Topic on Talk:Freedom Road Socialist Organization

Did they "endorse" him? I read the link and it didn't sound like an endorsement. Also, even if they did, I don't think it's fair to dismiss the whole party as revisionist just because of one incident. CPUSA is more worthy of being called revisionist than FRSO.

— TheDaveMaybe

So, cheering on a Democrat, that conflated antizionism with antisemitism,^[1] as if he's going to support the Working class is apparently not opportunism? Literally, from the source text:

Chicago, IL - On Tuesday April 4, Brandon Johnson won 51.4% of vote in the Chicago mayoral runoff election. Johnson's victory is also a victory for working and oppressed people, as demonstrated by the range of organizations and individuals who celebrated with Johnson and his family at the Marriott Marquis on election night.

— https://www.fightbacknews.org/2023/4/6/brandon-johnson-elected-mayor-chicago

(Pro tip: You can't support the working class through bourgeois democracy.)

- Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 07:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize, I didn't see that part that's bolded. I still think there should be a discussion before just flat-out calling the party revisionist. That's a loaded term.

> Okay, I apologize, I didn't see that part that's bolded.

Good. I probably should have added a discussion too.

Until a consensus is reached, I'll just go ahead and undo my edits

There is no consensus within prolewiki that determines whether FRSO is a revisionist (and opportunist) organisation. We did have controversy regarding two individuals claiming to be part of FRSO in the discord but that is not reflective on the organisation.

There is only one controversy issue here, and that must be counterbalanced from the fact that FRSO has programs mentioning the mass line: https://frso.org/main-documents/some-points-on-the-mass-line/ . Unless if we could provide more evidence of its opportunism and revisionism, this controversy issue is insufficient to determine FRSO as an opportunist or revisionist organisation. As Dave stated earlier, there is more evidence to suggest that CPUSA is revisionist, unlike FRSO.

I am not defending FRSO here, I am just upholding the goal that the FRSO article (like any other article) must impartial if possible, and I believe that the article should be reworded to be a Marxist-Leninist organisation unless there is sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise.

this controversy issue is insufficient to determine FRSO as an opportunist or revisionist organisation.

— Annamarx

So FRSO, cheering on a Democrat, that conflated antizionism with antisemitism,^[1] as if he's going to support the Working class is apparently not enough evidence?

What would count as enough evidence?

We did have controversy regarding two individuals claiming to be part of FRSO in the discord but that is not reflective on the organisation.

• What is the controversy
• How is that not reflective on the organization?

- Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 15:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

> So FRSO, cheering on a Democrat, that conflated antizionism with antisemitism, as if he's going to support the Working class is apparently not enough evidence?

Yes. We need more evidence than that to deem FRSO as revisionist. Understanding FRSO, FRSO claims to be a revolutionary organisation. https://frso.org/main-documents/introduction-to-the-program-of-freedom-road-socialist-organization/ , in contrast CPUSA does not. FRSO also states that we cannot utilise reform. I do not believe FRSO sends out any communist candidates, so it is better to support progressive local politicians. Geoffrey Young is a democrat who is an anti-imperialist, as an example.

Also in terms of the controversy, there was one person who is part of FRSO but only stayed there to recruit people instead of contributing to the wiki. There was also another person, a former editor of prolewiki, who left the group because they deemed the wiki to be 'useless'. They do not reflect the whole organisation because they are members of one particular group. We need more people than that to determine the illegitimacy of Marxism-Leninism in the FRSO.

As I stated before, this is insufficient evidence as it is only one example. We can denote many examples of the lack of demcent in CPUSA, the reformist position of CPUSA, and how webbites (revisionists) have managed to infiltrate CPUSA and still remain a significant faction in CPUSA. When more evidence is gathered, we could deem FRSO as revisionist.

Yes. We need more evidence than that to deem FRSO as revisionist.

— Annamarx

So, what would count as "enough" evidence?

Understanding FRSO, FRSO claims to be a revolutionary organisation.

— Annamarx

Claiming to be Marxist does not automatically make them Marxist.

I do not believe FRSO sends out any communist candidates, so it is better to support progressive local politicians.

— Annamarx

"progressive" (liberal) local politicians that don't support even demsocism? Why can't they get off their asses and get communist politicians; like the now-FBI-infiltrated PCUSA supported a communist candidate https://www.facebook.com/149731459206598/posts/comrade-chris-helali-has-blown-the-bourgeois-candidates-out-of-the-water-and-is-/745237536322651/.

Also, where is your proof that Geoffrey Young is an anti-imperialist? The Democratic Party is pro-imperialist. and even if he is, how does that stop him from just turning pro-imperialist after elections?

There was also another person, a former editor of prolewiki, who left the group because they deemed the wiki to be 'useless'. They do not reflect the whole organisation because they are members of one particular group.

— Annamarx

They are one person; but they are still party of the group, so they do influence on the opinion.

And lone actions like these are influenced by the party and their indiciative of the party's real theory. Publishing a news article endorsing a democrat politician as if they are going to support the working class; given that they are implementing democratic centralism; is a very conscious action.

---

Also, no one tried to defend the PCUSA article when I edited it to state that they defended Patriotic Socialism and that they are therefore revisionist. Why do this for this particular article?

- Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 17:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

> So, what would count as "enough" evidence?

The fact you want a precise number suggests that you know very little about evidence. Evidence can determine if an organisation is revisionist or not. The more evidence, the better. More evidence means there's a better idea to determine the organisation as revisionist. I'm not looking for a specific number. I don't care enough for a specific number. The more evidence, the better.

> Claiming to be Marxist does not automatically make them Marxist.

Yes. I never stated they were marxist based on a claim. I stated they were revolutionary.

> Why can't they get off their asses and get communist politicians;

FRSO does not believe in reform. FRSO believes in revolution. They employ grassroots actions, such as employing the mass line. They have an entire article dedicated to the mass line as I shown earlier.

> Also, where is your proof that Geoffrey Young is an anti-imperialist?

Geoffrey Young denounces the Ukraine war and claims the Democratic Party is fascist. https://twitter.com/GeoffYoung4KY/status/1605593373229711360 In regards to him turning pro-imperialist after elections, there is no evidence to suggest that will happen yet. He is only a local politician, not one that runs congress.

> The Democratic Party is pro-imperialist.

Yes? I'm not denying that. But keep in mind local democrat politicians are not the same as politicians in congress. Politicians in congress do not care about the proletariat, they are part of the duopoly to stop socialism from surging.

> And lone actions like these are influenced by the party and their indiciative of the party's real theory.

I doubt the person who joined the server and the former prolewiki editor are any indication of the party itself. Especially the former prolewiki editor, who just recently joined the FRSO.

> Also, no one tried to defend the PCUSA article when I edited it to state that they defended Patriotic Socialism and that they are therefore revisionist.

False equivalence. Patsocism is proven to be a tailist, reactionary ideology. PCUSA should be denounced in regards to supporting these measures. This is nowhere near the same as supporting a local democrat.

If you can provide more evidence which is more likely to suggest that FRSO is revisionist, then please do. I am not here to defend FRSO. If they are revisionist, then provide evidence for it.

> Also, no one tried to defend the PCUSA article when I edited it to state that they defended Patriotic Socialism and that they are therefore revisionist.

I was in PCUSA and I left because of the patsocs, of course I didn't object to you saying they defended patriotic socialism. Also, a lot of people from CPI (Maupin's group) ended up joining the ranks of PCUSA later. I wasn't comfortable with it, so I left.

The article as it is right now is sufficient for me. It reads:

>Opportunism

>On April 6, 2022, FRSO endorsed Brandon Johnson,[12] a Democrat who conflated anti-Zionism with antisemitism and supported Israel while denouncing Palestine.[13]

Maybe just add that Brandon was running as mayor of Chicago (from what I understand?). We could also make it clearer that like all Zionist politicians, Brandon understands anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, he just repeats Zionist propaganda to wilfully conflate the two (as the sentence reads right now, it implies he just made the mistake innocently once).

There's no reason to come out and say that FRSO is revisionist, in my opinion. At least not strictly over this. That endorsement stands well enough on its own that people can make their own takeaway from this, and choose to believe if FRSO is revisionist or not.

I realise that in other pages we have come out in support of one view or another but in regards to communist parties, we should be careful not to paint them with a broad brush.

Also, apparently FRSO supported the black students in this debacle, where some dude is wearing an GDR uniform and doing the GDR march. He got called a Nazi by the black students just because he did an East German salute.

The marching dude isn't a Nazi; he would be wearing all black with a Swastika if that were the case.

So the students whining about that are implicitly equating Nazi Germany with the GDR.

So, yeah, this is the first case of FRSO's opportunism: https://www.fightbacknews.org/2022/11/10/black-students-lead-fight-against-racism-cps

The zionist-supporting stuff is the second time. They really are opportunists, lmao.