Chris B writes:
>Like Hugh, (who essentially agrees with me apart from having to take a
>customary swipe at reformism) I also remember the black power salute at the
>Olympics. That took courage.
I don't essentially agree with Chris. I essentially disagree with him
precisely because of the reformist slant he puts on things like this. My
constant criticism of reformism, Social-Democracy, the Third Way (now being
dumped for the usual opportunist reasons by one of its figureheads Gerhard
Schroeder the German chancellor), etc, is a principled stand against a
position that will solve nothing in a real long-term sense for the working
class. Concessions are fine, but they're temporary and can be clawed back,
they're a barometer of class relations, little more. And the bosses rarely
end up paying for anything of this themselves. If the workers in rich
imperialist countries don't get skinned for every penny, the workers in
poor semi-colonial dependent countries will.
What I will agree on is the importance and courage of the Mexico City black
power salute. Not its significance, however. Why not? Because the rest of
Chris B's argument:
>When you see a hall of mainly white men standing up and applauding three
>black men, shall we say it is better that it happens than it does not. It
>is a liberation for the white people, quite apart from more obvious benefits.
>
>It is worth a hundred lectures against racism and a thousand lectures in
>praise of proletarian internationalism. It is iteself a concrete act of
>proletarian internationalism.
>
>If we abolish boxing, let us do it together, but meanwhile let us respect
>skill, courage, and dignity in the face of great difficulty. That is the
>real revolutionary significance.
creates a complete confusion. The significance of these things is neither
proletarian nor revolutionary in a Marxist sense.
It's plebeian and democratic and rebellious in a limited sense (against
blue-rinse Lincoln-driving country-clubbing Republican zombies), and the
democratic aspect, as usual in cases like this, is completely castrated. A
vote is held, but the institution it's channelled by is rigged in advance.
As John said, if voting could change society, it'd be banned.
Two British sports reflections on sportsmen who changed the conditions of
their colleagues more than anyone else this century:
1) John Charles, the Welsh footballer who turned his back on the
ten-quid-a-week slavery that even Stanley Matthews was condemned to back in
the fifties in Britain, and carved out a rich professional career for
himself in Italy. From a galley-slave chauvinist gladiator to an
international "free" entrepreneur.
2) Freddie Trueman, who single-handedly blasted the plebeian professional
cricketer into a position of (rather more) power and a lot more respect in
British cricket. His special award should also be shared by the crowds in
the West Indies and Oz, whose barracking liveliness galvanized the
atmosphere of the game.
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
