Notes on Decaying Olympism

We have been observing a tradition passed down from ancient Greeks to the modern world for years. The ancient Greek civilization mainly consisted of small city-states. These city-states, benefiting from the wealth accumulated in the Eastern Mediterranean, shared a common language and ethnicity but refused to share their riches or form a political union. There was constant competition, tension, and warfare among these cities, each with its own political traditions. Eventually, these Greek city-states were consigned to history first by Alexander the Great and later by Rome's intervention.

The Greeks were aware that their situation was not only tragic and irrational but also shameful. Civilizations always have their flaws. Civilization should not be idealized or fetishized as some do because they historically rely on the unequal accumulation, circulation, and distribution of surplus value. It is necessary to note that I do not align with the culturalists who praise primitivism and elevate Homo Culturalis over Homo Civicus. While keeping a critical perspective, I consider civilized states a historical necessity over cultural states. Now, let’s continue after this note.

Despite their many flaws, civilizations have developed the skill to cover their flaws through refined practices over time. This phenomenon first appeared among the Greeks. Every four years, the Greeks would bury their axes and sheathe their swords to gather for the Olympic festivities. This was a temporary period of peace driven by the longing for the unity they never achieved. The Olympics were held with the spirit of the fleeting unity they formed against the “barbarian” Persians. After the games, they would return to their internal conflicts.

The modern world, built on the unequal accumulation, circulation, and distribution of capitalist wealth, inherited and revived this tradition in the name of claiming a civilized status. National and class wars were inevitable, but there was also a place for the hope of universal and eternal peace. The Latin poet Virgil wrote, “These herds and horses are preparing for war; but we have also seen them harnessed to the plow and walking under the same yoke.” In a world of rising capitalist-imperialist wars, there had to be room for the hope of peace. I see this not as an ideal but as a justification for reinforcing wars. In the modern world, the rhetoric of peace is the object of bellicosity. Let’s ask, what did the torch of the 1936 Berlin Olympics ignite? Was it peace, or was it the fuse for World War II, which would start three years later?

Over time, the Olympics, supposedly philosophically rooted in peace, underwent a cultural transformation. Olympism collapsed in every marginal organization, leaving only its industry behind. Initially, the Olympics evolved into an ideological platform for competing states to display their power during the Cold War. The medal competition between athletes from the USSR and the USA, East Germany and West Germany, was a clear indication of this. Secondly, it served to remind semi-peripheral and peripheral countries of their place in the unequal world league. The fact that the majority of the medals were swept up by athletes from developed countries remained unchanged. The rest of the world returned home in frustration and buried in complexes.

What about athletes from underdeveloped countries winning gold medals, especially Africans, standing on the podium, listening to their national anthems, and raising their flags? This could be seen as cold comfort, providing a fleeting euphoria of success to nations with complexes.

After the Cold War, the Olympics, having lost their ideological significance, experienced a temporary decline in interest. The industrialized, festive, and tourism-oriented side of the Olympics became more dominant, producing individual success stories far removed from national and class identities. This focus on individual competition was the spirit of the time and the motto of global capitalism. Everyone loves to debate Darwin's biological theories, but these debates often mask a deeper social Darwinism, which is not as disturbing to many. The glorification of competition seems innocent. The idea of competition, the backbone of globalization ideology, has permeated university curricula. The praises of competition among individuals, institutions, and organizations are ubiquitous. “Competition keeps you sharp” has become a commonplace motto in every field of life. Its connection to social Darwinism often goes unnoticed, yet it is profound. Today’s prevalent success criteria, aligning entirely with narcissism and lacking any moral concern, are inherently social Darwinist criteria. Neoliberalism essentially describes the political economy of social Darwinism. This explains why it wages war against the welfare state, protective bureaucracies, and various defensive social organizations shaped during the Cold War era. The same political economies that have led the world into incredible inequalities and crises are now driving us toward wars. The Paris Olympics, marked by flashy, smoky displays of narcissistic cultural challenges, are being held in the shadow of arms. Paris 2024 seems like a déjà vu of 1936 Berlin. We will hear the gossip from elegant journalists who love to opine on everything and are fond of the romantic, café-filled Paris. It’s strange that while thousands are dying in Ukraine and Gaza, no one talks about peace. The hegemonic world mentality, which sanctifies and gamifies competition, views war as its natural extension. In short, we have fallen behind even the ancient Greeks.

Watch a 100-meter race closely. At the start, each runner is shown in detail by the cameras. At the end, the focus is only on the winner. When will hope for the world arise? When the cameras leave the winner and turn to the losers, especially the last-place finisher, and the reporter chats with them.