Football, fate, Gaia theory and socialism

In ITV news coverage of the Champions League final last night, in
which Manchester United defeated Chelsea on penalties, suggested that
it was fate that Man Utd would win 50 years after the Munich air
disaster which killed many of the "Busby babes". It was also 40 years
after first winning the trophy (then called the European Cup).

Tiny differences, like Chelsea hitting the post and crossbar and John
Terry slipping as he hit the ball for a penalty that would have won
them the match, can have a big effect on the result of a match - and
that can have a big effect on the morale of many millions of football
fans around the world, especially when a prestigious trophy is at
stake. The morale of the players and manager, and the fans who are
cheering the team on, can affect how well the team play.

There can be political influences and repercussions, since some teams
(like Man Utd) are mainly supported by working class fans and others
(like Chelsea) by more middle and ruling class fans. Man Utd fans and
players also tend to be more left-wing (partly because the team play
in socialist red) than Chelsea fans (whose team play in Tory blue).
Chelsea owner and Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich has forked out
far more on players than any other team in the world, so Chelsea are
the main team of big business. Man Utd defeating Chelsea in that match
and the battle for the league title (on the final day of the season)
was an indication that the forces of big business in the world weren't
as strong as they could be, and they will get even weaker as a
consequence of the results.

Of course, Man Utd are a rich team too - in terms of revenues and
money available to  buy players and pay their wages, although they are
over £700 million in debt after US businessman Malcolm Glazer's
takeover of the club. I opposed the takeover at the time, and
supported the efforts of other United fans opposed to the takeover who
set up a new club - FC United of Manchester. However, the consequences
for both clubs (until the debt has to be repaid of course) has
actually proved very good, in terms of money available in the short
term for Man Utd players and FC United winning promotion in amateur
leagues in each of the three seasons it has existed (clinching
promotion on the final day this season). I now regard FC United as my
favourite team, but have continued to support Man Utd as well.

Bearing in mind the money involved at Man Utd, describing that club as
socialist or left-wing is inaccurate to say the least! It is perhaps
better to analyse it in terms of a good versus bad struggle, as I
outline in my Good Intentions Manifesto (at www.goodintentionsnetwork.org/manifesto.html,
although I am currently rewriting it to reflect my realisation that
the class struggle is paramount).

Within every struggle in society, including that required to win a
football match in addition to the class struggle, debates within and
between political parties and campaigns on political issues, etc.,
there is a struggle between those who primarily have good intentions
(and care about others) and those with primarily bad intentions (being
selfish). I think everybody has a mixture of good and bad intentions -
if you don't take care of yourself to some extent, you wouldn't be
very effective at helping others, and if you don't care at all about
anybody else, you would find it very difficult to get by in the world.

How good or bad somebody is tends to be reflected in his or her
demeanour; do you smile (as Man Utd players tend to do more often than
Chelsea ones) or are you as dour and miserable as Chelsea manager
Avram Grant - or British Prime Minister Gordon Brown? Man Utd manager
Sir Alex Ferguson went through a phase of being miserable and arguably
greedy/selfish (in relation to stud receipts from the racehorse he was
given by former club shareholders), but he has proved much better at
recruiting good players recently (particularly last summer where all
new additions have made positive contributions to this season's
successes), and he comes across as a much happier person. If you are
good, and show it in your demeanour and actions, you are more likely
to associate with other good people and/or help people you associate
with nicer people.

There is a genetic basis for this good versus bad analysis of mine,
with many animal species being caring and cooperative as well as
selfish. There is even evidence of animal morality, as referred to in
the current issue of New Scientist (quoting an article from 13 July
2002 (p 34):

"A classic study in 1964 found that hungry rhesus monkeys would not
take food they had been offered if doing so meant that another monkey
received an electric shock. The same is true of rats. Does this
indicate nascent morality? For decades, we've preferred to find
alternative explanations, but recently ethologist Marc Bekoff from the
University of Colorado at Boulder has championed the view that humans
are not the only moral species. He argues that morality is common in
social mammals, and that during play they learn the rights and wrongs
of social interaction, the 'moral norms that can then be extended to
other situations such as sharing food, defending resources, grooming
and giving care'."

Returning to the issue of fate, and the fact that a football result
can have a big impact: I have long realised that the world is largely
planned rather than random - there are big vested interests in some
things happening, so if events can be modelled (in human minds or on
computers) they will be, and I have noticed too many "coincidences" in
things that have happened. I regard myself as an agnostic - I've
veered towards believing in God, but (perhaps largely due to
subscribing to New Scientist) now veer towards atheism. There does,
however, seem to be some sort of collective consciousness in the world
(and perhaps the universe) much as explained by Richard Lovelock's
Gaia theory, which encompasses everybody's free will and ensures that
things work out, even with respect to football matches!

I have often felt, rightly or wrongly, that it has been vital for me
to do certain things to prevent a dictatorial capitalist society like
the one predicted by George Orwell in "Nineteen Eighty-Four" from
coming about. Arguably Russia already has that sort of society - Putin
decided upon Medvedev as his successor as President, the Russian media
gave him far more coverage than any other candidate, and (according to
the BBC at least) there was no doubt that Medvedev would be elected,
which he was; if you don't produce a passport or ID card when stopped
by the police on the street, you can be arrested. If the whole world
was like Russia, and New Labour are trying to take the UK in that
direction, there would be no prospect of revolutionary change, but
interactions with ordinary people (including football fans) across the
world can bring about real democracy there and internationally.

I am now much more relaxed about prospects for the future, and the
football results mentioned above reinforce my view that others would
do what is necessary to yield a much more ethical world even if I
dropped out of political activism (which I don't intend to do).
However, there is still a lot at stake - many more people could suffer
or die in the meantime (especially with rapidly increasing food prices
never mind the terrible situation in Burma), and the sort of ethical
societies that we will have in the world can be affected by everyone's
free will. I am in favour of a form of socialism where the government
is elected by proportional representation by single transferable vote,
with the middle class in power as well as the working class (whereas
Marxists want just the working class in power). [I do agree with
Marxists on some degree of workers' control of industry, if it's not
too hierarchical.] I am also in favour of a varied world, with
different forms of society in different countries (whereas Marxists
believe the whole world has to become socialist).

Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander's support for a referendum on
independence would seem to make a capitalist independent Scotland
likely in 2010, especially if (as is very likely) the Tories win the
next UK general election earlier that year. The Scottish National
Party (SNP) would surely split (since it will have achieved its
primary aim) with socialists and capitalists going their separate
ways, with socialists currently in the Labour Party and socialist
parties to the left of Labour joining socialists from the SNP, in time
for the next Scottish parliamentary elections in 2011. Of course, big
problems with the capitalist world economy could provoke massive
revolutionary movements before then, but a socialist Scotland in 2011
certainly looks feasible.

--
Steve Wallis (Glasgow, Scotland)
For important/urgent communications, please email:
warcrysteve@yahoo.co.uk
Blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve

My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk
My socialist musical poetry: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk/poetry.htm
(and at my MySpace and Multiply pages)
My pages at MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve, Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=731729407 and Multiply:
http://socialiststeve.multiply.com

Founder, Good Intentions Network: http://www.goodintentionsnetwork.org
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for PR-based Socialism: http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net

My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist
revolution will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net

For discussion of the credit crunch, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=156

date: Thu, 22 May 2008 11:10:33 -0700 (PDT) author: Steve Wallis