres at the edge in terms of what is going to be done with it (i.e. your corn or his potatoes assuming you like corn).
However if you want to go to the Amazon you can probably burn down a section of it and build a farm there.
however note that you would be promoting environmental destruction.
The place I might go is a bushy area that appears to be a park but it could also be farm that the farmer can't clear. I could burn it and plant crops like in the Amazon I guess but the damage that might cause would make it much more likely to get my neighbours angry at me (which is the only reason the authorities would come since no one actually goes there otherwise).
The bigger the thing you want to do the more likely it will infringe upon the state or the "rest of anarchist society" which will be effectively the same thing.
If you want to build a whole independent city your problem is that the government will want to provide health care and other services for the poor in your city and deny you the ability to refuse them it. they will also want you to help to pay for the poor in other cities.
- however some African countries, for example, the state does not have authority/legitimacy over the whole of the country you could go take their land I guess. You better be ready to defend yourself though because you can expect it to be fairly lawless. The fact that you can take the land implies others can try to take it back from you.
>> If you are walking through a large city fear of the police is not what keeps you from randomly assaulting a passer-by. Informal rules are what hold large groups of people together not laws.
-- There are multiple reasons for every action. One reason that is constantly present is game theory another is social pressures of upbringing.
Police are not an alternative to these they are "in addition" to them. I.e. the fact that police exist does not make all people within that state immoral.
the police provide an additional threat to a certain group of criminals who are really entrepreneurs and are making a calculated business decision to commit crime.
as well as another group of risk adverse people for example. remove the police and not everyone will become a criminal but some people will (over time)
Secondly the state provides a clear form of legitimacy
for laws so that it is clear what things are acceptable and what aren’t. without that then it will not be clear what the social pressures are implying and those who create them will not be accountable for it.
Also it is not in the interests of an individual to seek out and punish a person who has wronged them even if it is in the interests of society (for example if someone steals your car going to steal it back is likely to risk something more valuable than the car.)
Another example is if I had a lot of weapons on my farm and I was over using land it would not be in the interest of the village nearby to argue with me about it. not that they could not win but because it would not be worth the fight.
>> Anarchism is explicitly antiCapitalist so the ideas is to organize society on an informal level to prevent concentration of power.
If you are a gang of one person a gang of two people is a concentration of power.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$170.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network