Topic: Left Wing Liverpool & The Politics Of Our Club

[ConnieLFC]

Nice rant...Shankly seemed like quite the Scottish patriot to me...he loved playing for his country.  In fact, it seemed, jokingly or not, that he despised England.  But that seems to be ok, right?  Not very internationalist to me. 

I appreciate many ethos of socialism, but I don't follow blindly in lock step with what much of the masses consume.  Besides, I thought this thread is doing a decent job of reflecting what some of us think who love this club.  Are you a fan of generalization?  We all look at things a little different don't we?

I'll ask again - what *ARE* you on about?

And if you think that Shankly a) hated England and that b) his socialist outlook vis a vis LFC was not informed by a very real belief in those ideals based on his upbringing in a small mining community, you definitely need to do some reading.

[Beninger]

I'll ask again - what *ARE* you on about?

And if you think that Shankly a) hated England and that b) his socialist outlook vis a vis LFC was not informed by a very real belief in those ideals based on his upbringing in a small mining community, you definitely need to do some reading.

I feel he jokingly had it out for England...especially when he played against them for Scotland.  "You look down at your dark blue shirt, and the wee lion looks up at you and says 'Get out after those English bastards!'"  A competitive patriotic streak, and not very internationalist.  But that's exactly my point...the anger that comes out of some people goes far beyond that doesn't it?  It shows that he was not in lock step with the ideology that some people who support this club have...no one is exactly the same.

I believe he was a kind and passionate man.  I think he looked at where he came from, and saw a need in LFC.  I agree with much of what he had to say, and I think he had a lot to say if one listened and actually heard it.  But I think people revise history as they see fit...

[ConnieLFC]

I believe he was a kind and passionate man.  I think he looked at where he came from, and saw a need in LFC.  I agree with much of what he had to say, and I think he had a lot to say if one listened and actually heard it.  But I think people revise history as they see fit...

I'm taking what I wrote from things *he* stated in his recently-rereleased autobiography....   

But keep making up things as you see fit to make a bogus argument.

[Beninger]

I'm taking what I wrote from things *he* stated in his recently-rereleased autobiography....   

But keep making up things as you see fit to make a bogus argument.

That's fine.  Iif you feel some twinge of guilt by my comment, that's on you.  What is so bogus about my argument?  You keep misquoting me and making things up...nice of you to conveniently leave out the part where I quoted him...

You clearly are not paying any attention to what I actually said.

[ConnieLFC]

That's fine.  Iif you feel some twinge of guilt by my comment, that's on you.  What is so bogus about my argument?  You keep misquoting me and making things up...nice of you to conveniently leave out the part where I quoted him...

You clearly are not paying any attention to what I actually said.

I'm paying attention - I'm just not accepting it, and for very good reason:  it's complete bollocks.  But I'm done.   

You've needlessly hijacked what was an interesting thread.

[Vulmea]

Nice rant...Shankly seemed like quite the Scottish patriot to me...he loved playing for his country.  In fact, it seemed, jokingly or not, that he despised England.  But that seems to be ok, right?  Not very internationalist to me. 

I appreciate many ethos of socialism, but I don't follow blindly in lock step with what much of the masses consume.  Besides, I thought this thread is doing a decent job of reflecting what some of us think who love this club.  Are you a fan of generalization?  We all look at things a little different don't we?

jesus the smug rolls off that post - what  a depresing self indulgent pile of nonsense that is - somebody else who thinks they know the cost of everything yer actually knows the value of nothing. Follow blindly and mass consumption I bet you have Sky or is that a generalisation.............

I wouldn't call the Connie post a rant either - just some straight forward views about why some people just dont get it and never will

I've no doubt some supporters support Liverpool because of past success others because of John Barnes or another favourite player - some will claim to have been biten by the football we played - there are of course many reasons why an individual follows a club - but this club, my club is inextricably linked with socialist ideals - thats not about communism but socialism - community - its not a generalisation either its fact

where the hell does internationalism come into this debate - its a football club set up to represent its community in a competitive sport - that means there has to be a winner and a loser - or is there some semantic bollocks about socialism and competition not being compatible being debated here?

socialism is each contributing what they can to acheive shared success -

[Beninger]

jesus the smug rolls off that post - what  a depresing self indulgent pile of nonsense that is - somebody else who thinks they know the cost of everything yer actually knows the value of nothing. Follow blindly and mass consumption I bet you have Sky or is that a generalisation.............

I wouldn't call the Connie post a rant either - just some straight forward views about why some people just dont get it and never will

I've no doubt some supporters support Liverpool because of past success others because of John Barnes or another favourite player - some will claim to have been biten by the football we played - there are of course many reasons why an individual follows a club - but this club, my club is inextricably linked with socialist ideals - thats not about communism but socialism - community - its not a generalisation either its fact

where the hell does internationalism come into this debate - its a football club set up to represent its community in a competitive sport - that means there has to be a winner and a loser - or is there some semantic bollocks about socialism and competition not being compatible being debated here?

socialism is each contributing what they can to acheive shared success -

Much of what I have to say is aimed at numerous people that I have been talking to on this thread.  If you don't think it pertains to you, it probably doesn't.  I don't have a problem with certain socialist values.  In fact, I've talked about some of what I think on this thread already.  If you aren't looking at all of what I have said, then that's your problem, not mine.  It's been pointed out that this is a sport, where there is competition, and everyone contributes to it.  If you had looked earlier, you would have seen I agree with it.  You can call me smug, but I take an intellectual challenge seriously...if I feel disrespected, I can give it right back.

[redmark]

You clearly are not paying any attention to what I actually said.

You seem to have got stuck on the 'patriotism' aspect following my post about the union flags and a difference in 'mood' between clubs like Liverpool or Leeds back at the start of the 80s. There are different shades of patriotism; some are 'positive' and don't try to denigrate others to make themselves feel better. One element of that as it would apply to Liverpool fans is that there were always many fans from Scotland and Ireland as well as Liverpool and other parts of England. Not all of those fans would happily fly the union flag, but might comfortably support their national team. The 'patriotism' and nationalism of the 'British Isles' (a term not accepted by many Irish people, but includes Ireland) is more complicated than in many countries, because there are two different 'levels' of nationality - English and British, etc. It's possible for someone to be 'gently' patriotic and support the English or Scottish team, without wanting the more negative associations that often come with 'British' - the Empire, the flag, etc. Wanting Scotland to beat England certainly doesn't automatically mean that one isn't an internationalist, much less a 'socialist' in the community context.

Anyway... not sure this will go anywhere but round and round...

edit: I supported Scotland as a kid, because of Hansen-Souness-Dalglish. I'll support England, Spain and Argentina in the World Cup (maybe Brazil for Lucas; anyone else going to be represented, I forget?). I won't watch England in a pub though, because I don't want to be surrounded by jingoistic racist wankers (plenty of those here in Luton).

[redjed1]

Liverpool as a city has been shafted by both left wing (bluenose Derek and his mates) and right wing (Maggie and her cronies) politicians in the recent past. We tend not to trust politicians of either side any more.

Bill Shankly was a man of the people and we related to him because he respected us, knew what we wanted and had the skills and determination to deliver it. He had his fights along the way, but was strong in character and eventually got his way. Since Bill retired we've had mostly good managers, who had the backing of a mostly good boardroom.

Things changed when the yanks bought the club. They promised the world and have given nothing (but lies). Don't know their politics, but they're certainly not men of the people. Shanks wouldn't have liked them.

So I don't think LFC has ever been left-wing politically, just a club of the people which was run for the people. Call it socialist if you like, but not political.

I think Rafa is a man of the people who is stuck between wanting to achieve things for us, but fighting in an ever increasing financial quagmire. I wonder how Shanks would have got on in a similar position?
 

[redmark]

Don't know their politics

Hicks at least moves in well established US right-wing politiical circles.

I wonder how Shanks would have got on in a similar position?
 

I think he'd have resigned, and formed SOS himself.

[Beninger]

You seem to have got stuck on the 'patriotism' aspect following my post about the union flags and a difference in 'mood' between clubs like Liverpool or Leeds back at the start of the 80s. There are different shades of patriotism; some are 'positive' and don't try to denigrate others to make themselves feel better. One element of that as it would apply to Liverpool fans is that there were always many fans from Scotland and Ireland as well as Liverpool and other parts of England. Not all of those fans would happily fly the union flag, but might comfortably support their national team. The 'patriotism' and nationalism of the 'British Isles' (a term not accepted by many Irish people, but includes Ireland) is more complicated than in many countries, because there are two different 'levels' of nationality - English and British, etc. It's possible for someone to be 'gently' patriotic and support the English or Scottish team, without wanting the more negative associations that often come with 'British' - the Empire, the flag, etc. Wanting Scotland to beat England certainly doesn't automatically mean that one isn't an internationalist, much less a 'socialist' in the community context.

Anyway... not sure this will go anywhere but round and round...

I understand the difference between England and Britain.  I'm not entering into this discussion through ignorance.  But I would say, that if you were truly an internationalist, you wouldn't be concerned at all with countries playing each other, waving their flags.  Maybe you would?  Anyway, I know the difference between communal socialism and international Marxism.  I am just pointing out that people think different things, and every sports team from every sport in the world has a socialist view of itself, regardless of the political leanings of the support or the city it is spawned from...that doesn't make LFC special in that regard.  I don't think that's up for debate.  I thought it was about the political ideology of the support itself.  Which seems to vary.  But, like you've said, it's 'round and 'round.

[Vulmea]

your problem not mine....You can call me smug, but I take an intellectual challenge seriously...if I feel disrespected, I can give it right back.

take a look at yourself lad - its not an intellectual challenge that you take way too seriously

[Beninger]

take a look at yourself lad - its not an intellectual challenge that you take way too seriously

If I've been over the top, I apologize.  There are two things I love.  Football and combat sports.  I am intrigued by politics.  You can say that I am made to be aggressive...especially in a conversation like this.

If you read my prior posts, you would see that I'm very level headed and am not a knee-jerker. 

[redmark]

But I would say, that if you were truly an internationalist, you wouldn't be concerned at all with countries playing each other, waving their flags.  Maybe you would?

I've not watched an England game all season. I've never worn an England shirt, or waved a flag, in my life. I'll watch the World Cup, because it's the World Cup. I'll support any team with a Liverpool player in it, and then any teams who play decent football.

[Bennyo]

And what is that? (Not that it matters for this thread.)

You're right.. it doesn't matter much for this thread.. but since you asked I was inferring that Italy's baroque constitution and political polarisation, combined with a culture of corruption that has seen Transparency International rate their levels of 'democracy' as being the lowest in Europe (!), can be used by a man who wields enormous power through his media empire to gain a stable mandate. Italian politics is in a terrible state but it's not about left or right - it's about corruption and a 'family-first' attitude that is completely unsuited to the needs of a post-war state, let alone a 21st century one. Many people consider Berlusconi a necessary evil even if it's just in the short term, as he can bring stability, and consequently that quote doesn't necessarily mean the Rhone guy is a right wing c*nt (although, admittedly, it is likely).

[Beninger]

I've not watched an England game all season. I've never worn an England shirt, or waved a flag, in my life. I'll watch the World Cup, because it's the World Cup. I'll support any team with a Liverpool player in it, and then any teams who play decent football.

Fair enough.

[Bennyo]

I think my point, which you have supported very well is that you dont have a scooby.

Liverpool was/is a socialist city - who owned and founded the club has sweet fa to do with what the club stands for to its supporters - it never has - to quote the great man - the owners are only there to sign the cheques - the foundation for this club is players - manager - fans - the holy trinity.

SLY and murdoch have attempted to take the game from a working class sport to a middle class entertainment and largely succeeded but I dont care the fundamental core of this club is community -whether thats a community based in Liverpool or a world wide global fan base it doesn't matter - what matters is what Liverpool football club stands for

Yes football is now big business and there is as much talk about the board room, net spend and sponsorship as there is about football - thats all part of the middleclass obsession with wealth but the essence of what makes football great and what made Liverpool special is still there - its still the holy trinity.

of course there is no prerequisite to being a supporter but what is the reason for supporting a particular football club

yes plenty of right wing and middleclass supporters follow Liverpool but why is that? What is it about Liverpool that they support? What is it that makes you support Liverpool? Why not support United - there followers make no bones about their glory hunting or Chelsea and there largely right wing bias?

what is it that makes Liverpool special?

For me , Liverpool is team over individual, its about socialism in action with fans manager and players each contributing what they can for the greater good - if your political beliefs are not socialist what appeals about a club based in a socialist city, with largely socialist fans and a history aligned with socialist ideals?

what Liverpool football club was all about was refined by a man called Bill Shankly in the 50's and 60's - he epitomised what the club meant to its community - without that sense of community, without the Kop, what are Liverpool but just another football club.

yes Liverpool is lost, its been searching for an identity for nearly 20 years since the creation of the Money leagues - its caught between its socialist roots and the commercialism of the premier league and United, many of its Sky fed fans yearn for billionaire owners like City and Chelsea - missing the point completely of what makes Liverpool different and unique -

Can fan ownership work  - well its does spectacularly at Barcelona -  the German clubs are legislated to have 51% fan ownership - its about community for them too - if the spanish and the germans can see that why can't the english - because there are two many selfish opinionated dicks who dont get what football is about - because we follow the yankee dollar as a country and a club - why has fan ownership not take off at such a  a socialist club because most fans aren't educated or interested in the boardroom, they've been given all the wrong messages and spoon fed bollocks by the media and the owners and they dont want to face the facts thats its them that are keeping the two leeches in charge by going to the game - they are confused wanting to support the team and failing to see their crippling the club - the problem with socialism is that it still needs leadership , focus and commitment and that is seriously lacking at the moment.

Thank you - exactly what I was trying to say.

[Dick Emery]

Liverpool's socialism is a relatively modern conversion. Historically, Liverpool was not a socialist city.

[Bennyo]

Liverpool's socialism is a relatively modern conversion. Historically, Liverpool was not a socialist city.

You're bang on. However, in the context of the debate over football, we have to consider more a more recent history.

[Treasure Everywhere]

You're right.. it doesn't matter much for this thread.. but since you asked I was inferring that Italy's baroque constitution and political polarisation, combined with a culture of corruption that has seen Transparency International rate their levels of 'democracy' as being the lowest in Europe (!), can be used by a man who wields enormous power through his media empire to gain a stable mandate. Italian politics is in a terrible state but it's not about left or right - it's about corruption and a 'family-first' attitude that is completely unsuited to the needs of a post-war state, let alone a 21st century one. Many people consider Berlusconi a necessary evil even if it's just in the short term, as he can bring stability, and consequently that quote doesn't necessarily mean the Rhone guy is a right wing c*nt (although, admittedly, it is likely).

Cheers for replying. I /think/ we're in agreement.

[John C]

I think my point, which you have supported very well is that you dont have a scooby.

Liverpool was/is a socialist city - who owned and founded the club has sweet fa to do with what the club stands for to its supporters - it never has - to quote the great man - the owners are only there to sign the cheques - the foundation for this club is players - manager - fans - the holy trinity.

SLY and murdoch have attempted to take the game from a working class sport to a middle class entertainment and largely succeeded but I dont care the fundamental core of this club is community -whether thats a community based in Liverpool or a world wide global fan base it doesn't matter - what matters is what Liverpool football club stands for

Yes football is now big business and there is as much talk about the board room, net spend and sponsorship as there is about football - thats all part of the middleclass obsession with wealth but the essence of what makes football great and what made Liverpool special is still there - its still the holy trinity.

of course there is no prerequisite to being a supporter but what is the reason for supporting a particular football club

yes plenty of right wing and middleclass supporters follow Liverpool but why is that? What is it about Liverpool that they support? What is it that makes you support Liverpool? Why not support United - there followers make no bones about their glory hunting or Chelsea and there largely right wing bias?

what is it that makes Liverpool special?

For me , Liverpool is team over individual, its about socialism in action with fans manager and players each contributing what they can for the greater good - if your political beliefs are not socialist what appeals about a club based in a socialist city, with largely socialist fans and a history aligned with socialist ideals?

what Liverpool football club was all about was refined by a man called Bill Shankly in the 50's and 60's - he epitomised what the club meant to its community - without that sense of community, without the Kop, what are Liverpool but just another football club.

yes Liverpool is lost, its been searching for an identity for nearly 20 years since the creation of the Money leagues - its caught between its socialist roots and the commercialism of the premier league and United, many of its Sky fed fans yearn for billionaire owners like City and Chelsea - missing the point completely of what makes Liverpool different and unique -

Can fan ownership work  - well its does spectacularly at Barcelona -  the German clubs are legislated to have 51% fan ownership - its about community for them too - if the spanish and the germans can see that why can't the english - because there are two many selfish opinionated dicks who dont get what football is about - because we follow the yankee dollar as a country and a club - why has fan ownership not take off at such a  a socialist club because most fans aren't educated or interested in the boardroom, they've been given all the wrong messages and spoon fed bollocks by the media and the owners and they dont want to face the facts thats its them that are keeping the two leeches in charge by going to the game - they are confused wanting to support the team and failing to see their crippling the club - the problem with socialism is that it still needs leadership , focus and commitment and that is seriously lacking at the moment.

Good post that mate, no disrespect to anyone in particular but it could get lost on a few people on here.

[torres09]

Liverpool as a city has been shafted by both left wing (bluenose Derek and his mates) and right wing (Maggie and her cronies) politicians in the recent past. We tend not to trust politicians of either side any more.

Bill Shankly was a man of the people and we related to him because he respected us, knew what we wanted and had the skills and determination to deliver it. He had his fights along the way, but was strong in character and eventually got his way. Since Bill retired we've had mostly good managers, who had the backing of a mostly good boardroom.

Things changed when the yanks bought the club. They promised the world and have given nothing (but lies). Don't know their politics, but they're certainly not men of the people. Shanks wouldn't have liked them.

So I don't think LFC has ever been left-wing politically, just a club of the people which was run for the people. Call it socialist if you like, but not political.

I think Rafa is a man of the people who is stuck between wanting to achieve things for us, but fighting in an ever increasing financial quagmire. I wonder how Shanks would have got on in a similar position?
 

I think thats spot on.

[torres09]

I think my point, which you have supported very well is that you dont have a scooby.

Liverpool was/is a socialist city - who owned and founded the club has sweet fa to do with what the club stands for to its supporters - it never has - to quote the great man - the owners are only there to sign the cheques - the foundation for this club is players - manager - fans - the holy trinity.

SLY and murdoch have attempted to take the game from a working class sport to a middle class entertainment and largely succeeded but I dont care the fundamental core of this club is community -whether thats a community based in Liverpool or a world wide global fan base it doesn't matter - what matters is what Liverpool football club stands for

Yes football is now big business and there is as much talk about the board room, net spend and sponsorship as there is about football - thats all part of the middleclass obsession with wealth but the essence of what makes football great and what made Liverpool special is still there - its still the holy trinity.

of course there is no prerequisite to being a supporter but what is the reason for supporting a particular football club

yes plenty of right wing and middleclass supporters follow Liverpool but why is that? What is it about Liverpool that they support? What is it that makes you support Liverpool? Why not support United - there followers make no bones about their glory hunting or Chelsea and there largely right wing bias?

what is it that makes Liverpool special?

For me , Liverpool is team over individual, its about socialism in action with fans manager and players each contributing what they can for the greater good - if your political beliefs are not socialist what appeals about a club based in a socialist city, with largely socialist fans and a history aligned with socialist ideals?

what Liverpool football club was all about was refined by a man called Bill Shankly in the 50's and 60's - he epitomised what the club meant to its community - without that sense of community, without the Kop, what are Liverpool but just another football club.

yes Liverpool is lost, its been searching for an identity for nearly 20 years since the creation of the Money leagues - its caught between its socialist roots and the commercialism of the premier league and United, many of its Sky fed fans yearn for billionaire owners like City and Chelsea - missing the point completely of what makes Liverpool different and unique -

Can fan ownership work  - well its does spectacularly at Barcelona -  the German clubs are legislated to have 51% fan ownership - its about community for them too - if the spanish and the germans can see that why can't the english - because there are two many selfish opinionated dicks who dont get what football is about - because we follow the yankee dollar as a country and a club - why has fan ownership not take off at such a  a socialist club because most fans aren't educated or interested in the boardroom, they've been given all the wrong messages and spoon fed bollocks by the media and the owners and they dont want to face the facts thats its them that are keeping the two leeches in charge by going to the game - they are confused wanting to support the team and failing to see their crippling the club - the problem with socialism is that it still needs leadership , focus and commitment and that is seriously lacking at the moment.

Fantastic post mate.

[its cold in the stands]

Liverpool's socialism is a relatively modern conversion. Historically, Liverpool was not a socialist city.

yeah well dont forget up untill the reform act of 1832 only 3% of the population actually voted (the very rich).
the reform act allowed anyone who owned land and factory`s etc to join in the voting process.
the second reform act of 1867 was seen as a big leap forward in terms of democracy but even then only 2 out of every 5 men had the vote.
it was only at the end of the 1800`s that all men got the vote, and women didnt get the vote until after the first world war.
it`s not surprising that most british cities have historically voted tory, they were the only ones who could vote.

[John C]

Liverpool's socialism is a relatively modern conversion. Historically, Liverpool was not a socialist city.

A visit to the opulent Athenaeum club off Church Street that harboured the wealthy merchants business dealings in the city, indeed at one time in the country, would suggest you are correct.  Plus the amount of monuments of similar merchants and businessmen that grace our parks and open spaces would substantiate it. However, the substantial wealth was possessed by the few whilst the remainder that toiled to grow their wealth would have been socialist to the core. I suppose it depends how far back in history you want to go, but wealthy or not as a city, the people were working class.

[evenflow]

No, the NF lumped the flag in with the salutes; that's not my ideology.

late 70's early 80's couldn't go near some grounds if you weren't white. I too remember hoping liverpool would sign a black player. it meant a big thing for us back then.

[redbootneck]

I think my point, which you have supported very well is that you dont have a scooby.

Liverpool was/is a socialist city - who owned and founded the club has sweet fa to do with what the club stands for to its supporters - it never has - to quote the great man - the owners are only there to sign the cheques - the foundation for this club is players - manager - fans - the holy trinity.

SLY and murdoch have attempted to take the game from a working class sport to a middle class entertainment and largely succeeded but I dont care the fundamental core of this club is community -whether thats a community based in Liverpool or a world wide global fan base it doesn't matter - what matters is what Liverpool football club stands for

Yes football is now big business and there is as much talk about the board room, net spend and sponsorship as there is about football - thats all part of the middleclass obsession with wealth but the essence of what makes football great and what made Liverpool special is still there - its still the holy trinity.

of course there is no prerequisite to being a supporter but what is the reason for supporting a particular football club

yes plenty of right wing and middleclass supporters follow Liverpool but why is that? What is it about Liverpool that they support? What is it that makes you support Liverpool? Why not support United - there followers make no bones about their glory hunting or Chelsea and there largely right wing bias?

what is it that makes Liverpool special?

For me , Liverpool is team over individual, its about socialism in action with fans manager and players each contributing what they can for the greater good - if your political beliefs are not socialist what appeals about a club based in a socialist city, with largely socialist fans and a history aligned with socialist ideals?

what Liverpool football club was all about was refined by a man called Bill Shankly in the 50's and 60's - he epitomised what the club meant to its community - without that sense of community, without the Kop, what are Liverpool but just another football club.

yes Liverpool is lost, its been searching for an identity for nearly 20 years since the creation of the Money leagues - its caught between its socialist roots and the commercialism of the premier league and United, many of its Sky fed fans yearn for billionaire owners like City and Chelsea - missing the point completely of what makes Liverpool different and unique -

Can fan ownership work  - well its does spectacularly at Barcelona -  the German clubs are legislated to have 51% fan ownership - its about community for them too - if the spanish and the germans can see that why can't the english - because there are two many selfish opinionated dicks who dont get what football is about - because we follow the yankee dollar as a country and a club - why has fan ownership not take off at such a  a socialist club because most fans aren't educated or interested in the boardroom, they've been given all the wrong messages and spoon fed bollocks by the media and the owners and they dont want to face the facts thats its them that are keeping the two leeches in charge by going to the game - they are confused wanting to support the team and failing to see their crippling the club - the problem with socialism is that it still needs leadership , focus and commitment and that is seriously lacking at the moment.

I've read through your post twice and don't see how you come to the conclusion that I don't have a 'scooby'; or indeed, that I have proven that assertion in my own post.

Thanks for the history lesson and the world according to you.  It is mega interesting. 

However one point to insert in the lecture is that our club always did well from being owned and run as a business (and financially well supported by Littlewoods money) way before most others worked out how to do it.  We could pay big money for players when required, outbidding most others.  The advent of Sky has just enabled others to catch up/pass us due to increased financial clout.

To get back to the point, I don't believe there is an 'interweaving' of socialism and being a supporter of LFC; as is the question posed in the initial thread.  You and others like ConnieLFC feel that way, and that's your right.  I'm a passionate red, and I'm not a socialist. That's my right.

You quite rightly say 'what matters is what Liverpool football club stands for.' My perception of what it stands for is clearly different from yours. For me it stands for loyalty, perseverance, humility, humour in adversity, never giving up, fighting spirit.  None of these are exclusive to socialism.

I support LFC because I support LFC.  Politics is irrelevant to that.

[geoffstrong 1937-2013 RIP]

well three pages proves only one thing politics and  football, do not mix,  socialism is the major force in Liverpool but most of our fans do not live in Liverpool, we now have a corporate image at the club sadly and that is so far removed from the boys from the blackstuff era!

You will be telling me next all spurs fans are Zionists!

[Beninger]

You will be telling me next all spurs fans are Zionists!

No mate, that's Ajax...

[Degs]

The more they try to break us with their divide and conquer philosophy the more we'll band together as one.
Hence the chants of Merseyside in the 80s cup finals,  a big "fuck you we're still here" to Maggie and her c*nts.

[mugsy]

Socialism hasn't always been the main political thinking in our city as pointed above unfortunately in our history it was very much a conservative haven.  Begrudingly I have to admit Manchester was more socialist than we were and more for fighting issues which concerned people ie slavery (when our city was fighting to keep slavery), workers rights, Emmeline Pankhurst was born in Manchester. 

I would say when the rich buggered off Liverpool became more socialist.  Don't know if politics has had anything to do with the way the club has evolved. 

I think it probably has more to do with the community.  Merseyside main sporting interest has always been football.  Be it Everton or Liverpool.  Being the most dominant sport in the city pratically everyone talks about football and during our bad times it has been the place were people can forget about their woes for a short time. 

However it is changed now with TV and sky making it availiable to a world wide public.  People all over the world watch Liverpool, little boys and girls from Liverpool to Australia have posters of Steven Gerrard on their wall.  Which is great football has evolved and Merseyside gets to sell some of our culture to the world.   

[macca_no11]

of course there is no prerequisite to being a supporter but what is the reason for supporting a particular football club

yes plenty of right wing and middleclass supporters follow Liverpool but why is that? What is it about Liverpool that they support? What is it that makes you support Liverpool? Why not support United - there followers make no bones about their glory hunting or Chelsea and there largely right wing bias?

what is it that makes Liverpool special?

For me , Liverpool is team over individual, its about socialism in action with fans manager and players each contributing what they can for the greater good - if your political beliefs are not socialist what appeals about a club based in a socialist city, with largely socialist fans and a history aligned with socialist ideals?

what Liverpool football club was all about was refined by a man called Bill Shankly in the 50's and 60's - he epitomised what the club meant to its community - without that sense of community, without the Kop, what are Liverpool but just another football club.

Great post, which sums my position up quite well.

I think there are lots of reasons why one might start supporting a club - often it's quite accidental. For me it was that the first time I ever bothered to sit down and look at the telly while my dad was watching a football game, Liverpool happened to be playing, and my dad told me he was supporting them because of Craig Johnstone and Brucie (I grew up in South Africa), and because he liked Rushie because he was an opportunist goalscorer. Then he explained to me what "opportunist" meant, and next thing you know Rushie scored two opportunist goals in the game on the telly and I had fallen in love with Liverpool.

But here's the important thing: Falling in love with a team (and why/how one might do it) is one thing, but staying in love with them through good times and bad is another. It was easy for me (or any lad my age) to love supporting the Reds through the 80s when we were winning everything, but something had to keep me in love with them when through periods like the Sounness years. I knew lots of people who claimed to be Liverpool supporters, and then suddenly in the early- to mid-90s they weren't bothering to watch the matches anymore, didn't seem to give a toss about the team, and some, shamefully, were even switching allegiances to other clubs. I think what made me different from them was that I had spent some time learning about the club and it's history, falling in love with the traditions and the ethos of the club, more than just the trophies we'd won and were winning in the 80s. And a big part of that was Shankly's version of socialism, which really resonated with me when I was reading about it as a teenager, and which seemed like such a big part of what the club as a whole was all about - summed up beautifully in our anthem. So when times were tough, I still loved the club because being a part of what I believed it represented had become an important part of my own identity and values.

Now we could quibble over whether the club really is intertwined with socialism, and what version of socialism, etc., but I don't think many people would doubt that Shankly's socialism is a big part of the history and traditions of the club. And obviously different people could have lots of different reasons for coming to support the club and falling in love with it, but for me (and I would guess many others too), the "socialist" (or whatever you'd prefer to call them) leanings and sense of togetherness and community have been a big factor.   

[Vulmea]

I've read through your post twice and don't see how you come to the conclusion that I don't have a 'scooby'; or indeed, that I have proven that assertion in my own post.

Thanks for the history lesson and the world according to you.  It is mega interesting. 

However one point to insert in the lecture is that our club always did well from being owned and run as a business (and financially well supported by Littlewoods money) way before most others worked out how to do it.  We could pay big money for players when required, outbidding most others.  The advent of Sky has just enabled others to catch up/pass us due to increased financial clout.

To get back to the point, I don't believe there is an 'interweaving' of socialism and being a supporter of LFC; as is the question posed in the initial thread.  You and others like ConnieLFC feel that way, and that's your right.  I'm a passionate red, and I'm not a socialist. That's my right.

You quite rightly say 'what matters is what Liverpool football club stands for.' My perception of what it stands for is clearly different from yours. For me it stands for loyalty, perseverance, humility, humour in adversity, never giving up, fighting spirit.  None of these are exclusive to socialism.

I support LFC because I support LFC.  Politics is irrelevant to that.

If yoo had a scooby you wouldn't be riasing arcane points about the owners when this club is all about thefans - even when at its most successful - the business of Liverpool was winning trophies - the club was largely self financing , with whatever money was raised being ploughed back into the club to achieve greater success - it was never about making a profit, we were largely protected from the harsh realities of 'business. Things have dramnatically changed of late and hence the schism in the club.


Do I detect a touch of sarcasm?  I dont think you were mega interested at all you little scallywag.

I think there is also a misconception of 'socialism', small 's' and politics - I hate politicians with a passion most are self serving lying egotists - but there is a way of living which transcends 'politics' - I believe if you live in a certain way then you will naturally have views that are considered 'left wing' but you appear to use the term as an accusation, like Mccarthy and communism.

I'm not sure your list contains anything different than mine - its just missing a few things -

harmony - the original meaning not the later one  - i.e. 'sticking together in tough times' the type of spirit which only happens in adversity, when a community comes together and is unified against a common enemy - 

community - a place to belong and one that embraces you as a member

equality - where each contributes what they can for the good as a whole and each shares the rewards - whether its a millionaire footballer banging in a hat-trick or a snot nosed kid off the street standing up to some blue nose scallies - they support Liverpool football club and share in its success or its failure.

Liverpool, for me its about shared success - loyalty, a sense of humour what the point unless those things are shared?

[PanchDeBurca]

You seem to have got stuck on the 'patriotism' aspect following my post about the union flags and a difference in 'mood' between clubs like Liverpool or Leeds back at the start of the 80s. There are different shades of patriotism; some are 'positive' and don't try to denigrate others to make themselves feel better. One element of that as it would apply to Liverpool fans is that there were always many fans from Scotland and Ireland as well as Liverpool and other parts of England. Not all of those fans would happily fly the union flag, but might comfortably support their national team. The 'patriotism' and nationalism of the 'British Isles' (a term not accepted by many Irish people, but includes Ireland) is more complicated than in many countries, because there are two different 'levels' of nationality - English and British, etc. It's possible for someone to be 'gently' patriotic and support the English or Scottish team, without wanting the more negative associations that often come with 'British' - the Empire, the flag, etc. Wanting Scotland to beat England certainly doesn't automatically mean that one isn't an internationalist, much less a 'socialist' in the community context.

Anyway... not sure this will go anywhere but round and round...

edit: I supported Scotland as a kid, because of Hansen-Souness-Dalglish. I'll support England, Spain and Argentina in the World Cup (maybe Brazil for Lucas; anyone else going to be represented, I forget?). I won't watch England in a pub though, because I don't want to be surrounded by jingoistic racist wankers (plenty of those here in Luton).

The term "British Isles" is a geographical term used to describe the archipelago that is UK, Ireland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc (Similar to the use of the phrase Carribbean Islands to include many different countries in that particular landmass) It has been hijacked as a political term covering all of the islands when in fact in poitical terms it cannot be used to cover these islands since Irish Independence.  If used properly I am sure it would not be a phrase that invokes such hatred in Irish, alas it has been hijacked as a political phrase, and as a result is not recognised in Ireland

Also does anyone from Scotland or Wales actually consider themselves British or recognise the Union Jack??  I was under the impression that it was mainly only English people that did that

Just on the world cup, how can you "support" England, Spain, Argentina, Brazil etc??  Surely you mean follow??  Will you be crying into your beer if Maradona fucks up and the Argies go out at the group stages??  because for me support is about evoking emotion and passion, I'll follow Argentina as I would like to see a genius like Messi succeed, but if they go out at the group stages I won;t be shedding any tears, thats reserved for the teams I support

[Wingman]

What exactly is your point here? That LFC is a socialist club because a majority of the population of Liverpool vote Labour? Is that not the same for every football club in almost every British city north of Watford? Not sure about the reference to Sky inventing football clubs - how many are there?
LFC was founded by 2 Orangemen, with a larger than normal of Orange Halls and Orangemen living within Liverpool than in any other mainland British city other than Glasgow.  Is this reflected in modern day LFC? No.
The original post refers to an 'interweaving' of socialism with LFC.  My point is that there is no connection between supporting LFC and being a socialist, though some will try to attach their politics to the football team they support - this is their own creation, and not a prerequisite to supporting the team.

Well said sir.

[Five Times]

For me , Liverpool is team over individual, its about socialism in action with fans manager and players each contributing what they can for the greater good - if your political beliefs are not socialist what appeals about a club based in a socialist city, with largely socialist fans and a history aligned with socialist ideals?

I'm a middle class southerner, and the above paragraph epitomises why I'm in love with Liverpool FC. It's more than a club. It's a belief, a way of life, and one that I hope Sky and Hicks and Gillette never manage to erode, though they're clearly doing a pretty good job of it.

[Wallingtonian]

It dawned on me Yesterday while looking at the amazing new Pepe flag which has the slogan "No pasarán" across it, that the link between the club's supporters and Socialist ideology is interwoven.

For people who don't know, No pasarán translates from Spanish as "they shall not pass". The slogan is used through out the world by Left wing organisations and was used by Republicans in the Spanish Civil war. Socialism imagery also can be found in the new Irish Kop banner dedicated to our great Managers and the crest of AFC Liverpool.

So what I'm asking is, was the link between Liverpool supporters and the left always so strong our did right wing elements creep in at some stage? Is the link these days just stylised? Is Liverpool still a socialist city?

Like everywhere in England there are people of every political persuasion.  Where I lived it went from a safe Labour seat to Liberals as there was no great love for the former party.  I don't live there anymore so God knows whether my former constituency even exists now (Mossley Hill).  There are many thousands of people in the city who'd be offended to be lumped in with the description of socialst and can't wait to for the coming general election to dump the tax, spend, borrow, tax, spend, borrow merchants who have bankrupted the country.

Don't confuse the words on one flag as a confirmation of anything.  There is nothing interwoven between the bulk of the club's supporters and socialist ideology at all.  That only exists for the socialists who happen to support the club.  Given that only a minority of our fans is from the city itself it's a fair bet that, like the country at large, only about a third would consider themselves socialist.  Taking account of our much wider fanbase it's safe to say that socialists would be an even smaller minority.

Anyway, politics has no place in football.  It's one area where people of all political persuasions can get along regardless.  Any attempts to link football or fans' groups with an ideology (this SoS obsession with socialism is a classic point) is absolutely bound to alienate a huge number of fans and is ultimately and inevitably counter-productive

[Lord Roger Hunt]

For my sins, and believe it or not, I was a member of the Poly's Socialist Worker Party when I was a lad (primarily because we went on lots of coach trips to throw bricks at the police, the girls were really fit and 'easy' if you were a working class hero - allegedly ). My socialism came from my Dad, rabid he was/is, but this was the time of Militant and Derek Hatton etc.

I  have to say, despite the idealism of youth, that I was horrified by what I witnessed during that period. I did an HND in electronics at Poly and had a work placement with Liverpool Council. The blokes I worked with were great pisstakers, friendly, and family men. They were my friends and I would call them working class socialists.

But I saw the same men threatened with being forced out of work; on one occasion, one lad was physically assaulted and another was told that he'd never be able to work in Liverpool again - and this young lad a two kids, with one on the way.

Who was threatening them? Representatives of Militant. Why? because they wanted a 'support fund' to pay for their (our) trips around the country to throw bricks at the police (and get pissed).

I remember the fear in the eyes of these poor guys - and they paid up, despite the hardship it caused them.

Hatton lived across the road from me at the time, his dad, George, was a fire bobby with my Dad, they were good friends. But   I remember my Dad, after he witnessed some of the antics of Militant himself, going across the road to 'Degsy' and telling him that he and his 'cronies' were like the 'brown shirts; and were a 'disgrace to Socialism'.

The actions of Hatton and his followers have a lot to answer for, not least giving Thatcher a stick to beat all true socialists with. 

Degsy - prime tosser, enemy of socialism and now living in Manchester - good riddance. 

[macca_no11]

Like everywhere in England there are people of every political persuasion.  Where I lived it went from a safe Labour seat to Liberals as there was no great love for the former party.  I don't live there anymore so God knows whether my former constituency even exists now (Mossley Hill).  There are many thousands of people in the city who'd be offended to be lumped in with the description of socialst and can't wait to for the coming general election to dump the tax, spend, borrow, tax, spend, borrow merchants who have bankrupted the country.

You seem to be conflating support for the Labour Party (and the Labour Party itself) with socialism. There are many different versions of socialism, and the version that I would associate with Shankly (and our club more generally) does not necessarily correspond to the version that the Labour Party espouses. To the extent that I see Liverpool as associated with socialist ideology, I don't see it as the kind of ideology associated with any particular organized political party, government, etc., but more to do with a way of life - just like the Shankly quote on socialism that others have quoted implies.

Don't confuse the words on one flag as a confirmation of anything.  There is nothing interwoven between the bulk of the club's supporters and socialist ideology at all.  That only exists for the socialists who happen to support the club.  Given that only a minority of our fans is from the city itself it's a fair bet that, like the country at large, only about a third would consider themselves socialist.  Taking account of our much wider fanbase it's safe to say that socialists would be an even smaller minority.

Regardless of what proportion of our supporters might identify themselves as socialists of some sort, do you really think there is no connection between our club and socialist ideology of some sort? Was what Shankly said about it (and his whole approach to being a Liverpool manager) just an anomaly that says nothing about the club more generally? Clearly there are lots of Liverpool fans who don't identify as socialists, but if they buy into the ethos of the club (as best epitomised, arguably, by Shankly), and live their lives according to it, then are they not living a kind of socialism, regardless of what label they may want or not want to put on it?

Anyway, politics has no place in football.  It's one area where people of all political persuasions can get along regardless. 

I will agree that electoral politics - the politics of political parties - has no place in football, but at some level all life is political. People live according to ideologies/values/beliefs (whatever you want to call them) that are unavoidably political, even if they have nothing explicit to do with organized political parties/movements. Certainly (I would hope) all of us can get along regardless of political persuasions, as long as we're united in our love for our club, but don't you think there are aspects of what it means to be a Liverpool fan that could be seen as ideological/values-based, etc.? Things like "The Liverpool Way," that we all use to hold people (the current owners especially) accountable for acting in accordance with the club's traditions and ethos - don't you think those are political in a sense (albeit, again, not in the organized political party sense)?

Any attempts to link football or fans' groups with an ideology (this SoS obsession with socialism is a classic point) is absolutely bound to alienate a huge number of fans and is ultimately and inevitably counter-productive

I agree with you here - if using ideological labels alienates large sections of the support base, especially when we need to be united at times like this, then we can do without them. At the same time, I think the SoS's use of language normally associated with socialism also reflects their assumptions that such language would resonate with the majority of the support base - which to me is just more evidence for the association between the club and socialism. And in that sense, perhaps the people who feel alienated by it are interpreting it in a particular way - based more on the socialism of organized political parties than the kind of socialism that Shankly (and, I assume, SoS) mean it to represent. Nonetheless, if it's alienating people instead of gaining their support, then perhaps some re-thinking is in order.

[exiledinyorkshire]

What exactly is your point here? That LFC is a socialist club because a majority of the population of Liverpool vote Labour? Is that not the same for every football club in almost every British city north of Watford? Not sure about the reference to Sky inventing football clubs - how many are there?
LFC was founded by 2 Orangemen, with a larger than normal of Orange Halls and Orangemen living within Liverpool than in any other mainland British city other than Glasgow.  Is this reflected in modern day LFC? No.
The original post refers to an 'interweaving' of socialism with LFC.  My point is that there is no connection between supporting LFC and being a socialist, though some will try to attach their politics to the football team they support - this is their own creation, and not a prerequisite to supporting the team.

You are entitled to follow the club regardless of your political creed. The danger is that if you are "of the rigth", in my opinion, you will never really get it. Never really understand the true greatness of the club that we follow. In my opinion of course, and thats fine, because people can get many things fromn a club on many levels. Some people get the thrill of kicking the shit out of other people from an allegience to a football club, and all though its unfair to lay the blame at the door of the majority and the club itself, its also a bit niave to suggest that the violent urges of young men and the triballism fostered by football clubs isnt in some way all bound up together.

And socialism for me is inherent in the ethos of the Liverpool way. If it isnt for you then fine, but i think your missing the point.