Germany 2006

[striker 9]

A great world cup..... And the winner is - I told you so! hehehehe

and the best and fairest goes to: Zinedine Zi-Zou Zidane .... what a fukken retard!

[dibo (pron. "DIB-OH")]

i really wanted france to win, then i really didn't want to see zinedine zidane within coo-ee of the cup, then i really didn't want to see penalties, and most of all i didn't want to see fabio grosso kick the winning penalty. f***ing shithouse.

[dibo (pron. "DIB-OH")]

[apologies for replying to myself]

what makes me curious is what the hell did materazzi say to get that reaction?

from the footage, there was a bit of banter, not too nice-tempered either, and then something made zizou snap.

zidane was sent off justifiably, and his actions were disgraceful to the point that he will have a hard time ever having his fantastic career ever mentioned without the headbutt - much the same as drugs and the hand of god for maradona i guess - but what did materazzi do?

accuse me of sour grapes, accuse me of clutching at straws, i don't really care, but i reckon materazzi's said something pretty foul for zizou to react that way.

martin tyler was speculating about racial abuse (that's probably the only thing he could think of to make zidane snap, and i'm a bit too tired to think of anything else too) - if that's the case materazzi should have been off as well. cue a really interesting punch-up in the tunnel i guess...

never mind, spilt milk and all that.

[striker 9]

dibo said:

what makes me curious is what the hell did materazzi say to get that reaction?

he probably said - your wife was good last night!

[dibo (pron. "DIB-OH")]

hmmm...

FOXSports.com's Jamie Trecker reports that French players told French media members that Materazzi used a racial slur which prompted the headbutt.

[striker 9]

I must admit, I'm disappointed to see Zidane end his international career like this. I liked Zidane as a player when he was at Juve and I have seen many games where he was simply brilliant, in my opinion not a dirty player and he seems like a nice person as well. Sadly now I'll remeber him

[dibo (pron. "DIB-OH")]

spotted on the world game forum



;D ;D ;D

[dibo (pron. "DIB-OH")]

but wait, there's more!

[crooksey]

lol thats hilarious ;D ;D ;D i really couldnt believe it this morning when zizou snapped because ive never seen him as a dirty player and more just as a fair guy who is a footballing genius. id love to know what materazzi said cos zizou just went totally of his rocker. he had turned to get away but something was said and he swung around quick smart and hit the grease monkey. I'd have liked them both to of gone cos it has to work both ways so that theses comments aren't made to start with. It really is a sour end to a great career and i hope he isn't remembered for being the guy who cost france a world cup. You could tell from that point on france were going to struggle but i was expecting italy to choke come penalties.

But of all the guys to take the last kick why did it have to be DAMN GROSSO i must say i really cant stand the guy. I had germany in a sweep and this bloody fabio guy comes along and dives to eliminate aussies, scores to knock out the germans and then goes and takes the defining penalty!!!

[DJ]

dibo - thats the best thing you have ever posted lol

[dibo (pron. "DIB-OH")]

djgrounsell said:

dibo - thats the best thing you have ever posted lol

that's not that hard to believe, most of my stuff is more like

..So far as the labour-process is purely individual, one and the same labourer unites in himself all the functions, that later on become separated. When an individual appropriates natural objects for his livelihood, no one controls him but himself. Afterwards he is controlled by others. A single man cannot operate upon Nature without calling his own muscles into play under the control of his own brain. As in the natural body head and hand wait upon each other, so the labour-process unites the labour of the hand with that of the head. Later on they part company and even become deadly foes. The product ceases to be the direct product of the individual, and becomes a social product, produced in common by a collective labourer, i.e., by a combination of workmen, each of whom takes only a part, greater or less, in the manipulation of the subject of their labour. As the co-operative character of the labour-process becomes more and more marked, so, as a necessary consequence, does our notion of productive labour, and of its agent the productive labourer, become extended. In order to labour productively, it is no longer necessary for you to do manual work yourself; enough, if you are an organ of the collective labourer, and perform one of its subordinate functions. The first definition given above of productive labour, a definition deduced from the very nature of the production of material objects, still remains correct for the collective labourer, considered as a whole. But it no longer holds good for each member taken individually.

On the other hand, however, our notion of productive labour becomes narrowed. Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is essentially the production of surplus-value. The labourer produces, not for himself, but for capital. It no longer suffices, therefore, that he should simply produce. He must produce surplus-value. That labourer alone is productive, who produces surplus-value for the capitalist, and thus works for the self-expansion of capital. If we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material objects, a schoolmaster is a productive labourer when, in addition to belabouring the heads of his scholars, he works like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That the latter has laid out his capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausage factory, does not alter the relation. Hence the notion of a productive labourer implies not merely a relation between work and useful effect, between labourer and product of labour, but also a specific, social relation of production, a relation that has sprung up historically and stamps the labourer as the direct means of creating surplus-value. To be a productive labourer is, therefore, not a piece of luck, but a misfortune. In Book IV. which treats of the history of the theory, it will be more clearly seen, that the production of surplus-value has at all times been made, by classical political economists, the distinguishing characteristic of the productive labourer. Hence their definition of a productive labourer changes with their comprehension of the nature of surplus-value. Thus the Physiocrats insist that only agricultural labour is productive, since that alone, they say, yields a surplus-value. And they say so because, with them, surplus-value has no existence except in the form of rent.

The prolongation of the working-day beyond the point at which the labourer would have produced just an equivalent for the value of his labour-power, and the appropriation of that surplus-labour by capital, this is production of absolute surplus-value. It forms the general groundwork of the capitalist system, and the starting-point for the production of relative surplus-value. The latter pre-supposes that the working-day is already divided into two parts, necessary labour, and surplus-labour. In order to prolong the surplus-labour, the necessary labour is shortened by methods whereby the equivalent for the wages is produced in less time. The production of absolute surplus-value turns exclusively upon the length of the working-day; the production of relative surplus-value, revolutionises out and out the technical processes of labour, and the composition of society. It therefore pre-supposes a specific mode, the capitalist mode of production, a mode which, along with its methods, means, and conditions, arises and develops itself spontaneously on the foundation afforded by the formal subjection of labour to capital. In the course of this development, the formal subjection is replaced by the real subjection of labour to capital.

It will suffice merely to refer to certain intermediate forms, in which surplus-labour is not extorted by direct compulsion from the producer, nor the producer himself yet formally subjected to capital. In such forms capital has not yet acquired the direct control of the labour-process. By the side of independent producers who carry on their handicrafts and agriculture in the traditional old-fashioned way, there stands the usurer or the merchant, with his usurer's capital or merchant's capital, feeding on them like a parasite. The predominance, in a society, of this form of exploitation excludes the capitalist mode of production; to which mode, however, this form may serve as a transition, as it did towards the close of the Middle Ages. Finally, as is shown by modern "domestic industry," some intermediate forms are here and there reproduced in the background of Modern Industry, though their physiognomy is totally changed.

If, on the one hand, the mere formal subjection of labour to capital suffices for the production of absolute surplus-value, if, e.g., it is sufficient that handicraftsman who previously worked on their own account, or as apprentices of a master, should become wage labourers under the direct control of a capitalist; so, on the other hand, we have seen, how the methods of producing relative surplus-value, are, at the same time, methods of producing absolute surplus-value. Nay, more, the excessive prolongation of the working-day turned out to be the peculiar product of Modern Industry. Generally speaking, the specifically capitalist mode of production ceases to be a mere means of producing relative surplus-value, so soon as that mode has conquered an entire branch of production; and still more so, so soon as it has conquered all the important branches. It then becomes the general, socially predominant form of production. As a special method of producing relative surplus-value, it remains effective only, first, in so far as it seizes upon industries that previously were only formally subject to capital, that is, so far as it is propagandist; secondly, in so far as the industries that have been taken over by it, continue to be revolutionised by changes in the methods of production.

From one standpoint, any distinction between absolute and relative surplus-value appears illusory. Relative surplus-value is absolute, since it compels the absolute prolongation of the working-day beyond the labour-time necessary to the existence of the labourer himself. Absolute surplus-value is relative, since it makes necessary such a development of the productiveness of labour, as will allow of the necessary labour-time being confined to a portion of the working-day. But if we keep in mind the behaviour of surplus-value, this appearance of identity vanishes. Once the capitalist mode of production is established and become general, the difference between absolute and relative surplus-value makes itself felt, whenever there is a question of raising the rate of surplus-value. Assuming that labour-power is paid for at its value, we are confronted by this alternative: given the productiveness of labour and its normal intensity, the rate of surplus-value can be raised only by the actual prolongation of the working-day; on the other hand, given the length of the working-day, that rise can be effected only by a change in the relative magnitudes of the components of the working-day, viz., necessary labour and surplus-labour; a change which, if the wages are not to fall below the value of labour-power, presupposes a change either in the productiveness or in the intensity of the labour.

If the labourer wants all his time to produce the necessary means of subsistence for himself and his race, he has no time left in which to work gratis for others. Without a certain degree of productiveness in his labour, he has no such superfluous time at his disposal; without such superfluous time, no surplus-labour, and therefore no capitalists, no slave-owners, no feudal lords, in one word, no class of large proprietors. [1]

Thus we may say that surplus-value rests on a natural basis; but this is permissible only in the very general sense, that there is no natural obstacle absolutely preventing one man from disburdening himself of the labour requisite for his own existence, and burdening another with it, any more, for instance, than unconquerable natural obstacle prevent one man from eating the flesh of another. [2] No mystical ideas must in any way be connected, as sometimes happens, with this historically developed productiveness of labour. It is only after men have raised themselves above the rank of animals, when therefore their labour has been to some extent socialised, that a state of things arises in which the surplus-labour of the one becomes a condition of existence for the other. At the dawn of civilisation the productiveness acquired by labour is small, but so too are the wants which develop with and by the means of satisfying them. Further, at that early period, the portion of society that lives on the labour of others is infinitely small compared with the mass of direct producers. Along with the progress in the productiveness of labour, that small portion of society increases both absolutely and relatively. [3] Besides, capital with its accompanying relations springs up from an economic soil that is the product of a long process of development. The productiveness of labour that serves as its foundation and starting-point, is a gift, not of nature, but of a history embracing thousands of centuries.

Apart from the degree of development, greater or less, in the form of social production, the productiveness of labour is fettered by physical conditions. These are all referable to the constitution of man himself (race, &c.), and to surrounding nature. The external physical conditions fall into two great economic classes, (1) Natural wealth in means of subsistence, i.e., a fruitful soil, waters teeming with fish, &c., and (2), natural wealth in the instruments of labour, such as waterfalls, navigable rivers, wood, metal, coal, &c. At the dawn of civilisation, it is the first class that turns the scale; at a higher stage of development, it is the second. Compare, for example, England with India, or in ancient times, Athens and Corinth with the shores of the Black Sea.

The fewer the number of natural wants imperatively calling for satisfaction, and the greater the natural fertility of the soil and the favourableness of the climate, so much less is the labour-time necessary for the maintenance and reproduction of the producer. So much greater therefore can be the excess of his labours for others over his labour for himself. Diodorus long ago remarked this in relation to the ancient Egyptians. "It is altogether incredible how little trouble and expense the bringing up of their children causes them. They cook for them the first simple food at hand; they also give them the lower part of the papyrus stem to eat, so far as it can be roasted in the fire, and the roots and stalks of marsh plants, some raw, some boiled and roasted. Most of the children go without shoes and unclothed, for the air is so mild. Hence a child, until he is grown up, costs his parents not more, on the whole, than twenty drachmas. It is this, chiefly, which explains why the population of Egypt is so numerous, and, therefore, why so many great works can be undertaken." [4] Nevertheless the grand structures of ancient Egypt are less due to the extent of its population than to the large proportion of it that was freely disposable. Just as the individual labourer can do more surplus-labour in proportion as his necessary labour-time is less, so with regard to the working population. The smaller the part of it which is required for the production of the necessary means of subsistence, so much the greater is the part that can be set to do other work...

[Bearinator]

Hands up anyone who actually read that???

Anyway, racist prick stayed on, Zidane will be remembered for a silly moment rather than a great career, and refs once again ruin a world cup, same old, same old.

[dibo (pron. "DIB-OH")]

bearinator said:

Hands up anyone who actually read that???

i hope you didn't - it was just randomly quoted out of Karl Marx's Das Kapital (the most dense, turgid mass i could think of), the chapter on the surplus value of labour etc.

bearinator said:

Anyway, racist prick stayed on, Zidane will be remembered for a silly moment rather than a great career, and refs once again ruin a world cup, same old, same old.

i don't reckon the ref did much wrong there - it's a bit hard for the bloke. he couldn't have not sent him off. play stopped because of the injury, and while the ref didn't see the incident, the replays were showing a clear red card offence on screen and short of closing his eyes he couldn't have missed it. though he's not meant to make a decision on video evidence, he couldn't sensibly ignore it either. so zidane was off. what the replays couldn't show was whatever (presumably verbal) provocation preceded the headbutt. so materazzi goes unpunished.

i think it's bollocks, and one very good reason why replays shouldn't be shown on in-stadium screens (unless we open up the rules to allow consideration of video evidence) but the ref was doing the only sensible thing he could do in the circumstances.

[omni]

After the headbutt I didn't want either team to win, but Grosso to score the winner?

Shame that Zidane has ended his career that way, must have been terrible. Why not smash him after the game?

Can't believe Italy didn't miss a penalty!!!

[greenpoleffc]

UK press reporting that the comments were terrorist/muslim related.

Having said that, fancy an experienced pro falling for that old trick, it usually stops working in under 8's (unless you are Rooney or some other thicko).

Head butt to the chest is new - never seen one actually aimed there as opposed to the bridge of the nose

[DJ]

tonaz.altervista.org/zidane.html

New internet game - Get sent off like Zidane lol

[striker 9]

greenpoleffc said:

Head butt to the chest is new - never seen one actually aimed there as opposed to the bridge of the nose

heheheh... I guess he couldn't reach the nose?

[dibo (pron. "DIB-OH")]

greenpoleffc said:

UK press reporting that the comments were terrorist/muslim related.

Having said that, fancy an experienced pro falling for that old trick, it usually stops working in under 8's (unless you are Rooney or some other thicko).

i'm not so sure - remember that madrid (zizou's home for the last few years) was the target of some really seriously nasty terror attacks a couple of years back, zidane could justifiably be a little sensitive. imagine going up to a new yorker and making september 11 related insults - they're not exactly going to be looking to swap shirts with you at full time.

[striker 9]

greenpoleffc said:

Having said that, fancy an experienced pro falling for that old trick, it usually stops working in under 8's (unless you are Rooney or some other thicko).

Can you imagine a world cup dream team that includes Zidane and Rooney. Zizou will knock them down; Rooney will trample them. (Grosso will then fall over them).

[dibo (pron. "DIB-OH")]

striker said:

greenpoleffc said:

Having said that, fancy an experienced pro falling for that old trick, it usually stops working in under 8's (unless you are Rooney or some other thicko).

Can you imagine a world cup dream team that includes Zidane and Rooney. Zizou will knock them down; Rooney will trample them. (Grosso will then fall over them).

well if we're having the world cup of disgrace...

de rossi can elbow them in the head, kalac can fall under bouncing balls, swiss players can take penalties...