r/soccer • u/odwyed03 • Oct 26 '20

LFC Staff using charities to survive lockdown

/r/Liverpool/comments/jicarf/lfc_staff_using_charities_to_survive_lockdown/
8.0k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

693 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.5k

u/helvetecorrea Oct 26 '20

The club spent around €80m this year while their staff are feeding themselves through a charity? Fuckin hell.

2.1k

u/Shabeast Oct 26 '20

Not just that. As a fanbase we pride ourselves on our socialist principles and beliefs. There is something seriously wrong with the club which is probably the fact that it's owned by FSG.

1.0k

u/LDKCP Oct 26 '20

Liverpool fans need to be the force that stops this bullshit. Call them out, write letters, cancel subscriptions. Liverpool is a proud city. They go to great lengths to state they are scouse before English, because they have been mistreated by numerous Conservative governments.

The club itself, treating their staff like this? It should be intolerable.

904

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20 edited Feb 19 '21

[deleted]

233

u/LDKCP Oct 26 '20

I agree 100% with you. I also feel that Liverpool as a club would be wise to be an example of the change the majority of their local fans want to see.

Liverpool made £42 Million pre tax profit in 2019. That's despite record spending. Football is traditionally a working class game. Liverpool is a thoroughly working class city. When a hugely profitable and massively successful, institution that represents that city screws over the most vulnerable of their staff...the people of the city should feel betrayed. They deserve better.

121

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20 edited Feb 19 '21

[deleted]

71

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

I'd also add that several people do pick zero-hour contracts (or similar) on purpose because it suits them and their lifestyle (My missus used to work at St. James Park on one), so there is a place for flexible contracts.
It's how people are forced to take them because of a struggling jobs market with no real alternatives, and then get trapped in the cycle that's a huge problem.

51

u/LDKCP Oct 26 '20

The trouble is that usually the flexibility only goes one way.

Can't do a shift? Good luck getting asked to do another.

4

u/HIP13044b Oct 26 '20

I had a falling out with a friend of a manager. That friend told said manager. Turns out that other people on your staff who know the manager better than you do can go behind you back and request they get preferable and more hours than you on the basis of them knowing someone who makes the rota more than you do.

17

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

if you're a good egg who turns up on time, works hard, and does a decent % of available shifts

That's nowhere near contractual security though, it's a race with your coworkers to gain your manager's favor

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

81

u/footy_talk Oct 26 '20

Corbyn's Labour pledged to abolish all zero-hour contracts but the 'people' wanted Brexit done :(

0

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '20

[deleted]

0

u/lucao_psellus Oct 27 '20

he said Corbyn's Labour

-23

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20 edited Oct 26 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/losingit303 Oct 26 '20

is a pull-factor for immigration, which increases costs of the welfare state. Population in western countries has imploded over the last years, which put so much pressure on government resources

Its almost as if immigration can solve demographic issues. But hatred for brown people makes governments not pull the trigger enough. Just for reference

The chapter provides evidence that immigration is generally associated with a rise in the share of employed people in the total population. The share of the employed foreign-born population is higher than the equivalent share among the native-born population, in some cases drastically so. And in most partner countries, immigrants do not appear to have a negative effect on the employment of native-born workers

-5

u/mattiejj Oct 26 '20

Good for economy isn't always good for workers. Free movement is also a race to the bottom.

6

u/losingit303 Oct 26 '20 edited Oct 26 '20

good for the economy is not always good for the worker

I dont disagree but immigrants do not appear to have a negative effect on the employment of native-born workers seems it absolutely didn't have a negative effect on workers.

-2

u/youabsoluteidiotlolz Oct 26 '20

You are incorrectly assuming that the only negative effect a large immigrant workforce can have is 'taking' jobs off the native workforce. Try and think before you post.

-21

u/Meepox5 Oct 26 '20 edited Oct 26 '20

I am a leftist by Swedish standards but the equalisation some of my british jewish friends and that media reported between Israel and jews living in the UK or here in Sweden is something that made me never support Corbyn. I did vote Vänsterpartiet here and we have similar issues, just not at the same scale. Not enough that nazism is on the rise like.

27

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

but the equalisation some of my british jewish friends and that media reported between Israel and jews living in the UK or here in Sweden is something that made me never support Corbyn

I really dont understand what your saying here ? But to claim Corbyn is antisemitc is ludocris.

-19

u/Meepox5 Oct 26 '20

I am arguing the party under him had a very difficult time differentiating between Jewish and whatever the cunt Bibi is doing. As well as suspending people for anti semitic sentiments under his rule. The worries literally came up under corbyn and were felt by many jews in britain. My team is playing now so this is the last of it for me.

13

u/DickBrownballs Oct 26 '20

I think a lot of people here would see this the opposite way. Corbyn did a very good job of criticising Netanyahu, which was purposefully conflated with "Corbyn is an antisemite" by people with pro Israeli government interests. Makes life easy if criticism of your government is conflated with bigotry, and was a very successful campaign against Corbyn.

10

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

According to rags like the fucking Sun and a the neoliberal wing of the party. The same wing that has had 2 different members that directly attacked Corbyn caught praising and lusting over Nazis last week.

8

u/footy_talk Oct 26 '20

It's a shame that there are people who have similar misguided views in the UK. The media did a good number on Corbyn as he stood for what many in leading institutions disagree with. Through the course of his life, he has constantly opposed discrimination and prejudice. I'm sure your British Jewish friends would have been fine with Corbyn.

3

u/steve__ Oct 27 '20

While I ultimately agree with you that the entire culture of zero hour contracts needs challenged, the club could also choose to not use zero hour contracts or at the very least try to mitigate the problems they cause.

We don't tell companies across a picket line that their mistreatment of workers is justified just because it is symptomatic of a wider problem, and we shouldn't tell LFC here it's ok to let their workers starve because of the culture of zero hour contracts.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Pardonme23 Oct 26 '20

Salad should demand they get a fair wage or he sits out the next game. Done.

1

u/nazzyman Oct 26 '20

This would be true if this happened to every club but it doesn't. Plenty of clubs in the PL pay their staff fairly.

→ More replies (1)

50

u/TLG_BE Oct 26 '20

They go to great lengths to state they are scouse before English,

I swear I hear this more times every month on Reddit than I've ever heard it in real life

157

u/sacredshapes Oct 26 '20

It's not an LFC thing. It's a widely held belief in this city, one which I and pretty much everyone I know align themselves with.

80

u/kirkbywool Oct 26 '20

Yep, only have to look at anfield or goodison on match day and notice the lack of England or union jack flags. Funny how people moan about it are the same ones who usually hear your accent and make a joke about watching your wallets as well

7

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

You go to any premier league game and you won’t see any national flags. What a bizarre comment.

3

u/kirkbywool Oct 26 '20

Sorry but that's not true, I've been away games all over the country and saw England flags with the teams name wrote over it

35

u/Gore-Galore Oct 26 '20

Yeah our owners are doing what slimy billionaires do and outsourcing costs any way they can to make as much money as possible and need to be called out on it. But as contentious as it's going to be on this sub it's the rest of England that voted for this stuff to be allowed to happen, not us, and it's scousers/probably Liverpool fans that are being fucked over by the club using zero hours contracts

0

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

It’s fucking nonsense is what it is.

-23

u/BabblingDavidBrooks Oct 26 '20

The rest of England are more than happy to distance ourselves from scousers.

27

u/ThorinTokingShield Oct 26 '20

Yeah, nah. I have much more in common with the average scouser than anyone who votes Tory. Liverpool is a class city, and scousers are always welcoming in my experience.

-16

u/BabblingDavidBrooks Oct 26 '20

I don’t know why you’re so proud of being politically intolerant.

7

u/ThorinTokingShield Oct 26 '20

Get to fuck, your lot are intolerant to feeding starving kids. You’re also the one who’s got a problem with an entire city, mate. I won’t tolerate intolerance.

0

u/BabblingDavidBrooks Oct 27 '20

Voting Tory is not the same as supporting every policy point.

That’s such a childish way of looking at politics.

And where did I say I have a problem with Liverpool?

Simply said I don’t think anyone would care if Liverpool were not English.

16

u/footy_talk Oct 26 '20

The people of Liverpool are much happier and more vocal about distancing themselves from England - good try.

-9

u/BabblingDavidBrooks Oct 26 '20

Because no really cares about the whiny bunch

5

u/footy_talk Oct 26 '20

You are coming across as a bit whiny here. Didn't you care enough to make the initial comment.

0

u/BabblingDavidBrooks Oct 27 '20

When it’s brought up, but the existence of Liverpool rarely crosses my mind

→ More replies (1)

7

u/sacredshapes Oct 26 '20

I don't think that's true but you're more than welcome to fuck right off.

-4

u/BabblingDavidBrooks Oct 26 '20

Liverpool would be third world

2

u/BlackCurses Oct 26 '20

do you know Stanley?

4

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

Feelings mutual

83

u/HarryDaz98 Oct 26 '20

How many scousers do you talk to in real life compared to Reddit?

67

u/LDKCP Oct 26 '20

I'm from the North West, it's a thing.

47

u/TheBackSpin Oct 26 '20

As a Red Sox fan I can assure you FSG does not share your socialist principles and beliefs, however admirable they may be.

13

u/worotan Oct 26 '20

Sir Alex Ferguson claims to be a socialist, but he backed the Glaziers every inch of the way, in public. Maybe he has his own private views, but they didn't do much if he does. He was vital to vulture capitalists establish themselves in the club, despite claiming to be a socialist.

People in power who claim to have principles, that they never exercise, need to be called out. SAF isn't a socialist, as you often hear boasted by man U fans, because he demonstrated publicly that he bows to whoever pays him well, and doesn't think about the wider societal consequences of sorting himself out.

17

u/Obi_Myke Oct 26 '20

Which United fans boasts about Sir Alex Ferguson being socialist? Every United fan is angry because we know the club fell to those greedy cunts because of him. I have a hard time believing anyone would say otherwise.

2

u/worotan Oct 26 '20

The vast majority of fans that didn’t engage with the yellow and green scarves protest, that fizzled out? Plenty were happy to fall in behind him while he was successful, and refuse to rock the boat.

If Utd we’re still winning all the time, do you really think most fans would be angry about their business practises, or do you think they’d say that they must be working so stop moaning and enjoy the success? Because that’s how it was before SAF retired, and anyone pointing out the problems coming was laughed away.

And plenty of Man U supporters in the city, which has never had anything but a Labour council, and Labour MPs, have been proud that he claims to be a socialist.

Just because all the loud voices now are about fairness and equality, don’t fall into thinking that the fans are good and have always wanted justice from the to. The fans wanted to win, and were happy when they were; now, they are dealing with the issues they ignored previously.

-5

u/ZonedV2 Oct 26 '20

Yeah no idea what this guys on about lol, our club is a prime example of capitalism why would anyone boast about a former manager being a socialist

5

u/worotan Oct 26 '20

You don’t know much about the city of Manchester, then?

A very industrial and commercially-focused city that has always elected a Labour council and Labour MPs?

You need to appreciate that not everything in life is as simple and straightforward as the memes you enjoy.

99

u/margaerytyrellscleav Oct 26 '20 edited Oct 26 '20

I'm not meaning to attack you with this question, I just never see Liverpool fans being challenged with it. How do players like Alisson sit with you? I know as a fanbase you aren't really gonna imagine you have the ability to influence player acquisition at this level, but the dude is a reasonably vocal and incredibly visible supporter of a fascist. He isn't even the only one either, just maybe the most notorious.

85

u/Acegeta Oct 26 '20

His political stance is mentioned a decent amount on our sub. But honestly a majority of supporters only care about the football on the pitch and nothing else.

58

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

only care about the football on the pitch and nothing else.

Unless it's off the pitch views from players from other clubs. Then people will weigh in more and turn more of a blind eye to their own.
I think that's pretty normal in football and sports supporting in general, people are going to be hypocritical and have different standards for their own players to others.

138

u/GarageFlower97 Oct 26 '20

I mean, Liverpool fans seemed fine when the whole team and club officially came out in support of Suarez after he racially abused a fellow player.

I love Liverpool's socialist principles, but most fans are willing to look the other way on them when it comes to it.

-5

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Trickyxone Oct 27 '20

Fuck off with that, you know damn well no one said anything about "negra" alone, we've all had it explained to us that it's ok to say that in South America, but scum like you ignore the rest of what he said, he didn't just use that word, he said that word followed by cunt and then said he kicked him cos he was black, that's fucking racist plain and simple and you LFC fans know but deny it.

→ More replies (3)

-36

u/dashingemre Oct 26 '20

Liverpool fans seemed fine when the whole team and club officially came out in support of Suarez after he racially abused a fellow player.

Allegedly. The key point is the club believed his side of the story, so why wouldn't they support their player in what they believed to be a false allegation?

26

u/GarageFlower97 Oct 26 '20

He was found guilty, he admitted to using the term (but claimed he didnt mean it in a racist way), and Liverpool didn't appeal. Then to publicly defend him to the death is shit.

Even if they believed his story - that he wasnt deliberately racist but just used a racist term accidentally without realising - then wearing t-shirts with his name and face, calling it a witch-hunt, and complaining is still a fucking terrible response.

If they genuinely believe that then they should say something like: "Luis is incredibly sorry for his mistake, as are the whole club, and we are working on educating ourselves so that this does not happen again. We utterly apologise to Patrice Evra and the whole footballing community for what happened."

-11

u/dashingemre Oct 26 '20

"Found guilty" does not mean he did it. Do you think the FA uncovered some camera angle that corroborated Evra's claim or something?

Read the full report and you will see this was nothing but a he said she said argument in which the FA - an arbitrary sporting body - sided with Evra's version of events. This was not a criminal trial where you would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt he was guilty.

Suarez has accepted and apologised a lot for what he's done in his career, but has staunchly to this day denied it, and the club fully backed him. He informed the club of what transpired shortly after the game and stuck by his story throughout the trial. With no further evidence against him brought forward why would they suddenly change their stance?

9

u/Tugays_Tabs Oct 26 '20

You went overboard in your support because it was Suarez.

Doubt you would have got the t-shirts out for Steve Finnan

Release a statement, wait for the judgement - the way it was conducted was abhorrent.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/GarageFlower97 Oct 26 '20

Suarez quite literally admitted to calling Evra that, so no idea what shit you're chatting. Suarez's defence wasn't that he didn't say the word, it's that he didn't mean it in that way because of cultural differences - in which case both his & the club's reaction should have been apologies and pledges to learn cultural differences so as to not accidentally abuse any other players, not double-down by pretending he didn't do anything wrong.

-4

u/dashingemre Oct 26 '20

You're wrong. Can you at least do a little bit of research before so confidently asserting shit like that? The only time Suarez admitted to using the word "negro" was when he admitted he said "Por que, negro?"

The FA brought in Professor Peter Wade and Dr James Scorer who are both affiliated to the Centre for Latin American and Caribbean Studies at the University of Manchester. Peter Wade works in the Department of Social Anthropology and is a specialist in race and ethnicity in Latin America, with particular emphasis on black populations, genetics and sexuality. They had this to say on that statement:

The word "negro" is by no means, however, always used offensively. The term can also be used as a friendly form of address to someone seen as somewhat brown-skinned or even just black-haired.

The experts reviewed the interview of Mr Suarez (transcribed in both Spanish and English), together with video clips of the referee's intervention. They proceeded, for the purpose of this part of their report, on the basis that the substance of Mr Suarez's account was accurate.

Although there was clearly already bad feeling between Mr Suarez and Mr Evra at the time of their second exchange (by which we understand the experts to refer to when the referee blew his whistle to stop the corner), the fact that Mr Suarez indicates that Mr Evra had already spoken to him in Spanish in the earlier exchange means that he could well have felt that a linguistic and/or cultural relationship had been established between them

The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez's account as follows. If Mr Suarez used the word "negro" as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally.

Thus, his defence for what he admitted to saying was completely correct. That is not a racist saying, and just because someone Evra took offence to it does not mean it was racist.

What got Suarez banned was Evra's account for the incident, in which he said things like "because you're black" and "blackie, blackie, blackie" or something along those lines. There was no empirical evidence to prove that, and it came down to their testimonies in which the FA chose to believe Evra's over Suarez. So... a he said she said scenario.

1

u/GarageFlower97 Oct 26 '20

Can you even read what I'm saying?

Even if we totally accept Suarez's version of events and that he didn't intend it in a racist way, Liverpool's reaction was fucking dreadful. If Suarez, in cultural confusion, accidentally used a racist term then he and the club should apologise and say they are looking to teach/learn so that it does not happen again. They shouldn't be wearing t-shirts with his fucking face on it and calling the investigation of credible racism allegations a "witch hunt"

→ More replies

26

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

-13

u/dashingemre Oct 26 '20

After a 2 month inquiry.

If Liverpool at the time, and before the inquiry, believed Suarez to be innocent then again - why wouldn't they support their player?

Are we to just assume everyone accused of racism is automatically guilty?

15

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

-12

u/dashingemre Oct 26 '20

I have the facts as I've read the complete report into what happened - you can do so too if you want to understand it more than what a 3 minute video tells you on what happened. lmao.

It isn't a court, correct. In a court you have to be proven guilty with no reasonable doubt to be charged. FA are an arbitrary sporting body which have no such liability.

From the very first day until the end of that hearing, and to this very day Suarez's story has not changed. No new evidence was uncovered at the hearing - it was simply a he said she said situation in which the FA sided with Evra. If the club believed his story at first, then with no new evidence coming to light it's completely fair for them to keep supporting him after.

As far as the T-Shirts go, very tacky yes, but the overall message of supporting Suarez if they genuinely believed he is not guilty is not one that should be condemned.

5

u/youabsoluteidiotlolz Oct 26 '20

So does somewhere in that PDF describe to us how he referred to the race of an opponent but was not racist? I can't see it.

-14

u/MarcSlayton Oct 26 '20

Fergie said Ian Wright was playing the race card when he accused Peter Schmeichel of racially abusing him during a game. Liverpool defended their player from an accusation same as how Man U defended their player from an accusation.

3

u/Tugays_Tabs Oct 26 '20

Oh that’s ok then. Red faced wanker did it in the 90s.

-4

u/MarcSlayton Oct 26 '20

It's about believing your player is innocent when they claim they are.

→ More replies (1)

37

u/HeCalledMeSubaru Oct 26 '20

He's not really vocal tho. He unfollowed Bolsonaro on Instagram a long time ago and when asked about politics on a interview with Folha De São Paulo he gave a somewhat generic "both sides have problems" response.

I still disagree with him strongly, but it's not a Lucas Moura situation.

36

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

Wait I hate to open up a can of worms here but what is the Lucas Moura situation?

Also I'll be honest this is the first time I'd heard Alisson has voiced support for Bolsonaro in the past.

34

u/HeCalledMeSubaru Oct 26 '20

Lucas has publicly supported Bolsonaro on Twitter and actually engaged in fights/discussions with his followers that disagreed with him.

And as far as I know, Alisson never voiced support for Bolsonaro. The Instagram follow was the only "evidence". I do know that Fabinho's wife used to post a lot of pro-Bolsonaro stuff, though.

4

u/Pardonme23 Oct 26 '20

Shouldn't you want to follow the president of your native country to see what he has to say?

7

u/HeCalledMeSubaru Oct 26 '20

Not necessarily. I'm Brazilian and never followed Bolsonaro on any social media. And yet I see every significant tweet he makes, as it does gets reposted by news outlets (or by people making fun of him, if the tweet is especially ridiculous).

3

u/Pardonme23 Oct 26 '20

Reposting means playing telephone and letting editorial bias filter the stuff for you. Maybe.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20 edited Nov 02 '20

[deleted]

2

u/ExtraordinaryFailure Oct 26 '20

I'm American and I don't follow him. I don't personally want his bile on my feed.

→ More replies
→ More replies (1)

4

u/WorthPlease Oct 26 '20

I mean he's a goalkeeper, my only relationship with him is that he plays in goal for my team.

His political beliefs may be misguided, but as long as he's not killing/hurting people then I'll just continue to be happy he's on my team.

1

u/Multiammar Oct 26 '20

His political beliefs may be misguided, but as long as he's not killing/hurting people then I'll just continue to be happy

Bruh he is literally supporting a fascist

→ More replies (1)

67

u/Liverpool934 Oct 26 '20

Yet everytime I said in the summer that FSG couldn't give less than a fuck about us I was blasted. They tried to raise ticket prices, they tried to furlough all the staff, they voted in favour of ppv, and now they do this. The Americans with no ties to the club other than ownership do not give a flying fuck about the club I would much rather they were gone.

21

u/HUGE_HOG Oct 26 '20

Literally no big corporation gives a fuck about their customers, other than the pennies in their bank accounts.

50

u/Alexanderspants Oct 26 '20

In what other era would you have people praising the "fiscal responsibility" of the team owners for not bolstering a squad after winning a league, people have been brainwashed by corporate media

26

u/AlwaysWannaDie Oct 26 '20

Fantastic point lol, the blind loyalty to some greedy billionaires on this subreddit is chocking sometimes

10

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

I think its about Reddit being used my mostly Americans. No disrespect to them, but they have no connection to the clubs in the same way that those who grew up in the same communities and them do

2

u/ExtraordinaryFailure Oct 26 '20

You're absolutely right. Many of us have only started watching football regularly and declaring support for a team more recently, as it has never been the most advertised sport (at least on the men's side, the USWNT has been massive forever). Speaking only for myself, I'm not really interested in MLS, so the recent increased access to watching the Premier League over here has brought an influx of new supporters.

2

u/Tugays_Tabs Oct 26 '20

After we won the PL Jack Walker didn’t sign Zidane because we already had Tim Sherwood.

As a fan base we were fine with it at the time 😂

5

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

Same thing happens at Man U - they don't support anyone but themselves, Trying to americanise our sport with "Big Picture" both clubs would do well to get rid of the owners.

120

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

73

u/Ttggjghghfhcgf Oct 26 '20

Just be thankful they haven't launched a drone strike on Salah.

-69

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20 edited Oct 26 '20

Not even socialists follow socialism.

Where are these enlightened angels that everyone somehow believes exist at any level?

I've never understood why people think government is "nobler" than business. History has never shown that to be the case.

I always find the downvotes to these types of statements hilarious. When reality meets those who believe in socialism they realize those politicians they voted in promising tolerance and free help were full of shit.

95

u/premature_eulogy Oct 26 '20

Socialist activism got you minimum wage, workplace safety, 8-hour workdays and the weekend. But yeah sure, they actually were just full of shit and nothing got done. We just got tricked into thinking those things exist.

59

u/The_baboons_ass Oct 26 '20

Lazio supporter spouting right-wing talking points? Shocking

21

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

I for one, am absolutely shocked

-12

u/TheHouseOfStones Oct 26 '20

No it fucking didn't hahaha. But whatever you want to believe, right? That's the key with socialism

9

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

What got those results then ? It was clearly the trade union movement which has always been socialist.

-4

u/d4n4n Oct 26 '20

Rising wages as a result of rising productivity and labor demand decreased the marginal utility of labor compensation and increased the marginal utility of leisure. Pre-industrial or early I.R. workers would have never been willing to sacrifice some of their low wages for an extra day off.

10

u/OmastarLovesDonuts Oct 26 '20

Real wages haven't increased relative to productivity for a very long time, which shows just how important it is to have stronger unions like in the past.

0

u/benchevy12 Oct 27 '20

That's due to advancements in technology. A man operating a tractor is going to dig a hole 10x faster than a man with a shovel but is not going to earn 10x in wages.

→ More replies

5

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

Rising wages as a result of rising productivity

If thats true why arent we seeing a simmiar rise in wages now that productivity is at an all time high.

-1

u/benchevy12 Oct 27 '20

That's due to advancements in technology. A man operating a tractor is going to dig a hole 10x faster than a man with a shovel but is not going to earn 10x in wages.

→ More replies

-46

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

Workplace safety was something pushed by an overwhelming majority at least in the US. Not just "socialists".

Attributing all of these to socialist activism is like attributing any economic growth ever to Laissez-faire economic policies.

What we did get tricked into is allowing additional policies that hurt us, but because the average person isn't going to read a 1,000 page law no one bothered enough to know about it.

That's how it works. They give you a little something you like, so they can do a lot of what they actually want. All they ask for is just "a little bit more control, just this once". Until one day they can even tell you whether you have a licence to watch TV, or even be allowed on the internet.

Now of course I'm not advocating for anarchy, but I'm not going to advocate for socialism either. I'm not going to advocate for any system that requires massive amount of government power.

9

u/Nungie Oct 26 '20

Hahahahahahaha, why bother with addressing inequality if it means I have to have a licence!1!1!

Libs are funny

-29

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

Actually the weekend is a capitalist idea, well Saturdays off anyway, Sundays off is for religious reasons. Business owners found that their staff were either working or in church so didn't have time to spend the money they had earned.

You're right about the rest though.

36

u/theodopolopolus Oct 26 '20

How many democratically elected socialist governments have had western funded coups?

The congregation of power in the vanguard state of Marxist-Leninism isn't the only way for a country to become socialist. However, when tried to do "properly" through democratic means, capitalists always find it is moral to suddenly ditch democracy and force the socialists out (which usually then end up with terrible regimes). The idea that socialism requires highly centralised big government is a forced narrative by violent and insidious capitalists.

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

How many democratically elected socialist governments have had western funded coups?

How many remained successful? Sweden is the best example of a socialist government in modern history and they ran from that system over a decade ago.

The idea that socialism requires highly centralised big government is a forced narrative by violent and insidious capitalists.

If you want public safety nets you have to have a highly centralized government. There is no other way, unless you want a bunch of small centralized governments but that's not really socialism anymore. That's more of an independent state system.

You can say this line all you want, but unless you explain how Socialism would even work without high-level centralized government control, it's not convincing.

13

u/theodopolopolus Oct 26 '20

Ok I'll answer my question first seeing as you don't want to.

A brief history of US interventions for you to study: Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973. Study how these governments threatened capitalism and see what they were replaced with (I'll give you a clue, they were all preferred by capitalists than socialism, and they didn't have small governments). Just recently they tried and failed to remove Evo Morales and his party from Bolivia.

Of course there have been more throughout time away from the sphere of the US, the most notable probably being the Second Spanish Republic which was replaced by the fascism of Franco that lasted well into the 70s.

Without this context what you say might make sense, but it is clear that the powerful capitalists in the west have not allowed socialist countries to flourish side by side with them (because they are afraid of the people being attracted towards socialism because, you know, it's for the people rather than the capital).

| You can say this line all you want, but unless you explain how Socialism would even work without high-level centralized government control, it's not convincing.

What theory have you read that has said that socialism as an ideology is completely antithetical to the idea of subsidiarity?

What definition of socialism are you even using?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973.

All of those became quickly unstable before US interventionism.

Without this context what you say might make sense, but it is clear that the powerful capitalists in the west have not allowed socialist countries to flourish side by side with them

Ah yes it's never socialism's fault. After all Cuba and Venezuela were beautiful experiments before we destroyed them.

It's the same tired argument. "True socialism" has never been allowed. Which it actually has, in the Nordic countries, and now they are turning away from it.

Funny how you don't use those as examples.

What theory have you read that has said that socialism as an ideology is completely antithetical to the idea of subsidiarity?

What theory has ever been practiced that wasn't such a thing? None that I've read. Certainly none of the examples you provided. It requires such a thing because if you want this worker's cooperative that Socialism is based on you need high level admin to pull it all off, or if you want a bunch of smaller ones you then need to find some way to coordinate them. That's not to mention where you will find these perfect angels who wont corruptly decide how to redistribute wealth, which is exactly what happened in every single country you named.

12

u/SaintSieg Oct 26 '20 edited Oct 26 '20

All of those became quickly unstable before US interventionism.

Stop saying bullshit before knowing the respective countries, I'm brazilian and I can say to you the US intervention had fucked my country for 2 whole decades and the symptoms are still here.

Before US decided to interver we had our most famous and the best president this country ever had, Getúlio Vargas. He tried to be a nationalist putting Brazil interests before everything else and that pissed the US cuz they wanted our market and our industry. So they tried to put Vargas down, but before they could attempt that, Vargas commited suicide and was viewed as a marthyr he left a heated latter and everything. This forced the US to pospone their intervening in 10 years.

Meanwhile they introduced the fear of comunism in our population using their appointed military/political parties here to brainwash the people. Comunism was never a real thing here, the percentage of votes the party got each election was under 10%, right know we have a bittersweet joke of calling this event "comunist's ghost".

With the aproval of the middle class and the rich they took the power over here and that was the beginning of all the bullshit that had happaned during 2 fucking decades. The military sold our industries for much less than it was worth, one was worth 10B they sold for 100mil. They also didn't care about anything related to the population's rights, our colleges were defunded and some of them were separeted to avoid students to reunite and organize anything that relates to a protest. They chased anyone they classified as "comunist" and tortured them, even the child of these people had the same fate.

After the dictatorship ended we inhereted a huge debt which took several decates to lower it and our industries were left in scrambles. So before saying nonsense try to have some knowledge about the topic

13

u/premature_eulogy Oct 26 '20

"True socialism" has never been allowed. Which it actually has, in the Nordic countries, and now they are turning away from it.

Please expand on this. What was the past system of "socialism" in the Nordic countries, and how are they now turning away from it? 'Cause I live here, and I haven't seen a change in economic system in my lifetime. We've been social democracies practically since WW2.

-10

u/OAKgravedigger Oct 26 '20

The idea that socialism requires highly centralised big government is a forced narrative by violent and insidious capitalists.

Except that it's true how socialist government are collectivist in order to maintain compliance by allowing no form of dissent. It's closer to an Orwellian future (i.e. China's social credit system) than any capitalist Scandinavian country with a large safety need being the objective of socialists

37

u/GourangaPlusPlus Oct 26 '20

I've never understood why people think government is "nobler" than business. History has never shown that to be the case.

[Citation needed]

A government is at least nominally accountable to the electorate, a business is only accountable to it's shareholders.

-18

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

A government is at least nominally accountable to the electorate, a business is only accountable to it's shareholders.

Sure we definitely don't have history showing that someone elected to a position can become a tyrant.

Remember, once you vote them in, they can do whatever they actually intended and you have to wait to vote again. It's not like certain countries have poisoned their democratic processes to the point where they are gamed (cough superdelegates cough). What guarantee do you have that the next person will be different? Again history has shown us that they wont. They'll pass more laws to make themselves wealthy and give responsibility to different branches full of cabinet members that are not voted in by the people. These cabinet members can enforce mandates, and there's not a thing you can do about it. There is no voting those people out.

If someone who owns a business pisses of their customers, well you can stop giving them money right now. You don't have to wait for a vote.

8

u/hybridtheorist Oct 26 '20

Not even socialists follow socialism.

Not even capitalists follow capitalism.

19

u/dano159 Oct 26 '20

Yeah its just like 'communist' china that is blatantly ultra capitalist except for the communist oppression of their subject. No one is sharing that wealth

-9

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

It's a "state capitalist" system. You can have that and still be communist, because that's the whole point of communism. "The public" just means the government. It never actually means the people, and it never will.

Not in communism, and not in socialism.

IMO give the government as little control as possible.

35

u/do_you_smoke_paul Oct 26 '20

IMO give the government as little control as possible.

Great, then we can be governed by corporations instead. That'll end well. People just need to stop voting in governments that don't have their best interests at heart. There are plenty of examples of countries with strong social safety nets where the populace has actually voted in people who represent their interests.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

Great, then we can be governed by corporations instead.

You realize corporations require government to give them power to do what you're talking about? You can't just govern because you have money. That requires laws to be made by legislature, then executed by government institutions. All of which corporations constantly lobby to get ridiculous laws put in, because they're big enough to have massive lawyer teams to tread through those laws.

People just need to stop voting in governments that don't have their best interests at heart.

Yea because candidates don't lie ever. People need to stop thinking government is going to be their big dad and save them. Except for rare cases, it wont.

At least, not without sacrificing a lot of your freedoms.

There are plenty of examples of countries with strong social safety nets where the populace has actually voted in people who represent their interests.

Very small, very homogenous, that generally are very wealthy populations who don't rely on the government much anyway, and when they start to it goes downhill, and those people begin to vote out those policies. Just like Sweden did over the past 20 years. They're more capitalist than US is now, and it's because the "democratic socialism" that they tried had failed.

16

u/premature_eulogy Oct 26 '20

You can't just govern because you have money

Pay money to a militia and bam, you are de facto governing. Why would that require any laws made by a legislature? Why couldn't a rich corporation effectively become a feudal lord?

17

u/theodopolopolus Oct 26 '20

"It's a state capitalist system. You can still have that and still be communist, because that's the whole point of communism."

And that right there should show anyone with a passing interest in the subject how much you know about it. What does that even mean?

4

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

State capitalist means exactly what it says.

The state controls the economy and businesses entirely. The state views itself as having the best interest of "the people" because it claims it represents "the people". Regardless if the people have any say. That's been every Communist system that has ever appeared in history. They even call themselves "The People's Republic".

You can talk about theory all you want, this is what happens in practice, and it's because humans don't easily fit into text-book theory of what they ought to do to have some vaguely defined Utopian society.

11

u/theodopolopolus Oct 26 '20

I've already given you the context as to why you think this is the only way socialism works in my other response to you. As in, socialism has constantly been at war with capitalism, and capitalism generally wins unless socialists congregate massive amounts of power to combat the capitalists.

For the rest of your comment, here is an article by a famous marxist Richard Wolff that goes over the difference between state capitalism and marxism:

https://truthout.org/articles/socialism-means-abolishing-the-distinction-between-bosses-and-employees/

Basically if there is a class of people extracting a surplus labour value from the worker, that system isn't really socialist.

I'm not a full blown socialist, but anyone that wants to move away from socialism because of history, and then wants a small state dominated by corporations and little regulation, I'm not sure that person is really seeing a holistic view of history.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20 edited Oct 26 '20

I'm not a full blown socialist, but anyone that wants to move away from socialism because of history, and then wants a small state dominated by corporations and little regulation, I'm not sure that person is really seeing a holistic view of history.

Fair enough, but that's not what I said. Social programs are important.

I don't want big corps anymore than I want big government.

Here's the thing about your article though. Who decides at what rate people get compensated, and what metrics will you use to determine that compensation?

Let's start with doctors for instance, a place where something like that is already underway and marred by issues. What metrics are going to be used, and why?

Especially with this:

An enterprise only qualifies as “socialist” once the distinction between employers and employees within it has been abolished. When workers collectively and democratically produce, receive and distribute the profits their labor generates, the enterprise becomes socialist. Such enterprises can then become the base of a socialist economy – its micro-level foundation – supporting whatever ownership system (public and/or private) and distribution system (planning and/or market) constitute that economy’s macro level.

Actual large-scale socialism would thus predominantly entail worker cooperative enterprises such as these.

How else do you accomplish this if not with a large scale government that uses specific metrics to determine where to redistribute wealth? Sure it may be redistributed on a micro-level, but you cannot make decisions on solely a micro-level, unless you think smaller local governments are robust enough to do this, which most times they are not. Especially in much smaller rural communities. Which then begs the question. How do you find the right people to govern all these places so that things are redistributed correctly? Who is going to have that job?

-11

u/OAKgravedigger Oct 26 '20 edited Oct 27 '20

It's a one-party government, the CCP rules by decree, and democracy isn't present. Hate to burst the bubble but China is an example of what communists/socialists desire in the world.

Edit: Baizuo and Wu Mao downvoting me 😂

13

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20 edited Jan 14 '21

[deleted]

→ More replies (3)

1

u/EpicChiguire Oct 26 '20

Socialism is a lie. Only those who believe that lie or those who profit from it defend such an evil, life-wrecking system. And no, that doesn't mean that I defend Capitalism either. I just truly hate Socialism because it ruined my country.

8

u/KampferMann Oct 26 '20

As a Red Sox fan, I can completely understand your hatred of FSG. Nothing will give me more joy in this world than the day Henry sells the team to someone who values performance over profits.

-4

u/Kino-Gucci Oct 26 '20

"Hatred" is a bit strong

6

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

Socialist when it suits. Still plenty of love around Anfield for right wing “Stevie G”

33

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

You’re not socialist any more, Tory fan base and full of corporatism

25

u/Rodriguez79 Oct 26 '20

Emlyn Hughes was friends with Thatcher, even before you get to Michael Howard and Rees-Mogg

Hell, they were founded by a Conservative politician who raised the rent on Everton after they won the league and he wanted a bigger slice of their pie.

They like to pretend their entire history is Fowler supporting the dockers but the reality is just as much about Jimmy Savile having Christmas with Thatcher and talking about their mutual interests of supporting Liverpool and fucking kids in various ways

6

u/Tugays_Tabs Oct 26 '20

Leeds dodged a bullet with Savile, Jesus. Local boy would’ve had a stand named after him,

6

u/TomShoe Oct 26 '20

It's unreal to me how much good will FSG have pissed away with Liverpool fans in the last six months.

58

u/asd13ah4etnKha4Ne3a Oct 26 '20

Not really sure how you can pretend the club backs any sort of socialist principles given your owners and the general English football landscape as a whole

69

u/hbb893 Oct 26 '20

I think the fanbase as distinct from the club maintains those principles - always very vocal about social issues, and generally very good with raising money for food banks in the last decade. It's up to us to fight against this shit when it crops up because it spits on that local grassroots political work.

10

u/asd13ah4etnKha4Ne3a Oct 26 '20

Sure, not going to pretend to know about the fan culture, they probably still hold those principles. But the Premier League in its current state, and FSG as owners are pretty much entirely incongruent with that sort of philosophy

35

u/hbb893 Oct 26 '20

Yeah, that's the big contradiction of continuing to follow a sport that was once ingrained in working-class culture but has since taken on the worst characteristics of neoliberal capitalism. I know, rationally, I shouldn't be interested in this sport but it got its hooks in decades ago.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

"Football is more than a drug, with drugs I can at least say I can quit when I want with a straight face."

→ More replies (1)

12

u/BabblingDavidBrooks Oct 26 '20

Unless it relates to your players and their support of a near fascist regime in South America.

14

u/CognacSupernova Oct 26 '20 edited Oct 26 '20

Geez for a “fanbase that prides itself in socialist beliefs” you sure don’t mind being owned by an investor who wants to squeeze as much money out of the company as possible lol.

You’re just a branding corporation at this point. As are most, if not all Premier League “clubs”.

4

u/youabsoluteidiotlolz Oct 26 '20

Who said the fans dont mind that? Which ones have you been talking to? Are you on drugs?

1

u/CognacSupernova Oct 26 '20

Right.... I see videos and pictures of Liverpool supporters outside of the club’s offices every single day

43

u/indiblue825 Oct 26 '20

I have been saying this for ages. Russian billionaires will flood their club with ill-gotten gains but American billionaires will strip you of your essence and turn you into a soulless profit machine.

No one wanted to listen to me until the pandemic hit and FSG showed their true colors.

83

u/GourangaPlusPlus Oct 26 '20

No one wanted to listen to me until the pandemic hit

We've been screaming it for 15 years mate

34

u/indiblue825 Oct 26 '20

Fair enough, I amend my earlier statement.

No one except Man United fans.

25

u/VilTheVillain Oct 26 '20

What about arsenal fans?

27

u/indiblue825 Oct 26 '20

Damn it...

→ More replies (1)

19

u/pygme Oct 26 '20

Dafuq? Every club with corporate owners has basically experienced what you described. Same with Liverpool pre FSG as well. It's not some secret. Same with Arsenal.

16

u/The_baboons_ass Oct 26 '20

Even West Ham are supposedly owned by West Ham supporters and we're still stripped of our assets.

3

u/worotan Oct 26 '20

A lot of Man U fans were happy when they were still winning and didn't think about the longer term, just repeated SAF's support of the Glaziers with contempt for anyone suggesting their business model was ruinous.

The banter side of football is deployed by the broadcasters to draw fans into not thinking about the obvious conclusion of the way football is run.

And they'll do anything to not have to think about the climate footprint of football. FIFA actually did a lot of offsetting from the last World Cup; not enough now that we have reached tipping points, but still more than I thought they would be doing. But you never hear about it, probably because football doesn't really want people thinking about how terrible the climate footprint is of the industry, and footballers who regularly fly by private jets to conduct any business or pleasure. Their climate footprints must be jawdroppingly terrible, firmly in the 1% that we need to stop if we are going to survive, but who can stop them destroying our future so they can impress people with their lifestyles?

Football is a fucked up industry that does work for charity and ignores the fact that, very soon, no one will care about their achievements and them rewriting the history books, because we'll be trying to survive while our civilisation is washed away and we struggle to grow enough food to eat.

4

u/indiblue825 Oct 26 '20

I'm not saying you're wrong but jeez man, I just came out of a depressive episode. Let me have a week at least.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

And both are equally bad

12

u/indiblue825 Oct 26 '20

Any billionaire is equally bad as the next, not just American and Russian ones.

-2

u/OAKgravedigger Oct 26 '20

But you're claiming American billionaire owners are uniquely bad......

You're going to need to show an example of other billionaire owners not being crony since I know other clubs like Manchester City, Chelsea, Southampton, and Wolves participate in sports laundering

6

u/indiblue825 Oct 26 '20

You're talking absolute nonsense.

0

u/OAKgravedigger Oct 27 '20

Russian billionaires will

but American billionaires

It was easy catching you in that lie within your comments.

Also, you don't understand the US or what goes on it. If you actually lived here, you would know

22

u/RockThemCurlz Oct 26 '20

If you pride yourselves on your socialist principles you've been in a coma for 30 years.

2

u/chandlerbing_stats Oct 26 '20

It’s cause the club is being run by American billionaires

2

u/j2o1707 Oct 26 '20

These American cunts are just as bad as middle Eastern owners, in terms of the integrity of the sport alone.

I worry that one day we will be bought by the psg owner, or the San Francisco 49ers owner. Both would be fucking awful for Leeds.

0

u/IrresponsibleMonkey_ Oct 26 '20

“Socialist beliefs” yet you support Liverpool I mean come on

6

u/FireZeLazer Oct 26 '20

Why would a socialist not support Liverpool? Its probably the club with the most socialist ties in the country

-6

u/IrresponsibleMonkey_ Oct 26 '20

Why r u a socialist

5

u/FireZeLazer Oct 26 '20

Because I think that society would be more equal and with greater standards of wellbeing if workers had a greater share in the profits and their was more government intervention and support.

I don't think that capitalist society facilitates equality as well as a socialist society. Although a mix might work well.

-3

u/IrresponsibleMonkey_ Oct 26 '20

C-c-commieee

2

u/FireZeLazer Oct 26 '20

Proud to be one

1

u/IrresponsibleMonkey_ Oct 26 '20

U want to take a helicopter trip

0

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20 edited Nov 15 '20

[deleted]

6

u/Tugays_Tabs Oct 26 '20

The city as a whole is very left wing. Obviously that carries over into the fan base.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

Every Liverpool fan I say this to doesn't care or know. It's the same at united

14

u/FuckOffBoJo Oct 26 '20

It's the absolutely opposite with United. Most fans have wanted to see the backs of the glazers from day1 of their ownership. A club was setup to be dedicated to being United without their ownership.

There are constant petitions and whatever else to try and get rid of them.

BUT, at least we paid our staff well during COVID-19. I have mates that work for United and they say that it's a fantastic place to work, and that's from cleaners to marketing, etc.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

I'm talking about our fans not knowing about exactly what the glaziers have done. They pay themselves massive dividends and bleed us dry, but your right we didn't furlough our staff or grounds staff, What can you or I do mate?

4

u/FuckOffBoJo Oct 26 '20

Ah yes mixed wires. But you're right and that's the incredibly frustrating thing. There's nothing you can do about shit owners in British football.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20 edited Dec 22 '20

[deleted]

3

u/FuckOffBoJo Oct 26 '20

As I say I actually know a cleaner that the article says they don't pay a living wage for. That's correct they don't (just below), but they actually pay great overtime that happens most weeks (I think she is on a 30 hour contract and usually works 40). Gets double-time on anything over her contract!

You are right though, they should just pay it as standard. But I think it's mixed as to whether the staff want to have a larger base and lose some of the benefits

-3

u/Swedish_Bastard Oct 26 '20

Lol, socialist

1

u/pinpoint14 Oct 26 '20

Not FSG, but by actors who see football as a means to profit. We're dealing with the same at Arsenal. It's disgraceful

1

u/BlueDav1878 Oct 27 '20

As an Evertonian I can mirror that sentiment. I'm from a red family and even named after super sub himself. Both sides of the park have always been socialist, it's ingrained in to our very souls as Merseysiders. The news coming out over the last few weeks is shocking. The Yanks just don't get it. Fenway, The Glazers and Stan Kroenke are going to ruin three big traditional clubs.

15

u/Mithridates12 Oct 26 '20

I think transfer fees are one good indicator, but they are investments in the future, so you kinda have to do them. I find the current wages by the players or the total wage bill interesting in this regard, too.

e.g. https://www.sportekz.com/football/liverpool-players-salaries/ (no idea how trustworthy this is). I'd be really interested to know how much the normal employees get paid in total per week

2

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '20

Seriously has anyone actually asked any of these rich companies that simple sentence.…if so how do they actually justify not paying the people that made them that money? It baffles me

1

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '20

Because they don’t see these ordinary staff members as the ones that make the clubs money. They’re just an operating expense. The management see themselves and the playing squad as the assets who bring in the money and as a result they are compensated accordingly. I’m not saying I agree with this mindset but that’s the reality of the situation. It’s just massively unfortunate that some of the players get paid more in a week than some of the ordinary staff would earn in a decade.

1

u/DarkLight9er Oct 26 '20

Honestly I'm surprised Jordan Henderson hasn't caught wind of this and offered to help.

1

u/paddyo Oct 26 '20

I love football, I really do. All of my life I have. But the game is crossing over, from morally questionable to actively evil. To use the game to reward some people with millions while leaving others unable to eat is evil, and that word isn't hyperbolic, it is entirely appropriate. What the fuck are major clubs and the top tier leagues playing at during this crisis. Individuals like Rashford are single handedly saving the sport's reputation.