What's the difference between the government controlling fight sports and communism?

S

superpunch

Banned
Banned
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
21,165
Reaction score
4,676
In the Soviet union, they controlled the economy with the government and the economy didn't work well. Now there's the Ali Act, state commissions, and just the government controlling the industry. We seem to run into a lot of the same problems.
 
Nothing, anything that an organized government touches turns to shit.

Edit- that is the norm in Canada anyways.
 
superpunch said:
We seem to run into a lot of the same problems.
Click to expand...

Ali Act was created to stop promoters from exploiting fighters. Sanctioning bodies are handled at the State level, not Federal. With specific State Sanctioning bodies being inept of needed oversight.

State Sanctioning bodies dont dictate the fight card. They are tasked with making sure the booked fights dont put someone at serious risk. For instance if a promoter booked myself versus Mayweather in a boxing match the State wouldnt sanction the fight.

UFC's business model has changed over the years. Today their premiere booked fights are done for ratings with weight class titles on the line.
 
KaNesDeath said:
Ali Act was created to stop promoters from exploiting fighters. Sanctioning bodies are handled at the State level, not Federal. With specific State Sanctioning bodies being inept of needed oversight.

State Sanctioning bodies dont dictate the fight card. They are tasked with making sure the booked fights dont put someone at serious risk. For instance if a promoter booked myself versus Mayweather in a boxing match the State wouldnt sanction the fight.

UFC's business model has changed over the years. Today their premiere booked fights are done for ratings with weight class titles on the line.
Click to expand...
Good post. Corruption in the sport needs to be put in check somehow and while athletic commissions can't keep it out of the sport, the threat of repercussions is there.
 
KaNesDeath said:
Ali Act was created to stop promoters from exploiting fighters. Sanctioning bodies are handled at the State level, not Federal. With specific State Sanctioning bodies being inept of needed oversight.

State Sanctioning bodies dont dictate the fight card. They are tasked with making sure the booked fights dont put someone at serious risk. For instance if a promoter booked myself versus Mayweather in a boxing match the State wouldnt sanction the fight.

UFC's business model has changed over the years. Today their premiere booked fights are done for ratings with weight class titles on the line.
Click to expand...
Yeah but I think you could hold your own against Mayweather, you won't win but you won't die either, imagine what you could do with that 20-30 mil for less than a hour of beatings.
 
superpunch said:
In the Soviet union, they controlled the economy with the government and the economy didn't work well. Now there's the Ali Act, state commissions, and just the government controlling the industry. We seem to run into a lot of the same problems.
Click to expand...
Massive difference in regulation and total control
 
"Fedor would have wrecked the UFC Heayweight Division" - Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

superpunch said:
In the Soviet union, they controlled the economy with the government and the economy didn't work well. Now there's the Ali Act, state commissions, and just the government controlling the industry. We seem to run into a lot of the same problems.
Click to expand...

Fwiw, the USSR's centrally planned economy is no what doomed it. Exerting public control over the economy, as opposed to aristocratic control, turned Russia from a pre-industrial land of peasants and farmers into a world super power in about 2 decades.

Regardless, (a) there are a lot of differences between regulations and ownership, and (b) regulations in sports are extremely important to prevent promotional entities like the UFC exploiting their fighters to extents that are more disgusting than already exist.
 
Trotsky said:
Fwiw, the USSR's centrally planned economy is no what doomed it. Exerting public control over the economy, as opposed to aristocratic control, turned Russia from a pre-industrial land of peasants and farmers into a world super power in about 2 decades.
Click to expand...

Someone didn't take the blue pill in their history classroom.
 
ultramanhyata said:
Someone didn't take the blue pill in their history classroom.
Click to expand...

Haha, as a Trotskyist I think it's important to appreciate the relative successes, as well as the relative failures, of the Russian state. The popular American narrative that the USSR is a cautionary tale against centrally planned economies is just so silly. Whether you are for or against it, or are the 99% that are somewhere between the poles, it's undeniable that Russia 1917-1990 is a persuasive lesson in the benefits of central planning.
 
Trotsky said:
Haha, as a Trotskyist I think it's important to appreciate the relative successes, as well as the relative failures, of the Russian state. The popular American narrative that the USSR is a cautionary tale against centrally planned economies is just so silly. Whether you are for or against it, or are the 99% that are somewhere between the poles, it's undeniable that Russia 1917-1990 is a persuasive lesson in the benefits of central planning.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to me that the same people who can both acknowledge the economic power of Southern slavery while simultaneously declaring its immorality seem unable to grant the economic success of central planning in the USSR.

It's almost as if it's simply too threatening to free-market ideology and so must be falsely characterized as an abject failure.
 
They both start off with flowery language and high-minded ideals but they end with that 3 am knock on the door. Back then the men knocking were called KGB, today they're known as USADA.
 
ultramanhyata said:
It's interesting to me that the same people who can both acknowledge the economic power of Southern slavery while simultaneously declaring its immorality seem unable to grant the economic success of central planning in the USSR.

It's almost as if it's simply too threatening to free-market ideology and so must be falsely characterized as an abject failure.
Click to expand...

Yeah, after living in France and seeing how nuanced their citizens' view of history is, I sometimes wonder how unique America's reductive and objectivist right-wrong, good guy-bad guy view of history is to the educated world. Like, it made sense to proselytize the citizenry against communism during the Cold War, but the fact that it is still taboo today to talk about the United States' crimes or speak impartially about political actors such as Trotsky, Lenin, or Castro is really concerning. Especially since our country seems to be in the process of entering a whole new era of anti-information and historical revisionism.
 
Trotsky said:
"Fedor would have wrecked the UFC Heayweight Division" - Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto



Fwiw, the USSR's centrally planned economy is no what doomed it. Exerting public control over the economy, as opposed to aristocratic control, turned Russia from a pre-industrial land of peasants and farmers into a world super power in about 2 decades.

Regardless, (a) there are a lot of differences between regulations and ownership, and (b) regulations in sports are extremely important to prevent promotional entities like the UFC exploiting their fighters to extents that are more disgusting than already exist.
Click to expand...
The USSR was the product of faulty statistics. They had to report that their people weren’t starving or in poverty or the city administrators would be in big trouble. Western academics were corrupted and went along with the BS lies. It wasn’t until the 1970s that we found out how full of crap they were. And how corrupted our leftist academics were.

If Western Europe post 1970 or the USA at any point put as much of our economy into the military as the ussr, it would have been no contest.

Look at the space race. The USSR puts a satellite into space. Then America starts trying and it’s not even a contest anymore.

The ussr was like a 5’6 bodybuilder. Takes roids and spends his entire life trying to be a big boy and ends up 190 lbs.

Meanwhile the capitalist USA wasn’t even trying and is 200 lbs just because he’s 6’4. If he roided up like the commy the USA would be 300 lbs shredded.
 
superpunch said:
The USSR was the product of faulty statistics. They had to report that their people weren’t starving or in poverty or the city administrators would be in big trouble. Western academics were corrupted and went along with the BS lies. It wasn’t until the 1970s that we found out how full of crap they were. And how corrupted our leftist academics were.

If Western Europe post 1970 or the USA at any point put as much of our economy into the military as the ussr, it would have been no contest.

Look at the space race. The USSR puts a satellite into space. Then America starts trying and it’s not even a contest anymore.

The ussr was like a 5’6 bodybuilder. Takes roids and spends his entire life trying to be a big boy and ends up 190 lbs.

Meanwhile the capitalist USA wasn’t even trying and is 200 lbs just because he’s 6’4. If he roided up like the commy the USA would be 300 lbs shredded.
Click to expand...

Regardless of your contentions (some of which I believe are patently very silly and conspiracy theory-esque given that the iron curtain has long fallen and academia had ZERO incentive to be lenient wth the USSR given that actors, writers, sociologists, and economists were routinely imprisoned on suspicions of being Communist sympathizers for speaking in ways that were at all complimentary), it is still undeniable that Russia was turned from a country with basically no industrial or economic infrastructure and no real modern defense capabilities into the second most powerful economy in the world and owners of the second most powerful military in the history of the world on the back of centrally planned economic development.

And, frankly, I don't think there were many illusions about what the USSR, or life in it, was like. While things like life expectancy, literacy, and rates of malnutrition did sharply improve and remained some of the highest in the world, individual luxury was not commonplace as it was in the post-New Deal United States and political life was abysmal. Living in the USSR was markedly less enjoyable than living in the United States for probably 90-95% of citizens. That is something that can be said without propagandizing the message.

More to the point: free market development absolutely, definitively would not have yielded anything close to the same economic spike in Russia as central planning did. And that has influenced centralist economic organization in countries including the United States.
 
I'd say this is comparing apples to oranges, but at least those two are both fruit
 
superpunch said:
In the Soviet union, they controlled the economy with the government and the economy didn't work well. Now there's the Ali Act, state commissions, and just the government controlling the industry. We seem to run into a lot of the same problems.
Click to expand...

If you are curious what sports were like in the USSR, here is a documentary on their hockey team. It is really good.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,049
Messages
55,463,669
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top