More Important Than Football

[highburyJD]

You harp on about economic instability in Russia like you give a fuck, but where do you think our economic stability is coming from.

IIn actual fact, Cus was talking about economic instability in Russia, to which I said to him, 'where do you think the west's economic stability is coming from?' I got no response.

you got a response from me
and replied with weak insults (whilst we're doing those - u really are a mug)

is your 'over your head' gambit an attempt to deny you linked russian economic collapse with western stability?
I can't read the above in any other way

[T.S]

Alright, Wordsworth. Settle down.

Phew, tough crowd.

HighburyJD. First thing’s first. You totally missed the point of what I said, so therefore, my saying that what I said went over your head was completely justified. Sorry if you took offence. None was intended. However, if there’s anyone here guilty of resorting to ‘cheap insults’ I’m afraid it’s you. Please don’t be hypocritical, as I don’t respond well to it.

The rest of this is irrelevant as the thread is long since dead. However, just because you have so eloquently and diplomatically asked me to explain, I shall in very simple terms so it cannot be misconstrued.

Western economic strength comes from the hundreds of years of the slave trade. Without it, our economy would be nothing compared to what it is today. That does not refer to Russia in any way. I suggest that you actually read my response where I first brought this up.

So there you have it. Feel free to call me a ‘mug’ again if that’s how you like to debate a point. Just one thing though; if you’re going to do it, try to stay away from txtspk, as I think it’s a bit moronic. Why not take the time to write two extra letters?

U mug

[highburyJD]

sorry I assumed your argument had some kind of logical coherence
if, in your defence of robber barons, you where suggesting Russian instability was a counterbalance to our financial comfort zone
your nonsensical ramblings would have at least benefited from a conceptual (if not reality-based) equilibrium

actually your, now explained, contention is apparently that historical bad behaviour by nation states necessitates the acceptance of individuals current crimes....?

my assumption was that you where just wrong
now you've explained, the only conclusions I can come to is either you are some sort of nihilist psychopath, or u just haven't really thought through yr argument

btw Ima lazy fukr and will txt 4ever
and 4 som1 who gets all het up about people not analysin and respondin 2yr points - my desert allegory (which I was quite pleased with) was rather casually dismissed. what wr yr issues wif it?

as 4u and me being mugs
2paraphrase Socrates - first things first, we're all mugs, sooner we realise it the better

anyway lets batter manure saturday. I h8 those basts, worst fans in the world.

PS OK OK mr check yr sources anti-wiki extremist - it was probably Plato putting his word in an already dead Socrates mouth but u get the gist

[DB10GOONER]

Bowzy's, the two of ya!

TS does have a point about "Western" economic strength being largely a product of the slave trade, but let's not forget that other elements of Imperialism and Colonialism also played a huge part too. The "West" has exploited and purloined the natural resources of African, Asian and Middle Eastern countries for hundreds of years.

Also, let's not forget that this is not a modern "Western" phenomenon; Imperialism is older than capitalism. The Roman, Persian, Macedonian, and Mongol empires (not forgetting the Catholic Church - always fond of a bit of plundering) all created Imperialist (and to a lesser extent in the Roman case, Capatalist) empires centuries ago.

Modern Capitalist Imperialism is a little subtler in that it usually only backs up it's economic ambitions with force as a last resort rather than just invading a country old style (although Iraq is a very obvious exception to the rule).

Capatalist Imperialism also methodically accrues capital through the organised exploitation of local populaces and the penetration and control of local import/export markets.

The modern "Eastern" or "Russian" model is similar in many ways but differs in that it is a form of Internal Imperialism. The majority of the billionaire Obligarchs that control those billion dollar industries started off as a group of millionaires. They were handed those industries as a "thank you" (bribe) for backing Yeltsin during the attempted communist coup in 1991. Those soon-to-be billionaire Obligarch's were able to form a peoples resistance mostly from workers in their factories.

Sorry that was so long, but I f*cking love history!!!

Politics, huh? Bollotix more like!!

Now, be NICE to each other... Debate is great, insults just suck.

[highburyJD]

good post (although I h8 when pople come over all mature and sensible - u can prove anything with facts and logic)

my new novembers resolution is2 playnice
which I normally do
just a wee bit stressed abooot Jabba rinsing our club

and my bigheadedness doesnae respond well to that particular flavour gibe
fat - check,
opinionated - check,
wanker - check,
incapable of understanding an argument - how about no you crazy dutch b*strd

you just wouldn't understand - is an unacceptable argument strategy

when a thought process takes one that way the correct methodology of expression is "I'm incapable of explaining this concept"

anyway me an TS r just shootin the shit (well I am - hope my random shite talkin doesnae offend msr Saunders)
but that redballs - he really does have arse-elbow differential issues

[26may1989]

I just want to say, this thread has morphed into the most fucked up, bananas, enjoyable, surreal discussion I've witnessed in a long time - well done lads!

[T.S]

HighburyJD,

No, my point is not that "historical bad behaviour by nation states necessitates the acceptance of individuals current crimes." I do not accept Uzmanov's crimes and I'm not entirely sure where you've got that from. Do enlighten me. Anyway, my point is that, although I do think that Usmanov's gains are ill-gotten, and therefore, am opposed to the idea of him taking any part in this Club, I think it's a bit rich of someone to come on here and start talking about how people like Usmanov and Abramovich have an obligation to their nations, when they themselves are living in a nation which is built upon an even more sinister institution than that of the corrupt Soviet state in which the Oligarchs thrived under Gorbachev. Does that mean that I think Usmanov and Abramovich are models of piety because of a comparison I've drawn between our economy and theirs? No. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't start spouting off about how much of a debt those two owe to their states when our nation owes a huge debt to the slave trade (or those affected by it, more specifically). I'm not making a political statement here, merely giving you my point of view. Hope that cleared it up.

As for your desert parallel; very good point. You have to understand though, that I am not justifying the role of Oligarchs in Russia. So although it was a decent point, it didn't really have anything to do with what I said.

Also, DB...fuck me! I had no idea you were quite the historian! Let's talk history...or politics if you wish

[Magic Hat]

Just out of curiosity, does Roman's governorship of one of the worst places in Russia, funding hospitals and schools out of his own pocket count as giving something back?

[T.S]

Oh, and by the way. Don't get me started on philosophy, HighburyJD. I could talk your arse off about Socrates...

...although I'm sure you, nor anyone else would want that!

[DB10GOONER]

HighburyJD,

No, my point is not that "historical bad behaviour by nation states necessitates the acceptance of individuals current crimes." I do not accept Uzmanov's crimes and I'm not entirely sure where you've got that from. Do enlighten me. Anyway, my point is that, although I do think that Usmanov's gains are ill-gotten, and therefore, am opposed to the idea of him taking any part in this Club, I think it's a bit rich of someone to come on here and start talking about how people like Usmanov and Abramovich have an obligation to their nations, when they themselves are living in a nation which is built upon an even more sinister institution than that of the corrupt Soviet state in which the Oligarchs thrived under Gorbachev. Does that mean that I think Usmanov and Abramovich are models of piety because of a comparison I've drawn between our economy and theirs? No. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't start spouting off about how much of a debt those two owe to their states when our nation owes a huge debt to the slave trade (or those affected by it, more specifically). I'm not making a political statement here, merely giving you my point of view. Hope that cleared it up.

As for your desert parallel; very good point. You have to understand though, that I am not justifying the role of Oligarchs in Russia. So although it was a decent point, it didn't really have anything to do with what I said.

Also, DB...fuck me! I had no idea you were quite the historian! Let's talk history...or politics if you wish

Yeah, unfortunately so. I loved History in school and still do to this day. I read mostly Historical and military non-fiction (and footy stuff too). If there's no footy on, give me a coke, a bag of nachos and feet up in front of the History Channel... bliss!

Absolutely HATE politics (as you might have guessed ) though... oh, and most politicians too.

[DB10GOONER]

Just out of curiosity, does Roman's governorship of one of the worst places in Russia, funding hospitals and schools out of his own pocket count as giving something back?

It certainly could be viewed that way. Or it could be looked upon as placation. Keep the locals reasonably happy and they won't hang you Mussolini style!! Also, with the ongoing purge of the Obligarchs by Putin, Roman's doing his utmost to raise his western profile and his popularity with the common man back home. It's harder to nail a people's champion with a big profile in the financially influential west...

Remember that Pablo Escobar did similar things (and to a greater extent) in Colombia. But then, he also blew an airliner out of the sky, killing 107 people on board (and 3 on the ground), just to kill one man, a presidential candidate who, it turns out, wasn't even on the plane... the shit.

[highburyJD]

No, my point is not that "historical bad behaviour by nation states necessitates the acceptance of individuals current crimes." I do not accept Uzmanov's crimes and I'm not entirely sure where you've got that from. Do enlighten me. Anyway, my point is that, although I do think that Usmanov's gains are ill-gotten, and therefore, am opposed to the idea of him taking any part in this Club, I think it's a bit rich of someone to come on here and start talking about how people like Usmanov and Abramovich have an obligation to their nations, when they themselves are living in a nation which is built upon an even more sinister institution than that of the corrupt Soviet state in which the Oligarchs thrived under Gorbachev. Does that mean that I think Usmanov and Abramovich are models of piety because of a comparison I've drawn between our economy and theirs? No. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't start spouting off about how much of a debt those two owe to their states when our nation owes a huge debt to the slave trade (or those affected by it, more specifically). I'm not making a political statement here, merely giving you my point of view. Hope that cleared it up.

As for your desert parallel; very good point. You have to understand though, that I am not justifying the role of Oligarchs in Russia. So although it was a decent point, it didn't really have anything to do with what I said.

may I rebutt m'ilord?
big dichotomy between slavetrade and robber baron, disaster capitalism, 'privitised' state assett stripping
morally not at all equivalent - at the end of the day the gangstergarches where playing extreme capitalism, a new game in which they made the rules. Robbing a state is the superpowed version of shop-lifting at tesco's - that 'victimless' crime moral ambivalence that helps thieves justify their actions. Maybe that sounds harsh - I'm a bit of a weirdo in that I've never even nicked a penny sweet (JD awards himself worthless online halo). Lots of schoolm8s and peeps I've known - who would be disgusted by the concept of robbing a person - would have a very different view of robbing a big business.
Obviously - if we are gonna drag this metaphor out (and why stop the habit of a lifetime) abramothief, jabba et al, rocked up at the tesco's wharehouse with a regiment of removal vans and sucked up every bean. But still - they didn't have to look their victims in the face when they stabbed them in the back. Whereas slave traders must have had a whole different bizarre self-justificatory dehumanisation based 'framing' strategy to get them through the day.

sorry getting a wee bit tangental
back 2the crux

robbing a state, as opposed2 vicously repressing and enslaving a non-homogenous group of people, may not be worse: but (the point) its a hell of a lot easier to punish.
Even the laws on the books @the time, which admittedly wr being perestroika'd away as oligits where piling in2 the rather non-glasnost rinsing of the states assets, are probably enough to repatri8 a fair old chunk of the stolen billions. A new dumas would find no little support4 the idea of a bit of robin hood economics.
The class action posturing of the naacp has never looked realistic. The oligarchs geting stung is a far more acceptable concept - its in the national psyche 4feks sake.... Oktober revolution any1? any1? Bueller?

so morally is their behaviour worse ... no
but their victim IS the st8 - so clearly they do have an obligation 2their nation
they have the money they nicked off them
whereas the slavetraders just bought money in2 our green unpleasant land - and the only peeps that suffered where foriegners (dark-skinned foriegners @that- the scariest kind)

and I still love my desertagory
abramascum pouring away other peoples water as they die of thirst
in the insane hope of his sandcastle havin a moat
is a perfect parrallell 4 the chavski experiment

s'all

[I Hate Hleb]

Just out of curiosity, does Roman's governorship of one of the worst places in Russia, funding hospitals and schools out of his own pocket count as giving something back?

AS WE ARE USING ALLEGORIES:

WELL, I IMAGINE IT'S A BIT LIKE A CRIMINAL ROBBING A BANK THEN CHUCKING THE MANAGER A TENNER TO GET THE BANK STAFF TEA AND BISCUITS!!

BY THE WAY, THIS THREAD HAS GOT A LITTLE TOO INTELLECTUAL FOR MY LIKING!! I'VE JUST DISCOVERED THE MEANING OF THE WORD ALLEGORY AND NEED TO CONSULT MY DICTIONARY EVERY OTHER SENTENCE BECAUSE OF YOU BRAIN-BOXES!

AND AS FOR TONY SAUNDERS, I'LL TALK SOCRATES WITH YOU!! THE GUY WAS A FINE PLAYER AND A VITAL MEMBER OF ONE OF THE BEST TEAMS NEVER TO WIN A WORLD CUP (BRAZIL IN 1982). PLUS, HE SMOKED AND COULD SING AND PLAY INSTRUMENTS AS WELL!! ALL IN ALL, HE UNDER-ACHIEVED AND DIDN'T MAKE THE MOST OF HIS TALENT. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE FELLA?

[Cus Geezer]

Just out of curiosity, does Roman's governorship of one of the worst places in Russia, funding hospitals and schools out of his own pocket count as giving something back?

Sorry it would be utterly utterly utterly laughable to even consider that one.

The Chukota province of Russia only has a population of 56,000 compared with 145,000,000 throughout the rest of the Russian Federation.

It's the equivalent of sucking all the money out of London and donating a bus shelter to the inhabitants of Foulness Island.

[Cus Geezer]

TS does have a point about "Western" economic strength being largely a product of the slave trade

Except that Spain and Portugal, the orginators of the Atlantic slave trade have had a weaker economy than say Japan, who had no involvement in the Atlantic slave trade.

I think it's a bit rich of someone to come on here and start talking about how people like Usmanov and Abramovich have an obligation to their nations, when they themselves are living in a nation which is built upon an even more sinister institution than that of the corrupt Soviet state in which the Oligarchs thrived under Gorbachev.

They have an obligation to their nations due to the extremely bent process of privatization in Russia in the late 80s/early 90s, how they appropriated their wealth in the first place.

And I think the fact that the slave trade was banned in Britain in the first half of the 19th century makes it a bit different seeing that the enormous flight of capital from Russia's resources to fund spoilt footballers is happening in this very decade. What would you like me to do, jump in a time machine to the sixteenth century and protest against the Atlantic slave trade as it is being formed?

Also, the beneficiaries of the ill gotten gains of the slave trade were the likes of us in Britain. The beneficaries of this are us in Britain again (to fund a football club that is doing a very good job of funding itself), how is it a bit rich to turn round and say 'no thanks pal'? Is this the logic 'come on you've accepted blood money in the past, it's a bit rich to turn it down now'.

Also interesting you note the slave trade, seeing that the Russian mafia seem to have a very prominant role in the modern version of the slave trade i.e. the people traffickers capitalising on the human misery that has ensued from post-soviet economic collapse.

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't start spouting off about how much of a debt those two owe to their states when our nation owes a huge debt to the slave trade (or those affected by it, more specifically).

So would it be a bit rich to state that Africans who sold other Africans as slaves owed a debt to Africa?

And we shouldn't spout off about the debt that these two owe to their states when it is us that would be gaining an advantage from it, making us guilty by association of we allow it to pass unnoticed?

Anyway, my point is that, although I do think that Usmanov's gains are ill-gotten, and therefore, am opposed to the idea of him taking any part in this Club

Then what the fuck are you moaning about?

However, if there’s anyone here guilty of resorting to ‘cheap insults’ I’m afraid it’s you.

And you're being condescending which is just as bad.

I merely disagreed with him but was quite passionate about it. I explained why, and that was because it was so narrow minded and possibly a little xenophobic.

You haven't really elaborated on exactly who are the victims of my xenophobia, which makes your accusations of me being faux liberal with regard to economic stability on Russia a bit, well, rich.