Another Shoe Attack

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I do not know if this has been posted already, but here is a video of some Swedish students throwing shoes at the Israeli Ambassador:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uf9PKZvRTY

[FreeFocus]

al-Zaidi has really set a trend, lol. IIRC, a Chinese official also had a shoe thrown at them recently.

[skki]

This is going to become a real life meme...

Throwing Shoes: The new way to express dissent for a foreign government official.

[grok]

al-Zaidi has really set a trend, lol. IIRC, a Chinese official also had a shoe thrown at them recently.

Actually it's not so funny. The official was Wen Jiabao -- prime minister/premier of China, and a ranking Politburo member of the chinese Communist Party. That this new tactic, which has encouraged so many people on the Left, has been so neatly and quickly turned around and used for reactionary purposes (because in the context of Western imperialism, a petit-bourgeois radical attacking the chinese government so publicly and symbolically is simply imperialist and reactionary: it's actually our job to be attacking those capitalist roaders, right? Not for petit-bourgeois radicals to be attacking "commies". Ever. We should have Big Problems with that kind of 'radicalism'...) -- and it so clearly jibes with well-honed, well-understood neocon/secret police praxis, the question should instead be immediately posed: was this in fact a political setup of the chinese (nota bene: yet again) by imperialist interests, using some willing sucker (i.e.: suggestible -- and expendable) NGO-type to do their dirty-work for them..?

This not so very hard a possibility to consider either: as it is well-known that it is simplicity itself for fascist/police operatives to regularly manipulate all sorts of liberals or people on the supposed Left. The thing is not to fixate so much on the personalities and details involved here, but to instead look at the logic of this operation. And IMO this very much an 'operation' it appears it could be...

If I were a Cambridge Leftist, I'd very much like to discuss with Martin Jahnke just who exactly he's been 'talking politix' with lately.

[black magick hustla]

who gives a shit about high ranking state-capitalist politburo scum, seriously

[Blackscare]

Yea, it's not the job of any real revolutionary to oppose shoes being thrown at faux-communist dickheads.

Seems you're getting a little bit into conspiracy theory. I mean, is it totally impossible that some supposed communist leader may have actually done something to incur some anger and shoe throwing?

[BIG BROTHER]

Yep my dream is coming true:thumbup1: everybody get your shoes ready!

[grok]

You people should care that "foreign devils/commies/terrorists/imperialists" are going to be made the scapegoat for "our" imperialism's increasing crisis.

[Herman]

I could care less if the Chinese prime minister got a shoe thrown at him. After all, he does deserve it for continuing the process of capitalist restoration in China.

[Crux]

Actually it's not so funny. The official was Wen Jiabao -- prime minister/premier of China, and a ranking Politburo member of the chinese Communist Party. That this new tactic, which has encouraged so many people on the Left, has been so neatly and quickly turned around and used for reactionary purposes (because in the context of Western imperialism, a petit-bourgeois radical attacking the chinese government so publicly and symbolically is simply imperialist and reactionary: it's actually our job to be attacking those capitalist roaders, right? Not for petit-bourgeois radicals to be attacking "commies". Ever. We should have Big Problems with that kind of 'radicalism'...) -- and it so clearly jibes with well-honed, well-understood neocon/secret police praxis, the question should instead be immediately posed: was this in fact a political setup of the chinese (nota bene: yet again) by imperialist interests, using some willing sucker (i.e.: suggestible -- and expendable) NGO-type to do their dirty-work for them..?

This not so very hard a possibility to consider either: as it is well-known that it is simplicity itself for fascist/police operatives to regularly manipulate all sorts of liberals or people on the supposed Left. The thing is not to fixate so much on the personalities and details involved here, but to instead look at the logic of this operation. And IMO this very much an 'operation' it appears it could be...

If I were a Cambridge Leftist, I'd very much like to discuss with Martin Jahnke just who exactly he's been 'talking politix' with lately.
Uhm, hell no. Or perhaps you failed to realize why the Chinese dignitary was visiting? there is nothing "communist" about the CCP, in fact most of it's leading members are multibillionaires. Not to say anything about the politics of their one-party dictatorship and it's continuos and brutal attacks on the chinese workingclass.

[Crux]

I could care less if the Chinese minister got a shoe thrown at him. After all, he does deserve it for continuing the process of capitalist restoration in China.
Not to get into that debate right now, but capitalism has been restored in china for the past 15 years.

Oh and also, a note on the movie. It's put up by my friends in the Stockholm section of the [Anarcho-]Syndicalist Youth, creds to them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot:


who gives a shit about high ranking state-capitalist politburo scum, seriously

Indeed, he can have my shoes any day -- and at great velocity, too!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Grok:


This not so very hard a possibility to consider either: as it is well-known that it is simplicity itself for fascist/police operatives to regularly manipulate all sorts of liberals or people on the supposed Left. The thing is not to fixate so much on the personalities and details involved here, but to instead look at the logic of this operation. And IMO this very much an 'operation' it appears it could be...

You State Cap worshippers are 'manipulated', too.

[scarletghoul]

This is very good.
But yeah, I'd rather people throw shoes at their own government. Just doing it to foreign governments is stupid. We have a duty to throw shoes at all our oppressors

[KC]

Not to get into that debate right now, but capitalism has been restored in china for the past 15 years.

I completely agree with you, but isn't the CWI line different? Or is the line of the US Section of the CWI (Socialist Alternative) different than CWI's line?

[Crux]

I completely agree with you, but isn't the CWI line different? Or is the line of the US Section of the CWI (Socialist Alternative) different than CWI's line?
technically there is no CWI-line, however the International Secretariat of CWI still believe China is on steady undeniable path towards fullblown capitalism but that it hasn't reached it's final destination yet. As for the swedish section the majority, if not all, of the party leadership and members advocate the idea that Capitalism has, indeed, been fully restored in China (in fact this notion was first put forward by the swedish representatives at the World Congress in 1998). As does our Chinese organisation. Beyond that I'm not sure, other than that we are in minority. One of the German full-timers did defend our position aswell during the debate during last years CWI-summerschool, aswell, so perhaps this is changing.

[Crux]

If it's available in the US you should read "Is China Capitalist?" by comrade Laurence Coates. It's from 1998, but development since then has strengthened rather then refuted our position.

[Coggeh]

I completely agree with you, but isn't the CWI line different? Or is the line of the US Section of the CWI (Socialist Alternative) different than CWI's line?
Oh no not teh China debate ,We have got to sort this out in ...

[Coggeh]

technically there is no CWI-line, however the International Secretariat of CWI still believe China is on steady undeniable path towards fullblown capitalism but that it hasn't reached it's final destination yet. As for the swedish section the majority, if not all, of the party leadership and members advocate the idea that Capitalism has, indeed, been fully restored in China (in fact this notion was first put forward by the swedish representatives at the World Congress in 1998). As does our Chinese organisation. Beyond that I'm not sure, other than that we are in minority. One of the German full-timers did defend our position aswell during the debate during last years CWI-summerschool, aswell, so perhaps this is changing.
Looking forward to the summerschool this year . Hopefully its on the agenda . I have to say I do agree that China is capitalist . Its pedantic and dogmatic to state otherwise really .Have a feeling theirs a growing number within the CWI that are starting to agree on this .

[BIG BROTHER]

This is very good.
But yeah, I'd rather people throw shoes at their own government. Just doing it to foreign governments is stupid. We have a duty to throw shoes at all our oppressors

agreed^^

[Circle E Society]

I'm waiting for someone to throw their combat boots at someone.
Seriously though comrades should learn to keep their shoes on for the revolution!

[KC]

technically there is no CWI-line, however the International Secretariat of CWI still believe China is on steady undeniable path towards fullblown capitalism but that it hasn't reached it's final destination yet. As for the swedish section the majority, if not all, of the party leadership and members advocate the idea that Capitalism has, indeed, been fully restored in China (in fact this notion was first put forward by the swedish representatives at the World Congress in 1998). As does our Chinese organisation. Beyond that I'm not sure, other than that we are in minority. One of the German full-timers did defend our position aswell during the debate during last years CWI-summerschool, aswell, so perhaps this is changing.

I can't even fathom how one could argue otherwise. What are their arguments?


If it's available in the US you should read "Is China Capitalist?" by comrade Laurence Coates. It's from 1998, but development since then has strengthened rather then refuted our position.

I can ask a friend in Socialist Alternative to mail me a copy if he can get hold of it, but do you know if it's available anywhere online?

[Pogue]

The guy who threw the shoes at Bush was tortured in custody. His trial was today (or it may have been yesterday).

[svenne]

It was a kinda funny day. Ten people outside with leaflets from the swedish left partys student organisation, inside a shoe and some books we're thrown at the israel ambassador, and one palestinian flag was put up. all critical questions was meet with applauses from a majority of the audience. A lot of angry questions too.

I don't think the ambassador felt very welcome :) And the organisation that organized the visit from the israeli ambassador probably will think twice before doing something like that, again.

note (if somebody missed): it wasn't SUF/swedish anarcho-syndicalist youth federation that threw the shoe or the book.

[rararoadrunner]

Comrades: let me throw in my two kopecks' worth:

Kopeck the first, on the symbolism of the shoe-attack: it was a devastating display of contempt for an Arab or Muslim...if you know your Hajj, one of the last rituals of which is "stoning the devil." Quite often, when hajjis run out of pebbles, they toss their sandals at the pillars representing evil: thereupon, said sandals are ritually unclean, hence won't be collected by those throwing them.

So: the symbolism of the throwing of shoes by an Iraqi at Bush was crystal-clear to Arabs and Muslims: the shoe-thrower was forcefully agreeing with Hugo Chavez and two or three billion of his closest friends.

Kopeck the second, on the Chinese situation:

Although Mao was critical of the Soviet Union, his criticism was aimed principally at the Soviet anti-Stalinists who, as events were to reveal, confined their anti-Stalinism to attacks on Stalin. Hence, Mao, in the first instance, distinguished himself as a Stalinist...as shouldn't surprise anyone who followed the history of the rise of the CPC to power in China.

Later, Mao did attempt to empower the Communes as Chinese Soviets: the CPC's understanding of Soviet Socialism, however, was already so compromised by its inability to critically evaluate Soviet history that Mao's attempts to weaken the CPC bureaucracy served only to tighten his grip on China, rather than to truly empower the Chinese Communes.

So we see here yet another instance of Stalinism-as-fascism played out on the Chinese stage: this is why the CCP's understanding of "socialism" could take such grotesque turns that it could actually commit apostacy in its previous, Maoist lights unscathed. A Party held accountable to the working class could never accomplish such an Orwellian feat; the Chinese Communist Party did it in record time.

And how is a party held accountable in a democracy? By opposition parties ready to take its place should it stumble, of course. As thinkers as diverse as Trotsky, Roi Medvedev, and Boris Kagarlitsky have all pointed out, not only can this be done within a framework of socialism understood as economic democracy: it must be done if socialist democracy is to mean anything to the working class.

So, no, the only problem I have with someone throwing shoes at the Chinese PM is...upon whose behalf were said shoes thrown: the Chinese workers...or the Western capitalist hegemon?

Back to you, comrades!

[Crux]

I can't even fathom how one could argue otherwise. What are their arguments?



I can ask a friend in Socialist Alternative to mail me a copy if he can get hold of it, but do you know if it's available anywhere online?
Well, yeah I was pretty suprised when I found out we were the minority opinion aswell. I think this debate, or rather their side of the debate was far more understandable in 98'. I think it's a case of "sticking to their guns" so to speak. That said, I don't think they are being completly unreasonable, after all we are talking about a country that houses a fifth of the worlds population. So it's not just a simple clear cut issue. Another problem I have though with the IS-view is that they're not completly consisitent with each other, but anyway here is Lynn Walsh's position:
Character of the Chinese state
http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2008/10/31chinaa.html

Chinas Hybrideconomy
http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2008/10/31chinab.html

I think Lynn misses two vital things a) a capitalist state can have a fairly large stateapparatus aswell, it's matter of knowing when quantity turns to quality so to speak. Deng Xiaopings capitalist reforms in the 70's for example, did not make china capitalist just as even though there is some public ownership in Venezuela it is not yet what we would call socialist state. A marxist analysis ought to not be mechnical, as Lynn rightly points out, however it is their opinion that is mechanical (they're essentially waiting for an eastbloc kind of breakup before they can call China capitalist) in that they say that china is a halfwayhouse. And has been so for 10-15 years.
b) the subjective factor. The majority view in both the chinese and international workingclass, at least as far as I understand, is that China is indeed fully capitalist. It makes our current position impractical, especially towards building our organisation in china, although as I said the chinese organisation do share our ideas so this is working currently. But having the wrong ideas in the leadership of the CWI and, as far as I understand it, in most sections ought to come back and bite us in the ass some day.

[grok]

Uhm, hell no. Or perhaps you failed to realize why the Chinese dignitary was visiting? there is nothing "communist" about the CCP, in fact most of it's leading members are multibillionaires. Not to say anything about the politics of their one-party dictatorship and it's continuos and brutal attacks on the chinese workingclass.

You know, one of the reasons I've avoided places like RevLeft for years is little pathologies like this: i.e. the widespread tendency of many responders to not read what was actually written; and to instead just gloss it over, cherry-picking whatever catches their eye -- and then boldly making unwarranted assumptions (which serve their whatever purpose...) No way was I defending the CCP, fella. No way.

That aside: my point is still in questioning how a 'brand-new' tactic discovered empirically by the [Western liberal-]Left, has been summarily -- and rather deftly, IMO -- appropriated by the Right, in apparent record time. That says something, AFAIC. However, this development doesn't appear important to many people at all. But then, the Left is all fucked up and pathetic, ain't it?

[grok]

[...]A Party held accountable to the working class could never accomplish such an Orwellian feat; the Chinese Communist Party did it in record time.

And how is a party held accountable in a democracy? By opposition parties ready to take its place should it stumble, of course. As thinkers as diverse as Trotsky, Roi Medvedev, and Boris Kagarlitsky have all pointed out, not only can this be done within a framework of socialism understood as economic democracy: it must be done if socialist democracy is to mean anything to the working class.

Indeed, this is one of the MAJOR, major failings of the revolutionary Left since the fall of socialist democracy immediately after the Oktober Revolution, and the concomitant rise of stalinism: the complete inability of most socialists to see past the sleazy (at the hands of the stalinists; and of those, too, who accept their logic -- consciously or otherwise) canard of "democratic centralism" (and yes, democratic "centralism" has its [very narrow] place -- if that's what we're actually talking about... which most often we're not), which is in fact nothing more than dictatorship and totalitarianism, pure and simple -- when in fact socialism, as practiced in councils/soviets/juntas/et al., is all about the vying of various Left parties and factions and movements for influence with the voting mass of the proletariat and their supporters.

What differs here fundamentally from bourgeois democracy is the bottom-line acceptance by all such parties and factions and movements -- i.e. as "loyal opposition" under socialist proletarian hegemony -- that the capitalist form of private property and means and relations of production are over and done with, and are not to be advocated-for.

That would be like 'stumping for slavery', wouldn't it..?
Instead -- we move on towards the Glorious Socialist Future.



So, no, the only problem I have with someone throwing shoes at the Chinese PM is...upon whose behalf were said shoes thrown: the Chinese workers...or the Western capitalist hegemon?

Indeed, kompa. Context is everything, here.
:thumbup1:

[grok]

The guy who threw the shoes at Bush was tortured in custody. His trial was today (or it may have been yesterday).

And of course the Western Left couldn't throw a Doc Martens boot out of a wet-paper bag -- let alone organize to defend the physical integrity of this poor, heroic guy...
:(