No need to apologize for dealing with the original subject - we have deviated from it, sorry ! The only remaining thing which I have to say is that we should be wary of comments like 'I am a Nationalist not a Racist`when in the Fascist ideology Nation and Race are interchangeable (As much with Italian Fascism as with Nazism). Strange that Sunderland's first game now is at Stamford Bridge - I wonder how many at the Royal Military Hospital (Chelsea Pensioners) will be taking up their allocation of tickets? My father isn't going, and many of his friends at the Hospital have also said no, though there is no official boycott as yet. My Father has a season ticket at the Bridge (They say there's no fool like an old one !) although he can barely see the whole pitch because of one healthy eye and a glass one - the other healthy eye was left in Salerno in 1943 fighting for a Europe in which Fascist symbols would never be seen in public again.
What is nice about our Forum is the amount of different opinions/interests we have between us, and the Forum itself should have the capacity to express all of these without abuse. So, if anyone wants to start a thread about gardening or giving up smoking etc. they feel supported in doing so. A kind of debating thread, maybe with a new theme every week, sometimes political, more often not, would work on our Forum whereas it probably wouldn't on others. Or should we wait until the summer break (until after we have secured a place in the Prem !). I would be game for such an idea.
Sorry, but why do you need to use such extreme cases to support you arguments - this smacks of desparation ! The Scandinavian models could also be described as broadly Socialist, at least compared to England. Could I also say that the existence of 100,000 homeless in New York, or 2-3 million without access to medical care in the U.S.A., or the astonishingly high number of victims of gun crimes there is evidence that the whole of Capitalism doesn't work ?
It's an emotive subject but it is now about perspectives and how the press have influence on our thinking. Question: What is the difference between Paulo the "facist" Swindon Town manager and Paulo the "fascist" Sunderland manager? Answer: NOTHING: Except that as a manager of Sunderland the high profile Premiership club he will be subject to the scrutiny of the press who are more interested in selling a story than reporting a balanced and fair appraisal of the situation; A city with a history of left wing politics or at least active trade unionism, he is a controversial choice as someone with well documented right wing views be they conservative, nationalist or facist - they are all pretty much the same to me personally, but that is neither here nor there in this case. Chelsea Pensioners not taking up their seat allocation? Strikes me as a bit ridiculous and short sighted if that is so. Whatever next? Not going if there are Japanese players on the pitch because of the way "they" treated our prisoners? A tenuous argument but that is how ridiculous it is in danger of becoming. Time for a deep breath and a reality check. We won't get it from the press, it's not their job. It is our responsibility not to be swayed by the hacks, we have to be better than that. My personal opinion is clear: he deserves his chance as a manager at a high profile club and also deserves not to be pilloried for perceived past transgressions or attitudes. It is what he does, says and how he generally conducts himself from here on in that matters. Besides Sunderland, for me, have a bigger problem with their rebel upstart James McClean.
Sorry, but this doesn't refer to all Japanese people, all Italians or all Germans but to representatives of a particular ideology - Which Di Canio is for as long as his entire upper body is covoured in Fascist insignia.
The only difference between Di Canio the Fascist at Swindon and the same at Sunderland is that had I opened a thread then there would have been less response ! There was actually a withdrawal of sponsership at Swindon, again from Trade Union circles. Another difference is that Sunderland is not just a traditional left wing city but also one with existing racial tensions and English Defence League activity. The EDL are active already at about 15 - 20 football stadiums in Britain - most openly at Bolton - where some fans actually wear EDL clothing openly. Should we be unconcerned about this ? Or that 'the radical right`have finally infiltrated management ? Thereby sending a certain message out precisely at a time when we are trying to tackle racism and intolerance in sport.
yes, cologne- it emboldens the the far right and their obnoxious agenda-- for me you have to challenge these people lest they gain acceptance........
Agreed, that was entirely my point. As for the tattoos, I think that has been covered well enough by others on the thread. They are part of his history and not necessarily representative of what he thinks today - the DUX tattoo is hardly recent. It is how he conducts himself, how he has been conducting himself, that matters and not the tired old regurgitation of old "shock horror" stories that have long since been in the public domain and have no business being aired again except to cause mischief where it is unnecessary. Good grief, the one person in football who did more for the integration of ethnic minority players, Ron Atkinson, cannot now get a job for love nor money over a single off camera comment (so he thought) that was more down to his upbringing and age than any racist motivation and he said it in the presence of Marcel Desailly. It is right he should take a hiatus but to suggest he is racist is wrong and to deny him the ability to make a living as he was is even worse. A mistake, but the press took it out of context and made it into something it isn't and never ever was or going to be. Maybe Troy Deeney, using his feet on someones head, should not be allowed to use his feet to play professional football? Where are you going to draw the line? Done the time for the crime (whether adequate I don't know but it is the law) and thus it is how he now conducts himself as a member of society that counts... and conducting himself very well by all accounts. DiCanio, with some arguably distasteful tattoos and possibly more distasteful politics should be allowed the same courtesy of doing his job and being judged on his ability in that job and all the responsibility that entails (not just the results) and his public behaviour.
There would have been little response because it was not and should not be a story. Trade Unions are not known for fair play -some of their leaders are often hypocrites who live in conditions the workers they are supposed to represent cannot (try Scargill for one) - not all of course but some - they have an agenda and pursue it ruthlessly - I wonder if they asked anyone for an opinion before withdrawing sponsorship. If Di Canio spouts any Fascist nonsense - and thereby makes current views we are told he does not now hold - then he will become fair game. Until then whatever he did is in the past and as far as I can tell no crime has been committed so to deny him gainful employment because you do not like views you assume he still has is wrong. Once we start down a path of intolerance of others for their views we are acting in the same way perhaps as those we accuse. For the record I hate racism, sexism and homophobia and any persecution of harmless minorities - I loath the far right agenda and abhor the BNP, EDL etc - but those are my views and I have no right to impose them on others unless they try to foster hatred or worse themselves. We are all puppets of the media circus drawn into discussing their publicity seeking, money making agenda
I certainly am not advocating denying the possibility of gainfull employment to someone because of their political affiliations. However there are some jobs which are so much looked up to by youth - and top football manager is one of them, that they need to be doubly cautious when recruiting for them. A question - would you employ a teacher who had visible Fascist emblems on their body and a history like Di Canio's - which may or may not be in the past ? If not then of course you are denying someone employment because of their politics - but we actually do this in many walks of life already.
Difficult question but as it would be working directly with youngsters I would certainly probe the views held during an interview and if it was clear the person both still held views likely to harm children and could or would not shield them from those views then I would act appropriately When I was at school teachers were not supposed to even reveal who they supported of the ordinary parties. A football manager of a club like Sunderland is likely to spend 99% of their time with adults though.
My point Cologne was that you stated Capitalism breeds poverty, my response is that Socialism also breeds poverty and whilst people debate this type of polarisation, we we do in this country between the Tories and NL, we will never get the government that does actually deliver the society we all desire. Clearly the disparity between the rich and poor in the US is outrageous and I would condemn it as I condemn the poverty in North Korea and huge swathes of Africa. The Nordic countries (as I would include Finland) certainly have a more socially responsible outlook and individuals contribute more in taxes to support a far higher level of social funding than we experience, but (of course there is always a but!) their economies are essentially capitalist in that is business and commerce that creates wealth - just look at some of the companies that are based in these countries. Personally I have no issue with paying the amount of tax that I pay if it goes to providing quality in the key areas that governments should control and manage i.e. Education, Health, Transport etc. etc. - what I abhor is the huge waste that is caused by successive governments in delivering change only because it fits with their own ideology. If governments stopped creating new laws, stopped making changes that are not needed and focusses on delivering quality with efficiency, we would see a step change in improving all of our lives.
I actually agree with most of what you say here ! However when I said that Capitalism breeds poverty what I meant was that Capitalism needs to create materialism in order to grow - materialism implies convincing people that what they already have is not enough. Therefore a creation of the feeling of 'not having enough' or of being left behind if you don't possess this that or the other is an essential part of modern Capitalism. If everybody were happy with what they own - with no dissatisfaction whatsoever the system would collapse. So the system needs to create dissatisfaction (Or a feeling of relative poverty) in order to survive. Whilst acknowledging that some Socialist countries have a large level of poverty - poverty is not an essential part of socialism and is often created by external trade embargoes. Naturally if a country like Cuba is prevented from trading freely with the rest of the World then some poverty will be the result - is this the fault of Socialism ? I can say that I judge countries according to the living standards of their poorest members, and when I first went to the former German Democratic Republic in 1990 just after the wall came down I saw no soup kitchens, no people sleeping in doorways, no drug addicts and so on - all of which I have seen in London, New York and in Western Germany. So why does everyone talk only of Socialist mismanagement ?
Cologne - I think we probably agree more than we disagree. Fully agree over materialism and the "bubble" it creates of an economy built on retail growth. We need to find other ways to maintain and growth wealth for all citizens - after all most of these things that people desire are imports! Cuba is an interesting place. There is no visible sign of poverty, just a run down country with buildings and infrastructure in a very poor state of repair. What was interesting was the desire of the people to improve their own lot so that they could improve their living standards and be able to obtain more and better quality "things" - like air conditioning or freezers. Our holiday rep did that job as a part time job - he was actually a surgeon! But he could double his salary and earn tourist currency with which he could obtain said items.
you should compare cuba-- a country that america has been doing its best to bankrupt for 50 years to Haiti which is american 'approved' or the other half of that island dominican republic--to see how different many basic things are-- health, welfare,education-- cubans have a better life expectancy than Americans-- think what they could acheive without the 'embargo' --it presents America with a major ideological problem-- don't want examples of different approaches to capitalism showing up in the 'back' yard......
I cannot agree with this. The state only exists because we choose it. Long ago possessions were what a man "acquired" and remained his until someone stronger took them away. We chose to put in place government so that the rule of law could replace the rule of force. That is all. The state as such never owned anything. We then as civilisation develops choose to pass some of our money to the state so that it can collectively provide what we as individuals might not be able to provide. The work that I do creates things that are mine - they remain mine because we live in a good society. Your comparision to Benin etc are as invalid as you claim my comparisons to Africa are on poverty. There are many states in the world where instead of the rule of law the government uses the rule of force. They are no better than primitive societies. Most of us are pleased to pay taxes to help provide things we need collectively - defence, education etc and of course welfare. The dividing point comes when some people want to take that little bit more away from us for their personal belief - for example that someone has a right to cosmetic breast implants on the NHS. I deliberately choose that example as I believe it is extreme enough for almost all of us to agree that we should not take money from another person to pay for it. Unfortunately in between that example and the "pay no taxes at all" argument there is a huge field - there are good causes and bad causes popular causes and unpopular ones. This is where the real difference between us exists - and it is really only a matter of degree - just how many things do you believe "other" people should pay for? A couple have a child and then break up. Their overall income remains the same but now we have a "single" parent - so suddenly they deserve money from you do they? Or do you want to keep that extra bit to pay for your own child living with you and your partner who remain together ? These are not easy issues and often are very grey - perhaps not 50 shades of. Poverty is relative as you say. However the word is just too emotive and is used by the Left Wing to justify without rational argument redistribution of wealth. The word Poverty in my opinion should be used for real poverty. We should perhaps choose a word or phrase like "less priviliged" for comparative richness I would always want to help put a roof over somebody's head or food in their stomach if they were struggling. But I do not want you to take my money because I have 5 pairs of shoes and you have only three so that we both end up with four - just to make you feel better. Look the next time at people on telly who are crying at their poverty and count the designer labels and laptops and i-pads etc - those people ore not poor - they just want more. they can have it - but not from me Lastly I come to the idea of the "rich". Some people just do not like having others who are many times better off than they are - and want to equalise them. I do not. They have not taken my money or possessions - whether they became rich by inheritance, winning the lottery or good fortune in their work - facebook invention for example - it does not matter. What is theirs is theirs - the money they have was not forcibly taken from others. They should pay more than poorer people - and our tax laws ought to ensure they do rather than allowing tax avoidance through offshore devices etc. Many people aspire to become richer - and would like to pass on some of what they have to their children. If you take away that incentive by say confiscating all possessions on death then you certainly would have a more equal society - but I would not like to live there
No rudebwoy - the US took a little bit of an exception to the fact that Cuba allowed Russian Nuclear weapons to be placed on their soil - minutes flight from the US at a time wehn the threat of nuclear war was very real. Since then they have not kissed and made up
I am enthralled by this thread, I am learning an awful lot about World history and politics, at the same time, I am extremely impressed by how many of you all have opposing views, yet are able to express yourselves in an adult manner with no silly name-calling, just stating your own points of view, whilst highlighting your reasons for disagreeing. This thread is a credit to you all, very well done, I'm pleased to have found somewhere that I can come and browse in peace and learn while I am doing so! Thank you!
It is curious the comments made about capitalism causing poverty. The basic idea is to make everyone have a better level of living through generation of wealth. I say that here some people are in a better position to become richer than others. The same can be said about the opposite. Looking at communism that system appears only to be the most highly reformed version of capitalism where very few control the means of production, not what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels first though. The period of Josef Stalin control in the Soviet Union saw millions of people die because of hunger or because they thought the wrong way. Should you encourage or help people at the bottom to be more equal to the top or push the top down to be equal at the bottom?
