Category Archives: Capitalism

The consequences of the Grenfell Tower tragedy could be profound

I have a strong feeling that the atrocity at Grenfell Tower this week (and my sympathies are with those affected) will prove to be both another nail in the neoliberal coffin and the beginning of a sweeping Labour revival.

This I have thought not for a very long time, but the longer I ponder the prospect, the more convinced I am that it is correct. At least, this is what the signs point us to.

There is something going on in Britain. Sections of the population are mobilising in profound ways, workers are demanding action where their voices were once muffled.

Who knows where this renewed energy will lead? I hope not towards the violence we saw at Kensington Town Hall. The poor know better and can get their messages across in more constructive ways.

Corporate failure to provide suitable, non-flammable cladding has sparked intense anger. But the emotion provoked is about more than just that. It is being more widely aimed at four decades of neoliberalism.

Public mistrust of the private sector was certainly aroused in 2008 after the financial meltdown. There came a turning point for the west, which I believe has swayed slightly to a more Left-wing, interventionist economic consensus.

The neoliberal agenda is treated by the working classes with understandable disdain. It promotes individualism over the maintenance of a social conscience and has represented a sustained attack on democracy.

There is also an interesting parallel at play here. When Margaret Thatcher was in power and she introduced ‘right to buy’ (a form of housing privatisation), homelessness right across rural England soared.

This has been recorded quite brilliantly by my friend Anthony Clavane in his new book A Yorkshire Tragedy. Though Grenfell Tower is a wholly separate problem, it does reflect a certain disregard for the housing needs of the country’s poorest.

I noted yesterday, also, the scurried way in which Mrs May climbed into her convoy 4×4, choosing, perhaps understandably, to avoid the baying crowds demanding both answers and leadership.

I can of course imagine that such a situation would be nerve-wrackingly intimidating. Local residents, bereaved families and angry demonstrators do not make for the ideal public meeting after such a painful week.

There was, though, something slightly symbolic about the Prime Minister’s forced departure from Kensington yesterday. Mrs May appears weak and biding her time, and this crisis could be the beginning of her end.

That is not to say that Grenfell Tower’s blaze was her fault. I think there have been very cynical attempts by hard leftists to associate her with the deaths of, at the time of writing, an estimated 58 people.

The idea that Mrs May ought to be blamed for the fire is fanciful and unhelpful nonsense. Leftists who have genuine (and I think reasonable) grievances with corporate ineptitude will undermine their cause by engaging in this useless finger-wagging.

I have defended the importance of protest at this blog as an important avenue of expression in any democracy. But there can be no excuse for ensuing demonstrations to erupt into savage carnivals of violence.

I also believe that the Labour Party will win the next General Election, whenever it is called. If contemporary British politics tells us anything, it could be as soon as this autumn. There are a few reasons why I think this.

The first is that the myth and fakery of Tory strength and stability has been left helplessly exposed, both by the party’s incompetent leader and their throwing away of 21-point polling leads in one of the worst political campaigns in modern history.

The second is its potentially disastrous dealings with the Democratic Unionist Party, which could completely hollow out Tory support in more urbanised, metropolitan areas of the country.

Social and moral conservatism, but for occasional stirrings, has been more or less wiped out in Britain. The Conservatives have instead presented a more liberal agenda for many years.

This has been because they have no alternative. The Tories are electable if they mouth conservative sentiments but advocate liberalising policy. They are able to tap in to a wide range of the electorate this way.

Of course, there are setbacks. The popularity of UKIP over the last three years (though now decaying again) was a result of Conservative Party failure to address problems caused by mass immigration and Brussels-imposed attacks on our sovereignty.

Theresa May tried to pose as the rescuer of the party; the woman to restore the winning ways of the 1980s, but her personality-centric campaign only managed to reveal her fatal weaknesses.

The mess she now finds herself in, combined with negotiations with the DUP, who don’t subscribe to the Tories’ more liberal agenda, will cost her party dearly at the next election.

More progressive Tory members, voters and activists have already begun questioning their support for the party. LGBT Tories, many of whom I know, will be particularly uneasy with this unfortunate (and thoroughly unnecessary) alliance.

There is also the question of Jeremy Corbyn, whose stock has changed significantly since last Thursday. He now looks the part, talks the part and oozes refreshing confidence.

Something resembling stability has returned to Labour over the last week. I am also convinced that Mr Corbyn’s party would have garnered many more votes from the electorate on June 8th had people genuinely thought he was within a chance of winning.

He should, though, refrain from overtly politicising tragedies of the kind we have seen this week. I don’t think he should, for instance, spend two minutes on Sky News berating cuts to local authority budgets and fire services without the causes of the fire being properly established.

If the election were held tomorrow, Labour would undoubtedly outperform themselves. Nobody believes that the Tories are adequately prepared for governing.

And nor are they in a strong enough position to negotiate our withdrawal from the European Union effectively. No wonder there is such anger.

 


All together now…there are more than two types of production ownership

A fascinating YouGov poll entitled ‘Nationalisation vs Privatisation: the public view’ has been published, with results in brief accessible here: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/ and a more detailed, in-depth table here: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/uufxmyd8qm/InternalResults_170518_nationalisation_privatisation_W.pdf that showcase the country’s views on ownership of several of the country’s most important industries.

It is a relatively mixed bag produced by a cross-party sample of slightly fewer than 2,000 adults. Some results, such as the substantial support for renationalising the energy companies and privatisation of the telephone and internet providers, surprised me. Others, like the tiny percentage in favour of privatising the NHS, did not.

I like studying polls of this sort because they offer quite a clear picture of the economic consensus embedded in the population. I have a feeling that much of the growing support for state involvement in major sectors of the economy is down to a mistrust of the market; exacerbated by both the 2008 financial crash and other consequences of the neo-liberal period, such as the ripping apart of the middle class.

Admittedly, the sample is quite small, but I don’t think larger samples would suggest that this poll is especially anomalous. It appears to me that the country has steered slightly to the Left on the economy, but since most do not think in terms of ideology, it means very little for Jeremy Corbyn’s electoral prospects. A party breakdown of beliefs is provided and yields quite interesting results. Labour and Tory voters, more alike on policy issues than they will ever care to admit, are most sharply divided over rail ownership.

There is, though, something else about polling such as this that concerns me. The title of it and the options given to those who took part are very misleading and assume that only two different kinds of production ownership exist. It is crucial for the sake of informing political debate over public policy that people are reminded of the forgotten third option. The means of production in a society can be arranged through nationalisation, privatisation or worker control of industry; which can itself be described as the very core of socialism, where producers take control of production.

Omitting the third option in polling is to be understood, of course. Adding in ‘worker control of industry’ may create unnecessary confusion and boost the likelihood of a ‘don’t know’ response. But polling is not the only incentive for this post. This past week, the country’s major parties have all released their manifestos ahead of next month’s General Election.

Much of the commentary since particularly the Labour and Tory manifesto reveals has circulated around whether or not Britain can afford to renationalise certain sectors of the economy and whether it is a viable solution to the problems we are facing. Plans to bring the Royal Mail, railways and National Grid back under public ownership, as well as introducing a National Investment Bank and National Education Service, have prompted misleading newspaper headlines about the 1970s and the now conventional bashing of state socialism, which is less electable than it has ever been (in part due to the UK’s staggering levels of public debt).

Direct worker control of industry, therefore, ought not to be left out of public debate because it may represent the alternative to neoliberal capitalism that the Left has been searching for over the last forty years. The Labour Party of the last two years has openly referred to itself as a socialist party, so why doesn’t it support producers taking control of production instead of managing industry itself?

As long as the Left pushes for government programs which increase borrowing, public spending and taxes, it will not be able to formulate a constructive alternative to neoliberalism. It must recognise the value in low-tax, democratising policies like worker control of industry if it is to avoid further swelling of our national debt and more hits to its voter base.

I make no comment about whether worker control of industry is preferable in each individual sector or to the efficiency of production as a whole. To make judgement would be difficult at this stage. I also reaffirm that I am not a socialist. I merely think clarification is useful where it is not being applied by politicians or by the media.


Labour’s proposed £10 minimum wage shows just how unelectable they really are

Criticising Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party and attacking him personally is now futile. It has been done and done again. It is demonstrable that, from an electoral standpoint, he is ineffective. Don’t take my word for it; listen to the increasingly agitated voices of his critics on the Left.

Equally true in my opinion is that one of the worst aspects to contemporary politics – thanks especially to the public relations industry and mass media – is the celebritising (Microsoft Word tells me this isn’t a word, but I have not been corrected in person and refuse to let a red line discourage me from using it) of politicians and the focus placed upon personality rather than policy.

This trend will continue to have a profoundly negative impact upon the legitimacy of public servants. In an age of status and reputation obsession, it is important to draw attention back towards the things that matter.

One thing that matters immensely to a country is having a strong opposition that applies adequate pressure to an incumbent government. They say that it’s best to have conservative government with a strong labour movement in opposition, and the UK is in renewed, desperate need for a strong labour movement.

One of the things that most frustrates me about the Left is its insistence that its programs help the disadvantaged, the poor and the worker, when, in actual fact, evidence shows that they do precisely the opposite. Mr Corbyn’s fresh pledge to raise the UK’s minimum wage to £10 per hour provides an excellent example of this problem.

First off, government should be out of the business of setting wages (with the exception of those working in the civil service, of course). We have seen throughout history the damage caused by government control of pricing.

And wages are a price. They represent the cost of labour to an employer, and ought to remain a private concern that both parties to that transaction agree to. The beauty of capitalism has always been that it is based most fundamentally around the concept of voluntarism.

When government steps in and artificially raises the price of labour, several important things happen. Firstly, a surge in unemployment is almost inevitable. A 2006 review of more than 100 minimum wage studies by David Neumark and William Wascher found that about two-thirds found ‘negative employment effects’.

When employers are forced to pay their staff more money, they need to make alterations in order to break even. This could mean cutting back on staff directly, cutting the benefits of existing staff or scrapping hiring plans or schemes in the future. Young people, too, will suffer disproportionately as they lack the skills and habits of work and will be more expendable in the workforce.

Secondly, arbitrary rises in the price of labour may lead to significant price hikes on the high street. As basic market laws and common sense tell us, if the price of a good increases, the likelihood that a customer will buy it decreases. For the worker on minimum wage, there may be a crucial trade-off: a pay rise for all, for his job.

In his influential Economics in one lesson, Henry Hazlitt notes: “it may be thought that if the law forces the payment of a higher wage in a given industry, that industry can then charge higher prices for its product, so that the burden of paying the higher wage is merely shifted to consumers.” A pay rise is, after all, only relative to inflation and changes to the cost of living.

It therefore stands that the best way to raise the earnings of a worker is to ensure that market forces are culpable for the raise. Labour productivity must be increased either by means of management or production innovation, or by improving technology and training. Creating an environment that is conducive to the making of profit will be far more beneficial to workers in the long run.

We have just entered a period of two distinct changes to the National Minimum Wage (now called the National ‘Living’ Wage because, you know, PR): its introduction and its subsequent raise. Employers are currently coming to terms with these rises as well as the prospect of leaving the European Union.

Any further government control of labour costs is bound to have a substantial disemployment effect. But there is more. The difference between welfare and wages must also be taken into account.

If as a country we say that it is illegal to pay a man less than £160 per week, and we also say that an unemployed man can earn up to £120 (I am using arbitrary figures) per week through the welfare state, then we prevent another man from enjoying the dignity of work and self support for anywhere between £120 and £160 per week.

This may sound like pedantry, but it is an important consideration for those who advocate governmental wage control. Artificial increases in the cost of labour will result in a gap between the minimum a person will earn in work and the maximum he or she will receive in benefits. Any such gap is a barrier to employment. 

And why does the Labour Party not see this? I am struck by just how coy the Left can be with economic programmes. Anybody remember Natalie Bennett’s housing policy disaster at the last General Election? Of course, I do not think this will matter in the long run.

Labour will not be elected into government in 2020. Even with a change of leader in the next twelve months, its troubles (from a damaging referendum divide to the lingering stench of anti-Semitism) are far from being dealt with.

Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn’s quiet resignation that he will not make it to Number 10 is making him lazy. If he thought he had a real chance, he would surely be trying a lot harder. Most polls now show ‘don’t know’ to be a better candidate than the Labour leader for Prime Minister.

And with policy proposals like a new inflation-inducing minimum wage, it’s not hard to see why.


Why 2016 was the year of the establishment

When Nigel Farage and Donald Trump describe the events of 2016 as a ‘political revolution’, they do so not to paint an informed picture, but to massage their own egos. For them, the idea of revolution cements their place in history. It validates their importance to the political arena, even in the face of adversity and massive public criticism.

Various alt-Right claims concerning the magnitude of last year’s political changes are at best dubious and at worst insulting lies. 2016 was not the year of political revolution. It was a year in which swamps were drained with swampland and a year in which the public relations industry worked its magic in ways never seen before to create the false perception that we now, more than at any other time, live in a post-truth political environment.

Yes, it is true that startling alliances were exposed that sent powerful signals to government, and that the public mood seemed to defy even reputable polling, but one only has to take a look at the manoeuvring of the chess pieces currently on the board to examine that the effects of 2016’s groundbreaking votes haven’t been as profound as commonly thought.

Take, for instance, the new cabinet of president-elect Donald Trump. After promising to ‘drain the swamp’ at the White House for many months, Trump’s new cabinet picks are more than a little eyebrow-raising. The combined wealth of Trump’s cabinet, excluding the president-elect’s $3.7bn fortune, is a staggering $4.5bn[1], and not all positions have been decided upon.

It can be a little easy to forget that the establishment often branches out far wider than politics itself. What we call the establishment is in reality an intricate web of political figures, banks and multinational corporations, media, owners atop strategic industries and international institutions. Many of Trump’s cabinet selections, like ExxonMobil chief Rex Tillerson or Wilbur Ross, who made millions dealing with subprime mortgage’s during the 2007-08 crash, reek of establishmentarianism.

They are deeply engrained within an economic elite, and despite Trump’s plan to draft in figures that will revolutionise America’s negotiating skill and allow it to do business his way, the establishment stench will linger so poignantly that even many of his voters will be able to smell it. If by ‘swamp’, Trump was referring to establishment figures, then swampland has undoubtedly been replaced with swampland. It is, too, worth noting that the ‘anti-establishment’ candidate received more than 2 million less votes than the firmly established Hillary Clinton in last year’s presidential contest.

I am always suspicious when a political figure claims to be waging a war with the establishment. It tends to be a war cry, designed to rally a specific kind of voter; whoever the disillusioned and marginalised voter of the day would appear to be. It makes sense, as the thirty year period of neoliberal capitalism has, for all its successes, brought about a deep-rooted marginalisation of the working man. Anger is understandable. The question therefore should be: “How do we deal with this frustration constructively?”

Similar trends were noticed during Britain’s EU referendum. As the arguments intensified, established politicians like Boris Johnson and Theresa May played their cards close to their chest, one choosing to use the campaign to fight a proxy war with David Cameron, the other choosing to campaign mildly in order to take advantage of a fallen Prime Minister. The script read like a west end play.

After Cameron’s resignation and an underwhelming Tory leadership contest, Remain-backing Theresa May took the helm and entered Number 10 as Prime Minister. The government she formed featured campaigners on both sides of the referendum, and once again the Conservatives found themselves strapped with the task of carrying out Brexit. Thanks once again to some clever manoeuvring, the party that for years had supported Britain’s membership of the European Union was in charge of withdrawal.

The same politicians, with a few exceptions, are calling the shots, and Britain seems both reluctant to reveal its negotiating cards and content to stretch the process out for as long as possible. The very same pattern has emerged on both sides of the Atlantic: the anti-establishment types, camouflaged as defenders of the working man in a bid to attract widespread support, were so zealous and deceiving in their pursuit of power that they forgot almost entirely how to deal with it when it came.

In 2016, the establishment launched a coup unto itself, disguised as its sworn enemy. It managed to harness the anger of forgotten communities and mould it into a brand new mandate; with which it will trot confidently into what is deemed to be the new political era. And what’s worse? Even our populists, who ceaselessly present themselves as anti-establishment, are starting to look every bit as careerist and every bit as bubbled as those they claim to oppose.

 

[1] Peterson-Withorn, C. (2016). Here’s What Each Member Of Trump’s $4.5 Billion Cabinet Is Worth. Available: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2016/12/22/heres-how-much-trumps-cabinet-is-really-worth/#e7a9676f0219. Last accessed 2nd Jan 2017.


Why we should abandon the concept of virginity

First, a warning. This essay is about as progressive as I get. I am no liberal, and nor can I be described with any uncertainty as a feminist. But on the issue of virginity, I share some surprising common ground with those I would usually describe as opponents.

Most people who bother with the concept or losing of one’s virginity do so without fully understanding the extent of its incompatibility with contemporary society. The state of being a ‘virgin’ is one of the more frequently misunderstood labels that our culture demands we place on others; a shocking fact given the nature of its origins. I’d like to argue not only that our attitude towards virginity is largely ignorant, but that our usage of the term actively sours sexual discourse, shaming both sexes and discrediting sexual minorities.

Conceptually, ‘virginity’ is anchored in sexism, emerging from the days of female commodification. Centuries ago, patriarchal capitalism allowed for men to treat women as goods, to be sold or passed on from one owner to the next. Women were classified according to their ‘purity’, effectively transforming their bodies into reliquaries of male desire. Without modern medical practices, men had to be sure that any offspring they fathered belonged definitively to them. “Sexuality was also, of course, regulated by religion, which made sex shameful and taboo outside of marriage. And for the most part, contraception was unattainable, so it was important for women to remain virgins for their husbands to ensure the purity of his bloodline. Basically, virginity served as the medieval form of a paternity test”, writes Erin McKelle.[1]

But the idea of virginity in establishing status goes far beyond this. Nowadays, it is used primarily as a vehicle to shame both sexes, and – quite interestingly – for opposite reasons. Men, expected to have had as much sex as possible even at relatively young ages, are made to feel compelled to have sex, whereas women who do lose their ‘virginity’ can be demonised either for losing it too young, or for having sex far too often. Angella D’Avignon noted in a recent article that “while having sex for the first time is a universal experience, the conditions that define virginity are socially constructed and have been used to control and exploit women.”[2]

It is particularly astonishing that men, too, fall victim to this kind of labelling, given that virginity has no anatomical or historical importance to them at all. There are no physical indicators on the male body that confirm an alleged loss of virginity. Memory, being intangible and impossible to observe, does not count. Since men do not have a hymen, the ring of tissue surrounding the vagina which, when stretched, becomes the barometer for the loss of virginity, it is very difficult to assess how being a virgin actually relates to males.

Furthermore, there are a string of technical problems caused by the very definition of virginity. “The state of never having had sexual intercourse”, provided by one dictionary[3] doesn’t seem to take effectively into account that there are different types of sexual intercourse. “Someone who has never had sex” also echoes this issue. [4] Not only is sex defined (and vastly different) specifically by and for those involved in the act, it is also hard to establish objectively what we mean by sex.

In 2002, 164 heterosexual Canadian students were asked by researchers about what acts counted as ‘sex’. Results showed that “the vast majority of participants (about 97%) consider penile-vaginal intercourse to be sex. Slightly less (about 83%) consider anal sex to be sex. Less than 25% consider oral sex to be sex, and 15% or lower think genital touching is sex”.[5] Four years later, Trotter & Alderson concluded that “In some respects, the definition of sex is broader for same-sex couples (such as a higher percentage endorsing oral sex as sex for two female partners than they do for a female with a male partner). Definitions of sex also broaden in more established relationships; people include more behaviours as sex with a partner they have been dating for three months vs. a one-night stand. This means that the emotional connection with a partner also plays into definitions of sex.”[6]

Individuals, especially those who classify as sexual minorities (like myself), have the right to decide for themselves what sex is to them. Penis-vaginal sex holds special status in a context pertaining to procreation, but not in terms of the legitimacy of a sexual act. Homosexuals, for instance, will enjoy perfectly healthy sexual relationships and desires without venturing into a vagina or, in the case of lesbians, without hosting a penis. Virginity, being a fundamentally heteronormative construct, tends to delegitimise the sexual behaviour of sexual minorities.

It also ignores the concerns of many women, and in some cases men, who are assaulted or abused during their first sexual experience and who may want to redefine their loss of virginity. The social parameters we place around virginity and the ensuing labels make this process much harder. Free from the idea of losing virginity, or indeed of being a virgin in the first place, individuals can tailor their sexual career to their own emotional or physical needs, and can more easily ignore the ideals of wider society. They will more easily be able to view an initial painful or abusive experience as just an obstacle in the way of something greater, rather than something that person will never be able to get back.

Modern teaching would do well to phase out the importance placed upon virginity. It is a social construct that, when used as a weapon, can have devastating emotional consequences for both men and women. But most significantly, virginity reinforces our peculiar obsession with status, hoovering attention away from action or common good and attaching it to superficiality.

Notes

[1] ‘5 Reasons Why We Need to Ditch The Concept of Virginity For Good’, Everyday Feminism, [http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/08/losing-virginity-for-good/], August 2013, last accessed 18th November 2016
[2] ‘A Quick and Dirty History of Virginity’, The Establishment, [http://www.theestablishment.co/2016/05/11/a-quick-and-dirty-history-of-virginity/], May 2016, last accessed November 19th 2016
[3] Oxford Dictionary, [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/virginity], last accessed November 19th 2016
[4] Cambridge Dictionary, [http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/virgin], last accessed November 19th 2016
[5] Randall, H. E., & Byers, S. E. (2003). What is sex? Students’ definitions of having sex, sexual partner, and unfaithful sexual behaviour. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 12, 87-96.
[6] Trotter, E. C., & Alderson, K. G. (2007). University students’ definitions of having sex, sexual partner, and virginity loss: The influence of participant gender, sexual experience, and contextual factors. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 16, 11-29.


Capitalism shaped the ideological and economic development of modern professional sport

No domain of public life has mirrored the excesses and tribulations of post-industrial capitalism quite like sport. For better or worse, sports across the western world have allowed themselves to be gripped by capitalist rituals in unstoppable fashion, often with disastrous effects. The invasion of commercialism, expressed through intrusive broadcasting power and soul-shredding sponsorship deals, has to a large extent diluted the authenticity and integrity of modern professional sports, leaving many detached from their working-class, grassroots origins.

In his superb book Sport in Capitalist Society, A Short History, Tony Collins notes assertively that “sport was not merely co-terminous with the expansion of capitalism, but an integral part of the expansion; not only in economic organisation but also in ideological meaning.” It can therefore be proposed that the gradual alignment between capitalism and sport need not have been forced or artificial, but was rather a mutually coordinated and logical partnership.

Echoing this idea, many have argued that sport’s adoption of capitalist characteristics, such as competition, regimentation and a drive for profit, was innate and inevitable in nature. Collins remarks quite powerfully that “the transformation of Britain into a capitalist economy was reflected by the emergence of ideas of self-interest and competition in political and cultural life. Sport’s inherently competitive nature dovetailed perfectly with the newly dominant conceptions of the competitiveness of  human nature”.

Regardless of the trigger of capitalism’s march through sport, it is important to note that the effects of such a transition have not been great for all. Adrian Budd’s assertion that “the rise of corporate hospitality and of ticket and replica-kit prices threaten to derail mass participation” is backed up by the mildly entertaining Gareth Edwards, who goes on to explain that “Capitalism’s dynamic was driving changes that would leave no corner untouched. Its expansion would systemically erode the old ways of playing. Inevitably, the quest for private ownership of land also eroded the space available for games and pastimes”.

Under the guise of capitalism, sport invariably evolves into a market opportunity for competing promoters and sponsors, who use proxy war tactics in order to flex their commercial muscles and paint sporting events in their own colours. In Sport, Culture and Ideology, Hargreaves argues that capitalist sport promotes unhealthy competition, and subsequently evinces above all else “the alienation of both producer and consumer”. This supports the view that professional sports in capitalist societies have drifted swiftly away from the values beset by their eighteenth century founders.

“The factory origins of many football teams, including Arsenal and West Ham in Britain illustrate the connection between working class sport and capitalist industry” writes Budd in a later paragraph, shedding necessary light on the important historical relationship between the labour movement and newly created sports. Prior to the prevalence of commercialism, contests, arenas and organisations retained their cultural identity, and subtleties like competition names were not impeached or overtaken by brands.

Despite being firmly rooted in proletariat-dominated social spheres, sport lacked objective codification – a foundation which would later be provided by capitalist insurgence. According to Tony Collins, “the idea of commonly-agreed, national, written laws governing the playing of sport” did not exist until the capitalism-imposed commercialisation of sport began to take off, and that “the introduction of codes of rules that were accepted by all players and for all major contests were a direct consequence of the commercial development of sport”.

It is therefore prudent to suggest that modern professional sport is merely capitalism at play. As both are now so strongly representative of the other, and are so extensively intertwined, it is no wonder that so many at grassroots level, particularly those who are older or have children, feel so frequently aggrieved by the extraordinary levels of extortion and inter-corporation competitiveness. Budd further suggests that “sport can therefore encourage us to question the nature of society and to ask why our leisure time, like the rest of our lives, is largely constrained by competition, repetition and regimentation”.

Capturing beautifully the merciless incarceration of sport within the capitalist machine, Ian McDonald proclaims boldly: “The promise of sport as a realm of freedom can only be contested but never fully claimed within the context of capitalist social relations”. A statement it is becoming increasingly more difficult to disagree with.

References (in use order):

  • Collins, T (2013).Sport in Capitalist Society: A Short History. Oxford: Routledge . p13.
  • Collins, T (2013).Sport in Capitalist Society: A Short History. Oxford: Routledge . p4, 13. (Quote used in third paragraph an amalgamation of summaries found on separate pages, and merged together)
  • Budd, A (2013). Sport and Capitalism: Politics, Protest, People and Play. London: Bookmark Publications. p37.
  • Edwards, G (2013). Sport and Capitalism: Politics, Protest, People and Play. London: Bookmark Publications. p29.
  • Hargreaves, J (2014). Sport, Culture and Ideology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Routledge . p41.
  • Budd, A (2013). Sport and Capitalism: Politics, Protest, People and Play. London: Bookmark Publications. p39
  • Collins, T (2013).Sport in Capitalist Society: A Short History. Oxford: Routledge . p6-7.
  • Budd, A (2013). Sport and Capitalism: Politics, Protest, People and Play. London: Bookmark Publications. p44.
  • McDonald, I. (2007). One-dimensional sport. Available: idrottsforum.org/articles/mcdonald/mcdonald071212.html. Last accessed 10th Mar 2016.