Anyone but England: the SWP and the World Cup
SWP man of letters Keith Flett really surpassed himself in today’s Morning Star (19 May 2006), with an article, Anyone but England: Socialists and the World Cup.
Flett says he won’t be supporting England in the World Cup because:
1) There are often racist attacks after England games, “orchestrated by BNP members”. He says, “if England go out, it can’t happen at all”.
2) It promotes soft nationalism and the national interests.
Instead Flett tells his aging tankie readers:
“I have skirted around here what side socialists should support if not England. Before 1989, even people like myself, who were critical of Eastern Europe, might raise a cheer or two for a side from that region on the grounds that they were more progressive.
“That has gone, of course, and, without Venezuela and Cuba to cheer on, the best that an anti-imperialist might wish for is progress by Iran.”
Flett manages to say:
* Eastern Europe was better than capitalism – shame about no labour movement
* He supported Poland, before and after the suppression of Solidarnosc
* Racist attacks won’t happen if there’s no football
And then he smuggles in - support for Iran. The same Iran with its own, regional sub-imperialist ambitions. The same Iran whose government locks up trade unionists and bans free trade unions.
Flett displays what Trotsky called in the FWW the inverted methodology of social patriotism. He only cares about what’s happening in Britain. He does not think about the consequences of “Iran’s progress”- that it might buttress the clerical regime – and keep women out of Iran’s football grounds.
The same arguments about nationalism in Britain also apply to Iran. Choosing either side on this logic makes no sense.
Personally, I don’t think it matters much politically who you support in the World Cup. I hope the football’s good, whoever wins. And I hope socialists rationally work out the real issues in world politics, rather than simply putting a minus where the big powers put a plus.
- PaulHampton's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Hear hear
Who do you reckon Comrade Flett would support if England played Israel?!
SWP and football
I remember being given a dressing down by an SWP member during the 1990 world cup after I celebrated an England victory. The young women, who was a teacher, obviously had no interest in the football at all ("I tell my children not to support England"). Anyway, I asked around the small number of SWPers, who were human, about "the line". And without being crudely workerist about this my conclusion was that the largely middle class SWP membership didn't really know anything about the beautiful game and were basically irritated by it. Of course it did offer an opportunity to "talk socialism on the job", or in the bar, as it was with me. The few proles and footie fans in the Cliffite ranks kept quiet and hoped it would blow over.
Maybe our later-day anti-imperialists could make common cause with the militant Islamists who favour a ban on people's game.
Missing the Point
The real point is you should support Brazil because they are the best team always. I have never seen the point of supporting a particular team just because they are your home team or whatever. Surely the team to support if you're going to be tribal about it is the one that plays the best most attractive football. I used to play football for a Youth Club Team, and used to watch a lot of football, but to be honest I have little interest in it nowadays because very little of it seems to be about football, and all of it seems to be about personalities and big business. I'd rather watch some proper footballers down at the Rec.
Arthur Bough
no no no
Arthur, c'mon please - you support your team whether its your local team or your national team. You support them through thick and thin no matter what. An Englishman supporting Brazil is like someone from Blackpool supporting Chelsea. Its just too remote because they are in no sense linked with one another. Its just wrong wrong wrong.
Up the underdogs!
Arthur - you seem to be saying you should support the team that's most likely to win. Shouldn't socialists support the underdogs? A team that won't win - England! ;)
Mike Marquesee wrote a book about cricket called 'Anyone but England', arguing from the reactionary nature of the English cricket establishment and the colonial relatiohship between England and the other cricket playing nations. That seems to be a better reason than Flett's but I still think it's a bit childish - and I'm not sure that the South African cricket establishment is any better than England's or that Australia is any less racist..
Not Necessarily
Bruce,
Not necessarily. Especially, in football its quuite common for the team that plays the best, most attractive football gets beaten by a side that plays defensively, and scores on the break etc. What I am saying is two things. Firstly, support those that deserve to win because they play the best, and appreciate good play by either side in the match. Secondly, I think supporting anything, right or wrong, whether its a football team, a nation state, or a political party is a very foolish, chauvinistic and reactionary thing to do. That applies as much to supporting one side for negative reasons because the other is worse, or out of tribal hostility just as much as supporting it for supposedly positive reasons such as its your home team, "your" nation state, or your political party. As Trotsky said you have to learn to think, and not just do things out of habit, or in some kind of autonomic response.
Arthur Bough
Arthur, it seems to me you
Arthur, it seems to me you are rationalising an emotional thing. You support your team through thick and thin, not right or wrong as you put it. How can a football team be right or wrong? You don't abandon your friends because you think some stranger will be more witty and and entertaining for a while. Its the same with football because your team, like your friends, picks you as much as you pick it. I have no time for all these glory fans who come out of the woodwork when a team starts doing well. The amount of Chelsea fans I've met over the past three years, ha.
As for what Trotsky says, I hardly think it applies to football; please!
So I say if your English support England in the world cup, not out of some sense of nationalistic (self deluded) pride but because thats the spirit of the thing and its fun, exciting, emotional and entertaining.
Watching Brazil v Argentina may provide a certain level of entertainment but it will never affect my emotions in the way an England match will. If that makes me less of a socialist then so be it but I think it makes me more of a human being.
Na!
Sean, Let's take your example about friends. First of all the question is why were certain people your friends in the first place. Because they had certain things in common with you, they were people you got on with etc. But, if those things about these people changed, then you may well find that you make different friends. And if some of those friends did something you disagreed with, wouldn't you as a freind tell them so. And suppose you had some power of patronage, say you were the prime Minister, would you give jobs to your friends just because theyw ere your friends, or would you feel a responsibility to give the job to those most capable of doing them. You might as well support organisations like the FreeMasons that look after their members not on the basis of ability, etc. but just out of sect loyalty.
If I am a parent and take a child to the school sportsday I will of course cheer on my child, but it won't stop me from appreciating the ability of any other kids that do better. I think it is absolutely awful to see parents at school sportsdays falling out claiming that their Little Johnny should have won the race etc., but that is just a reflection of the kind of tribalism that has infected sport in particular.
I have a friend who is a Football Coach. He coaches kids in particular at Port Value, and does some coaching also at Lilleshall. He was telling me some time ago, about how they have to teach even the kids how to commit professional fouls, because as he said if they didn't teach their kids how to do it they would be at a disadvantage compared to the ones that have been taught. And it seems to me that is true on the pitch and off. On the pitch the commercialism means its no longer about two teams playing an attractive game of football that players and punters alike can enjoy, it is solely about winning in order that you can keep getting punters through the gates, and fees from Sky. Similarly, the fans aren't bothered whether their team played brilliantly or were absolute crap as long as they win, and if they don't win, well then let's look for some opposing fans to kick the shit out of, or something we can destroy.
It is sheer tribalism. I find it hard to believe given the way capitalism uses other divisions amongst the working class such as sexism and racism that they do not ferment such divisions for their own ends, and certaibnly the BNP use it for theirs. In fact it is perfect for the ruling class. Even more than racism it divides the working class, and on soemthing as idiotic as what colour scraf you wear, that divides workers even within the same town or city one with another.
Tribalism is a part of early human history, and soemthing we should be kicking into touch, falling prey to it doesn't make you more human it makes you less so whether you are a socialist or not. Greater humanity requires the development of feelings of empathy with other human beings not enmity.
Arthur Bough
It must be a Midland's thing - joke
To make a jump from supporting your home team to explaining the rise of the BNP is stretching reality to breaking point.
Maybe it's years of watching Port Vale and Stoke that have given you a warped view of the football fan.
This season I've enjoyed the skills of Wayne Rooney, Frank Lampard and Thiery Henry in games against my team. Crap human beings maybe but great footballers. And I'll enjoy Ronaldinho and co at the world cup. In fact like hundreds of thousands of others I'll be in Germany to watch a bunch of games I have no real interest in.
It Does Have That Kind of Effect
I agree Paul that watching Port Vale or Stoke on a regular basis could do long term serious damage to your mental health. Besides which in order to do so you do need a good sense of humour - just look at Nick Hancock.
I wasn't suggesting that you could explain the rise of the BNP by people acting out tribal behaviour I was suggesting the BNP use the kinds of mentality that such tribal behaviour encourages to further their interests. And you do see parents at sportsdays getting really agitated that their kid hasn't won, I have even seen them jeer other kids that were winning! I have two friends who have been friends sicne they were kids, and one of them is a Vale Fan the other a Stokie. Although, they remain friends I have seen them get really shitty with each other over football, and it seems to me when something invokes that kind of response there is something wrong.
Now it seems to me the point you make about appreciating the skills of other players is valid. Yet how many times have you seen fans cheer when a skillful player gets chopped down by a hard man from their own side.
Nah most of 'em are primadonnas who wouldn't last the game out if they had to play with a proper old casey. I'll stick to watching the lads down the rec who play the game for the love of it not the fame and fortune. That way I can just cheer the good play from either side.
PS. You're not related to my Dad's old mate Bill are you.
Arthur Bough
No relation, but....
I had the (cough) pleasure of debating the Militant about the attacks on the YS at your CLP sometime in the 80s. My point about their lack of action on gay issues was slightly undermined by their speaker being a gay man. After the debate, as you drove me to the train station, I remember you saying something like "The YS speaker was more experienced". My fragile confidence was knocked, but I learned an important lesson. Don't go to the Midlands, in the middle of the winter, by train, at night, to debate the Militant, and expect to have a good time.
Anyway. I don't believe that a socialist can't, well, be a socialist, and still support his (or her) local football team.
Are You Sure That was me
Paul are you sure that was me. I know I'm getting on a b, and the memory isn't so good, but I definitely don't recall that or even bothering to debate anyhting at the YS with the Mili during that time. I was too old for the YS by then, and I don't recall there actually being an active YS in Stoke North at that time.
As for the generl point I wasn't saying you couldn't support your own team and be a socialist. To be honest I wasn't trying to make any seriouus point in general. However, I do think that the general principal is correct. Such divisions are used by the bourgeoisie to divide the working class, and just because people who are class cosncious can override it doesn't disp`rove the general point. Just as I wasn´t saying that eveeryone who goes to a football match is a hooligan. However, its also true that not everyone who was a Mod or Rocker during the 60's went out and beat shit out of the opposing tribe, but its still no less true that the existence of the division did lead some people to take the tribal affiliation to that degree of commitment.
Anyway at the minute I'm in Spain for a few weeks, and struggling with my limited Spanish with a machine in the Cyber Cafe down in the town. I've just finished watching Germany v Costa Rica. Whilst I admit to a sneaking desire for Costa Rica to do well as the underdog I was glad in the edn that Germany won because they played better. But I would have been happy that whoever played the best won.
Arthur Bough
I think you're wrong to
I think you're wrong to equate football fans with the BNP and hooligans. I regularly attend football matches and I'm neither of those things. In response the the charge that football divides the working class I would argue that it is one of the few things that still unites us. Having said that, a friend of mine wrote an essay about the function of football rivalries in counteracting the revolutionary potential of the working class around WW1. However, I stand my position that football is a unifying factor today.
You say "Tribalism is a part of early human history, and soemthing we should be kicking into touch" - of course thats true in the broadest perspective but I don't think a bit of tribalism does any harm, especially when its entered into in the right spirit. If you see football fans as violently opposed factions whose sole aim it is to crush their rivals into the ground I think you are mistaken. I've met and had a beer with loads of different fans and its never been a any kind of hassle, just good natured banter.
I agree i saw games both in
This comment has been removed as it was commercial advertising.
No, no, no
When I was a kid I used to go to Stoke matches because they were the local team, but I never really supported Stoke. OKay when they won the League Cup I climbed up Stoke Town Hall for the return home, but I was trying to impress my girlfriend of the time (now my wife) who's father used to babysit for Stanley Matthews, and was friends with a lot of the Stoke Team just after the war. I also used to go into the Vale at half-time when they let you walk in for free. But as a kid I supported Woverhampton Wanderers, partly because my Dad was in the army with Billy Wright, partly because I chose Peter Knowles as an alternative hero to George Best, and was quite a fan of 'the Doog', and partly because the first football strip I got was in Wolves colours. Fortunately, for me most times that Wolves played at Stoke, when I went with my mates Wolves won.
I also remember going down to Stoke in the late 60's or was it early 70's when Brazil came to play a friendly - really should have been called a demonstration because it was a bit like the kind of game played by the Harlem Globe Trotters. At half time some Brazilian youngsters put on a display of touch up when for the entire 15 minutes the ball never touched the ground. In the second half there was a memorable moment when Pele picked up the ball just past the half way line a hit it from nowhere. It was the kind of shot that most players need to hit on the volley. The ball rocketed towards the goal in the Boothen End, and then almost like it was being remotely guided, dipped about 5 yards from the goal making Banks have to reach up to tip it over the bar.
Neah, Harlem Globe Trotters will always be the best basketball team, Brazil will always be the best football team, the Golden Torch in Tunstall (Stoke), The Twisted Wheel in Manchester, and Wigan Casino will always be the best Disco's in the world, and music history ended in the 1970's. And by the way George Best was not the best all round British footballer and first superstar, it was Stanley Matthews. That one I will give to Stoke City.
Arthur Bough