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@...

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