> 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.