We’ve received a lot of comments in our inbox lately, particularly surrounding coverage of issues related to Zionist-Israel. And while we’re always very grateful to receive positive feedback from readers, we love the hate-mail even more. This latest batch is to help kick-off a new section of the Editorials where we share all of the hate-mail we receive from those of you out there who simply don’t like us, take issue with what we have to say or just find us repulsive.

January 28, 2009

“You parade as anti-Zionists when its completely obvious to anyone that you are a hateful little snipe, completely unawares of your own bigotry in your treatment of Israel. Oh, and by the way, referring to Israel as “Zionist-Israel” (which you seem to have a particular fetish for) is redundant. Without Zionism there would be no Israel.”

-Mark B.
January 30, 2009

“What a joke. You pretend to be ‘journalists’ when you’re nothing more than radical Islamic terrorist wannabes probably sulking in your parents basements. One of your writers (can’t remember his name) talks incessantly about Islam but claims to be an atheist? Does he not know what Shariah law has in store for him? You can thank your ungratefull ass that there is a United States and Israel protecting the world from arab extremism and islamism.  What a disgrace.”

-Anthony S.

March 9, 2009

Stalin was a traitor and no Marxist-Leninist. Your video [Editor's note: author is referencing the 'Socialism in One Coutry' video] wasn’t even informative – you only went on to try and create parallels between socialism in one country (more like national socialism) to Marxism-Leninist internationalism. Stalin’s rise was the Bolshevik thermador. Take your Stalinist bullshit somehwere else.

-Real Revolution Trotsky

March 11, 2009

Anti-Zionism is just anti-Semitism is just a more politically correct mask. if you reject Jewish nationhood then you are an anti-Semite. The world has already seen what happens when Jews must endure without a nation-state of their own. And no matter what, we’ll never let it happen again. Oh, and your article on the displacement of Arabs in al-Quds is incorrect: it’s not political – it’s legal. Those homes were built without permits you lazy shits. Do some research before you just say anything.

-Yakov B.

March 13, 2009

“I like your site. I’m sending it to my friends I know they’ll like it too…”

-Ben M.

[Editor's Note: This reader was directed to the FMP site via Newsvine, and is a regular pro-Zionist fanatic who frequently visits websites in order to promote Zionist-Israeli propaganda.]

March 22, 2009

“Democratic reforms in Tibet? You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Do you know how hard those people live because the communist party won’t let them express their own ideals, that is to live under their own culture, their own government, under DEMOCRACY? You take your talking poitns from the Propaganda Department, and try to paint it objectively. You’re not even that creative. Your a bunch of HACKS.

LONG LIVE THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE TIBET! DOWN WITH CHINESE FASCISM.”

-Jessica W.

March 22, 2009

“I just wanted you to know I reported your site for promoting terrorism. You made a video about ’solidarity with Hamas.’ Good for you douche bags. Nice to know there are still grateful people in this country who appreciate their freedoms and the people who sacrifice their lives so they can write insolent diatribes like you and your other band of anti-American limp-dicks. Go to hell, and get the FUCK out of my country you pissant, whiny, snot-nosed shits.

Oh and I’ve saved a copy of your ‘dog tags reports’ as evidence. You sick fucks. I’m reporting that for abuse as well and I’ll make sure people know about what you and your ‘comrades’ are doing here.

Fuck you and have a nice day.”

-Mike C.

From MIM Down

The obsolescence of military alliances

In taking the current economic crisis seriously and looking forward, I see three economic scenarios
possible.

1) Something like a serious U.S. economic decline of 50% GNP per capita with serious unrest in the Third World including socialist revolutions.

2) A collapse of capitalism serious enough that one or more rich countries actually do go Bolshevik, and not just social-democratic.

3) For theoretical purposes, some combination of diplomacy and Keynesianism saves most of rich country capitalism and there is a return to “normalcy.”

Given the huge economic difficulties I am contemplating for the rich countries, it is worth thinking about the military differences between now and colonial bloc era World War II. If the capitalists have conscious and unconscious drives to destroy other imperialists’ capital, then Japan and Germany are the top two most attractive targets. They have large stocks of capital to destroy and the weakest militaries relative to the depth of their capital.

Japan is the second largest economy and its export collapse makes it official that this is no ordinary recession. Now, I’m asking people to forget current alliances because economic self-interests are changing. What I see is that Russia actually has an interest in protecting Japan, because Japan is not the geopolitical problem that the united $tates is. If a country is to bear the cost of economic depression, the most logical choice is the united $tates.

Likewise, I do not see France having any interest in letting Germany or Italy being flattened to destroy some capital World-War-II-style.

The rich countries can attack various Third World countries, but doing so they do more damage to their own economies than anything else they could do. Oil shutoffs or a collapse of cheap labor supplies send more rich country economy dominoes falling. The world might want to think about a military alliance to prevent this potential outlet for the united $tates in an irrational moment.

In discussion of these savage possibilities, the best and easiest thing is probably a collapse of the dollar. It requires no military action and sends enough dominoes down that capitalism could rebuild on another capitalist basis.

The economic de-lousing involved with a collapse of the dollar also brings the United States more politically into line with the rest of the world. U.S. participation in or support of world government may become more feasible.

Editor’s Note: I changed the traditional MIM spelling of ‘U.$.’ to ‘U.S.’ for the sake of the readers.

Cuban influence in Venezuela spreading

The 40,000 Cubans now working in Venezuela have a hand in all kinds of sectors — including security for President Hugo Chávez.

BY CASTO OCANDO
El Nuevo Herald
“Cuban influence in Venezuela is growing beyond politics in a broad range of areas, from agriculture and commerce to energy and education — and even presidential security.

Some 40,000 Cubans are now working in Venezuela, and the island has received millions of dollars in petroleum subsidies that sway between 90,000 and 130,000 barrels a day, according to some estimates.

Héctor Navarro, Venezuela’s minister of education, revealed last month that a group of Cuban experts are giving his government lessons in public education.

”Cubans are advising on how to measure the educational impact in mathematics and language arts,” Navarro told the Caracas daily El Universal. “It is about creating [ways to gauge] the competency that our students must handle.”

[...]

Sources within the Venezuelan military say Cuban military experts control several security circles that protect President Hugo Chávez and have penetrated strategic areas of the armed forces and the central government, including the situation room in Miraflores, Venezuela’s presidential palace.

The Venezuelan government recently announced a program that will supervise police forces throughout the country, and Cuban advisors will play a critical role.”
More here;

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/venezuela/story/933464.html

A comrade recently sent a question asking how Trotskyism, as a form of ultra-left revisionism, could possibly be reactionary.

To answer this question, I’d like to direct you to an excellent article written in the Spring 2004 issue of The Communist – published by the Progressive Labor Party (PLP).

But first, one can’t simply judge how progresive or reactionary an organization is simply on its slogans, rhetoric or even Party platform. We must take a scientific assessment and examination of the outcomes of that platform and its practical outcomes. No matter how “progressive” or “revolutionary” one might seem – if the outcomes work against the interests of the international proletariat, then they are without a doubt reactionary.

For a more in-depth examination of the problems of Trotskyite revisionism, I strongly recommend the above-mentioned article from the PLP. Thankfully, the PLP website seems fully functional once again and they have made their past works fully accessible in downloadable, PDF format.

Here’s the link: Why Trotskyism is Reactionary (2004).