I am going to give my point of view on the topic, but before I do I am going to point out that none of it is to be taken into offence and that if you are offended please let me know via PM and I will discuss it with you.
The Bulldogs are the centre of 'poor crowds' because of the frequency of 'major' incidents. This is not to say that other clubs don't have their problems or incidents, but it happens more at Bulldogs games. This is due to a sector of fans, that whilst been reported as small, is larger than most suspect. The NRL and Bulldogs have little power in controlling these crowds, and as stated earlier, incidents of crowd behaviour is only a representation of what is happening in a larger society.
Due to this, Bulldogs fans will be seen as trouble makers. Is this fair? No. Does it happen? Yes. This is the exact same answer when families have to move to avoid vile and violent fans. At times of conflict personal freedoms are limited. It is a shame, but it is reality. The media does have a lot of say in this area, but we are not all easily led by the media. Opinions are an accumulation of what we learn (media/parents/work) and what we experience.
So what is the solution? Unfortunately, I dont see one. I would love to have this clear view of what lies ahead, but I don't. I don't claim to, and anyone who believe they do are, in my opinion, deluded.
Now to the topic of "Great" Soviet Union and communism. It is an old cliche, communism is good in theory, but not in practice. I will not deny that the soviets had a good production sector, but when put into the broader scope, personal rights did not exist and freedom did not exist. Capitalism is a success because despite the exploitations of it citizens, it can sustain its structure with great stabily. Do I think communism is right? In theory it is a good idea, but having a governing body solely responsible is not. Is capitalism right? Many critical theories have shown why it is successful through exploitation. In an ideal society I would use Plato's idea which was "a philosopher must be a king, or a king must be a philosopher". In a nutshell, the person in charge must be some enlightened with knowledge, and be filled with the intent to discover more about what they dont know. Unfortunately, like communism, this would rely on a single or small group of people. It was the hope of Plato, that because they were philosophers, they would be able to put aside their personal interests.
And I'm going to keep this short and sweet. Democracy doesn't work. It is highly illogical, and gives people a false sense of security that they are in control.
