A socialist speaker on question time
- This topic has 87 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I was half listening to Question Time on the radio last night, and the topic turned to the issue of Ched Evans playing for Sheffield United. Now, at first, I wondered what a Socialist Speaker could say on the question: after all, we would have no party policy on the matter. But that sort of null answer is poor.
Obviously, we are opposed to rape, and we would argue that rapists in socialism would need to be dealt with (incidentally, and to be ultra controversial, there is a case for prison, but the logic is only to protect the guilty from vengence of angry friends and relatives). That said, Evans has been punished, and should be able to return to his trade (running fast and kicking a ball). The counter argument is that footballers are 'role models'.
The question is: what do campaigners want to achieve? He has already been punished, and preventing him from playing on would seem an additional punishment for being a footballer. Some people lose their livelihoods through such convictions: teachers, doctors, etc. but that is a preventetive measure because of the risks associated with their positions of trust. No such position occurs because of kicking a ball and running quickly.
Part of a professional footballer's income is selling endorsements and image rights: trading on the popularity of football and footballers. This part of his income is shot. Clubs also use their footballers to (obviously) promote the club, its image and its brand, and I can't see how he can do that here. He is already causing reputational harm.
Indeed, most of us, if convicted of such an offence would be sacked for bringing our firms into disrepute (or being unable to fulfil our contract). So why hasn't Evans? And here comes the socialist analysis. Footballers are still stuck as bonded labour. Their contracts are bought and sold. Evans was an investment for Sheffield, they bought his contract and still hope to see a return on their investment.
I suspect his training with the club is to symbollically say the contract is in place, and that they can then sell him on (possibly abroad, where the buying club might not face such harm).
So, what can a socialist speaker say: that this arises from amodern slave market, that this story is about property triumphing over feelings, and that men who can run quickly and kick a ball should not be rolemodels, and that they are is part of a marketting strategy for big capitalist firms.
YMS wrote:Some people lose their livelihoods through such convictions: teachers, doctors,e tc. but that is a preventetive measure because of the risks associated with their positions of trust. No such position occurs because of kicking a ball and running quickly.[my bold]This is the equivalent of saying 'no such position occurs because of moving chalk and writing quickly on a board'.The notion of 'trust', and the 'positions' deemed to be included, is a social decision.If 'playing professional football' is deemed to be as much a 'position of trust' (due to its ability to influence both young and old) as is being a teacher or doctor (due to their ability to influence both young and old), then those holding a 'position of trust' would be put under 'preventative measures' by society.'Position of trust' is not an 'objective' position which tells us 'what it is', if we passively contemplate it. We actively create our world.
It's not the teacher or Doctors ability to influence, it's also their physical proximity: their work gives them access and power. Yes, it is a judgement call, and one worthy of debate.
firstly YMS wrote:No such position occurs because of kicking a ball and running quickly.This is a judgement call, one made by you as an individual, which is your chosen ideological method, as we've seen displayed throughout all the threads in which you participate.
then YMS wrote:Yes, it is a judgement call, and one worthy of debate.Now, you've changed your ideological position, to one of 'making by society'.You're an ideological chameleon, YMS, with no philosophical ballast whatsoever, and you merely repeat the last thing you read.You do this constantly, which is why you can neither discuss nor understand any ideological positions, neither your own nor anyone else's.From my Communist perspective, you're an 'individualist'.But then I expose my ideology, whereas you just laugh at my openness, and take the piss out of my declaration that 'I'm a Communist'.You do this because you don't think political ideology plays any part in your understanding, or in the understanding of scientists.You think that you are a 'free-thinking individual', and as such are a repository of bourgeois ideology, that constantly diverts discussion on these boards.I regard you as a threat to working class self-development.Oh, sorry, you don't recognise 'class', do you? And its effects upon social thinking? No, you judge for yourself, like a good bourgeois, and 'democracy' be damned.
My opinion is that a footballer doesn't fall into the same category as a doctor, teacher, etc. but I accept it is arguable, and it is a valid case (i.e. that campaigners have a legitimate point), the case that Evans has been pubnished and should be allowed to return to his trade, as any hod carrier would, is also valid. I think the determining factor is that part of his trade is publicity and promotion, and he simply cannot do that now, but the club retain hopes of sellign him.IMNSHO everything I say here is my opinion only, and so does not need to be prefaced by an IMNSHO.
YMS wrote:IMNSHO everything I say here is my opinion only, and so does not need to be prefaced by an IMNSHO.Gof forbid, that on a politics site, it might dawn on you that 'opinions' are not 'individual', but are expressions of political ideologies.But then, your ideology tells you that 'everyone is entitled to their opinion', as if all 7 billion individuals have their own 'ideology'.For a Communist, as I am (so no-one gets the wrong idea about my ideology, and won't take me for a 'free-thinking individual'), 'opinions' are rooted in ideologies.So, from a Communist perspective, 'everything you say here' is not 'your opinion only', but is a reflection of your socialisation, education and political influences.From what you say, I'd say that you've had bourgeois socialisation, bourgeois education and bourgeois political influences.Of course, this is all over the heads of 'individuals' with 'their opinions'.You'd think Marx had never written anything. But then he hasn't, for most 'individuals', who carry on 'consuming', from the 'market' that they thought up, all by themselves, as individuals.Don't make me larf! 'Individual opinions'! My arse.
So LBird how do you square the above with the fact that you are the ONLY person that has been putting forward certain viewpoints?
DJP wrote:So LBird how do you square the above with the fact that you are the ONLY person that has been putting forward certain viewpoints?You want to try reading the other thread, where both I and alanjjohnstone (to say nothing of Marx, Pannekoek, Dietzgen and even Engels in his more Marxist moments) put forward similar viewpoints. But then, we share the same ideology, unlike the liberals YMS and DJP.Or should I just answer in your childish terms given above, and just say 'Nah, nah… nah, nah, naaah…'.Do us all a favour, and try critical thinking, and make a contribution to the discussion, rather than throwing your dummy from the pram, because you don't like (or even understand) my Communist views.
I don't know where you get the idea that myself and YMS are liberals from. We are both libertarian free marketeers following the teachings on Ayn Rand, after all this is the majority position in the SPGB these days so it must be true.
DJP wrote:I don't know where you get the idea that myself and YMS are liberals from. We are both libertarian free marketeers following the teachings on Ayn Rand, after all this is the majority position in the SPGB these days so it must be true.This shows that you don't know what a liberal is. You think that 'liberal' means 'economic liberal'.If I ask you if you're an individual, you (and YMS) reply 'Yes'.If I'm asked if I'm an individual, I reply 'No, I'm a worker'.Because I'm a Communist, and employ Critical Realism, I locate components within structures.Because you're a liberal, and employ individualism, you locate 'existing' within biological components and ignore social strutures.Thus, when I ask which ideology of science either you or Strawson employ, you are baffled by the question, because, for you, Strawson, you and YMS are all individuals entitled to their opinons, both social and scientific.You don't realise that you are all ideologists for the bourgeoisie.That's why you don't like me, because as a Communist I undermine your individualism.Thus, you hide this reality in dismissive replies, and pretend you're being accused of being a 'free marketeer'.Why you are not a 'free marketeer' in economics, since you are a 'free marketeer' in philosophy and science, only you can say. I think that you're confused and ignorant, but you won't try to critically think these issues through, although I've tried to help you to do so, numerous times.So, back to calling names, DJP! The world's a mystery to you, eh?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Obviously, we are opposed to rape, and we would argue that rapists in socialism would need to be dealt with (incidentally, and to be ultra controversial, there is a case for prison, but the logic is only to protect the guilty from vengence of angry friends and relatives). That said, Evans has been punished, and should be able to return to his trade (running fast and kicking a ball). The counter argument is that footballers are 'role models'.Surely in a socialist society there would also be a need to contain someone who has harmed another person or persons to prevent them from repeating the same act?
SocialistPunk wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Obviously, we are opposed to rape, and we would argue that rapists in socialism would need to be dealt with (incidentally, and to be ultra controversial, there is a case for prison, but the logic is only to protect the guilty from vengence of angry friends and relatives). That said, Evans has been punished, and should be able to return to his trade (running fast and kicking a ball). The counter argument is that footballers are 'role models'.Surely in a socialist society there would also be a need to contain someone who has harmed another person or persons to prevent them from repeating the same act?
Ahhh, you're forgetting, SP, about YMS's commitment to 'individual freedom'. His friends in the anarchist camp are wary of society being protected from certain 'individuals'.Y'know, power, authority, democracy… and all those other distasteful ("ultra controversial") concepts within Communism, which will hem in the 'free individual', and which anarchists frown upon.It's important, when having these discussions, to locate 'opinions' within ideologies.They are most certainly not 'individual opinions'!
SocialistPunk wrote:Surely in a socialist society there would also be a need to contain someone who has harmed another person or persons to prevent them from repeating the same act?Indeed, but how long do we hold them in that protective mode? I assume we're eliminating a retributive element and a deterrent element, here. But even if we are assured they won't do it again, we may have to hold them for their own safety as well beyond that.The basic principle is that society must have a means of defending itself, and out of 7 billion people we cannot assume they will all go over to peaceful cuddliness and some will need to be dealt with. For example, there are in the UK about 60 individuals who are so seriously dangerous they will never be released from prison (and I assume that they will have to be detained somehow in socialism).We can assume in socialism, largely/dramatically freed from economic crime, we can throw a lot more time, attention and effort into dealing with persistent offenders against the person.
I totally agree YMS, that a change to a socialist society will not mean all cuddles and love thy neighbour. Dangerous people will need to be dealt with, though I see it more to protect us than them, as personally I couldn't give a toss for the safety of a murderer, child molester or rapist. If such people can be rehabilitated, great, but if not they present a danger to us and as such need to be prevented from harming others. How that is acheived would be up to the majority to decide.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.